[sdiy] Ways for innovation

[Neil Johnson]

Rutger Vlek wrote:
> Thanks for the amount of contributions. I'd like to respond to Neil's specifically.

Excellent!

> First of all, I perfectly understand how that works. You don't have to
> explain the benefits and mechanisms of mass production. It bothers
> me that you, and many others, take this mechanism for granted. You
> simply point out how it works and accept it, even mildly suggesting
>  that I'm confused and uninformed.

Well, sorry, but that's how your message came across with, for
example, your phone vs. synth comparison.
And taking for granted scale of economy is like taking for granted
that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.  If you
don't, then we end up back at subsistence economy.

> That's completely beside the point of my first message. What I really
> want is exploring if there are ways around this mechanisms, making
> sure that musicians get innovative instruments rather than being
> forced by the taste of the toy-synth masses.

If you pay toy prices you'll get toys.  If there were a market for
truly innovative synthesizers then, as someone else mentioned, you're
back to the days of the Synclavier and Fairlight - truly innovative
instruments, that cost a house to buy.  If you take Edison's ratio,
how do you pay for the 99% persperation in order to achieve the 1%
inspiration that gets you the innovation you crave?

On the matter of mass production, it's not a case of taking for
granted, it's simply a matter of scale: modern electronics is so
expensive to develop that you either sell it by the millions... or you
don't go into production.  You talk about CPU-hungry algorithms, yet
you don't seem to want to pay for the CPUs or the algorithms?  Do you
know, for example, how much it costs to develop a powerful CPU?  The
mask set for a 28nm chip runs into $Millions alone, and toeven get to
that stage you've already spent tens to hundreds of $Millions on R&D.

> It's an optimization paradox. If you want to get rich fast, you

... rob a bank.  The tricky bit - there's always a tricky bit - is
keeping hold of the money.

So, how do you know what "the masses" want?  The quickest and cheapest
way is to copy the innovators who have already developed the market.
But if you're only competing on price then you need to be much cheaper
to pull the market away from the leaders.  Or until the product
becomes a commodity and then the only competitive edge _is_ price
(e.g., soap).

Back to synthesizers, Casio is a fine example.  Look at how many
different models they produced in their synthesizer/keyboard product
range.  Why?  Because of the cost of developing the technology (the
innovation) - in their case the chips Casio developed - needs to be
amortized over many products to reap the benefits of the cost of
developing those chips.

Look at what Yamaha did with their FM technology - from the DX7 that
changed the world, to the plethora of FM copy synths and modules and
sound cards that followed.  Without the payback from all those
products - even the toy ones - Yamaha wouldn't continue to invest in
other technologies.

You seem (and please correct me if I'm wrong) to be arguing against
electronic music: you want innovative electronic instruments based on
powerful CPUs and advanced technology, yet that very technology only
exists _because_ of mass production!  Without mass production, without
the "toys" that you seem to despise, you won't have the electronic
components to make the innovative instruments you want.

> only make what the masses want, thereby committing to their
> taste and vision of the future. You start competing with other
> companies to make the same thing cheaper and before you know
> it, the actual societal value of your product is going down. It's
> less innovative, it's less well built, it's more similar to what you
> did before, and because of the mass market mechanisms, people
> have no other choice than buying your sub-optimal product (the
> alternative suddenly is seemingly very expensive).

OR.... you spend huge $Millions developing some new ground-breaking
technology, push it to the market in some innovative product and,
following feedback from early adopters, you then milk that technology
in trickle-down products - the toys.  If you want the innovation
without the toys, don't buy the toys.

I think you've kind of blown a hole in your thesis with the Nord
Modular G2 - that product was only possible _because_ of mass
production: the keyboard mechanism (probably Fatar), the DSPs, the
op-amps, heck even PCB technology was developed for high-volume
consumer goods (radios).  Without all that technology developed
because of mass production you wouldn't have a G2 to enjoy.

Neil
--
http://www.njohnson.co.uk