A fine letter, David, and a good summary. I would add only MakeMusic's very peculiar pattern of not cleaning up the small bugs that would seem to be easy to fix. It gives the impression that they are either continually overwhelmed or above embarrassment.
>-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >On Behalf Of dhbailey >Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:18 AM >To: finale@shsu.edu >Subject: Thank you Allen (lengthy) [was: Re: [Finale] TGTools] > >Allen, > >Thank you very much for your well-reasoned responses in light >of sometimes vitriolic postings (I plead guilty.) I very much >appreciate your membership on this list and your participation >in these discussions as well as the fact that the company is >allowing official presence on this list. > >I've been trying to figure out why I am so upset by these >things, and I finally realized yesterday evening that much of >my anger comes from the feeling that I've been betrayed by >Coda/Net4Music/MakeMusic. I have invested heavily in the >product and thus in the company (although I don't own stock in >it) over the years, having spent between $80 and $120 each >year (until this year) in support of a product I had great >confidence in. That means that I have invested approximately >$1600 over the years (initial purchase plus upgrades). Yes, >in exchange for that investment I have had the use of the >program with improvements, but I could have stayed with my >initial $400 investment, put no money further into the company >and still been using that original version. > Or I could have leapfrogged a lot of the interim versions >and bought only a couple of them over the years, spending much >less to support the company. > >But each year the company has asked for my money and my >support and until this year I have given it, having seen the >preceding couple of releases do nothing to improve my work >with the program. I have also seen the increase in major >issues with each new release over the past several releases >and that is what I feel betrayed by. > >The perceived arrogance of the company with its annual update >schedule, which is publicized as if it's the best thing since >humanity learned to write music, in the face of shipping >programs with major problems which it turns out are known >about at the time of release but which the company refuses to >acknowledge until/unless someone raises a fuss, is really bothersome. > >The hobby-horse of SmartMusic and the company's perceived push >of that product, in light of the fact that it is still the >notation products which keep the company afloat, marginilizes >all the notation product users and thus the annual supporters >of the company. Reading the annual reports, the company >readily acknowledges that the quarter where the release of the >new version of the product is the best quarter, and >acknowledging that it is the new version of the *notation* >product which is the cash-cow for the company makes the >company's focus on SmartMusic all the more puzzling. i found >it curious that in the annual report for >2006 MakeMusic included two graphs right next to each other, >which at first glance shows that MakeMusic is huge winner over >the notation products. On closer inspection, however, it >turns out that the SmartMusic graph is a chart only of the >numbers of users, with no indication of income production, >while the Finale graph is a chart only of income production >without any indication of the number of users (units sold.) >When two graphs of a companies products are placed side by >side, as if in comparison, wouldn't a company which isn't >trying to hide things use the same basis for both charts so an >adequate comparison could be made? If notation really is the >money-engine for the company, they should put whatever >development team together that is required to ensure that the >only bugs in any new release are minor bugs (which I will >readily admit all programs have and I do understand how hard >they are to squash). Additionally, the company should allow >for longer periods between upgrades when significant major >changes are made to basic functions of the program. >Linked-Parts still isn't working as well as the advertising >implies (nor is it living up to its full potential yet) and >the new change in the PI for expressions obvsiously needed >more time for full and proper implementation. Instead the >company *appears* not to put such importance on the new >release, figuring that we'll buy the new version no matter >what and will be happy when they get around to the interim >update which fixes the most egregious of the bugs which >shipped with the original release. > >The company, in its annual report, speaks of all the libraries >of publishers it has licensed for SmartMusic. >Knowing as little as I do about how businesses work these >days, I do know that no publisher will license its library for >such usage without money changing hands and thus MakeMusic >paying a licensing fee of some sort (either per-song, per user >or a blanket 'use the whole library' >annual fee). Yet we can't turn our original music into >MakeMusic files (which comes as a no-cost extra ability built >into Finale) and use them with our students without us or our >students paying the annual subscription fee to MakeMusic for >using the program. That's fair enough -- use their program, >pay them. But the real arrogance is that we get none of that >licensing money back for paying them to use our own original >music. Schirmer, Hal Leonard, Alfred, [insert publisher >names] all get money when we use their music. MakeMusic >should be a low-cost purchase, and then a subscription fee >should be charged *if* we wish to use any of the commercial >music MakeMusic has licensed, but if we choose to make our own >arrangements or compose our own music for our students to use, >we should be able to use that music with no additional fee >other than the original purchase of the low-cost program itself. > >The final arrogance comes from *knowing* about problems with a >new release and not letting the installed user base have >access to that knowledge in order to make an informed decision >as to whether or not the upgrade is a wise purchase or not. I >can understand why such knowledge is not made public, but that >doesn't excuse it. Many of the people who use Finale use it >for professional purposes as engravers. >To release a crippled tool and not let the potential users >know that is simply not fair. Many others who use Finale use >it for purposes ancillary to their main employment as music >teachers -- sure, most likely the TGToolsLite bug or the >PattersonLite bug with the included plug-ins won't affect them >in any significant way, but it may well lead to frustration on >their part as they try to use the plug-ins and the plug-ins >don't work properly. New users will assume that either they >don't understand how to use the program or they will discard >the program and apologize to their department heads for the >investment in a site-license for a product which doesn't work. > That makes it easier for the competition, Sibelius, to enter >the market. How that helps MakeMusic, Finale or the installed >Finale user base escapes my understanding. > >Finale has long (perhaps always, despite recent attempts to >change things) had a reputation for being a program which is >difficult to learn. Including plug-ins which don't work (or >the previous release's smart-hyphen problem, etc.) but not >making the fact that those plug-ins don't work known to the >user simply adds to the impression of "impossible to learn" >that Finale has been branded with. One person running into >this problem but not knowing the real reason why these >plug-ins don't work turns into a walking advertisement for >Sibelius, which shouldn't be allowed to happen. > >A simple apology note that users have to see as part of the >installation of the new version (whether the user actually >reads that note or not is up to them) explaining what the >problem is and the reason for it (Allen's explanation about >the drastic change in the PI for the new expressions is easy >to understand) would avoid this. > >How many new Finale users (or indeed veteran Finale users) are >there who don't have access to this group of experienced >Finale users who can help them understand that some problems >are not their fault? How many simply abandon Finale in >frustration? We'll never know. > >At any rate, I will do my best to control my complaining, and >will hope that a better corporate climate takes over MakeMusic >where the customer is king and transparency is the rule, and >the "annual upgrades whether ready or not" cycle gets broken. > >I will continue also to hope that I win the lottery. It will >be interesting to see which happens first. :-) > >In the meantime, Allen, thank you. > >David H. Bailey > >[snip] > >-- >David H. Bailey >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >_______________________________________________ >Finale mailing list >Finale@shsu.edu >http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
