4 ms·

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.
    - wvenable 2y ago
      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.
      - dahart 2y ago
        > 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 of Finale after a year sucks. I understand why paid users are angry. I assume the no re-auth after a year part could be a non-compete stipulation in their agreement with Steinberg. If most current Finale users value the ~$450 Dorico discount, maybe it’s worth the blowback, otherwise, maybe not.
        wvenable 2y ago
        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.
        dahart 2y ago
        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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Maybe its the "companies Lifetime" license. You may use this as long as the company survives

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.
  - wvenable 2y ago
    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.
    - dahart 2y ago
      > 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 of Finale after a year sucks. I understand why paid users are angry. I assume the no re-auth after a year part could be a non-compete stipulation in their agreement with Steinberg. If most current Finale users value the ~$450 Dorico discount, maybe it’s worth the blowback, otherwise, maybe not.
      - wvenable 2y ago
        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.
        dahart 2y ago
        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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]