Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
John Howell wrote: At 5:46 PM -0700 10/2/09, Carl Dershem wrote: Read "The Gripping Hand" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Science fiction with aliens who have 3 hands (one to hold things steady, 2 for fine manipulation). Not their best work, but appropriate. And no, they never mentioned if these aliens play piano or drums. :) Or are familiar with Tevya's monologues in "Fiddler"! John I once played in the pit for a production of Fiddler - an outdoor production directly under the flight path. The planes going over are a tradition, and the theatre has a warning system, with lights hidden in the footlights and on the conductor's podium. When a plane gets close, the warning light goes to yellow, and when very close to red, and everyone freezes on stage, and the music stops (except during dance numbers). During one night's performance, the actor playing Tevye changed his line to "And when I get angry, even PLANES don't dare to fly!" Brought the house down. cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# http://members.cox.net/dershem ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
At 5:46 PM -0700 10/2/09, Carl Dershem wrote: Read "The Gripping Hand" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Science fiction with aliens who have 3 hands (one to hold things steady, 2 for fine manipulation). Not their best work, but appropriate. And no, they never mentioned if these aliens play piano or drums. :) Or are familiar with Tevya's monologues in "Fiddler"! John -- John R. Howell, Assoc. Prof. of Music Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:john.how...@vt.edu) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html "We never play anything the same way once." Shelly Manne's definition of jazz musicians. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 4 Oct 2009 at 12:49, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > Its not so much of WOULD I want to run an OS 9 program, but rather, I > can't. I have no more machines that run OS 9. And I don't regret that > at all. The only significant word in your three sentences is *I*. Phil *does* want to run the old software. And it's not klunky or inadequate to him, whatever *you* might think about it. Windows gives him the choice of running legacy software (I've got a client running a dBaseII app compiled in 1982 on WinXP), a choice that Apple has chosen to take away from you. That you may not have any legacy software that makes this an issue for you does not negate the fact that it means that some people are forced to switch from software that they find to be perfectly adequate for their personal purposes. I don't see that as a "Windows is better" argument -- it's just different, and is a factor for some people, even if it isn't for you. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
Its not so much of WOULD I want to run an OS 9 program, but rather, I can't. I have no more machines that run OS 9. And I don't regret that at all. I don't want to still be carrying around a 1991 GSM mobile phone because it still works. Same for Finale. I paid for an upgrade to be able to run on my modern operating system. However, back on point, Finale 2007 was the last version I paid for. The introduction of parts was worth it to me and well worth the investment. On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 12:44 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > While I think Phil's Mac swipe was entirely gratuitous, his point is > actually correct. Phil is using an app designed for a version of > Windows that was basically introduced in 1990, and that was > superseded by a very different version of Windows in 1995. There have > been two significant versions of Windows since then, and his ancient > version of Finale still works. > > The point is not that *you* wouldn't want to run an OS 9 program on > OS X, but that Phil *does* want to run a Win3.x program on current > versions of Windows. > > Phil's point is that you couldn't really do so if you wanted to. The > fact that you don't want to is neither here nor there in terms of > what is possible and what is impossible. > > All that said, I think Phil is nuts not to have upgraded somewhere > along the line. I had 3.5.2 and upgraded with 97, and it was a really > large improvement (97 was the first 32-bit-compatible version, and > the first to start incorporating Windows-standard right-click context > menus). > > Even for hobbies, we should be able to afford to invest a bit in > them. > ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 4 Oct 2009 at 9:30, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Phil Daley wrote: > > I agree with David. I only work for my own purposes (both choirs and > > instrumental groups) and can't afford the upgrade prices. > > > > That's why I am still using V 3.7.2. Meets my needs. > > > > I am really thankful that Win3.1 programs still work perfectly in the latest > > versions of Windows. > > > > (Quite a difference from Mac systems.) > > Finale 2007 works fine on Mac systems. > > I'd never want to use an OS 9 program on OS X. Seriously. While I think Phil's Mac swipe was entirely gratuitous, his point is actually correct. Phil is using an app designed for a version of Windows that was basically introduced in 1990, and that was superseded by a very different version of Windows in 1995. There have been two significant versions of Windows since then, and his ancient version of Finale still works. The point is not that *you* wouldn't want to run an OS 9 program on OS X, but that Phil *does* want to run a Win3.x program on current versions of Windows. Phil's point is that you couldn't really do so if you wanted to. The fact that you don't want to is neither here nor there in terms of what is possible and what is impossible. All that said, I think Phil is nuts not to have upgraded somewhere along the line. I had 3.5.2 and upgraded with 97, and it was a really large improvement (97 was the first 32-bit-compatible version, and the first to start incorporating Windows-standard right-click context menus). Even for hobbies, we should be able to afford to invest a bit in them. