At 08:43 AM 3/9/05 -0500, dhbailey wrote: >And lose the improvements that make my income-generating work easier, >faster, better?
Yes, even if for one year, in order to send the message. >It's also hard to skip upgrades when others with whom you work are >upgrading -- since the earlier version can't work on files generated in >a later version, how do you propose we solve that problem? "We". That means a concerted Finale user effort. No such economic action is easy. >I think we all would love a version which is untethered, but in an >industry where the catchphrase is "we don't have to care, we own the >stuff you want to use" I truly can't see the bargaining power we have. >MakeMusic is already generating the lion's share of its income from its >SmartMusic product -- do you really think they care about us? All companies care about negative publicity. Contact CNN's Lou Dobbs. Convince him to do a story on the economic harm to consumers of tethered programs, and show him the impact on a dedicated, professional user base like us. (Having just helped arrange a story on his program about another issue, I'm aware of his team's "exploitation radar".) >For an independent composer who can already do all that he/she wants in >Finale 2003 (or whichever version was the one before the tethering came >into being) resistance is easy -- there is no need to upgrade ever as >long as your current version does all you'll ever need it to. If you mean me, I have numerous clients, thanks, and more income from engraving scores (mostly new music) than composing. :) It isn't the raw Finale productivity that makes me money, it's doing things very few others do. (In terms of engraving product, there's really not much new, and they still haven't fixed some of what we need.) >For those of us who serve others or who collaborate with others, the >paying clients, it may not be that simple. Maybe not, but that goes back to "we". Those who always purchase the latest, disregarding how their actions affect the future for other software users, are hardest to convince. There will always be excuses to go the easy way. But just how simple will it be when Coda/MM is gone or wants to force upgrades by refusing to authorize old versions? >And don't suggest they go back to the "insert the original installation >CD" anti-piracy concept -- they tried that back with Finale97 (or was it >98) Finale 98. The only upgrade I skipped in the 10 years from Finale 2.2 to Finale 2003. >I agree with the concept of a tethering-release mechanism being escrowed >with some third-party, but whom would you suggest? Which >companies/organizations can you predict will still be together and able >to handle the situation when MakeMusic goes out of business? The whole >problem with such escrows is that nobody can guarantee that ANY entity >will be in existence at any future point so how would you suggest >working around that potential problem? You want all the business details from me? I'm flattered. Seriously, though, it's easy to pick arguments with any proposal. I think my proposal is pretty solid, as there are already dozens of high-quality software service organizations that could share such an effort. There are also standards groups that get income from profit-making ventures, and industry group collaborations (such as EPCGlobal working on RFID Gen2 tags). If I had a chunk of investment money, I'd start such an escrow company myself. As to the technique for safekeeping, there's nothing like a distributed server system with secure access methods ... but hey, we've got one of those already, and I'm using it right now. :) Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
