Craig Parmerlee wrote:
First, let me apologize to Johannes for the incorrect quotation line in
my earlier message.
dhbailey quoted Craig Parmerlee saying:
[snip]>
As users who have a vested interest in Finale surviving, we cannot
solve the software problems for them. But we can buy upgrades to
help them fund the continued development. Anybody who cares enough
to post messages on an Internet board really shouldn't be complaining
about paying a hundred bucks a year to keep the thing going.
dhbailey wrote:
I don't see your logic here -- what does our posting to a discussion
group of users helping users (since the program is harder to master
without such help) have to do with how much discretionary money we have
available to spend to keep a corporation afloat?
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Posting to a discussion group is neither here nor there. Complaining
about Finale's upgrade policy seems pointless and counter-productive.
If one doesn't care about Finale's survival, then why is one here? And
if one does care about Finale's survival, surely that is worth more than
a measly 100 bucks a year.
dhbailey wrote:
With your major release every 60 days, what sort of marketing model
does your product have? Annual subscription, pay a hefty fee every 60
days, pay for the product once and get the major releases for free?
What sort of product is it -- a product that a major corporation uses
across the corporation, a product that a single user would purchase?
How many developpers are working on your product, that you can push a
major release out the door every 2 months?
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Our business model is that our users pay us for the RESULTS they achieve
with our software. No results -- no payment. Therefore we are all
highly motivated to make the software more and more powerful every day.
We come in every day with a new set of ideas to make our users more
productive. It is my job to make sure this rolls out with some kind of
architectural sanity, but basically we think of time to market in terms
of days and weeks, never years. Last year, we fought ferociously to get
ourselves out of the legacy problem -- advancing our platform 15 years
in the course of 12 months. Now we are determined to take full
advantage of the productivity that comes when you can get rid of that
legacy. It is abundantly clear to me that Finale is still slaving under
its legacy. We think of reinventing 5% of our system every MONTH.
Finale is reinventimg one percent of its system every YEAR. Two
entirely different worlds.
Imagine how motivated Finale would be if they got a percentage of the
publishing royalties for everything produced with Finale (i.e. my
business model). If that were Finale's business model, I dare say we
wouldn't be seeing new skins and cute sound fonts. We would be seeing a
real dedication to maximizing the productivity of the composers,
arrangers, and copyists.
dhbailey wrote:
Sure we have a right to complain, sure we should be voicing our upset.
The whole marketplace thing is a partnership, and partnerships only
work when both partners (all partners) get what they feel to be fair
returns for their investment in the partnership. We put in the money
and the suggestions for new features and the requests for bug-fixes.
Finale puts in the development time and produces the product. When
either partner feels the equality of the partnership has been broken,
they are faced with a dilemma -- they can continue the partnership,
hoping things will rectify themselves and a perceived slight will be a
one-off occurence, or they can dissolve the partnership, feeling that
things are irrevocably skewed.
But we can still talk about it and try to come to some sort of
understanding of why the company seems to be following the path it is.
And hope that the company is listening and paying attention.
Craig Parmerlee wrote:
Yes. I agree completely.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