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 4 Oct 2009 at 8:17, Aaron Sherber wrote: > On 10/3/2009 10:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > On the other hand, for those of us who do our engraving gratis, > > there's no amount of hours saved multiplied by an hourly rate of $0 > > that will offset the upgrade price. > > Actually, you're looking at this backwards. For those who charge an > hourly rate for engraving, there's a kind of incentive to stay with > older versions, to bill more hours on a project and make more money. On > the other hand, every hour that someone like you spends in Finale is an > hour that you could have spent doing something else that you do get paid > for, so you have an incentive to upgrade and minimize your non-billable > hours. No one who wants to stay in business for long will artificially inflate hours -- they will lose customers by doing so, and if they have a conscience, they will be feel bad about doing so. As to my own personal time management, this week was an unusual case, but entirely my own fault -- I was supposed to have done the engraving work on the weekend, but was too fascinated by my Pachelbel investigations and didn't get around to. In short, my Finale work is weekend work, a hobby, if you will (even though I would say my engraving stacks up with that of many who get paid for it). Secondly, as I said in my original post, there's nothing I can think of in recent versions of Finale that would have made the process faster than it already ways. After many years of struggling with extracting parts, I finally figured out the proper settings to get parts that need tweaking only in fitting to the appropriate number of pages -- e.g., a part that comes out with 2 pages and 3 systems needs to be revised to fit on two pages, while a part that comes to 1 and a half pages needs to be adjusted to spread out over the two pages. Neither of these are things that later versions of Finale can do automatically, so I'd still have to do it all myself. In the particular music I was working on Wednesday, very little time would have been saved by even automatic layout, because I was preparing a part that was only a partial part, i.e., p. 3 of the full part, and I didn't care that much about how the whole part was laid out -- I forced the final movement onto the last page and tweaked the top margin and was ready to go. Had I been producing a full part, there would have been much more work. But this is about my own time management, and a new version of Finale would not have saved me enough time on this particular project to have contributed significantly to financing an upgrade. Not all such projects would be so little effected by the new features, but the more a project is streamlined by those features, the more likely it's a big enough project that I wouldn't be working on it during my "business hours." > > And that's why we don't buy it like a subscription. Changing the > > terminology won't change my Finale purchase pattern on iota. > > Would it change yours? I doubt it. > > Either I'm being really unclear, or you're really misreading what I've > been repeatedly saying. No, it wouldn't change my purchase pattern. But > it would change the way I feel about it. Right now, I resent Makemusic > for essentially having a subscription but not saying so, for giving the > impression that the software I buy provides benefits for longer than a > year, as every other piece of software I buy does. If they were more > upfront about only providing upgrades for a year and so forth, I > wouldn't be resentful. YMMV. But you know that's what they do, so it seems irrational to me to assert that it's their fault that you feel that way. My worry is that if they switched their terminology to call it a subscription, they'd feel less pressure to make the yearly update significant. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On Oct 3, 2009, at 2:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Finale *users*, on the other hand, can get off the treadmill any time they want. I've for years argued that the knee-jerk upgrade is silly, except for the pro engravers who need to keep up with the current version and need to exchange files with others. I think there are a lot more Finale users who don't have the interoperability problem than there are those who do, so I think most people oughtn't be considering the upgrade very year. My use is a lot like yours. There were a few years where I did some professional engraving on contract, but now I'm back to just being a frequent casual user. I'm perfectly happy with Finale v 2004, and even that I got only to avoid having to using "Classic" mode to run on a Mac in OS X. My impression from discussions here is that the improvements since then are primarily in the playback (ie, Garritan, etc) and the production of parts from a full score. I only use playback for simple proofreading (great for spotting missed accidentals), and on the rare occasions I need parts, it's a small piece where I don't mind extracting them myself, so these do nothing for me. But I can see how others with different needs would find those improvements useful. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
Finale 2007 works fine on Mac systems. I'd never want to use an OS 9 program on OS X. Seriously. On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Phil Daley wrote: > I agree with David. I only work for my own purposes (both choirs and > instrumental groups) and can't afford the upgrade prices. > > That's why I am still using V 3.7.2. Meets my needs. > > I am really thankful that Win3.1 programs still work perfectly in the latest > versions of Windows. > > (Quite a difference from Mac systems.) > > > At 10/4/2009 08:17 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: > >>On 10/3/2009 10:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: >>> On the other hand, for those of us who do our engraving gratis, >>> there's no amount of hours saved multiplied by an hourly rate of $0 >>> that will offset the upgrade price. >> >>Actually, you're looking at this backwards. For those who charge an >>hourly rate for engraving, there's a kind of incentive to stay with >>older versions, to bill more hours on a project and make more money. On >>the other hand, every hour that someone like you spends in Finale is an >>hour that you could have spent doing something else that you do get paid >>for, so you have an incentive to upgrade and minimize your non-billable >>hours. >> >>> And that's why we don't buy it like a subscription. Changing the >>> terminology won't change my Finale purchase pattern on iota. >>> Would it change yours? I doubt it. >> >>Either I'm being really unclear, or you're really misreading what I've >>been repeatedly saying. No, it wouldn't change my purchase pattern. But >>it would change the way I feel about it. Right now, I resent Makemusic >>for essentially having a subscription but not saying so, for giving the >>impression that the software I buy provides benefits for longer than a >>year, as every other piece of software I buy does. If they were more >>upfront about only providing upgrades for a year and so forth, I >>wouldn't be resentful. YMMV. >> >>Aaron. > > ___ > 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
