There's no money in it

u0421793

2016 has brought a reassuringly wide spread of abject misfortune. From the last decade of the 20th century, where jobs and clients could be found, going forward was merely a matter of keeping on doing what you felt must be the correct thing to do - well, look at where it has already got you thus far. Now, we're seeing that a lot of what we assumed was working, wasn't. This is a good thing, the delusional phase can come to an end, and proper measurement and possibly even action can be formulated and executed. That is what 2016 was about, I consider.

When in the 90s Amazon and the like were making a loss, many new media business owners were honestly convinced (they even told me) that if they were making a loss, then they're doing it correctly and investment is indubitably just around the corner if we carry on like this. Anyway, most of those idiots crashed and burned and didn't make it.

We've reached the stage where it is apparent what worked and what didn't about the way we've been carrying on over the past decade or so. With the in and out of a recession in the meantime, many people have changed or lost their jobs. I think it is fair to say that there are a lot of people who have found a way out of that, early on, which seems like a rescue or a relief, but in fact it turns out that it wasn't - where it might be considered that not to be failing must be success.

We've had plenty of examples of manufacturers of apps here in these pages come out and admit they're making next to no money from app creation. We're also aware that people make nearly nothing from ad clicks and youtube views of web sites. We're even aware that Taylor Swift hardly makes enough to do her hair, from streaming royalties alone. What is to be done?

I propose that one of the biggest mistakes many of us made was, during the past decade, when for one reason or another we left or got bumped from a hitherto secure comfy job, was to 'go it alone'. This is actually a big problem. Not initially - it seemed ideal, and people set up doing what they wanted to do all along, by themselves, as individuals, self employed, their own boss. It allowed people to create content or intellectual property whilst working from home (i.e, not wearing clothes). Why is this a mistake? It wasn't back then, but it is by now. People are still working alone. People are still individual units. People are struggling because they are not connected enough, and their organisational structure is too weak and vulnerable and lacks the lower-frequency response to emergent situations and strategic alterations, only having high-frequency tactical immediate capabilities of a single worker.

This is one reason I never refer to an app developer as if they're a single person, I always use the term 'manufacturer' as if to conjur a notion of a big factory pumping apps out on a conveyor belt. I consider that having so many work producing organisations that are nothing but a single person is an extremely weak situation. I predict a larger organisational structure must be the way forward for a lot of the current smaller units. This is of course difficult if everyone wants to be the boss because that's what they were to themselves all these years when they were working from home naked, stock taking the fridge contents 18 times a day. But really, have to get over that. A good way is to 'buy in management' so none of the creation and engineering talent are 'the boss' initially, a separate management or representation is.

Taking the ego out of things is a matter of deciding what the objective is, formulating the requirements, uncovering solutions available to satisfy those, and implementing them. One reason the usual 'client/customer is always correct' thing particularly grates is that we've all worked for some idiot who dreams new requests up at a whim, or drives us verbally by standing over our shoulder making adjustments ever time we move the mouse, or conjures up the impression that only they have a direct route to divine inspiration because they're paying you to follow orders. I hated that, we all do, and some people even put up with it for the money. The point is, with a clear stated objective, it doesn't matter who draws up the list of requirements, it doesn't matter who works on the solutions to satisfy those requirements, it doesn't matter who decides the way to implement them, and it doesn't matter who rolls their sleeves up to actually do this washing up. The customer is as correct as anyone else could be, in this scenario, the important thing is the accurate definition of a project objective (yes, no apology here, this is my MSc in Technology Management showing through, plus all that teaching of project management I've done).

The take-away, the time for individuality was over, now we've got to work together - that's how to succeed. Obviously.

JohnnyGoodyear

we've got to work together is a good soundbite, but in a situation that has become highly diffused it's hard to see how the bones get put back in the body....

u0421793

@JohnnyGoodyear said:
we've got to work together is a good soundbite, but in a situation that has become highly diffused it's hard to see how the bones get put back in the body....

It'll all be to do with network topology and Euler's bridges

[Deleted User]

"We expect more from our technology and less from each other"

JohnnyGoodyear

@u0421793 said:

@JohnnyGoodyear said:
we've got to work together is a good soundbite, but in a situation that has become highly diffused it's hard to see how the bones get put back in the body....

It'll all be to do with network topology and Euler's bridges

Well Euler did do a thing on sound (De Sono) and I have to think he would have been a forum member if the timing had been right etc...

