6 ms·

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 Do

by dahart 2y ago

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 was their flagship product. There’s more competition now, the codebase is heavy with legacy cruft, maybe it’s no fun at all to work on, or maybe they’re losing customers and are unable to make a living on Finale. It’s hard and painful to shut down a once-successful project, especially for people who’ve worked hard on it for a long time. I can’t help but empathize a little. It could be way worse, they could be shutting down new authorizations today. Companies and products that die do that all the time. Giving the customers a year to deal with it and a steeply discounted upgrade path is relatively kind.

wvenable 2y ago
> It could be way worse So they chopped off your finger, it could be worse they could have taken the whole hand! The right thing to do is release a version that doesn't require authorization at all.
- dahart 2y ago
  The existing authorized versions will continue to work forever. What more do you want from a product that ceases to exist? It’s going to EOL no matter what very quickly as OSes get incompatible upgrades. If you’re still using Finale a year from now hoping that it’s somehow going to continue, you’re only tricking yourself.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    I have productivity software that is 30 years old that I can still install and run today either on windows or wine. This is because it doesn't need to connect to the internet in order to install. Any software from the last decade or so is far less permanent.
  - vunderba 2y ago
    With all the negative replies to your post, it's rather unbelievable to me that you can't figure out why. Number 1: this is not a cloud-based product, it works entirely off-line, so saying that the product ceases to exist is also wrong, I and many others archive the installers to re-install them on new computers. Number 2: Microsoft prides itself on backwards compatibility, and it is very common to run software that is decades-old on new versions of windows. Number 3: It will not be possible to authorize Finale on any new devices, or reauthorize Finale. This is the point that is angering people. I paid for a very specific version of Finale, and it's obvious that I should continue to expect to be able to use it barring OS related incompatibility. The only reason the software won't work anymore is because they're deliberately locking my authorization key. The correct move from the company is to either leave the server that authorizes keys on, or if that's somehow magically too much trouble, then they need to patch older versions of finale to not check for the key. Source: Have been using Finale for decades
    - dahart 2y ago
      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 longer exists as a product. That’s not my opinion, it’s what the letter says. It’s understandable to be upset about the new authorization cutoff. That might not be MakeMusic’s decision, it might be Steinberg’s. The move to Dorico and the discount on offer might be valuable and viable for a lot of people, but I have no doubt that it probably doesn’t work for everyone, and in that case the authorization shut-off hurts more. But, new authorization isn’t going to help much beyond a year anyway, right? With the product dying, if you haven’t moved to something else by then, it’s just playing Russian Roulette. I’ve watched loads of Windows software become incompatible, software much younger than Finale, despite your point #2. I tried installing audio drivers for my Edirol audio interface just yesterday, and it no longer works. It sucks when software products you depend on go away, but unfortunately, people sometimes run out of money.
  - wvenable 2y ago
    I bought Office 2013 over 10 years ago and I still install it on my desktop. It is available as a Windows app right? It takes a lot for Microsoft to make their OS be incompatible with apps.
junon 2y ago
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 with but I do recall people being upset about how some of that went down, too.
- jraph 2y ago
  That's quite the shortcut. Audacity and Musescore belong to the Muse, and the Muse hired Tantacrul. He didn't buy anything. Do we know that he made those decisions? Yes, questionable stuff was added to Musescore since he joined. I'm particularly not too happy about their push for their Musescore.com cloud in the UI, the proprietary (optional) audio rendering bit, and the proprietary "update manager" in the binaries they distribute. Is he the one who pushed those things though? (Maybe, I don't know. But I doubt it. Those things are mostly business decisions, he is a UX designer). Musescore also massively improved since he joined. It is a massively better software than before. But I don't see the connection with the current discussion? We are not talking about Musescore, the Muse or Tantacrul, are we? We are talking about Finale.
- dahart 2y ago
  What does this have to do with Finale?
  - junon 2y ago
    Looks like a comment got edited somewhere.
    - dahart 2y ago
      Hmmm, I don’t think so…
      - junon 2y ago
wwweston 2y ago
> 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. Yeah, this doesn't smell like a typical financial or strategic move. My guess would be that this is a team that really cared about the product domain to recommend a competitor going forward but also came to recognize retirement needs among their codebase and/or the team itself.
lozenge 2y ago
The customers paid for a lifetime license, why is a year reasonable to revoke this with no compensation?
- Obscurity4340 2y ago
  Maybe its the "companies Lifetime" license. You may use this as long as the company survives
- dahart 2y ago