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
I agree with David. I only work for my own purposes (both choirs and instrumental groups) and can't afford the upgrade prices. That's why I am still using V 3.7.2. Meets my needs. I am really thankful that Win3.1 programs still work perfectly in the latest versions of Windows. (Quite a difference from Mac systems.) At 10/4/2009 08:17 AM, Aaron Sherber wrote: >On 10/3/2009 10:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: >> On the other hand, for those of us who do our engraving gratis, >> there's no amount of hours saved multiplied by an hourly rate of $0 >> that will offset the upgrade price. > >Actually, you're looking at this backwards. For those who charge an >hourly rate for engraving, there's a kind of incentive to stay with >older versions, to bill more hours on a project and make more money. On >the other hand, every hour that someone like you spends in Finale is an >hour that you could have spent doing something else that you do get paid >for, so you have an incentive to upgrade and minimize your non-billable >hours. > >> And that's why we don't buy it like a subscription. Changing the >> terminology won't change my Finale purchase pattern on iota. >> Would it change yours? I doubt it. > >Either I'm being really unclear, or you're really misreading what I've >been repeatedly saying. No, it wouldn't change my purchase pattern. But >it would change the way I feel about it. Right now, I resent Makemusic >for essentially having a subscription but not saying so, for giving the >impression that the software I buy provides benefits for longer than a >year, as every other piece of software I buy does. If they were more >upfront about only providing upgrades for a year and so forth, I >wouldn't be resentful. YMMV. > >Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 10:08 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: On the other hand, for those of us who do our engraving gratis, there's no amount of hours saved multiplied by an hourly rate of $0 that will offset the upgrade price. Actually, you're looking at this backwards. For those who charge an hourly rate for engraving, there's a kind of incentive to stay with older versions, to bill more hours on a project and make more money. On the other hand, every hour that someone like you spends in Finale is an hour that you could have spent doing something else that you do get paid for, so you have an incentive to upgrade and minimize your non-billable hours. And that's why we don't buy it like a subscription. Changing the terminology won't change my Finale purchase pattern on iota. Would it change yours? I doubt it. Either I'm being really unclear, or you're really misreading what I've been repeatedly saying. No, it wouldn't change my purchase pattern. But it would change the way I feel about it. Right now, I resent Makemusic for essentially having a subscription but not saying so, for giving the impression that the software I buy provides benefits for longer than a year, as every other piece of software I buy does. If they were more upfront about only providing upgrades for a year and so forth, I wouldn't be resentful. YMMV. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 3 Oct 2009 at 21:04, Aaron Sherber wrote: > On 10/3/2009 5:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > But Microsoft is not on the yearly upgrade merry-go-round. They > > release patches for their current version, but once the previous > > version reaches a certain point in its lifecycle, only dangerous > > problems are patched. > > > > The current Finale pricing already *is* a yearly bug fix. > > David, this is exactly what I've been saying. The Microsoft model is > what I expect when I buy software. The Finale model is what I expect > from a subscription. But I buy Finale the same way I buy MS software -- when I'm ready for a new version, I buy it. I use Office 2003 and Office 97 (for supporting my clients) and a little bit of Office 2000 (for supporting Access apps deployed running in A2000). I'm just starting with Office 2007 (really only Access 2007) because my clients haven't needed it, and I'm very conservative in adopting new software. There isn't any distinction between the two models based on the way *I* buy upgrades to Finale -- I buy only when a large number of significant enhancements have accumulated to make it worthwhile. I could have easily bought a Finale upgrade in the last 2 or 3 years and benefited greatly from doing so. I haven't only because I haven't been financially well off, and the version I have allows me to get done what I need to do. Since it's not paying work, there's no way I can count a few hours saved as paying for the upgrade. On the other hand, last Wednesday I had to prepare some parts for a rehearsal that night, and perhaps linked parts would have made that faster, so that I would have been able to get back to my paying work sooner that afternoon. But the kinds of things that caused me grief in that project were not really things that linked parts (or any of the other numerous truly useful enhancements to Finale since version 2003) would have helped with, to be honest, so I can't say that the specific project where I was doing unpaid work at the expense of paid work would have contributed to paying for the upgrade. I really think the "subscription" thing is a matter for the people who are paid engravers and have to keep up with yearly upgrades -- those folks lose money when they are unproductive because of glitches in Finale, and a $100 upgrade is easily paid for in a few hours saved time. On the other hand, for those of us who do our engraving gratis, there's no amount of hours saved multiplied by an hourly rate of $0 that will offset the upgrade price. And that's why we don't buy it like a subscription. Changing the terminology won't change my Finale purchase pattern on iota. Would it change yours? I doubt it. The real question is: Would it change the way MM plans their releases? And that we just can't know. