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.
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
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.
I've been a Windows sysadmin since the late 90s. This has not ever been my experience with productivity software. Games and hardware drivers can be problematic, for sure, but productivity software by-and-large can be made to work fine on newer versions of Windows.
> It sucks when software products you depend on go away...
It's not "going away"-- it's being taken away. That's the issue people are having with it.
Bits don't rot. Locally-installed software doesn't "wear out". (Yes, yes-- you need to employ different security paradigms and compensating controls with "out of date" software in light of vulnerabilities. That's still not the software "wearing out".)
It's deeply saddening anyone would just accept perpetually-licensed use rights for locally-installed software being revoked after-the-fact. This should be the the purview of consumer protection regulation, not resignation that the world just works that way.
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.
It is available as a Windows app right? It takes a lot for Microsoft to make their OS be incompatible with apps.
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.
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.
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.
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/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?
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.
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.
For MakeMusic, I don’t know, but whether it benefits the most Finale users may be the entire point from their perspective. And it might matter to the users too, even if it doesn’t matter to you. The dev’s principles might prioritize maximum benefit for the most users over the anger that shutting off the auth server could potentially lead to. They are offering a tradeoff for which there is no perfect solution for everyone. Leaving the auth server on but not offering a Dorico discount might be overall significantly less good than what they did, even if what they did isn’t perfect or agreeable by your standards. That possibility is interesting and worth considering to me, even if not to you.
"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."
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.
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.
I guess you can call it stealing if you want. The word steal has many figurative meanings, such as ‘you stole my heart’. When a product fails, yes it eventually becomes impossible to use, even when you paid for it. To me it seems like misleading and hyperbole to call it stealing because you’re implicitly assigning malice to the business that simply failed, because they failed and aren’t getting value from the software becoming EOL, because they’re offering refunds to people who paid recently and haven’t had time to get value.
Do you call all products and business that fail or go out of business “stealing”?
If you read the letter and FAQ in their entirety, you will see they are not making it impossible to continue to use Finale. Customers who paid can continue to use it, for as long as their computer works. They are turning off new activations on new machines, in a year from now. It’s hard to imagine that mattering very much in the face of the facts that Finale is now dead, cannot be purchased, and is going to be obsolete eventually due to incompatible OS changes no matter what. But if you depend on Finale enough to not upgrade your computer, you can continue to use Finale as long as you want.
It's one thing if I buy a tool and it breaks down naturally. That does happen... in the physical world. It should NEVER happen in the software world, not for a standalone tool. If a company that sold you the tool (which you expected to use indefinitely) then goes out of their way to make sure you can't keep using that tool, then yeah, that's stealing.
Actually, it's not stealing. It's sabotage.
(And yes, they are making it nearly impossible to keep using finale. Unlike software, computers do break down. Or sometimes Microsoft forces everyone to get a new computer, as it seems will happen next year with the forced obsolescence of Windows 10 and forced move to Windows 11.)
As you point out, it’s Microsoft or Apple forcing you to upgrade. Why are you blaming MakeMusic for that? If you don’t upgrade, then your currently running copy of Finale will continue working. It’s completely unrealistic for most people to not upgrade, but still, it’s not MakeMusic’s fault that people upgrade.
No-one is attacking MakeMusic for discontinuing their product, yet you continue to assert this.
People are attacking MakeMusic for removing a way that you can continue to use their product as long as there are no technical limitations preventing you. No-one is saying "Oh, it needs to support Windows 14 and macOS 18". They are saying "there is nothing wrong with the software I purchased, nor the hardware I wish to run it on. You are just arbitrarily preventing me from doing so".
They don't have to keep activation servers running. Create a patch that disables the online activation requirement. Done.
It sucks if people expected authorization would continue to work forever. How many people would actually use that if it existed, and what is a reasonable user base threshold below which they can turn it off? It doesn’t matter what I think, but I don’t think leaving the auth servers on is going to benefit more than a very tiny handful of people at most, and thus probably isn’t worth the effort. And again, it’s entirely possible this is all coming at Steinberg’s request and was deemed an acceptable tradeoff by MakeMusic, assuming that it would benefit more people than it would harm. The discount vs activation tradeoff very well might benefit more people than it harms.
Personally, having run a software business, and having known others who’ve run software businesses, I see failed businesses, failed products, and company acquisitions all under the same umbrella of causing real problems against the expectations of buyers. All of those situations cause changes to the EULA, and people don’t like change, especially when they’ve paid money for constancy, I can completely and totally understand that. I was just trying to calm the pitchforking down a little… and not doing that great of a job, obviously.
