A recurring theme in private conversations: the guildification of digital creative arts: - Creative arts like graphic and music production and are centered around a suite of software from a certain corporate entity (Adobe cloud suite or Emagic Logic for example). - This entity blocks barriers to entry as the tool becomes synonymous with the handicraft work and become a verb I photoshopped this, as did the Walkman or the iPod. Noone says they did some photoediting anymore. - Stockholm syndrome (sympathize with your kidnappers) as guild members feel that cosy belonging with their circle and guild, also smile at those on the outside and feel privileged with an asset of software and knowledge capital. - Fear of loss, that highly visible human trait, as alternative software is presented, and met with hostility as it isnt exactly like Photoshop/Logic/etc. May be perceived as hostile to even speak of worlds where things are different (like e.g. a world with multiple graphic editing softwares, I would hate that, so hard to learn new stuff.) - Employers in digital creative arts employ only guild members (i.e. people with experience in that software that the guild uses), blocking off any inroads for people to even learn competing software, it threatens your outcome to do so. - Competitors make inroads in niches, like CinePaint (GIMP spin-off) does for movie aftertouch, but cannot really get at the core business. - Economically speaking: is this really a competitive market? - I would do exactly the same if I was a creative arts software company. - If I was working in digital creative arts, I would be sitting with my Mac and blue-dyed hair, pixeling and doing beats. So who can really change anything?
Posted on: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:40:32 +0000