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 5:36 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: But Microsoft is not on the yearly upgrade merry-go-round. They release patches for their current version, but once the previous version reaches a certain point in its lifecycle, only dangerous problems are patched. The current Finale pricing already *is* a yearly bug fix. David, this is exactly what I've been saying. The Microsoft model is what I expect when I buy software. The Finale model is what I expect from a subscription. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 5:24 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: If Finale were a subscription program, would I be paying every year to keep using Finale 2003? Would I pay less each year to keep using it? Or would I not have to pay anything unless I wanted the current version? I answered this in my previous email. In the software subscription models I've seen, you buy the software and can use it for however long you want. The subscription part is to keep getting updates (and support, in some cases). So if you bought Fin03 and liked it, you wouldn't have to pay any more money to use it. But if you wanted any bugfixes after the first year, you'd have to pay the subscription fee to get them. If the latter, I can't see how this would be any different at all from what you already have. Right. This is what I've said a couple of times now. The difference is one of expectiations. Put simply, when I buy software, I expect bug fixes for a couple of years. Finale doesn't do that. They give you bugfixes for only one year (or less), which is more like a subscription model. So I would rather they just call it that. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 3 Oct 2009 at 11:24, Aaron Sherber wrote: > As I said earlier, when I buy a > piece of software, I expect more than a year's worth of bug fixes, and I > expect major bugs to be fixed even after the next version comes out. For > example, MS continues to put out critical fixes for Office long after > the next version is released. If Makemusic just said "You can buy the > software, and you get one year's worth of free upgrades" -- which is > essentially what their practice it -- then I woudn't be bothered so much > by having to shell out that money each year to get fixes to longstanding > bugs. But Microsoft is not on the yearly upgrade merry-go-round. They release patches for their current version, but once the previous version reaches a certain point in its lifecycle, only dangerous problems are patched. The current Finale pricing already *is* a yearly bug fix. And don't fool yourself into think that Microsoft doesn't answer a lot of bug reports with "we fixed that in the next version and will never fix it in the previous one, so you have to upgrade to get the bug fix." It happens *all the time*. Indeed, MS has recently introduced in the crash reporting a default recommendation that you might be able to avoid the bug you're experiencing by upgrading to the current version -- it's quite annoying. Last of all, you just can't compare a small company like MM to Microsoft, which is a huge, huge company with many major product lines that can cross-subsidize each other in their off years. That is, the release schedules for the major product lines can be staggered such that the revenue stream remains fairly stable and finances the whole operation. MM is just not big enough for that. It doesn't have any second major product line, just a number of inter-related products that are based around the same technologies. There is no independence there, and the different products have significant dependencies that require that they work together (e.g., SmartMusic and Finale cannot be developed on independent schedules, since SmartMusic is only viable if Finale can be used to produce current SmartMusic formats). I can't see how calling the yearly upgrade a subscription changes the reality of it, unless it allowed them to slipstream patches/upgrades without changing the Finale version numbers. That is, what under the current system is called Finale 2010 might be 2009B instead. But would this change the difficulty of the task of producing the next yearly version release? I don't think so. Might it reduce expectations for how much in the way of new features each yearly release would have? Perhaps. But that would also likely reduce the motivation for upgrading. Again, if there were a financial scenario where MM could make this change and increase revenues, or keep revenues flat and improve customer satisfaction, there's no way MM wouldn't do it. So I can only conclude either that the forecasts show it wouldn't keep revenues flat or betterm, or that the models are too ambiguous to justify risking the future of the company on something that might very well be disastrous. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 3 Oct 2009 at 8:18, Aaron Sherber wrote: > I think I wouldn't mind > all of this so much if Makemusic just came out and said that they're > switching to a subscription model. I'm not crazy about subscription > models, but it's a more honest description of MM's business practices, > and somehow I don't think I'd grumble so much about shelling out that > $100 each year. How, exactly, would that work for someone like me? I'm a relatively casual user of Finale (I don't use it every day, though I've done quite a lot of work in it since I first bought it in 1991 at the $250 academic discount -- I was an enrolled NYU grad student at the time, so totally legit), and have purchased only 3 upgrades, Finale 3.52, Finale 97 and Finale 2003 (were I not in the economic doldrums, I would have purchased one of the recent upgrades, keeping with an every 5 years or so schedule). If Finale were a subscription program, would I be paying every year to keep using Finale 2003? Would I pay less each year to keep using it? Or would I not have to pay anything unless I wanted the current version? If the latter, I can't see how this would be any different at all from what you already have. If you want to always have the current version, you pay $99 (or whatever) each year and get the current version. If you don't want to get the current version, you don't pay. Were MM to go to a true subscription model where you paid each year and the software would stop working after the subscription was out (like AV software, for instance, which everyone HATES), then I'd abandon Finale immediately for something else. The only thing that would make that viable is if the price were substantially