If MakeMusic is offering the Dorico discount in return for no competition via turning off the auth servers, in a way that’s almost like Steinberg acquiring Finale but killing it. Maybe that could have happened, and maybe this way was cheaper and less legal paperwork for both parties, I dunno. Nobody else here does either.
You say this, but of the composers who haven't moved to Dorico by now, they're probably very set in their ways. So I'm not sure "very tiny handful" is accurate.
I don't actually think they should be required to maintain auth servers, hence the patch.
> And again, it’s entirely possible this is all coming at Steinberg’s request and was deemed an acceptable tradeoff by MakeMusic
I still have no idea why this relevant or appropriate. "Hey, we might have been willing to continue to "allow" you to use the software you know, you bought, but another agreement sounded more appealing to us". That would actually be pushing on the concept of tortious interference (where a third party induces a first party to renege on their agreement with a second).
> And again, it’s entirely possible this is all coming at Steinberg’s request and was deemed an acceptable tradeoff by MakeMusic, assuming that it would benefit more people than it would harm. The discount vs activation tradeoff very well might benefit more people than it harms.
Entirely so. And maybe for some, the financial aspect is what's holding them back. But to be clear, Finale itself has been several hundred dollars (I believe I paid $299), so I don't know that that was the distinction for some.
Also, there is the removal of choice. "We're turning off the activation servers. You can pay $179 to some other company, or lose access to the software you'd already paid for". I don't know that your "oh you're not losing it, because you can keep running it, if it's already activated" is anywhere near the argument you think it is.
Fair point, maybe more people will be caught than I think. I do know a composer that hasn’t moved yet, and he is pretty set in his ways.
On the other hand, it’s also possible that the whole reason Finale is shutting down is because the user base is already too small. And, even people set in their ways are now being notified that Finale is going away, which is news, so a lot of the people still left will certainly move before the year is out, right? We’re both speculating on how many will be left and whether we can subjectively call that many or few, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to estimate those still left in a year from now will not be the majority of the user base they had last week.
I agree with you that suggesting people can continue to run Finale is a weak argument. If you look, you might notice I’ve actually argued that it’s pretty unrealistic for most people and probably not going to work for long. I only corrected people who’ve incorrectly claimed or implied they would lose any and all access, and I only did that because that’s what the Finale FAQ says and I assume people are getting angry before reading and understanding the entire situation. People have a year to install Finale on a new computer, and if it’s really super important they can setup a machine that won’t get upgrades or other applications on it, and Finale might continue to work for longer than a year. That’s still unrealistic and I neither expect nor encourage it, but it is an option, should someone sufficiently motivated want to take it. Seems better to me to take the Dorico discount or explore MuseScore or Sibelius or something else and not waste time wishing Finale would continue to run.
(Artists get very attached to their tools: this happens with physical objects as well, where e.g. it's very common for an artist to have hoarded up a very large stock of their favourite pen/pencil/brush because it was discontinued. Not an option with software that's had its auth servers turned off)
I have plenty of products from companies that go out of business. Some of them even have servers that they depend on. At least one of the companies did the right thing and allowed their physical hardware product to continue to be used by people running their own servers.
It's not rocket science. It's should be the right and moral thing to do. Are they legally required to do it? No. Should they be? Probably yes.
I guess if you're really really really young and all you know is subscription based software, then that is the world you know and you might just be accustomed to it and accept it.
But if Finale has been around for 35 years, then it existed long before "cloud" and long before subscription software was a thing.
If someone has invested money and time into using that software, into creating project files that only work with it, in learning how to use that then it is not remotely acceptable in my opinion to disable their access to something that they have paid for and invested in. I don't think that "stealing" is an inappropriate word to use in that case. Not even a little bit of hyperbole.
Does that mean that MakeMusic should continue to invest their own resources into maintaining it? Absolutely not. To answer your question: "what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic?": I would suggest that they allow people who have paid for it to continue to use it indefinitely.
This might mean that they need to release a patched version that's not going to activate remotely through their servers with a download link that will eventually expire.
I acknowledge that that doesn't cost them "absolutely nothing" but it's not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost) and it prevents them from being akin to your fridge manufacturer saying "we are discontinuing this model, as well as repair services for this model, therefore we are going to enter your house and physically remove your fridge one year from now so that you will be forever unable to use the thing that you paid us money for." What they get in return for this one time "end of life" service for their paying customers is customer retention and good will. I mean, I know that I will never consider buying anything from MakeMusic as a result of hearing that they might shut off my access to things I bought and paid for at any time.
