At 9:28 AM -0500 7/9/05, Robert Patterson wrote:
Isn't the fundamental problem here that the pie is not getting bigger?
Sibelius had the luxury of learning from Finale's mistakes. Its
original features list was a litany of Finale's (then) shortcomings.
Apparently its entire reason for existing and strategy for growth
was to be the answer to Finale's problems. I can't tell you how many
Sib users who have told me flat-out this was their reason for using
Sibelius: notably Sib's posterchild, John Rutter.
I ask this quite honestly because I don't know the answer. Was there
actually a situation of competition with Finale in the UK when
Sibelius was being developed? Or was it simply a case of parallel
development? As I recall, Sibelius was originally developed for a
computer platform only used in the UK--Acorn?--and thus had no
possible market in the U.S., while Finale had no version that could
compete on that platform.
You may be completely correct if you're talking about what they did
when they were preparing their Windoze and Mac versions, bringing
them directly into competition with Finale, but it doesn't seem that
the original impetus to develop the program was direct competition.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
