I posted this the other day, but didn't get a response:
Does anyone think this model of "tool" + "curated model aggregator" + "open source" would be useful for other, non-developer fields? For instance, would an AI art tool with sculpting and drawing benefit from being open source?
I've talked with VCs that love open source developer tools, but they seem to hate on the idea of "open creative tools" for designers, illustrators, filmmakers, and other creatives. They say these folks don't benefit from open source. I don't quite get it, because Blender and Krita have millions of users. (ComfyUI is already kind of in that space, it's just not very user-friendly.)
Why do investors seem to want non-developer things to be closed source? Are they right?
I think it’s mostly a value capture thing. More money to be made hooking devs in then broke creatives and failing studios (no offense, it just seems like creatives are getting crushed right now). In one case you’re building for the tech ecosystem, in the other for the arts. VC will favor tech, higher multiples. Closed source is more protected from theft etc in many cases.
But as you point out there are great solutions so it’s clearly not a dead end path.
Does anyone think this model of "tool" + "curated model aggregator" + "open source" would be useful for other, non-developer fields? For instance, would an AI art tool with sculpting and drawing benefit from being open source?
I've talked with VCs that love open source developer tools, but they seem to hate on the idea of "open creative tools" for designers, illustrators, filmmakers, and other creatives. They say these folks don't benefit from open source. I don't quite get it, because Blender and Krita have millions of users. (ComfyUI is already kind of in that space, it's just not very user-friendly.)
Why do investors seem to want non-developer things to be closed source? Are they right?