[Deleted User]

@u0421793 said:
2016 has brought a reassuringly wide spread of abject misfortune. From the last decade of the 20th century, where jobs and clients could be found, going forward was merely a matter of keeping on doing what you felt must be the correct thing to do - well, look at where it has already got you thus far. Now, we're seeing that a lot of what we assumed was working, wasn't. This is a good thing, the delusional phase can come to an end, and proper measurement and possibly even action can be formulated and executed. That is what 2016 was about, I consider.

When in the 90s Amazon and the like were making a loss, many new media business owners were honestly convinced (they even told me) that if they were making a loss, then they're doing it correctly and investment is indubitably just around the corner if we carry on like this. Anyway, most of those idiots crashed and burned and didn't make it.

We've reached the stage where it is apparent what worked and what didn't about the way we've been carrying on over the past decade or so. With the in and out of a recession in the meantime, many people have changed or lost their jobs. I think it is fair to say that there are a lot of people who have found a way out of that, early on, which seems like a rescue or a relief, but in fact it turns out that it wasn't - where it might be considered that not to be failing must be success.

We've had plenty of examples of manufacturers of apps here in these pages come out and admit they're making next to no money from app creation. We're also aware that people make nearly nothing from ad clicks and youtube views of web sites. We're even aware that Taylor Swift hardly makes enough to do her hair, from streaming royalties alone. What is to be done?

I propose that one of the biggest mistakes many of us made was, during the past decade, when for one reason or another we left or got bumped from a hitherto secure comfy job, was to 'go it alone'. This is actually a big problem. Not initially - it seemed ideal, and people set up doing what they wanted to do all along, by themselves, as individuals, self employed, their own boss. It allowed people to create content or intellectual property whilst working from home (i.e, not wearing clothes). Why is this a mistake? It wasn't back then, but it is by now. People are still working alone. People are still individual units. People are struggling because they are not connected enough, and their organisational structure is too weak and vulnerable and lacks the lower-frequency response to emergent situations and strategic alterations, only having high-frequency tactical immediate capabilities of a single worker.

This is one reason I never refer to an app developer as if they're a single person, I always use the term 'manufacturer' as if to conjur a notion of a big factory pumping apps out on a conveyor belt. I consider that having so many work producing organisations that are nothing but a single person is an extremely weak situation. I predict a larger organisational structure must be the way forward for a lot of the current smaller units. This is of course difficult if everyone wants to be the boss because that's what they were to themselves all these years when they were working from home naked, stock taking the fridge contents 18 times a day. But really, have to get over that. A good way is to 'buy in management' so none of the creation and engineering talent are 'the boss' initially, a separate management or representation is.

Taking the ego out of things is a matter of deciding what the objective is, formulating the requirements, uncovering solutions available to satisfy those, and implementing them. One reason the usual 'client/customer is always correct' thing particularly grates is that we've all worked for some idiot who dreams new requests up at a whim, or drives us verbally by standing over our shoulder making adjustments ever time we move the mouse, or conjures up the impression that only they have a direct route to divine inspiration because they're paying you to follow orders. I hated that, we all do, and some people even put up with it for the money. The point is, with a clear stated objective, it doesn't matter who draws up the list of requirements, it doesn't matter who works on the solutions to satisfy those requirements, it doesn't matter who decides the way to implement them, and it doesn't matter who rolls their sleeves up to actually do this washing up. The customer is as correct as anyone else could be, in this scenario, the important thing is the accurate definition of a project objective (yes, no apology here, this is my MSc in Technology Management showing through, plus all that teaching of project management I've done).

The take-away, the time for individuality was over, now we've got to work together - that's how to succeed. Obviously.

@u0421793 said:
2016 has brought a reassuringly wide spread of abject misfortune. From the last decade of the 20th century, where jobs and clients could be found, going forward was merely a matter of keeping on doing what you felt must be the correct thing to do - well, look at where it has already got you thus far. Now, we're seeing that a lot of what we assumed was working, wasn't. This is a good thing, the delusional phase can come to an end, and proper measurement and possibly even action can be formulated and executed. That is what 2016 was about, I consider.

When in the 90s Amazon and the like were making a loss, many new media business owners were honestly convinced (they even told me) that if they were making a loss, then they're doing it correctly and investment is indubitably just around the corner if we carry on like this. Anyway, most of those idiots crashed and burned and didn't make it.

