Some important context here is that Tantacrul has a history of buying up music or audio related software (some of which is Open Source, e.g. Audacity) and trying to take it in New Directions™ in ways nobody wants or asked for. For example, the entire Audacity Google Analytics debacle, and how he basically insulted the entire community when there was an outrage over GA being silently added. MuseScore I'm less familiar…
Yes, God forbid someone tries to get some real usage statistics and actually improve the product. Much better to rely on random emails bikeshedding about some minutia
Adding Google analytics to an open source project without consulting the millions of users and having it opt-in to start is a huge middle finger to everyone who uses it.
There is nothing unreasonable about the demand that continue to make software that they sold installable by the owners. That's completely reasonable. It's actually far more unreaonable to sell someone a product and the next day make it unable to be reinstalled. That's unreasonable. I would even hope that would be illegal; it's too bad it's probably not.
> It’s actually far more unreasonable to sell someone a product and the next day make it unable to be reinstalled. That’s unreasonable. I agree. So does MakeMusic, I guess, which is why they have at least a 30 day refund, and a whole year before new install authorizations end. I feel like I’m being misunderstood and misquoted and you’re arguing against things I didn’t say. I agree that losing access to new installs o…
If you agree that losing access to new installs after a year sucks, and you understand why paid users are angry I don't know why you keep replying. This is an unnecessary user-hostile thing to do and, in my opinion, should be illegal. If you sell a product, you should not be able to post-sale revoke access to that product. This is even more cut-and-dried than products that rely on servers for actual functionality.
"...will continue to work as long as your current computer is working." This doesn't seem dumb to you?
Yeah sure, in a way. It’s kinda dumb in the sense that ‘as long as your computer is working’ actually means ‘ending soon’, for the majority of people in the real world. That seems obvious though. Few people if anyone can keep their current computer working with a software app that freezes. It might stop working in a year, it might be more than that, or might be less than that (which they explicitly admit re: Sequoia)…
It's not their job to revoke access to a product that I paid for regardless of the reason.
If they sold me that product I should be able to pop that software into a Windows 10 VM and use it till the end of time.
This does suck. I truly, honestly feel bad for you and other Finale users. I might indeed be wrong (about what I’m not exactly sure yet despite your comment), but I think you maybe misunderstood my comment a little bit. I didn’t say the software will cease to exist, but the product actually went on life support yesterday and will cease to exist in a year. You can’t buy it, and support ends in 1 year. After that it no…
> I’ve watched loads of Windows software become incompatible And I've seen a resurgence of old software running with very compatible PC emulators and older versions of Windows still installable. In theory, this software could run forever just like my copy of Oregon Trail.
Great! It’s great that sometimes software continues to work. If only that was always the case.
> It’s actually far more unreasonable to sell someone a product and the next day make it unable to be reinstalled. That’s unreasonable. I agree. So does MakeMusic, I guess, which is why they have at least a 30 day refund, and a whole year before new install authorizations end. I feel like I’m being misunderstood and misquoted and you’re arguing against things I didn’t say. I agree that losing access to new installs o…
If you agree that losing access to new installs after a year sucks, and you understand why paid users are angry I don't know why you keep replying. This is an unnecessary user-hostile thing to do and, in my opinion, should be illegal. If you sell a product, you should not be able to post-sale revoke access to that product. This is even more cut-and-dried than products that rely on servers for actual functionality.
I’m replying because we’re having a discussion, and because it has been clear all along that you didn’t quite understand my position before arguing with it, so I’m trying to better explain it. I do agree that losing access sucks, and I do see why some paid users are angry, so maybe you don’t actually disagree with me after all. Maybe it should be illegal to turn off new installs after a year, I could agree with that in some circumstances, but you continue to exaggerate and oversimplify the actual situation which doesn’t help, and this feels purely dogmatic now and not particularly real-world. Leaving the auth server on is unlikely to benefit very many people. In both directions, it seems more symbolic than functional. If they turn it off, hardly anyone will be affected but maybe it appeases Steinberg, and if they leave it on, hardly anyone will be affected but maybe it appeases internet mobs.
Yeah sure, in a way. It’s kinda dumb in the sense that ‘as long as your computer is working’ actually means ‘ending soon’, for the majority of people in the real world. That seems obvious though. Few people if anyone can keep their current computer working with a software app that freezes. It might stop working in a year, it might be more than that, or might be less than that (which they explicitly admit re: Sequoia)…
It's not their job to revoke access to a product that I paid for regardless of the reason. If they sold me that product I should be able to pop that software into a Windows 10 VM and use it till the end of time.
I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine.
What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of releasing software that requires remote authorization, I’m not arguing against that idea. But if you are, then don’t buy it in the first place. Software that is remotely authorized always comes with the risk that authorization will go away, it would be pretty silly to assume otherwise.
Yeah, Musescore doesn't quite fit though. It doesn't really work like any other DAW. It has a strong focus on composing sheet music, as opposed to recording and producing full tracks.
Well yeah, that's what Finale is and what this thread is about. If you're talking about standard DAWs then your initial comment was a non sequitur
It's not their job to revoke access to a product that I paid for regardless of the reason. If they sold me that product I should be able to pop that software into a Windows 10 VM and use it till the end of time.
I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine. What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of relea…
> Software that is remotely authorized always comes with the risk that authorization will go away, it would be pretty silly to assume otherwise.
Consumers don't know this. This is why we need consumer protection regulation to control these practices.