> it’s not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost)
That’s unlikely to be true, and not anyone’s decision but MakeMusic’s. What if they don’t have the money? It’s not reasonable for me to ask you to pay me $10 on the grounds that it’s not a major expense and is a fixed cost, right?
The nuance here is that it depends on the contract between MakeMusic and their customers. If I'm purchasing a subscription and the fine print makes it clear that service may be discontinued at any point for any reason, fair enough. If I make a one-time purchase and expect that I will be able to use what I paid for indefinitely, then them taking down their activation servers without providing a workaround might be a violation of their contract with their customers.
But I'm not making a completely ill-informed proposition when I suggest that the expense would be minimal and fixed for MakeMusic to do what I suggested. Obviously I don't know all of the details about how their software works, so I can't know for sure. I'm making certain assumptions based on how long their software has been around, the fact that they have a remote activation mechanism and having developed software professionally myself for over 25 years.
FALSE.
From the announcement, "It will not be possible to authorize Finale on any new devices, or reauthorize Finale".
If I have to reinstall it for any reason, such as my computer dying, or I get a virus, or I upgrade my computer, or any myriad of reasons, I am completely SOL and can no longer "continue to use it indefinitely".
https://makemusic.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/258438881308...
“Will my software continue to function?
Yes! Your existing authorized Finale installations will continue to work as long as your current computer is working.”
BTW, I did make the mistake of saying ‘forever’ in another comment, but FWIW ‘indefinitely’ doesn’t mean forever. Also, it doesn’t matter what I say, I don’t work for MakeMusic, just read the whole FAQ.
You just really like arguing for the sake of arguing don't you?
I'm sure that if I opened a dictionary I would find the distinction, but most people treat the words 'indefinitely' and 'forever' as synonymous. Nit-picking on that minutia kind of makes you come across like the obnoxious little brother who does the "But I'm not touching you!" thing to his sister. It's just annoying and most reasonable people know exactly how 'indefinitely' and 'forever' will be interpreted.
This doesn't seem dumb to you?
It’s a sort of glass-half-full spin, perhaps, but doesn’t seem misleading to me in light of all the FAQ entries and the letter. They are very clearly and explicitly recommending users move off of Finale asap, and not wait for the computer to stop working, whatever that might mean. If someone really truly depends on Finale professionally, and can’t move within a year, it’s not outside the bounds of possibility to freeze their computer, buy a new one for everything else, and keep Finale running for a while. I would in no way recommend that, but I’ve seen people do it before.
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.
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.
Consumers don't know this. This is why we need consumer protection regulation to control these practices.
You might have a point when it comes to, say, MS Windows, but not Finale.
You're radically overestimating the understanding of consumers. The target market for a product like Finale is decidedly not "IT people".
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 one day disappear.
I've been following this thread and in another reply it was pointed out that Finale has a 30 day money back guarantee, that "everyone" who uses Finale knows about the remote activation mechanism and that if they discover it after purchase and do not agree they can take advantage of that 30 day money back guarantee.
I think this argument is weak.
What a user typically experiences after installing new software is a dialogue asking them to enter their email and password that was used at the time of purchasing.
What happens after that is not necessarily clear.
Does it need to send the email and password to a remote server in order to verify the license every single time the application starts, or is this a one time activation?
From the user's perspective, is it made blatantly clear that the software is asking for the information for the purpose of product activation or is it merely for personalization purposes?
For that matter, does it actually serve any functional purpose at all, or is it just annoying data collection that can't be skipped?
20 years ago, EULAs were one of the big talking points online when it came to software companies. There was a question as to whether EULAs would actually be enforceable, binding contracts that courts would recognize at all. This came up time and time again because of some of the content that these EULAs included. I can't remember any specifics, but I remember that there was some really eyebrow raising stuff in some EULAs. Regardless, it was well understood that most end users blindly clicked "I Agree" without ever reading the EULA. It was seen by most as an annoying thing that you had to do when installing software, and few understood the point or gave it a second thought.
My argument is that when it comes to product activation, most end users probably view it as similar to clicking "I Agree" on the EULA. I doubt very much that most non-tech-savvy users are really thinking about the fact that someone else's computer is going to need to be running in order to activate their software should they need to re-install or if they lose access to the Internet. And very few are thinking about the possibility that the company could go out of business or one day just decide to stop activating the software on re-installs because they feel like it.
