On 09/03/2009 12:32 PM, Chris Wenn wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On
Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Patrick
> So I guess they wanted things to be as tightly
integrated as possible for
> performance reasons?
i had some extended conversations with one of ableton's founders about
this, and he talked about it in one of my classes at the TU.
basically, they wanted to tap into the "max crowd", however you
interpret that, which they felt that Live currently didn't do. they
saw/see a lot of skill and cool stuff going on with max that can't be
done in Live. their idea seems to have been to try to integrate that
as tightly as possble into Live, so that people who create cool max
patches can use them as if they were builtin processing objects in
Live. not "max connected to Live" (which is already possible with
JACK, and they know it). at present, there is no "distribution" system
for those patches, but that didn't seemed to be ruled out for the
future.
That's the impression I got from the situation - they recognised that a
significant portion of the Max userbase were either already using Live
+ Soundflower + Max (or some other kludge) or were interested in
interoperability.
This market seems pretty tightly pegged to the Apple platform. At least
here in Oz, Max users tend to pick it up at university, where there's
pretty high saturation of Apple hardware.
So I guess as it's a market based decision then there is a slim
possibility of AL adding support for jack assuming the market is big
enough. Probalby not for another 5 years at least.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
|
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