  The license to use existing installs is not being revoked, customers can continue to use Finale on their computer. How do you know they’re not offering compensation to people who purchased recently? What compensation do you expect, and under what circumstances? (* edit to add link to the refund offer: https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/25843888130839-Finale-Sunset-FAQ#h_01J603J4X4Y8AQV65M6HWWBK5P https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/258438881308...) Like I said, I’m comparing the extra year to situations where products shut down immediately without an extra year. You would agree that having an extra year is better than not, wouldn’t you?
  - skywhopper 2y ago
    Yes, people are pointing out that “it could be worse” is a cruddy thing to say. It’s bad! It could always be worse, but there’s no point in saying so. Continuing to harp on “it could be worse” is not helpful. It sounds like you are disagreeing that it’s wrong and bad to disable future use of a product that is locally installed and not a subscription.
    - dahart 2y ago
      Thank you for acknowledging that my comment is being misinterpreted and that it could be worse. Of course it’s bad, the product died. That sucks for people who like Finale, sucks for people who paid for it recently, and it sucks for MakeMusic too! That simply does not justify attacking or disparaging the developer, nor making assumptions about their motivation, nor making unreasonable demands about how they handle the transition. What do you actually want? Do you need to convert your Finale library? By nearly all accounts, Dorico’s a massive UX upgrade and being offered at a 75% discount. I haven’t used it, but I just don’t understand why the pitchforks are out, especially when I’m not hearing many personal stories in this thread, so that makes it seem like bystander outrage where the bystanders aren’t invested.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
They just announced that they're stealing back the product they sold to their erstwhile customers. "It could be way worse" is a hell of a response to that. "We just stopped support for your Silverado. You can drive it for one more year, then we're coming to take it out of your garage. We have a deal with Ford for you to get an F-150 with a discount." "It could be way worse, at least I get to use it for another year, I hope they're getting a kickback from Ford."
- dahart 2y ago
  What’s with the outrage? Do you own a Finale license? I’m sorry if you do, this does suck for people who still want to use Finale, but “stealing back” seems like hyperbole. The product (along with their income stream related to it) is shutting down permanently. It died, and no amount of commentary is going to bring it back. Assuming you have a vested interest in the outcome here, what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic? What would you have done if it was your business? Have you ever had a business and had to plan the shut down a product people had paid for? Please actually consider those questions carefully. Sometimes businesses lose. You can’t force a business to make a profit or to sell something they don’t want to sell or can no longer make. There’s no good way to shut down a product. And there’s no product ever that has ceased that didn’t have buyers right before they stopped taking money. It’s a fact that it could be worse, and I already explained why, because often it actually is worse, especially with tech companies. And yes, I hope the devs at MakeMusic are okay. I don’t understand why internet commenters wouldn’t, especially if they’re Finale fans.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    If you do a quick read of the announcement, it sounds at first like "after next year, it's impossible to use Finale anymore" (a closer read indicates that what goes away is the ability to activate a Finale install, so existing copies will keep working until you get a new computer). And for a lot of people, those who are reading the announcement that way, this is going to be a "my library of scores becomes permanently and completely inaccessible" situation. Especially because, to my knowledge, no one has a working Finale music file -> their own music file converter (people have working converters from MusicXML, but you have to open up Finale to convert from its format to MusicXML, and Finale only added MusicXML support relatively recently). It's this library archival stranding that is driving a lot of outrage from some quarters, especially if you're misreading the announcement, as noted above.
jawilson2 2y ago
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.
- dahart 2y ago
  I also have a bunch of software from 20, 30, and 40 years ago that still works. And I have a bunch of software that no longer runs. Audio and video software is way less likely to still run than other kinds of software, in my experience. It probably could work with an unknown and maybe large amount of work, money, time, and hardware. The issue here is more about remote authorization in the first place. It’s funny to have this conversation after the fact. It probably should have come before Finale shut down. People against the idea of disabling new authorizations should, instead of complaining about Finale, proactively work to make remote software authorization illegal in the first place. Remote authorization always comes with the risk that authorization will be disabled. I’m guessing it was supposed to be a copy protection scheme, which is widespread and common, not a way to shutdown use. But here we are. They chose not to release an update with phone home commented out. It was, therefore, a business decision, not a technical one. I understand the reactions to this decision, but I have serious doubts about the claims of harm or number of users who will want to run Finale in 12 months. How much of the software you have from the 90s do you actually use? Be honest. I hardly ever use any of the software I have. I was a packrat and collected things I thought I was going to use, but 30 years later, I don’t use it.