We've reached the stage where it is apparent what worked and what didn't about the way we've been carrying on over the past decade or so. With the in and out of a recession in the meantime, many people have changed or lost their jobs. I think it is fair to say that there are a lot of people who have found a way out of that, early on, which seems like a rescue or a relief, but in fact it turns out that it wasn't - where it might be considered that not to be failing must be success.

We've had plenty of examples of manufacturers of apps here in these pages come out and admit they're making next to no money from app creation. We're also aware that people make nearly nothing from ad clicks and youtube views of web sites. We're even aware that Taylor Swift hardly makes enough to do her hair, from streaming royalties alone. What is to be done?

I propose that one of the biggest mistakes many of us made was, during the past decade, when for one reason or another we left or got bumped from a hitherto secure comfy job, was to 'go it alone'. This is actually a big problem. Not initially - it seemed ideal, and people set up doing what they wanted to do all along, by themselves, as individuals, self employed, their own boss. It allowed people to create content or intellectual property whilst working from home (i.e, not wearing clothes). Why is this a mistake? It wasn't back then, but it is by now. People are still working alone. People are still individual units. People are struggling because they are not connected enough, and their organisational structure is too weak and vulnerable and lacks the lower-frequency response to emergent situations and strategic alterations, only having high-frequency tactical immediate capabilities of a single worker.

This is one reason I never refer to an app developer as if they're a single person, I always use the term 'manufacturer' as if to conjur a notion of a big factory pumping apps out on a conveyor belt. I consider that having so many work producing organisations that are nothing but a single person is an extremely weak situation. I predict a larger organisational structure must be the way forward for a lot of the current smaller units. This is of course difficult if everyone wants to be the boss because that's what they were to themselves all these years when they were working from home naked, stock taking the fridge contents 18 times a day. But really, have to get over that. A good way is to 'buy in management' so none of the creation and engineering talent are 'the boss' initially, a separate management or representation is.

Taking the ego out of things is a matter of deciding what the objective is, formulating the requirements, uncovering solutions available to satisfy those, and implementing them. One reason the usual 'client/customer is always correct' thing particularly grates is that we've all worked for some idiot who dreams new requests up at a whim, or drives us verbally by standing over our shoulder making adjustments ever time we move the mouse, or conjures up the impression that only they have a direct route to divine inspiration because they're paying you to follow orders. I hated that, we all do, and some people even put up with it for the money. The point is, with a clear stated objective, it doesn't matter who draws up the list of requirements, it doesn't matter who works on the solutions to satisfy those requirements, it doesn't matter who decides the way to implement them, and it doesn't matter who rolls their sleeves up to actually do this washing up. The customer is as correct as anyone else could be, in this scenario, the important thing is the accurate definition of a project objective (yes, no apology here, this is my MSc in Technology Management showing through, plus all that teaching of project management I've done).

The take-away, the time for individuality was over, now we've got to work together - that's how to succeed. Obviously.

" One might feed the tastes of a thousand musical people into a computer, which could then compose 'their' music; but it would deny the great principle- an artifact is pre-eminently whatever only one man could have made." John Fowles

[Deleted User]

@u0421793 said:
2016 has brought a reassuringly wide spread of abject misfortune. From the last decade of the 20th century, where jobs and clients could be found, going forward was merely a matter of keeping on doing what you felt must be the correct thing to do - well, look at where it has already got you thus far. Now, we're seeing that a lot of what we assumed was working, wasn't. This is a good thing, the delusional phase can come to an end, and proper measurement and possibly even action can be formulated and executed. That is what 2016 was about, I consider.

When in the 90s Amazon and the like were making a loss, many new media business owners were honestly convinced (they even told me) that if they were making a loss, then they're doing it correctly and investment is indubitably just around the corner if we carry on like this. Anyway, most of those idiots crashed and burned and didn't make it.

We've reached the stage where it is apparent what worked and what didn't about the way we've been carrying on over the past decade or so. With the in and out of a recession in the meantime, many people have changed or lost their jobs. I think it is fair to say that there are a lot of people who have found a way out of that, early on, which seems like a rescue or a relief, but in fact it turns out that it wasn't - where it might be considered that not to be failing must be success.

