Users Are Starting to Rewrite Their Tools. How Are Manufacturers Responding?
The first thing I saw was someone modifying the software on a CDJ to add functions Pioneer hadn’t built in.
Then I started seeing manufacturers announce that users would be able to do this with new equipment too.
That’s been on my mind over the past few days.
If people can change the tools they own, bring old software back into use or recreate the functions they need, where does that leave the companies making them?
When Users Start Changing the Tools
There are modifications for the CDJ-2000NXS that add RGB and three-band waveforms, and show BPM and key together while browsing.
Useful changes to equipment people already own.
Then Behringer showed an unfinished DJ system carrying the ANIMA name, with the idea that users could develop their own software for it.
It had already announced its open-source Kick sampler, and IGNITE followed, with its source code now on GitHub.
That still leaves work to do before someone has custom firmware they can install.
Akai has announced plans to let users modify the firmware of its Sample Key too.
How that will work, and how much access users will get, isn’t clear yet.
The same pattern is appearing in software, too. I saw an October release of Camel Audio’s CamelPhat3 plugin, rebuilt and recompiled for Apple Silicon.
I can see why people would want to keep a plugin they know working on their current setup.
You still need to know what you’re doing when you start changing firmware or adapting old software.
Getting it to run is only the beginning.
But seeing all this happening close together caught my attention.
I wrote previously about producers being able to build their own tools.
I’ve also had developers reach out recently to show me software they’ve created.
I’m seeing it happen directly.
This time, I’m wondering about the manufacturers.
What happens when people can do more with existing equipment, or build an alternative instead of buying the original?
Can Software Companies Protect Their Tools?
One approach is to keep the main processing on company servers.
With a DAW for instance, you get an interface, but the code doing the work stays with the company.
That makes it harder to examine how the software works.
It doesn’t stop someone using it, looking at what it does and trying to build their own version.
There are already independently built alternatives to Adobe applications on GitHub.
PhotoCraft describes itself as a reimplementation of Photoshop, written without Adobe’s original code.
Looking like Photoshop isn’t the same as replacing it.
But how much would it need to do before it became useful to you?
I might only use a small part of a large software package.
If another tool does those jobs well, I might never miss the rest.
That is the problem for a large software company: an alternative does not need to match every feature.
It only needs to match the features a particular person actually relies on.
Why People Still Pay
There’s also the question of how involved you want to get.
Some people will enjoy changing code, trying things out and fixing problems.
Others just want to open their DAW and make music.
Even if I could adapt something myself, I might prefer to pay someone who’s already done that work.
I’d still want to know I could trust the software.
Will it open my old projects properly? Will it work with my DAW after the next update? If something goes wrong, is there someone who can help?
Getting an effect to sound right takes work.
So does keeping it working across different systems and sessions, writing documentation and answering support questions.
That work carries on long after the first release.
An alternative might cover the functions I use.
Whether I choose it will also depend on how much time I want to spend getting it working and keeping it that way.
What Happens Next?
People are modifying existing equipment, bringing older software back into use and building alternatives.
Manufacturers are starting to invite users to make changes themselves.
AI seems to be helping more people get involved, and Akai is referring directly to AI and vibe coding in its announcement.
I don’t know how far this will go.
Some manufacturers are opening things up.
Others may keep more of the work on their servers.
But if users can increasingly recreate the functions they need, how does that change the business of selling software?
Comments