by dahart 2y ago

wvenable 2y ago

> It could be way worse So they chopped off your finger, it could be worse they could have taken the whole hand! The right thing to do is release a version that doesn't require authorization at all.

dahart 2y ago
The existing authorized versions will continue to work forever. What more do you want from a product that ceases to exist? It’s going to EOL no matter what very quickly as OSes get incompatible upgrades. If you’re still using Finale a year from now hoping that it’s somehow going to continue, you’re only tricking yourself.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  I have productivity software that is 30 years old that I can still install and run today either on windows or wine. This is because it doesn't need to connect to the internet in order to install. Any software from the last decade or so is far less permanent.
- vunderba 2y ago
  With all the negative replies to your post, it's rather unbelievable to me that you can't figure out why. Number 1: this is not a cloud-based product, it works entirely off-line, so saying that the product ceases to exist is also wrong, I and many others archive the installers to re-install them on new computers. Number 2: Microsoft prides itself on backwards compatibility, and it is very common to run software that is decades-old on new versions of windows. Number 3: It will not be possible to authorize Finale on any new devices, or reauthorize Finale. This is the point that is angering people. I paid for a very specific version of Finale, and it's obvious that I should continue to expect to be able to use it barring OS related incompatibility. The only reason the software won't work anymore is because they're deliberately locking my authorization key. The correct move from the company is to either leave the server that authorizes keys on, or if that's somehow magically too much trouble, then they need to patch older versions of finale to not check for the key. Source: Have been using Finale for decades
  - dahart 2y ago
    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 longer exists as a product. That’s not my opinion, it’s what the letter says. It’s understandable to be upset about the new authorization cutoff. That might not be MakeMusic’s decision, it might be Steinberg’s. The move to Dorico and the discount on offer might be valuable and viable for a lot of people, but I have no doubt that it probably doesn’t work for everyone, and in that case the authorization shut-off hurts more. But, new authorization isn’t going to help much beyond a year anyway, right? With the product dying, if you haven’t moved to something else by then, it’s just playing Russian Roulette. I’ve watched loads of Windows software become incompatible, software much younger than Finale, despite your point #2. I tried installing audio drivers for my Edirol audio interface just yesterday, and it no longer works. It sucks when software products you depend on go away, but unfortunately, people sometimes run out of money.
- wvenable 2y ago
  I bought Office 2013 over 10 years ago and I still install it on my desktop. It is available as a Windows app right? It takes a lot for Microsoft to make their OS be incompatible with apps.

junon 2y ago

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 with but I do recall people being upset about how some of that went down, too.

jraph 2y ago
That's quite the shortcut. Audacity and Musescore belong to the Muse, and the Muse hired Tantacrul. He didn't buy anything. Do we know that he made those decisions? Yes, questionable stuff was added to Musescore since he joined. I'm particularly not too happy about their push for their Musescore.com cloud in the UI, the proprietary (optional) audio rendering bit, and the proprietary "update manager" in the binaries they distribute. Is he the one who pushed those things though? (Maybe, I don't know. But I doubt it. Those things are mostly business decisions, he is a UX designer). Musescore also massively improved since he joined. It is a massively better software than before. But I don't see the connection with the current discussion? We are not talking about Musescore, the Muse or Tantacrul, are we? We are talking about Finale.
dahart 2y ago
What does this have to do with Finale?
- junon 2y ago
  Looks like a comment got edited somewhere.
  - dahart 2y ago
    Hmmm, I don’t think so…
    - junon 2y ago

wwweston 2y ago

> 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. Yeah, this doesn't smell like a typical financial or strategic move. My guess would be that this is a team that really cared about the product domain to recommend a competitor going forward but also came to recognize retirement needs among their codebase and/or the team itself.

lozenge 2y ago

The customers paid for a lifetime license, why is a year reasonable to revoke this with no compensation?