We've had plenty of examples of manufacturers of apps here in these pages come out and admit they're making next to no money from app creation. We're also aware that people make nearly nothing from ad clicks and youtube views of web sites. We're even aware that Taylor Swift hardly makes enough to do her hair, from streaming royalties alone. What is to be done?

I propose that one of the biggest mistakes many of us made was, during the past decade, when for one reason or another we left or got bumped from a hitherto secure comfy job, was to 'go it alone'. This is actually a big problem. Not initially - it seemed ideal, and people set up doing what they wanted to do all along, by themselves, as individuals, self employed, their own boss. It allowed people to create content or intellectual property whilst working from home (i.e, not wearing clothes). Why is this a mistake? It wasn't back then, but it is by now. People are still working alone. People are still individual units. People are struggling because they are not connected enough, and their organisational structure is too weak and vulnerable and lacks the lower-frequency response to emergent situations and strategic alterations, only having high-frequency tactical immediate capabilities of a single worker.

This is one reason I never refer to an app developer as if they're a single person, I always use the term 'manufacturer' as if to conjur a notion of a big factory pumping apps out on a conveyor belt. I consider that having so many work producing organisations that are nothing but a single person is an extremely weak situation. I predict a larger organisational structure must be the way forward for a lot of the current smaller units. This is of course difficult if everyone wants to be the boss because that's what they were to themselves all these years when they were working from home naked, stock taking the fridge contents 18 times a day. But really, have to get over that. A good way is to 'buy in management' so none of the creation and engineering talent are 'the boss' initially, a separate management or representation is.

Taking the ego out of things is a matter of deciding what the objective is, formulating the requirements, uncovering solutions available to satisfy those, and implementing them. One reason the usual 'client/customer is always correct' thing particularly grates is that we've all worked for some idiot who dreams new requests up at a whim, or drives us verbally by standing over our shoulder making adjustments ever time we move the mouse, or conjures up the impression that only they have a direct route to divine inspiration because they're paying you to follow orders. I hated that, we all do, and some people even put up with it for the money. The point is, with a clear stated objective, it doesn't matter who draws up the list of requirements, it doesn't matter who works on the solutions to satisfy those requirements, it doesn't matter who decides the way to implement them, and it doesn't matter who rolls their sleeves up to actually do this washing up. The customer is as correct as anyone else could be, in this scenario, the important thing is the accurate definition of a project objective (yes, no apology here, this is my MSc in Technology Management showing through, plus all that teaching of project management I've done).

The take-away, the time for individuality was over, now we've got to work together - that's how to succeed. Obviously.

For a lot of self-employed/small business owners the issue isn't a lack of skills, or clothes, it's getting a foot in the market door when it's being slammed shut by the old-boy network.

My company has done well over the last 14 years, but the last 12 months have been terrible, and may close next year due to lack of work. Our product is better, and cheaper than the competition, but the new boys in town have 'connections', and so are now getting all the contracts putting us - and a couple of other small suppliers out of action. Then there's Brexit (yes, I know) which means the clients I have left will lose their EU grants, and new projects will disappear.

It's been a very tough year, but next year looks set to be a lot worse.

decibelle

The whole "working together" thing sounds nice and everything, but kind of falls down when it comes from a history of treating large chunks of the together worker pool as irrelevant, and when they have pointed this out, further dismissing them as rude and annoying.

So yeah, "together" only works when ALL participants are invested in togetherness, and requires a willingness to acknowledge, learn from and improve upon your own mistakes.

So yeah, your "together" declarations will be meaningful only when they include that.

I do look forward to seeing it though.

Reid

One idea I've been thinking about doing for a long time is posting a strand dedicated to generating new ideas to help developers make more money.

Our success as users of their products is totally connected on their abilities to create and continue updating their products. They have to be able to pay bills or they will be forced to do something else.

Most of us do other work besides play music. Even if we make our living through music, marketing is part of that. We all have professional skills and we are all creative. Let's hear the ideas. Let a hundred flowers bloom.

Maybe what this needs is not a dedicated strand but a whole new category. But I rarely check out the other Categories...

JohnnyGoodyear

@Reid said:
One idea I've been thinking about doing for a long time is posting a strand dedicated to generating new ideas to help developers make more money.

Our success as users of their products is totally connected on their abilities to create and continue updating their products. They have to be able to pay bills or they will be forced to do something else.

