Should LTT invest on KDEnlive?

[peq42]

In a recent video(not from Linus' channels, but a guy interviewing him) I saw Linus complain about having to pay a subscription to adobe for their video editing software. This made me think, why doesn't LTT(as a company) invest a little on KDEnlive? Its a free, open source software that's decent enough.

 

And by invest I don't mean switch to it, but do things like: Invest money on it, get LMG's programmers to contribute to it during their free on-company time, get their editors to test it when they can and send feedback to the project, etc.

 

That way, eventually, the program could be good enough, and their editors used to it enough to make a switch, saving the company money and also giving a middle finger to adobe.

[Skipple]

14 minutes ago, peq42 said:

And by invest I don't mean switch to it, but do things like: Invest money on it, get LMG's programmers to contribute to it during their free on-company time, get their editors to test it when they can and send feedback to the project, etc.

You are assuming that LMG is overflowing with C++ engineers with a background in video formats / encoding, which I can guarantee you isn't the case given their current workflows. 

 

Yes, this is a noble goal, but LMG more than likely has very little to offer the project and very little to gain from direct human resource investment. They would be better off making a monetary donation to support the project, if anything. 

[manikyath]

LMG is already spreading their (floatplane) developers quite thin across projects, making them essentially build their own video encoding software too is a good way to make things genuinely worse™

 

also - there is no universe where KDEnlive gets as good as adobe, because to even approach the same level of quality, they'd have to invest the same budgets into KDEnlive as adobe is putting into CS, that's simply how the world works, paid software tends to be better, because they have more money invest into being better.

 

also - there is no "good enough". essentially for every hour per week an editor loses by using slower to use software, LMG would have to hire an additional editor, which besides just the wage means;

- the process of hiring someone

- the process of training that person

- office space

- computer

- snacks

- benefits

- ...

[WereCat]

32 minutes ago, peq42 said:

In a recent video(not from Linus' channels, but a guy interviewing him) I saw Linus complain about having to pay a subscription to adobe for their video editing software. This made me think, why doesn't LTT(as a company) invest a little on KDEnlive? Its a free, open source software that's decent enough.

 

And by invest I don't mean switch to it, but do things like: Invest money on it, get LMG's programmers to contribute to it during their free on-company time, get their editors to test it when they can and send feedback to the project, etc.

 

That way, eventually, the program could be good enough, and their editors used to it enough to make a switch, saving the company money and also giving a middle finger to adobe.

Using Davinci Resolve would make way more sense but since they have to pay for Adobe anyway since they bundle their crap together for other applications then they may as well just continue using it. 

[Needfuldoer]

This was addressed in a video a while back.

 

 

Basically, Adobe products are the de facto standard in the creative and media industries. Chances are, anyone they hire can hit the ground running without re-learning their way around a different video editor. If they need a plugin, macro, or what have you, it probably exists.

 

The opportunity cost of lost productivity outweighs the cost of licensing Creative Cloud.

 

Nobody outside of hobbyists is doing commercial work with KDenLive. You're more likely to find somebody who's running DaVinci Resolve, or an old copy of Premiere from the "buy once cry once" years, or Avid snobs, or even kicking-and-screaming Final Cut Pro users on 2012 Mac Pros.

[peq42]

5 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

This was addressed in a video a while back.

 

 

Basically, Adobe products are the de facto standard in the creative and media industries. Chances are, anyone they hire can hit the ground running without re-learning their way around a different video editor. If they need a plugin, macro, or what have you, it probably exists.

 

The opportunity cost of lost productivity outweighs the cost of licensing Creative Cloud.

 

Nobody outside of hobbyists is doing commercial work with KDenLive. You're more likely to find somebody who's running DaVinci Resolve, or an old copy of Premiere from the "buy once cry once" years, or Avid snobs, or even kicking-and-screaming Final Cut Pro users on 2012 Mac Pros.

to be fair, that is a 3 years old video and the alternatives to adobe stuff got A LOT better.

[Needfuldoer]

10 minutes ago, peq42 said:

to be fair, that is a 3 years old video and the alternatives to adobe stuff got A LOT better.

Adobe didn't sit still, either.

[peq42]

1 minute ago, Needfuldoer said:

Adobe didn't sit still, either.

did they not? As far as I see, their software is still quite buggy and crashes fairly often

 

Either way, again, I'm not suggesting ditching it. Just, doing like they did with framework and supporting an alternative to see change in the market.

[Skipple]

34 minutes ago, peq42 said:

their software is still quite buggy and crashes fairly often

show me a video editing software that doesn't. 

[WildDagwood]

Personally, I think it would be better to present a case for why they should invest (other than a hypothetical of it getting better and giving a finger to Adobe).

 

Is there something they're doing better? Is there something their software offers that isn't or can't be implemented on others? What are they doing that's going to drive adoption and net positive return on investments?

 

Countless cases for "A should invest in B" can be stated, but they need reasons to.

[ToboRobot]

Should Disney or Netflix or CNN invest in the same project?

[peq42]

well why should Linus have invested on framework? Any other company could have created modular laptops. But didn't.

 

The point here is: KDEnlive is both FREE and Open Source. This means, if it gets better, other free editors might get better too. With more competition and perhaps options that surpass adobe's at least on some points, they are forced to either improve further or lower prices to compete.