Obscurity4340 2y ago
Maybe its the "companies Lifetime" license. You may use this as long as the company survives
dahart 2y ago
The license to use existing installs is not being revoked, customers can continue to use Finale on their computer. How do you know they’re not offering compensation to people who purchased recently? What compensation do you expect, and under what circumstances? (* edit to add link to the refund offer: https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/25843888130839-Finale-Sunset-FAQ#h_01J603J4X4Y8AQV65M6HWWBK5P https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/258438881308...) Like I said, I’m comparing the extra year to situations where products shut down immediately without an extra year. You would agree that having an extra year is better than not, wouldn’t you?
- skywhopper 2y ago
  Yes, people are pointing out that “it could be worse” is a cruddy thing to say. It’s bad! It could always be worse, but there’s no point in saying so. Continuing to harp on “it could be worse” is not helpful. It sounds like you are disagreeing that it’s wrong and bad to disable future use of a product that is locally installed and not a subscription.
  - dahart 2y ago
    Thank you for acknowledging that my comment is being misinterpreted and that it could be worse. Of course it’s bad, the product died. That sucks for people who like Finale, sucks for people who paid for it recently, and it sucks for MakeMusic too! That simply does not justify attacking or disparaging the developer, nor making assumptions about their motivation, nor making unreasonable demands about how they handle the transition. What do you actually want? Do you need to convert your Finale library? By nearly all accounts, Dorico’s a massive UX upgrade and being offered at a 75% discount. I haven’t used it, but I just don’t understand why the pitchforks are out, especially when I’m not hearing many personal stories in this thread, so that makes it seem like bystander outrage where the bystanders aren’t invested.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

They just announced that they're stealing back the product they sold to their erstwhile customers. "It could be way worse" is a hell of a response to that. "We just stopped support for your Silverado. You can drive it for one more year, then we're coming to take it out of your garage. We have a deal with Ford for you to get an F-150 with a discount." "It could be way worse, at least I get to use it for another year, I hope they're getting a kickback from Ford."

dahart 2y ago
What’s with the outrage? Do you own a Finale license? I’m sorry if you do, this does suck for people who still want to use Finale, but “stealing back” seems like hyperbole. The product (along with their income stream related to it) is shutting down permanently. It died, and no amount of commentary is going to bring it back. Assuming you have a vested interest in the outcome here, what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic? What would you have done if it was your business? Have you ever had a business and had to plan the shut down a product people had paid for? Please actually consider those questions carefully. Sometimes businesses lose. You can’t force a business to make a profit or to sell something they don’t want to sell or can no longer make. There’s no good way to shut down a product. And there’s no product ever that has ceased that didn’t have buyers right before they stopped taking money. It’s a fact that it could be worse, and I already explained why, because often it actually is worse, especially with tech companies. And yes, I hope the devs at MakeMusic are okay. I don’t understand why internet commenters wouldn’t, especially if they’re Finale fans.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  If you do a quick read of the announcement, it sounds at first like "after next year, it's impossible to use Finale anymore" (a closer read indicates that what goes away is the ability to activate a Finale install, so existing copies will keep working until you get a new computer). And for a lot of people, those who are reading the announcement that way, this is going to be a "my library of scores becomes permanently and completely inaccessible" situation. Especially because, to my knowledge, no one has a working Finale music file -> their own music file converter (people have working converters from MusicXML, but you have to open up Finale to convert from its format to MusicXML, and Finale only added MusicXML support relatively recently). It's this library archival stranding that is driving a lot of outrage from some quarters, especially if you're misreading the announcement, as noted above.

jawilson2 2y ago

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.

dahart 2y ago
I also have a bunch of software from 20, 30, and 40 years ago that still works. And I have a bunch of software that no longer runs. Audio and video software is way less likely to still run than other kinds of software, in my experience. It probably could work with an unknown and maybe large amount of work, money, time, and hardware. The issue here is more about remote authorization in the first place. It’s funny to have this conversation after the fact. It probably should have come before Finale shut down. People against the idea of disabling new authorizations should, instead of complaining about Finale, proactively work to make remote software authorization illegal in the first place. Remote authorization always comes with the risk that authorization will be disabled. I’m guessing it was supposed to be a copy protection scheme, which is widespread and common, not a way to shutdown use. But here we are. They chose not to release an update with phone home commented out. It was, therefore, a business decision, not a technical one. I understand the reactions to this decision, but I have serious doubts about the claims of harm or number of users who will want to run Finale in 12 months. How much of the software you have from the 90s do you actually use? Be honest. I hardly ever use any of the software I have. I was a packrat and collected things I thought I was going to use, but 30 years later, I don’t use it.