The video is what made it instant vaporware. That video reminded me of the movie "Tucker."
(I'm assuming that there was some Hollywood compression and exaggeration in the film, but for these purposes I'll take the film as as fact.) Tucker and cronies crammed together a car for an early showing that was a total sham, but eventually came up with a product that was innovative and a classic. (He then was forced out of business by corrupt pols in league with the Big Three automakers, but let's hope that is not part of the notation story.) If that movie stopped after that first bogus showing we would have no idea if the Tucker (car) ever came to be. That's where we are now, with the Steinberg-Spreadbury notation app. We had the bogus preview video (which I cannot seem to locate, now) and bright people are hard at work behind the scenes, but only the air expended on their promises is out there. Vaporware. As I said, I wish them only the best. Their success could only help the industry, just as that of Sibelius did. Raymond Horton Bass Trombonist, Louisville Orchestra Minister of Music, Edwardsville (IN) UMC Composer, Arranger VISIT US AT rayhortonmusic.com On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Craig Parmerlee <cr...@parmerlee.com>wrote: > On 9/17/2013 2:18 PM, Raymond Horton wrote: > > I think Steinberg notation software is, at this point, the poster boy > for "100% > > vaporware." They put out a video with demos made on a totally different > > product, for goodness' sake! > > > > I wish them only the best, and hope the ultimate product does all that is > > promised and more, but only vapor is available now. > > > But they are not representing it as a product, only as a development > project. While the implication may be that they indent to produce a > discrete notation product that would be "Sibelius: The Next Generation", > if you will, it is possible that these efforts would roll back into the > Cubase platform to extends its notation capabilities. > > I don't think suppliers should ever be discouraged from talking about > the future as long as they aren't making any solid promises they can't > keep. > > The natural inclination of software suppliers (incumbents especially) is > to clam up. There can be several reasons for this: > > 1) If what they have to say isn't all that impressive, that will lose > loyalty during the incubation period. > 2) If what they have to say is so-so, they would rather hold everything > for a big flashy announcement. > 3) If what they have to say is really impressive, they don't want to > give the competition a chance to get organized against their messages. > > And conversely, a newcomer is more likely to talk openly: > > 1) To get some attention > 2) To start to dislodge loyalties with the incumbents > 3) To freeze people from buying competitor upgrades in the interim > 4) If they decide the incumbents aren't really competing very much anyway. > > We will have to wait until 2016 to see what 2016 really looks like, but > I don't see where some speculation hurts anyone. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
