On 23 Jul 2005 at 0:51, Craig Parmerlee wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > >On 22 Jul 2005 at 18:03, Craig Parmerlee wrote: > > > >>Last year, we fought ferociously to get > >>ourselves out of the legacy problem -- advancing our platform 15 > >>years in the course of 12 months. Now we are determined to take > >>full advantage of the productivity that comes when you can get rid > >>of that legacy. It is abundantly clear to me that Finale is still > >>slaving under its legacy. We think of reinventing 5% of our system > >>every MONTH. Finale is reinventimg one percent of its system every > >>YEAR. Two entirely different worlds. > > > >I don't know who "we" is, nor what kind of software it is you're > >talking about, or how big a customer base you have, and how > >restrictive you are on the environments and platforms your software > >supports, but I do know that good code doesn't rust. If it's well- > >designed and implemented well, it can last a very long time. > > You seem to missing the point. You are talking about longevity. I am > talking about innovation. > > Yes, of course bits do not deteriorate. Software written in 1990 can > be preserved indefinitely. However the changing world around that > software makes it less and less relevant every day.
Well-designed components can be incorporated into new versions of software that supports new features. Those components could be very old. > There are many software vendors using the cash cow model -- Microsoft > office might be a great example. And if they can get away with > minimal innovation and still produce a nice revenue stream, more power > to them. That is Microsoft in a nutshell. However, the success of > many software ventures today depends on an ability to sustain a rapid > pace of innovation. Ebay/Paypal, eHarmony, SideStep and Carfax may be > good examples here. These are companies that succeed by innovation > and their ability to sustain rapid delivery of desirable features. THOSE ARE NOT DESKTOP SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS. You seem to be comparing completely non-comparable categories of software. Websites and web-hosted applications are completely different from desktop software, since you have only a single operating environment to program for. You have absolutely control over the application and all the supporting software and hardware. This is not even close to being the same kind of software development environment as writing software to run millions of varied PC configurations. Finale's nearest competitor (Sibelius) takes even longer between upgrades (c. 2 years). That should tell you that the comparison to web-hosted applications is completely bogus and inapplicable. > These companies most certainly do not operate on a "big annual > release" mental model. They are introducing valuable capability > continuously -- just as soon as they can get it ready for market. That's because that have 100% control over the operating environment in which their software runs, because it's running ONLY ON THEIR SERVERS. > The software world you are describing is the mindset of the 1980s that > still traps a lot of companies. When one is laboring under a heavy > burden of legacy code, there may not be many alternatives. You're mis-applying the standards of web-hosted software applications to desktop software. > As I see it, Finale is unable to deliver rapid innovation, but they > also have lack the strength to operate a cash cow model. As a person > who has at least a dozen Finale releases on the shelf, I get no > pleasure in observing that. I think you're just flat-out wrong in the whole basis for your argument here. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
