Live data from Hacker News

The End of Finale

finalemusic.com

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: The End of Finale

#161
post #119

Note to anyone hoping to export MusicXML from Finale into Musescore: Musescore 4's MusicXML import (and export) is horrendous. It has even regressed compared to MuseScore 3 which was already pretty bad soon as you started getting ambitious.

The format is just so underpowered for what music notation requires, unfortunately. Michael Good pulled off a miracle writing the standard, but it doesn't do enough and now we have to deal with those shortcomings by fixing thousands of files that were perfectly fine.

Re: The End of Finale

#162
post #118

I am always curious about how companies like this end. For fun I did some basic research on archive.org. It appears that around 2015 the headquarters for make music moved from MN to CO. https://web.archive.org/web/20140703151047/http://www.finale... This is around the same time that Greg (who wrote the blog post joined Make Music Inc), who also happens to live in Boulder. https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregorydellera/de…

Quite, MakeMusic, Peaskware, and Alfred have all had a complex relationship.

To be clear, the company MakeMusic is not going out of business. They still are running their incredibly popular Make Music Cloud web-based app, used heavily in education (formerly called "Smart Music"). This was just an attempt to jettison a dinosaur in their portfolio. They haven't done any active development of Finale in many years.

Re: The End of Finale

#163

My 84-year old father, a retired music professor, has created many fantastic arrangements and transcriptions of orchestra music for wind band. He still uses Sibelius 6, but the publisher that has published some of his work has done complete re-dos using Finale. They have strongly encouraged him to used Finale, calling it the "industry standard." But at his age, the learning curve is so steep he just gets frustrated a…

The "industry standard" has functionally been split between Finale and Sibelius for over 20 years. It still holds, but Dorico is attempting a coup for that title with this move.

Re: The End of Finale

#164
post #21
post #2

> It will not be possible to authorize Finale on any new devices, or reauthorize Finale Well that seems like a dick move. > MakeMusic has partnered with Steinberg to offer an exclusive discount on Dorico Pro. So can we assume MakeMusic is getting a kickback for every sale of Dorico? If that's the case, of course they're going to stop you from reinstalling Finale.

Sheesh, kinda harsh. The reauthorize deadline isn’t until a year from now. And I wouldn’t assume anything, but I hope they’re making a kickback from sales of Dorico. Given the discount price, even if your assumption is true, it can’t be that much money. This isn’t some kind of massive win for MakeMusic, nor is it greed if they get a little money for moving people to another product. They’re shutting down what once wa…

I have CDs from software I bought in the 90s I can install today (probably in a VM). I bought it, I should be able to make it work SOMEHOW for the next 100 years. Just release an update with the phone-home commented out.

Re: The End of Finale

#165
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but the problems with your new argument are 1) Finale requires explicit authorization, it’s a manual process the user has to do when first launching so you seem to be speculating or making things up, 2) this moved the goal posts for the thread and you’re undermining @wvenable’s argument and others by suggesting they didn’t understand what they were doing 3) it doesn’t matter what your or I think about consumer…

> And why did you quote “IT people”, who said anything about IT people? I'm not the person you're replying to but I interpreted what they were saying as meaning "tech savvy." The average, non-tech-savvy user doesn't necessarily understand the concept of client/server applications let alone realize that what makes the software that they purchased work is bound to a remote server / someone else's computer that could on…

> I'm not the person you're replying to but I interpreted what they were saying as meaning "tech savvy."

I certainly meant "tech savvy" at the last-- if not out right someone who works in IT. The kinds of questions you rhetorically asked re: the activation process are the kinds of questions I'd ask as an IT worker evaluating a product for use in a business. Those kinds of questions are well beyond what the average tech saavy person would even think to ask. They are "unknown unknowns" to people who haven't dealt with intricate software licensing arrangements.

> I also really don't understand why you're "simping" so hard for MusicMaker. Is it that you've taken a position and you're debating it as an academic exercise or out of boredom? Or are they paying you? I mean ... I've never seen anyone go to bat so hard in favour of a company screwing over their paying customers.

Thanks for articulating this. I was thinking the same thing-- particularly as I watched your interaction the grandparent poster in other parts of these comments. I wanted to say something like this but couldn't come up with an articulate way to do it quickly.

Re: The End of Finale

#166
post #119

Note to anyone hoping to export MusicXML from Finale into Musescore: Musescore 4's MusicXML import (and export) is horrendous. It has even regressed compared to MuseScore 3 which was already pretty bad soon as you started getting ambitious.

The format is just so underpowered for what music notation requires, unfortunately. Michael Good pulled off a miracle writing the standard, but it doesn't do enough and now we have to deal with those shortcomings by fixing thousands of files that were perfectly fine.

You're uniquely positioned to comment on this, of course. Are there other music notation formats that do a better job (MEI, MNX, etc.) ?

