The idea of a linux audio company seems ok as an initial idea.
1. To "feed" devs with enough resource any apps would need to be at least on par with commercial offerings. By forming a company, the perception may shift in potential users thinking from any notion of OpenSource, to something like "it has to work like Win and Mac because they offer a certain standard and workflow toolset that suits me, for the cash i part with". (Even if the reality of what constitutes a standard is aggressively marketing, more than excellent code)
2. Like it or not, the Linux Audio Company apps would be competing with those who have been doing this for quite some time, and have, by nature of their marketing and toolset, generated a minimum expectation level in users. We know by trial and error that an excellent, stable, fine-tuned Linux audio OS/Hardware box can outperform anything else. But that's not the perception of mainstream audio/midi users, who base their assumptions on "D/L and play for Win or Mac, because it just works". (Which for a large percentage it does)
3. The integration level in the commercial world between apps, hardware, controllers, surfaces, app admin software, etc, is mature. E.G, you can install Cubase, load Kontakt, access instruments directly in the interface, and a raft of other functions built to work together, tried and tested over many versions. (with regular, positive, mutual beneficial communication between companies. See a previous post for comments about mutual support in the EU across competitors. They know it's better to work together for their marketing image, than cut each other to bits.)
Now add Linux to this picture. A "newcomer" for mainstream users. Not only does Linux Audio have to prove itself to those with cash in their pockets, but it also has to get past current perceptions generated by users trying Linux Audio based distros previously, and possibly coming away with a less than ideal picture.
I'll add here that FalkTX needs a massive thank you from the community for simplfying the user experience in terms of setting up Jack, dealing with plugins, etc. Everytime i've mentioned KXStudio in fora outside of the community, there's "someone" who's tried it, and had a good experience. (It's the closest i think we've ever been to "plug 'n play, which seems to be the overwhelming user expectation)
And i would venture here that of all the fine devs in the community, he's probably got the closest to reducing negative experiences from mainstream users who find setting up LA, rightly or wrongly, "too hard". I'll add Gmaq to that as well, although i only used AV for a limited time.
If there is a Linux Audio Company, then i'd venture they should be at the forefront of the user experience team, dedicated to getting as close as possible to plug 'n play. (Their quality control standards and expectations of themselves are high.)
4. Then there's the marketing and interaction with commercial companies who currently make software, and software instruments for Win and Mac. How do you convince them to release Linux versions, especially if no equivalent exists in the LA world? What sort of trust and longevity will they get for the time and money they put into native linux development? How willing will Linux devs be to integrate with commercial interests, like NI, and devote time and effort to make that happen at a professional use standard?
And how much harder will they have to work if there are lots of corner cases and exceptions to consider, possibly more so than commercial OSs? (VST, AU, LV2?)
5. If an LA company is to be considered as a potential money spinner for devs, and given the wide range of options for Linux Users in terms of distro choices, would the company be better served in "removing" some of that choice, and building and maintaining a dedicated distro, in which ALL the community pour their effort, with the potential for a mutual community reward. (And if this horrifies some of you, then do you want a financially sound company based on a common code set that devs can work with, or stick with the myriad of choices, and dissipate the energies of not only devs, but other important contributors, like manual writers, website builders, those who will enthusiastically market the company, those who test?) And included in this is commercial app companies. If they know they can build for the "Linux Audio Company Distro", and expect a constant and stable codebase, then will that tempt them to collaborate, with the potential increase of reward for the LA community?
(And there's already an example of success in this vein, with Reaper. Justin has maintained and improved the Wine/Linux functionality, and Reaper works as well as it ever did, in Wine.)
And if "LADist" is the base OS, which codebase is it based on? Arch? Debian? Or a completely new base, which is built from scratch by an LA OS team, and fine tuned for maximum stability and capability, with long term releases, and not the "release early and often" mantra, which may make external contributors nervous, instead of inspiring them to join in? (At least for the distro core)
6. My use case in Linux seems destined to stay on the fringes for the forseeable future. Yet that use case is more mainstream in the commercial world. I use this example not to push my particular agenda (i've given up after 10 yrs ), but make a point.
Who decides which projects are "worthy", and what the design and commercial intent of The Linux Audio Company takes? Is it just electronica/sampling/synth based, or does the company go the whole nine metres, and build for all, in the same marketplace and user demographic as mainstream commercial offerings? Who sets quality control standards, and can build relationships with devs to collaborate in a constructive, mutally beneficial team, where some personal design choices may be put aside for the greater good, and in the pursuit of consistency across the distro? Will devs be willing to modify, or some cases even give up their ideas (at least in the LACompany structure) to have their app in the pot? (with the potential for financial gain.)
I wonder if it's worth considering a dual perspective, with opensource versions, AND a commercial LACompany version. Devs can explore their design and function choices freely in opensource, and earn some bread and butter writing a commercial native linux version for LACompany. Keep the two separate, and treat the LACompany as an entirely commercial concern, not some sort of hybrid mutant.
Just some thoughts off the top of the head.