Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Finale 2007: Bugs in Commercial Software

It is understandable that companies that produce software do not want to be held liable for misuse of their software, and could not conceivably be held liable for every bug encountered by every user of the software. Even Windows, which is deployed on most computers throughout the world and is possibly the most important piece of software in existence as a result, is buggy to an extent. However, there are certain pieces of software that merit special consideration because of the nature of their bugs or their market position. The one I’m looking at is Finale 2007.

Finale (http://www.finalemusic.com/) is a line of music notation and publication software intended for classical composers, writers of Jazz charts, and songwriters—basically anyone who notates music (rather than records it). Commercial licenses for the software are $500 and student licenses can be had for $250. It is essentially the Microsoft Office of music composition. The program allows the user to enter music on a page, representing any number of instruments, and to play back what has been written. The program is extraordinarily advanced in its features, allowing the composer complete control in writing the music, laying out the page, playing back the music, etc. Because of this, the program requires extensive training to produce publication-quality documents. Coincidentally, Finale has a near monopoly on this software, with its closest competitor being Sibelius (http://www.sibelius.com/home/index_flash.html). Having never used this software (as the composition faculty of this university as well as many others is trained only on Finale), I cannot attest to its quality.

Finale, on the other hand, is one of the buggiest programs I have ever used. It crashes in about 25% of the sessions that I use it. Between shutting down the program and opening it again, it will frequently change playback settings, completely altering the sound of the music. It is extraordinarily hard to add new lines of music to the score or to reorient the page from portrait (which is the default) to landscape (which is the standard for classical score publication) due to bugs in those areas. When playback has not been altered, it is extremely buggy during playback on computers released only a year before the software (my own, for example). I finished a semester-long project writing a string quartet to find that the last three or so minutes were completely unrecognizable because of errors regarding volume levels of the different parts. Overall, this software, as powerful as it is, is extraordinarily hard to use because of its bugs.

It seems to me that, because of Finale’s standing as being one of the only options for software in an admittedly niche field, it should be held responsible for the bugs in its software. Market forces will usually relegate buggy software to the bottom of the barrel, but because of Finale’s unique market and market position, as well as its unusual learning curve, market forces do not have the same effect on it as with other software. The software has had plenty of time to mature (version 1.0 was released in 1988, and new versions have been released yearly for some time). I know from other people’s experience, too, that I am not alone in experiencing these bugs. On the other hand, this is not critical software. When errors do happen, they never cause significant damage, assuming the composer has been saving his data at recent intervals. This is not a program where much is at stake in the event of a crash. Also, the program is functioning in every way that it is advertised. These bugs, while very annoying at times, do not cripple the functionality of the software beyond making some things harder to do. As I said before, though, I think the company should be held accountable because they are a near monopoly. I would like to hear what you all think, though.

42 comments:

  1. I have had sort of a similar situation with Adobe Flash. I am currently taking an Interactive Advertising and Design class in the Journalism school. Part of our class is to learn and create advertisements in Flash. If anyone is unfamiliar with the program, in the most simplistic way I can describe, its a program that animates/makes things on the screen move from place to place. Anyway, having used multiple computers on campus that have Flash, i noticed that just about every single one of them crashes when you try to change a font. The worst part is that I typically forget to save my work before I start playing with the fonts. This is my fault, yes, but its frustrating when everytime you try to change a font in a design program, it shuts down. Now not having it on my own computer, im not sure if it is just UNC's computers or what, but you would think they would fix the problem either way. Especially since it happens when you use a tool that is so simple in a program like Flash.