I've been working with MusicXML as a consumer (and occasional contributor) in my own apps for a few years now, and my pet theory is that the _problem domain_ is so complex that any format will fall short of the universe of use cases - or become so cumbersome that its application to a codebase will forever remain buggy / incomplete.

Re: The End of Finale

#167
post #63
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, finale is advertising the price as an offer to their customers, it is hard to see how they could do that without an agreement. How else could they make the offer? Price discussions between competitors is an absolute no-go under EU law.

What makes you think Steinberg didn’t dictate the price? How are they competitors when Finale is dead? You’re referring to price fixing laws between ongoing competition, which is illegal in this US too. This is not that by any stretch of the imagination.

There is an agreement that the price can be offered, that is plenty. As long as the product is in the market there is competition, even if it is not actively being sold, and nothing prevents the seller of finale from changing their mind, as an agreement with a competitior to stop selling their product would most definitely be illegal.

Re: The End of Finale

#168
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The format is just so underpowered for what music notation requires, unfortunately. Michael Good pulled off a miracle writing the standard, but it doesn't do enough and now we have to deal with those shortcomings by fixing thousands of files that were perfectly fine.

You're uniquely positioned to comment on this, of course. Are there other music notation formats that do a better job (MEI, MNX, etc.) ? I've been working with MusicXML as a consumer (and occasional contributor) in my own apps for a few years now, and my pet theory is that the _problem domain_ is so complex that any format will fall short of the universe of use cases - or become so cumbersome that its application to…

MNX is probably good but they are taking an awful long time to get the job done. They ran into the same roadblocks as any format, there's too many competing needs and too many opinions. MIDI 2.0 has also had some really interesting talk about embedding notation data inside the wrapper to make it an "all-encompassing" music format.

I'm not as familiar with MEI but I don't believe it's any better for preserving music engraving data compared to the musical data itself.

Re: The End of Finale

#169
post #167
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think Steinberg didn’t dictate the price? How are they competitors when Finale is dead? You’re referring to price fixing laws between ongoing competition, which is illegal in this US too. This is not that by any stretch of the imagination.

There is an agreement that the price can be offered, that is plenty. As long as the product is in the market there is competition, even if it is not actively being sold, and nothing prevents the seller of finale from changing their mind, as an agreement with a competitior to stop selling their product would most definitely be illegal.

Okay, there might be antitrust issues to possibly consider. For one company pushing/selling/trasferring it’s customers to another company, I think in the US it mostly depends on whether the result could be some kind of monopoly, so an important question might be whether the number of Dorico users and Finale users combined dominate the market for score-writing software, and how big that market is. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

As @Earw0rm mentioned, this isn’t a “resale” in the sense that that word is defined in the law. Buying Dorico at a discount is not a “resale” of Finale, regardless of the agreement; they’re different products sold by different companies. There is also no evidence, no reason to believe that Finale had any say in the sale price of Dorico. But, yes, the companies did agree to nudge customers from Finale towards Dorico.

The nudge is not mandatory, and the transition is opt-in and not automatic, so customers have the choice, and that lessens the probability that this crosses any laws. Dorico seems to have healthy competition from Sibelius, MuseScore and others, and the market has been called “saturated”, so no clear indication the result would be a monopoly. We also don’t know if Finale solicited agreements from other competitors who declined to participate, and if so that also reduces the possibility of this appearing shady in any way.

This kind of thing happens all the time when products and companies merge or die. It’s legal and acceptable for small companies to merge, and becomes illegal when merger gives the target company too much power, where ‘too much’ is determined by the court. In this case, since these are relatively niche (small) products, and it’s not a corporate merger but simply a targeted advertising & discount sale to a captive audience, and since the result probably isn’t a monopoly for Steinberg, it’s unlikely that any court would care about this agreement. Small companies are allowed to make agreements and do all kinds of things that large companies might get in trouble for.

Re: The End of Finale

#170
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that achieve? Why would anyone want a pile of old code that can never build or run?

Code has more value than if it can be ran or not. Its 4 decades of problems and their solutions. For anyone who wants to do any work in the music notation space, it could be quite invaluable to go through the lessons learned, to see things from another perspective, especially one that went all the way to production and a long period of commercial viability.

That is theoretically possible, just seems very very unlikely. Finale is “millions” of lines of code, old legacy code that spanned dozens of OSes. Have you ever tried to read huge legacy codebases? They are hard to read, and I’m dramatically understating it. The time it would take to read and extract lessons learned from it could exceed the time available to do any work in the music notation space. Most of the lessons that are there to extract are lessons that no longer apply to anything. Not being able to build & run the code would reduce the ability to understand it by another multiple factor. It would be far more efficient to hunt down and interview the Finale devs, or spend time working on another product and learn from it.

All that is beside the point that Finale devs are under zero obligation to release their code, and generally speaking they have a decent list of reasons not to, plus some specific ones I speculate.

Post reply on HN