I'm repeating some of what I've said in earlier replies of mine ... but this really comes down to contracts and by "contract" I don't necessarily mean a hand-written and signed document laying out terms, I just mean the agreement that was between the vendor and purchaser. That agreement can be complicated because you've got the EULA on the one hand, the company's marketing on the other and what a court would recognize and enforce if it were litigated.
I'm personally more concerned with the implied agreement because I doubt anyone will choose to litigate over this (unless there is an institution somewhere that invested a lot of money in Finale and expected to be able to use the software in perpetuity). The implied agreement matters because this speaks to what promises MusicMaker was making to their customers and if they reneg on that promise, when money is at stake, it makes them a shit company that no one should ever do business with in the future.
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.
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.
It’s much better you didn’t before, except now you did which sadly undermines the rest of your argument. I wasn’t particularly defending MakeMusic, I was just resisting a pitchfork mob thread that was posting misinformation by people who have absolutely zero actual intent to run Finale next year, and no they’re not paying me :eyeroll:. @gspencley just didn’t understand my position before deciding to troll with multiple mean-spirited low-class and ad-hominem attacks that are wildly against HN guidelines. Unfortunately for him, that demonstrates his argument is weak and that he knows it, since he didn’t feel like he could make his point without stooping to name-calling. Now you know it too.
There is no need to maintain the auth server just make the one-time cost of removing the requirement of the auth server.
As for this particular EULA, if the publisher stops selling the software, they shouldn't be able to revoke existing licenses based on it. The license was granted in exchange for a fee, creating an expectation that the software could be used indefinitely under the agreed terms. Their EULA specifies that revocation is linked to breaches by the licensee, not the publisher's business decisions.
Their EULA lacks any clause that allows revocation simply because the software is no longer sold. Revoking a license under these circumstances would remove their right to use a product they legally purchased, which is a violation of their consumer rights. The publisher's decision to withdraw the software from the market shouldn’t negate the licensee's ability to continue using it as originally intended.
Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one. It literally doesn't matter. It's their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.
I’m speculating, but it could be possible that turning off authorization is Steingberg’s request or stipulation for offering a Dorico discount. Was that not clear before this point? If true, does it change your calculus at all?
> Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one.
Section 9 “Authorization” of the June 2021 EULA disproves that claim.
https://wpmedia.makemusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Fin...
> It’s their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.
Says who? Do you have any laws or contracts you can cite to back that up? I know you’re just trying to convince me that they shouldn’t be able to turn off remote authorization of new installs next year, however turning off authorization is a thing that can happen with any software packages that use remote authorization, because remote authorization is a common practice. Again, I’m not debating the ethics of said practice. But if you think that remote auth should be illegal, then you should never have bought Finale in the first place.
Yes, that binds the user to authorize their copy. The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.
As for the legality, this is pretty contentious issue in many countries which is why we are having this discussion rather than it simply being an open and shut case. A fair amount of this Wikipedia article is dedicated to this subject:
> The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.
That’s a logical assumption, if the company wants to do business, but isn’t stated in the EULA or the law. Pay special attention to Finale EULA sections 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
All this gets extra problematic when a product or a company dies or is transferred. There are very few laws that try to force a product to continue existing once its creator decides to shelve it for any reason, even if it would be trivial for the creator to do so.
Personally, I agree with the guiding principles of the First Sale Doctrine. What we’re concluding here is that your beef is with the idea of software authorization for purchase-once (non-subscription) software that is locally installed and doesn’t depend on cloud services. As a principle, that’s fine, I don’t disagree with it. Given the specifics in this case, it’s not known yet how many people the auth server shutdown will affect next year, but it is possible (I speculate!) that the discounted upgrade path to Dorico might not exist in it’s current form if Finale left the auth server on.
Their agreement with Steinberg doesn't absolve them of their rights to me.
I assume you mean responsibilities? What are those, exactly?
I want the existing licenses to keep working.
He is the conductor of a local musical group and rewrites the scores for different instruments depending on the orchestra he can find/pay.
This guy has spent thousands of dollars over the years, and now he is faced with.... what? Relearning the interface? Can he still open his old scores, and (rather importantly), will the score "work" in its entirety, with all the accidentals in the right place, the lyrics in the right position and split to the correct notes to be sung, the trumpets in the right key, the timpani using the correct symbols, the repeats and coda correctly defined, the personal additions still working? What about linking each instrument to the correct MIDI output or instrument package?
This goes way beyond just cost, even if for a musician who doesn't make tons of money. The intellectual investment over decades is hard to express to someone who doesn't write music for a living.
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.
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.