lower. If, for instance, the yearly subscription were $35, then that wouldn't be so terrible, but it would also be, I think, a huge drop in revenue for MM. I just can't see how there's any other option for MM than the current one as long as they have a revenue and programming model that is structured around yearly releases. In order to switch to a once very 2-3 years release schedule, you've got to know you're going to have a significant revenue stream in the off years, and I don't believe MM is doing so well (from the published financial information) that they have a lot of leeway in that regard. Also, the first such "mega-release" would be harder than the later ones, and also would be under more pressure to have major features. And they'd have to charge a higher price, but surely it couldn't be the more than the price the yearly releases would have cost, or they'd be losing revenue while having higher costs. I just don't see how there's any way for them to get off the treadmill. Finale *users*, on the other hand, can get off the treadmill any time they want. I've for years argued that the knee-jerk upgrade is silly, except for the pro engravers who need to keep up with the current version and need to exchange files with others. I think there are a lot more Finale users who don't have the interoperability problem than there are those who do, so I think most people oughtn't be considering the upgrade very year. In the last five years, there's been a big change in almost all non- free software categories, and that's that many classes of software have reached a level of maturity that there's very little to be gained from upgrading to new versions. The most widely used Windows software, Microsoft Word, is really unchanged in terms of major features from Word 97 on. Sure, lots of small things have been added, and UI tweaked and shuffled, but the Word of today offers almost no significant capabilities that were absent in Word 97. In my opinion, music notation software is reaching that same point. Sibelius's automatic spacing is a great example of a huge feature, but once that's in place (and working reliably), what else is there? Exactly what can be added to music notation software that is not there already that is going to be a major productivity enhancer? Sibelius needs to fix it's slurs (so does Finale), but other than that, what? Because of that, the music notation software package either needs to get better UI or it needs to become significantly faster. I guess one area for Finale would be that page layout could get smarter, but it's such a complicated thing that I'm not sure it's possible without imposing rigid rules. So, I'm just not sure how a company like MM is ever going to be able to muster the resources to do something major like revise the file format so that it can be cross-compatible between versions. That kind of thing is a huge operation, and it results in no new functionality, and it only serves to suppress sales (if you can work with people with later versions, why should you upgrade?). I'm not suggesting that MM decides not to do this because they want to force people into buying, just that the cost/benefit ratio is such that it would put significant downward pre
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On Oct 2, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: Because of their incompatibility policy, I have asked my clients not to upgrade past 2007 -- but one had already begun work in 2008. Now that his material is headed my way, we *both* have to buy 2010 to be able to work together. I, too require all submissions to be in 2K7 or earlier. In one case, the client had upgraded to 2K9, but fortunately has saved all his earlier Finale versions. He grumbled alot, but finally realized there was nothing to be done but to take his work in 2K9, send it back to 2K7 via Music XML, and clean up the resulting mess before sending it to me. It's also possible (though I haven't actually done this yet) for someone to send me their work in PDF form--but that would require exchanges of marked proofsheets in paper form if the work is to be cleaned up for publication. BTW, I also just discovered that if you double-click a PostScript file--even one made from Finale 2.x--it will open perfectly in Preview. Andrew Stiller Kallisti Music Press http://www.kallistimusic.com/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 8:34 AM, dhbailey wrote: I would definitely object to a subscription model, since that implies that if one wishes to stop subscribing then the software will stop working as of whatever date the current subscription runs out. That's not what software subscription implies, in my experience. If the subscription only carries with it automatic updates with an annual fee but will not render the software useless if one cancels one's subscription then it really isn't any different from the current system. Except that it changes expectations. As I said earlier, when I buy a piece of software, I expect more than a year's worth of bug fixes, and I expect major bugs to be fixed even after the next version comes out. For example, MS continues to put out critical fixes for Office long after the next version is released. If Makemusic just said "You can buy the software, and you get one year's worth of free upgrades" -- which is essentially what their practice it -- then I woudn't be bothered so much by having to shell out that money each year to get fixes to longstanding bugs. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
Aaron Sherber wrote: [snip]> Having said all of that, I'll flip-flop again. I think I wouldn't mind all of this so much if Makemusic just came out and said that they're switching to a subscription model. I'm not crazy about subscription models, but it's a more honest description of MM's business practices, and somehow I don't think I'd grumble so much about shelling out that $100 each year. I would definitely object to a subscription model, since that implies that if one wishes to stop subscribing then the software will stop working as of whatever date the current subscription runs out. If the subscription only carries with it automatic updates with an annual fee but will not render the software useless if one cancels one's subscription then it really isn't any different from the current system. The current system is essentially a subscription model except that nothing prevents older versions from still working, and the moment MakeMusic introduces any such nonsense will be the last I will even consider giving them any of my money. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/3/2009 12:38 AM, Michael Greensill wrote: Now I know I don't have to upgrade every time but they always reel you in with something that can't have taken much effort to program, like chord symbols being attached to beats in 2010. But should they charge $100 for that feature. And half the time we're paying the $100 to have fixes to things that were the programmers fault in the first place. I know I posted an anti-Makemusic sentiment earlier in the thread, but now I'm going to support the other side. First of all, as has been pointed out here many times, we have no way of knowing what is easy or hard to implement for the Finale programmers. Some of us on this list do some programming, and may have a slightly better idea than most, but even so, you can't make this sort of assessment without knowing the program in question. And the particular example you gave (chord symbols attached to beats) is almost certainly *not* something easy to do. Second, I always look at these things in terms of my time. There have been several Finale upgrades which added seemingly minor things, hardly worth the price of upgrading. But my bottom line question is, Will these minor features save me enough time to justify the upgrade price? For most of us, if the new features in the upgrade save us more than 2 or 3 hours over the course of the year, the answer is probably yes. A good case in point is the ability to optimize in groups. My recollection is that the year that was introduced, there wasn't much else in the upgrade that interested me, but that one feature saved me several hours of work and made the upgrade worth it. Having said all of that, I'll flip-flop again. I think I wouldn't mind all of this so much if Makemusic just came out and said that they're switching to a subscription model. I'm not crazy about subscription models, but it's a more honest description of MM's business practices, and somehow I don't think I'd grumble so much about shelling out that $100 each year. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
I agree that the OEM e-mail seems to be a scam. But that still doesn't address what I think is an unfair system. Can you imagine poor jazz musicians buying software like Finale if the upfront price was $2400. Now I know I don't have to upgrade every time but they always reel you in with something that can't have taken much effort to program, like chord symbols being attached to beats in 2010. But should they charge $100 for that feature. And half the time we're paying the $100 to have fixes to things that were the programmers fault in the first place. Mike G. www.mikegreensill.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
dhbailey wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: On 2 Oct 2009 at 14:22, dhbailey wrote: Secondly, ... And later: Secondly, ... Is that like "the other left" or are you one of those three-handed folks, one the one hand, on the other hand, on the other hand... :) [snip] Oops. Read "The Gripping Hand" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Science fiction with aliens who have 3 hands (one to hold things steady, 2 for fine manipulation). Not their best work, but appropriate. And no, they never mentioned if these aliens play piano or drums. :) cd -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/dershem/# http://members.cox.net/dershem ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
David W. Fenton wrote: On 2 Oct 2009 at 14:22, dhbailey wrote: Secondly, ... And later: Secondly, ... Is that like "the other left" or are you one of those three-handed folks, one the one hand, on the other hand, on the other hand... :) [snip] Oops. -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
>I just got an e-mail from some company called OEM software resellers, >who are offering the full Finale 2010 for $119. A savings of $480 off >the retail price. Sounds like others have identified this as a scam. But even if it's not, so what? Variable pricing is the way of the world now. Certainly for software. I used to get pissed off by the special educational price. At the time I was scraping out a meager living as an opera singer, and I didn't see why I should have to pay more for Finale than college students who had plenty more disposable income than I did. But when I complained about it here, others pointed out to me it has nothing to do with fairness. The software company can set their prices however they like, and if they have marketing reasons to want to try to flood a certain market that's their right. Same idea for airline tickets, or cheap people who buy standing-room tickets and then sneak down into an empty seat at intermission. I say get over it. If you don't like the price that's offered to you, just don't buy it. mdl ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
An unsolicited mail offering you OEM software at unbeatable prices is almost certainly a scam. Have a look here: http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/faq/a/softwarescams.htm Michael On 2 Oct 2009, at 19:18, Michael Greensill wrote: I just got an e-mail from some company called OEM software resellers, who are offering the full Finale 2010 for $119. A savings of $480 off the retail price. Is anyone else as pissed off as me that having owned Finale since 3.0 in 1992 and being forced to pay approximately $100 every year to upgrade...Finale must have cost me around $2400. They should at least give long time owners a free upgrade now and then just for loyalty. I'm pretty happy with 2010, so I think I'm done with upgrading. What else can they offer me? Unless they come up with some method of actually doing my work for me! Mike G. www.mikegreensill.com ___ 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
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