[tikker]

28 minutes ago, peq42 said:

FREE and Open Source

  These are not some sort of magic words though. Open source is nice, but you still need leadership with a vision of where the project is going and a big team of developers and maintainers to keep the project going and maintained. That ties into the second point: "free" doesn't support the livelihood of people working on the project. Either their employers need to allow for a certain amount of work time to be spent on arbitrary community software (meaning money lost for the company), or they need to spend their free time on it. Either way it is likley they will have limited time to spend on the project, or at least a lot less than e.g. Adobe's teams can whose literal job it is to develop it.

 

You are asking a project with substantially less money, less time and maybe less experience than Adobe to beat Adobe at their own game. That is not impossible, but at least very hard. Moreso because you need to break the industry standard.

[Lunar River]

2 hours ago, peq42 said:

The point here is: KDEnlive is both FREE and Open Source.

Do you honestly believe that volunteers in the project are better than the people that get paid a hell of a lot of money to get Adobe to where it is today?

 

So far your only argument for why LTT specifically needs to invest in kden is "is FOSS".

 

I swear, some of the people I've seen are too weirdly obsessed with FOSS and I don't know why.

When they say "well it's open source, so I can look at the code and make sure no one is spying on me or stealing my data"

And my reply is always: okay, but do you?"

[Skipple]

1 hour ago, Lunar River said:

I swear, some of the people I've seen are too weirdly obsessed with FOSS and I don't know why.

I think much of the support of FOSS has due with a distaste for the structure of software companies, their monetization, and data practices. It may be a general distaste for capitalism in general.

 

The ability to audit or build off of existing FOSS is an added bonus. Some may simply like the structure and idea of the code collaboration and the community that surrounds it.

 

Assuming software is apples to apples, why not choose the FOS option?

 

If someone wants to only use FOSS, cool! If someone only wants to use closed sourced software, okay. I try and let people enjoy and be passionate about things without thinking too deeply.

[Lunar River]

9 minutes ago, Skipple said:

I try and let people enjoy and be passionate about things without thinking too deeply.

there's passion, and then there's being a zealot

[Skipple]

48 minutes ago, Lunar River said:

there's passion, and then there's being a zealot

I'm not sure about these people you are referring to. Are people forcing you to uninstall your private software and forcing you to install FOSS? 

[Lunar River]

42 minutes ago, Skipple said:

I'm not sure about these people you are referring to. Are people forcing you to uninstall your private software and forcing you to install FOSS? 

i dont think you understand what a zealot is.

[Skipple]

44 minutes ago, Lunar River said:

i dont think you understand what a zealot is.

I meant the force uninstall comment as tongue-in-cheek than anything, perhaps it didn't land.

 

Regardless, you are will find these types of people in any hobby. You have coffee snobs who look down upon people who drink Starbucks, keyboard nerds who would dare touch a membrane keyboard, and beer guys who shutter at the idea of drinking a macro-brew. (I know this because I'm into all these hobbies) They are a very small minority and can be easily ignored and avoided. 

 

Most FOSS advocates aren't even FOSS purists. They are just users and developers who like the idea of software being open and a collaborative effort. 

[NadiaMayer]

linus cant throw money at every small  project and has pick his battles as if you over exended you break the whole channel

as of now linus has projects

a ton YT channels needing videos to be made
LLT labs  that sucking massive amount of cash

and those are YT stuff as now hes also
invested in frame work it more of token gesture  but the idea is get the ball rolling and it has.
his easy to use NAS software we dont know much and hidden untill it ready
and his smart badminton courts that moonlight as a lan center.


so he cant keep throw money on the wall hes not a got billions dollars throw around

[Mud23609]

When time is money sometimes it makes more sense to pay for the more expensive product. 

 

I used to use Resolve as my main video editor. It's a powerful tool and it will pretty much do anything you need video editing-wise and is certainly much less expensive than Premiere Pro.

 

However, that didn't stop me from switching over to Adobe as my main video editing software. The ecosystem and third-party plugins supporting Adobe are simply much more advanced and well-developed. On average I save a solid two hours per 20-minute video when I edit in Premier Pro. Additionally when I outsource or work collaboratively with someone having access to the the same tools and programs makes life a lot easier and most of the rest of the creative industry uses Adobe products.

 

I also use a 400-dollar Shure SM7B mic and a 500-dollar Roadcaster Duo. I could use the Blue Yeti X that's sitting on the shelf in my closet. I can make it sound good, but it picks up room noise too easily, and sometimes even things like traffic driving by on the street outside my house which means more messing around to record a voiceover that I am happy with. The Shure is great at rejecting off-axis noise and the Rodecaster has a nice clean signal. That is why I chose that particular combo even though there were many other options available at a lower price point. The time savings were worth the higher price tag for my use.

 

To look at it another way If you walk into just about any professional mechanic shop you going to see lots of snap-on tools. A 3/8 inch drive ratchet can cost over 200 bucks from snap-on depending on the length, and they are going to have a few different lengths that they use for specific jobs. Sure you can get a Kobalt ratchet at lowes for 20 bucks and it'll do 95 percent of what the much more expensive snap-ons will do but there are when having say a long-handled flex head ratchet with a higher tooth count can allow you to get a bolt out faster or without needing to remove additional components and suddenly that 200 dollar ratchet starts to make sense for someone turning wrenches at a professional level where time is money. 

 

As for investing money or company time into an OSS project, from a business perspective, it makes little sense. The likelihood of ever getting a return on an investment is pretty much zero. Framework was a different deal. Not only was it a company and an idea that he could get behind, but the same things he was excited about are what are interesting and exciting many other potential paying customers. Sure it was a risk, but there is a real potential for a big payout as well.