Most of us do other work besides play music. Even if we make our living through music, marketing is part of that. We all have professional skills and we are all creative. Let's hear the ideas. Let a hundred flowers bloom.

Maybe what this needs is not a dedicated strand but a whole new category. But I rarely check out the other Categories...

Weekend in Monaco.

Or Abergavenny.

supadom

There is money, it just goes up like helium balloons. The 1% do appreciate it, in fact they won't give it up without a fight.

kobamoto

@supadom said:
There is money, it just goes up like helium balloons. The 1% do appreciate it, in fact they won't give it up without a fight.

kobamoto

@decibelle said:
The whole "working together" thing sounds nice and everything, but kind of falls down when it comes from a history of treating large chunks of the together worker pool as irrelevant, and when they have pointed this out, further dismissing them as rude and annoying.

So yeah, "together" only works when ALL participants are invested in togetherness, and requires a willingness to acknowledge, learn from and improve upon your own mistakes.

So yeah, your "together" declarations will be meaningful only when they include that.

I do look forward to seeing it though.

MusicInclusive

@JohnnyGoodyear said:

@Reid said:
One idea I've been thinking about doing for a long time is posting a strand dedicated to generating new ideas to help developers make more money.

Weekend in Monaco.

Or Abergavenny.

Could do worse than Abergavenny...

AQ808

I'm facing this myself, getting older having lived through this digital age and am now deeply understanding something I had lost connection with in the headiness of our dreams of futurism.

If our constantly advancing computing capabilities do not end up aiding us to produce real world physical artifacts which we share and build a culture out of, then no true record of our existence will likely be found in the future, as more and more data compounds annually to the point that each grain of sand eventually becomes smaller and smaller on the beach of our digital ocean.

It is the abstract lack of limitation which we can lose ourselves in and feel infinite.

But it is a limited and finite physical world which compel us to create culture and economies.

I think this is slowly coming into focus for many of us.

I'm personally moving towards building a vinyl collection for this reason, and want to have an album produced only as a vinyl within 2 years.

I wonder if the analog world won't ultimately win the day after all.

MusicInclusive

@AQ808 said:
I'm facing this myself, getting older having lived through this digital age and am now deeply understanding something I had lost connection with in the headiness of our dreams of futurism.

If our constantly advancing computing capabilities do not end up aiding us to produce real world physical artifacts which we share and build a culture out of, then no true record of our existence will likely be found in the future, as more and more data compounds annually to the point that each grain of sand eventually becomes smaller and smaller on the beach of our digital ocean.

It is the abstract lack of limitation which we can lose ourselves in and feel infinite.

But it is a limited and finite physical world which compel us to create culture and economies.

I think this is slowly coming into focus for many of us.

I'm personally moving towards building a vinyl collection for this reason, and want to have an album produced only as a vinyl within 2 years.

I wonder if the analog world won't ultimately win the day after all.

OTOH - if we write everything down on stone tablets, it'll last potentially for thousands of years... I've been saying this for years (gave a talk on that and related items back in the UK ~ a couple of decades ago). The longevity of computers and media is miniscule by comparison. I still have a laptop that I bought back in '93 that I ran Linux on. Still runs. BUT, I no longer have the same 10-Base 2 network setup to connect to it. I do still have floppy disks I can put in it (although it does have a 120MB (<---- MB) HD ) but, most of those are getting very old now...

Somewhere I thought I still had some old punch tape that I used with ASR33s but I think that's either lost or probably crumpled by now.

We need rocks, not sand, that's the point. The sand becomes the silicon, becomes useless after a while because nothing can read it any more. But if we keep it as rocks we're better off.

Back under mine again

Qmishery

I love CDs. Guess vinyl will outlive it, though.

MusicInclusive

@Qmishery said:
I love CDs. Guess vinyl will outlive it, though.

There'll be a generation that grows up asking... "What's a CD?"

supadom

Possibly the best way for us creative musicians to live on into eternity is to create something that stays in the minds of people. Stuff people can relate to and pass onto future generations. Bytes come and megabytes go but feelings stay.

[Deleted User]

I think the dominant theme is fear and its cultivation which leads to divisiveness, isolation, and apathy. An increase in the level of fear can also result in a desire for more control. It will be quite a challenge to have more people cooperating and willing to work together in a fear driven environment. In the U.S. for example, businesses based upon the fear of dying (medical industry) and crime (prison industry, homeland security) are booming. Many people seek relief in the form of mind altering drugs and addictions.