Interesting--I bought my Finale 2003 at half-price (=$300) in 2004 from a retailer in Fort Worth--still happy with it, and have not upgraded since. ajr > First off, Finale may not be authorizing those sales and > they may be pirated copies. > > Secondly, even if they are not pirated copies, they may be > copies purchased from a music retailer who has gone > bankrupt. In such cases all assets are sold off at auction > and somebody may have paid ten-cents on the dollar to buy > that stock, which is why they can offer them for sale so > cheaply and still make a profit. > > These days I'm the last person to leap to MakeMusic's > defense, but in this case until you know for certain that > the company OEM Software Resellers purchased those copies > directly from MakeMusic and didn't buy them through a > liquidation sale, it's a bit premature to get irate over the > low price. > > Secondly, it's important that we all remember that MakeMusic > has never forced anybody to upgrade. At least as far as I > know, they've never put a gun to anybody's head and said > "Buy this upgrade for $100 or I'll blow your head off." > They have forced people who deal with others (who have > bought the upgrade) to buy the upgrade in order to be > version compatible to share files, but that is a very small > percentage of the Finale-user-base. If you have fallen for > the "upgrade this year to get even better, more unbelievably > gorgeous output with even less effort" trap (as I have for > practically every upgrade) it's not the company's fault -- > it's your fault for buying their "you really need this > upgrade" crap. > > Yes, you have spent $2400 approximately to get to where you > are as a Finale user -- had you not spent that money, you'd > be theoretically much richer but you wouldn't have had the > advantage of all these years of Finale use. A new user will > always arrive at the same level of program features spending > far less than a person who has used the program for many > years and upgraded each year. It's a fact of software life, > not specifically related to Finale but to all software programs. > > Even if a new user paid the full $699 dollars they'd still > be spending far less than you've spent over the years. > > You may be right in thinking that Finale2010 can do all > you'd ever want a notation program to do, and in that case > there is no need to buy Finale2011. I skipped Finale2009 > but fell for the Finale2010 upgrade and am sorry I did so. > It offers me nothing by way of improvement for my notational > needs over Finale2008. But I fell for it and have nobody > but myself to blame for it. > > So skip the next few upgrades and don't buy another upgrade > until you find one that really offers significant > improvement over the version you currently have. I know > that's what I'll be doing. > > David H. Bailey > > > > Michael Greensill wrote: >> I just got an e-mail from some company called OEM software resellers, >> who are offering the full Finale 2010 for $119. A savings of $480 off >> the retail price. >> >> Is anyone else as pissed off as me that having owned Finale since 3.0 in >> 1992 and being forced to pay approximately $100 every year to >> upgrade...Finale must have cost me around $2400. >> >> They should at least give long time owners a free upgrade now and then >> just for loyalty. >> >> I'm pretty happy with 2010, so I think I'm done with upgrading. What >> else can they offer me? Unless they come up with some method of actually >> doing my work for me! >> >> Mike G. >> >> www.mikegreensill.com >> >> ___ >> Finale mailing list >> Finale@shsu.edu >> http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale >> > > > -- > David H. Bailey > dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com > ___ > 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
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On Fri, October 2, 2009 2:22 pm, dhbailey wrote: > Secondly, it's important that we all remember that MakeMusic > has never forced anybody to upgrade. But their policies force that behavior for almost anyone working with clients. Because Finale cannot write files in a format compatible with any earlier version, it means ongoing purchases to match whatever version a client might have. Even worse, if we have two dissimilar earlier versions (such as my recent case with Finale 2007 and 2008) it means both purchasing upgrades to the latest versions, as Finale refuses to sell earlier version upgrades to bring two users into compatibility. That means I have purchased the full (not academic) version and 12 upgrades (almost every version from 2.2 to 2007). Because of their incompatibility policy, I have asked my clients not to upgrade past 2007 -- but one had already begun work in 2008. Now that his material is headed my way, we *both* have to buy 2010 to be able to work together. Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 2 Oct 2009 at 14:22, dhbailey wrote: > Secondly, ... And later: > Secondly, ... Is that like "the other left" or are you one of those three-handed folks, one the one hand, on the other hand, on the other hand... :) Anyway, I did have a serious response. You wrote: > These days I'm the last person to leap to MakeMusic's > defense, but in this case until you know for certain that > the company OEM Software Resellers purchased those copies > directly from MakeMusic and didn't buy them through a > liquidation sale, it's a bit premature to get irate over the > low price. A company that calls itself OEM Software Resellers is likely operating illegitimately in the first place. OEM versions of software should be sold only to OEMs, i.e., original equipment manufacturers, the people who make the hardware and bundle it together with software. Most OEM versions lack documentation, in fact, as well as not having the consumer-level packaging. For instance, if you buy an OEM hard drive, it will be the bare hard drive with no CD, no instructions and no cables, in no box at all, just a hard drive in one of those shiny/plastic/metallic envelopes. Buy the consumer version of the same hard drive, and it will be in a branded box, include instructions and likely a CD with useless software, and also very likely the appropriate cable and drive rails for mounting, as well. I'm not certain whether when I buy an OEM hard drive from CDW.com if CDW is breaking the manufacturer's rules or not, but I'm grateful for the price break, since I'm perfectly capable of purchasing the appropriate cable and then doing the installation myself without any need for assistance. I doubt very much that Finale has an actual OEM version, since I don't really think they have any PC manufacturers who are going to bundle Finale with their new computers. But they do have one reduced- price version that sells as $119, and that's the upgrade for those with 2-year-old or older versions of Finale. I would worry that you'd be unable to register this software, and might not be able to use it. I have assumed that MM was the only company that sold upgrades, but likely they sell upgrade packages to the software distributors, too, and it's probably through that channel that these packages were acquired. Whether or not there's any actual restriction on the installation of the upgrade version I don't know. If you lack a serial number, will you be able to install it? I haven't a clue, since every time I've purchased a Finale upgrade, I had the serial number. If someone I knew needed Finale, I would certainly not recommend they purchase it here. Instead, I'd urge them to see if they can qualify for the educational price. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 10/2/2009 2:22 PM, dhbailey wrote: Secondly, it's important that we all remember that MakeMusic has never forced anybody to upgrade. At least as far as I know, they've never put a gun to anybody's head and said "Buy this upgrade for $100 or I'll blow your head off." They have forced people who deal with others (who have bought the upgrade) to buy the upgrade in order to be version compatible to share files, but that is a very small percentage of the Finale-user-base. We have also been forced to upgrade in order to continue to receive bug fixes, often important bug fixes. Most software companies bring out a major version every few years, with free bug fixes in between. Many software companies continue to provide free important bug fixes for the previous version (or two) even after the next one has come out. Makemusic has done neither of these things, essentially moving to a subscription model without saying so. Aaron. ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
On 2 Oct 2009 at 10:18, Michael Greensill wrote: > I just got an e-mail from some company called OEM software resellers, > who are offering the full Finale 2010 for $119. A savings of $480 off > the retail price. That seems coincidentally close to the upgrade price for those who've skipped a few versions. My guess would be that this is the Finale upgrade, and that it's not legitimate. I would not waste the money on it as there's too much chance it's not legit. -- David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
First off, Finale may not be authorizing those sales and they may be pirated copies. Secondly, even if they are not pirated copies, they may be copies purchased from a music retailer who has gone bankrupt. In such cases all assets are sold off at auction and somebody may have paid ten-cents on the dollar to buy that stock, which is why they can offer them for sale so cheaply and still make a profit. These days I'm the last person to leap to MakeMusic's defense, but in this case until you know for certain that the company OEM Software Resellers purchased those copies directly from MakeMusic and didn't buy them through a liquidation sale, it's a bit premature to get irate over the low price. Secondly, it's important that we all remember that MakeMusic has never forced anybody to upgrade. At least as far as I know, they've never put a gun to anybody's head and said "Buy this upgrade for $100 or I'll blow your head off." They have forced people who deal with others (who have bought the upgrade) to buy the upgrade in order to be version compatible to share files, but that is a very small percentage of the Finale-user-base. If you have fallen for the "upgrade this year to get even better, more unbelievably gorgeous output with even less effort" trap (as I have for practically every upgrade) it's not the company's fault -- it's your fault for buying their "you really need this upgrade" crap. Yes, you have spent $2400 approximately to get to where you are as a Finale user -- had you not spent that money, you'd be theoretically much richer but you wouldn't have had the advantage of all these years of Finale use. A new user will always arrive at the same level of program features spending far less than a person who has used the program for many years and upgraded each year. It's a fact of software life, not specifically related to Finale but to all software programs. Even if a new user paid the full $699 dollars they'd still be spending far less than you've spent over the years. You may be right in thinking that Finale2010 can do all you'd ever want a notation program to do, and in that case there is no need to buy Finale2011. I skipped Finale2009 but fell for the Finale2010 upgrade and am sorry I did so. It offers me nothing by way of improvement for my notational needs over Finale2008. But I fell for it and have nobody but myself to blame for it. So skip the next few upgrades and don't buy another upgrade until you find one that really offers significant improvement over the version you currently have. I know that's what I'll be doing. David H. Bailey Michael Greensill wrote: I just got an e-mail from some company called OEM software resellers, who are offering the full Finale 2010 for $119. A savings of $480 off the retail price. Is anyone else as pissed off as me that having owned Finale since 3.0 in 1992 and being forced to pay approximately $100 every year to upgrade...Finale must have cost me around $2400. They should at least give long time owners a free upgrade now and then just for loyalty. I'm pretty happy with 2010, so I think I'm done with upgrading. What else can they offer me? Unless they come up with some method of actually doing my work for me! Mike G. www.mikegreensill.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- David H. Bailey dhbai...@davidbaileymusicstudio.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] The Finale nail in the coffin
They really ought to lower the "upgrade" price to $50. $119 for nothing substantial? No bug fixes? Breaks TGTools? No thanks. I really wish someone would make it possible to open all my Finale files into Sibelius. No XML, no tinkering. Just open and they look like what they did in Finale. I'd bid the crappy company MakeMusic adieu On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Michael Greensill wrote: > I just got an e-mail from some company called OEM software resellers, who > are offering the full Finale 2010 for $119. A savings of $480 off the retail > price. > > Is anyone else as pissed off as me that having owned Finale since 3.0 in > 1992 and being forced to pay approximately $100 every year to > upgrade...Finale must have cost me around $2400. > > They should at least give long time owners a free upgrade now and then just > for loyalty. > > I'm pretty happy with 2010, so I think I'm done with upgrading. What else > can they offer me? Unless they come up with some method of actually doing my > work for me! > > Mike G. > > www.mikegreensill.com > > ___ > 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
