I thought it was audio, but didn't want to misremember.
My needs aren't generic, They are very specific. The tools I use are generic.
Yeah, I don't know the entire tool chain for Audio production. But dozens of specialized single purpose tools still sounds suspect. You're saying there are at minimum 24(Dozens plural means at least 2 dozen) fully unique single purpose tools that have no overlap, that you purchase and use, because no tool you already have does that thing?
Alone fourteen of those are installers/management apps for various plugin vendors. Zero overlap, because there is no unified plugin purchase/installation/authorisation/update scheme. Another fifteen or twenty are the standalone app versions of plugins that I will not delete, because there is no unified plugin purchase/installation/authorisation/update scheme, and randomly deleting any component may break some part of whatever dependencies that particular vendor has chosen to smoke up (or port from Windows). Or they're purchased via the App Store and NEED to have the standalone app installed to even be available as a plug-in.
Maybe that's true, but we live in a world of consolidation where racks of single purpose bespoke processing equipment get reduced to apps on a high quality computer all the time. And then those get further consolidated. BUT, that's not even my point. The question is do you have that tool chain, because each thing is fully unique with no alternative? Or do you have that tool chain, because app A does thing X better even though I mostly use App B. If that's the case, then again those aren't unique apps. They are useful apps that aren't unique.
I understand what you're saying from a layman's perspective. But think of a toolshed: Those 80 screwdrivers aren't necessarily "unique" in their functionality — they all do the same thing. But even though they do the same thing, a #6 Torx isn't going to work for a Phillips head. Are they unique tools? From a professional's standpoint: HELL YEAH.
From the perspective of somebody who has a hex driver and a $10 set of interchangeable bits: I guess maybe not.
Again, I don't know audio production worth beans, but my tangential little example would be that I volunteer on the audio board for a local Children's theater and when we need say reverb or some other effect on a voice (The wizard in the Wizard of Oz being the most recent example.) That effect was included right in the board. No external Reverb needed.
We could have used external reverb. Maybe we don't like the quality of what the board provides, but in that case, it isn't a unique device. Just one we like better.
Yeah, this is where I need to beat you down a bit. The whole point of being a specialist is a combination of knowing how to best work with the tools you have handy, but also knowing which tools best to have handy to do your job.
All microphones basically do the same thing. But there's a bit of a difference between a 19,000€ M49 and a 300€ Røde, even if they're of the same type (large diaphragm condensors). And even just looking at categories — electret condensors, large diaphragm condensors, ribbon mics, small-diaphragm condensors, boundary mics, dynamic mics — all of these have vastly different qualities and use cases. Or not, depending upon what you want, or what you have available.
I had several mics available including a large-diaphragm condensor, but I bought a pair of MD-441's and an MD-21 specifically to mic up the Leslie speaker for a very particular sound. Despite this, I usually use much cheaper SM57's in lieu of the 441's because I like the bite they give to my particular Hammond.
On your theater production: Sure that reverb worked fine, because it was a reverb, and you were just looking for some kind of reverb. But on an album production, the only justification for using it would be that it was precisely the exact reverb that was wanted. I have five or six external analog reverbs, all of which do ostensibly the same thing, but sound RADICALLY different. And that's not counting the BX20, gold foil, and plate reverbs my buddy has sitting at the studio. A vocal chain will usually have two or three different reverbs on it at some point.
Just the voice.
One aspect of my job is sound design. That is all about
nuance. That's literally what makes it a job.
A single use tool that does something in a specialized way that other tools also do, but in a different way is by it's nature NOT a unique application. It is one of a set of applications that do the same thing. The WAY it does things may be fit to purpose and unique compared to the class, but it is not unique from the class.
Is a polaroid cam filter app a separate and unique tool from one that applies ML oil paint filters but doesn't do polaroid-style?
Of course it is. If it's not, you're already in the reductionist mindset that arbitrarily erases distinction between products.
And again, reducing everything to 5 apps is taking things to an absurdist extreme. I'm not saying we must reduce everything to 5 apps, What I am saying is that there are far fewer UNIQUE and USEFUL apps than apps people install and use.
Your assertion was — whether intentional or not — uselessly hyperbolic, and I replied in consequence.
And let's be clear here. I'm not saying that using apps that are NOT unique is per se' negative. Because often as not, there is no single app in a category that meets everyone's needs. ESPECIALLY when dealing in niches like Audio engineering. What I am saying is that most apps Either are not unique at all, and far too often aren't very useful at the end of the day. but we install them anyway.
Point taken. That's the point I felt was valid, but I took issue with how you were making it.
Nobody was really paying attention to what Apple was doing at that point, because they had failure after failure after failure, and their corporate finances were circling the drain. Much wow. Such cultural relevance. Very significant.