Perhaps expanding iOS music making as an affordable/safe form of therapy may be one way people can calm down enough to make better decisions about how to cooperate? Nevertheless we still see endless threads on app A versus app B on this forum so for people with high levels of aggression derived from fear, even incorporating iOS music making into their lives might not be enough to significantly counteract prevailing trends.

In addition there are always suggestions about how app X could be improved or why we need a new app that has a, b, c . . . functionalities. This in and of itself seems either helpful or harmless enough but there seems to be relatively little discussion on how these changes could be supported financially (for an exception see @Reid suggestion above).

Being overwhelmed with a cornucopia of apps and deciding to only focus on a few apps seems to be a recurring theme. Simplyifing as a way to increase creativity by having fewer choices seems popular here. Since there is little support for app subscription approaches, I'm not sure how developers with a shrinking customer base will be able to survive if more users adopt this approach.

So perhaps we'd benefit from a better understanding of what developers need to sustain their efforts and develop some consensus on what functionalities/apps we'd collectively like to support?

decibelle

Hmmm, yes, very representative of the genre.

Lacm1993

OTOH - if we write everything down on stone tablets, it'll last potentially for thousands of years... I've been saying this for years (gave a talk on that and related items back in the UK ~ a couple of decades ago). The longevity of computers and media is miniscule by comparison. I still have a laptop that I bought back in '93 that I ran Linux on. Still runs. BUT, I no longer have the same 10-Base 2 network setup to connect to it. I do still have floppy disks I can put in it (although it does have a 120MB (<---- MB) HD ) but, most of those are getting very old now...

Somewhere I thought I still had some old punch tape that I used with ASR33s but I think that's either lost or probably crumpled by now.

We need rocks, not sand, that's the point. The sand becomes the silicon, becomes useless after a while because nothing can read it any more. But if we keep it as rocks we're better off.

Back under mine again

A stone tablet (maybe clay tablets like the ancient cultures used) could last forever only if you take extreme good care of it (and with time expensive care of it) if you want what's important (what you wrote on it) to last, a rock where the characters are gone has no value even if it last forever.

Any digital file can live forever very easily. Just keep updating the format to the next thing or to a widely used format, etc. if you stored content on a floppy disk and leaved sitting there then it obviously will come a time when reading it will be imposible, why it's the physical medium so important?, the computer will become obsolete, but the contents can live forever.

Of course anything can happen, something might go wrong with the file, etc. but I could just as easily break a stone table by accident.

pedro

I don't have anything to add, but my thumb is getting sore...

JohnnyGoodyear

Folk songs.

knewspeak

In a cyclical universe, all we can hope, is in our own way, to pass on a little part, of maybe a larger wisdom, that they, may make good use of it and carry it on.

[Deleted User]

One big solar storm, and every bit of data on the planet.....gone.

supadom

@JohnnyGoodyear said:
Folk songs.

Daisy, daisy

JohnnyGoodyear

@supadom said:

@JohnnyGoodyear said:
Folk songs.

Daisy, daisy

Hey, oral histories and cave paintings....

[Deleted User]

@AQ808 said:
I'm facing this myself, getting older having lived through this digital age and am now deeply understanding something I had lost connection with in the headiness of our dreams of futurism.

If our constantly advancing computing capabilities do not end up aiding us to produce real world physical artifacts which we share and build a culture out of, then no true record of our existence will likely be found in the future, as more and more data compounds annually to the point that each grain of sand eventually becomes smaller and smaller on the beach of our digital ocean.

It is the abstract lack of limitation which we can lose ourselves in and feel infinite.

But it is a limited and finite physical world which compel us to create culture and economies.

I think this is slowly coming into focus for many of us.

I'm personally moving towards building a vinyl collection for this reason, and want to have an album produced only as a vinyl within 2 years.

I wonder if the analog world won't ultimately win the day after all.

I agree. Maybe not so great to relie on digital things completely. What if all digital photos for instance get wiped out somehow from your computer( yes you can still have them backed up on an external hard drive)and there are no actual prints on photo paper. What if all mastered originals in record studios were all strictly digital and there were no analog tapes anywhere to be found...what if......

AudioGus

I think everything is awesome.

decibelle

@AudioGus said:
I think everything is awesome.

LIKE.