--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Robert Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What augers worst for me in this attitude is the clear
> Sibeliusation
> trend. Sibelius always took knocks because it wasn't as
> flexible as
> Finale. When the Finn brothers were in charge Sib was
> willfully
> inflexible. Now MM seems to want to throw away their
> competitive edge
> with both hands and embrace the Finn brothers' ideas
> about
> flexibility.
Sibelius' lack of flexibility is really the thing that allowed it to survive
and make it in this market. Flexibility only works in Finale's favor if the
implementation always makes it clear what the BEST method is in a given
situation. And that is the single largest problem Finale has faced all along.
Finale's flexibility is really only attractive to a fairly small (but
important) percentage of its users - for the rest, it has served as a stumbling
block that makes the program take longer to learn and slower to use.
Inevitably, people end up using less than ideal tools for completing their work
in Finale, and that goes for people of all experience levels. I've never seen
anyone who truly uses the best tool for the job in Finale 100% of the time.
Sibelius isn't perfect that way, but having fewer ways to accomplish most tasks
has definitely helped them funnel people into techniques that are often more
effective than the ones people stumble upon in Finale.
Sibelius' lack of flexibility (especially early on) may have given it a slow
start with engravers, but it was exactly the thing that brought it success with
college students and other new users that join the market each year.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