    I feel your pain!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also feel your pain! I'm currently in chemistry 102 and the lab (yuck!) and in lab we have to use a program known as data studio. Data studio is basically a program where you input and collect ALL your lab experiment data as well as make tables and plots from your data. This program has the tendency to crash at least once or twice out of the lab period and if you and your partner do not continually save your work then its lost. If this happens, then you have to start ALL over from the beginning of the lab experiment, and who wants to do that? Data Studio has become so difficult to keep working that some people in my lab have to pair up with other partners whose data studio is working for that day. Lab is already long an frustrating at times, this just adds to the frustration! Shouldn't UNC have their software programs checked out for bugs? Or is it just completely up to us as Students and save our data every second?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that any company that holds exclusive control over a particular software program needs to be held accountable for any issues that may arise as a result of using it. I wasn’t able to relate much to the Finale software issues (mostly because I’m kind of computer use illiterate), but I can relate to the issues of buggy programs shutting down and freezing without warning. I’m under the belief that the IBM computer the university recommends to incoming students is programmed to breakdown come senior year. I can’t tell you have many issues I’ve had with the computer crashing mid paper, only to reboot and find I have recovered nothing. For awhile I had a problem with starting up the computer, as soon as the interface loaded, my curser would freeze and I would have reboot by taking the battery out. Are computer bugs generally the cause for freezing?? I never figured it out. To respond to CMcCaleb’s question of saving data, I think it’s a nuisance to constantly hit save every two minutes, but to guarantee that I won’t lose my work, it’s a necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is a difficult question to answer and I find that the software and the situation should be taken into account when deciding whether the company should be held accountable. It is difficult for a company to find all of the bugs in their software before releasing them. In an attempt to do so they would have to hire more software testers and thus increase the price of the software. Also, as is written in the text, this would cause slower entry of companies into the field. For these reasons I agree that companies should be required to offer free patches for the bugs online when they are reported, and technical support to help in doing so, but not necessarily be held accountable for every bug. For software that is crucial to the performance of medical procedures and or scientific experimentation, I believe that the software company should be held liable for any loss that is occurred that can be primarily due to a bug in the software. The perfect example of this is the race condition problem with the Thorac-25. Just as many laws are flexible in certain situations, I believe it is up to the public and the court systems to interpret what is fair in regards to certain software and its bug accountability. I believe that companies should and will strive to find the majority of bugs in their software to remain a reliable company from which consumers will purchase software. Therefore I also believe that any reliable company would be willing to have a reasonable warranty on their package and provide full refunds or patches when a program is not performing the duties that it was purchased to and in the manner that it should. In regards to the music program, I believe that as the consumer, you have the right to report these bugs to the company and demand and receive a free online patches for the bugs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. EScott,

    Good point. I should have mentioned that Finale 2007 has been patched several times (the most recent being 2007c). I should also note that the company has since released versions 2008 and 2009, and that bug fixing for version 2007 has ceased (these bugs I describe remain in the fully patched version of the software).

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think for that particular software being in a market with little competition allows for it to not have to be held accountable for the bugs because people who want that type of software are going to buy it because there isn't really another option. The only way for them to be held responsible for it is for the market to expand and another software to come out that fixes some of the bugs you mentioned. But I do think that software companies should be held accountable for bugs, it is just kind of hard to force them to be. As mentioned above, a lot of times they are not aware of all of the bugs. And as mentioned in...I think it was the lecture, fixing bugs can create new bugs. I think that really the best the company can do is to release packages as they find the bugs to fix them until they release the newer software.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When I look at programming and the software industry as a whole I notice that this becomes a trend in pieces of software produced in the same circumstances, i.e. private use in a niche field with training necessary for use which results in a small number of users. I attribute this to the extraordinary cost of high level programmers. If you have 10 programmers paid 150K a year it costs you 1.5 mil in addition to the other costs that come with employing someone to program a complex piece of software without the demand present. 90% of the program may only take a relatively small number of programmers, but locating and solving these major problems (the last 10%) usually becomes extremely resource and time consuming for a piece of software that is distributed to relatively few people and isn't business critical. Therefore I cannot find a sufficient reason to claim that their practices are irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've had similar problems with Adobe Photoshop, but it’s an extremely old version so that has a lot to do with it I'm sure. The issue of buggy software for me at least leads to a questioning of the price of software. Why do consumers have to pay upwards to $1000 for Photoshop, $499 for Microsoft Word and I'm sure a lot for other software such as Finale when the software is known to be buggy. This questioning of the reliability of expensive software results in many people probably not wanting to invest in the software. Instead they may barrow a friend’s install or obtain the software in an illegal and free way. Reliability of software I believe could lead to a decrease in illegal use of software if companies would work out all the bugs. A more reliable product may in turn lead to a more accountable consumer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One thing about software development is that the cost to fix a bug increases the later it is discovered. It's better if the company finds it through their own internal testing, rather than the user. But, software is expensive and complex. In order to get stuff made on time and under budget, testing is usually one of the things that gets short changed. And even when you do lots of software testing, you can't be sure that it'll catch every bug. When I was in R&D (research & development), we wrote hundreds upon hundreds of lines of code and tests. Many companies ship knowing they have bugs. And which bugs get fixed depends on priority (user demand, how long it'll take to fix, how bad is the problem, will it be fixed in a later version, etc).

    As Prof Mike Reiter pointed out last week, software bugs is one of the ways hackers are able to exploit security holes and take over systems. How accountable should software developers be held for security holes which allow hackers to systems?

    ReplyDelete
  11. THIS IS NOT A COMMENT ON Ben Crouch’s POST, BUT A POST OF ITS OWN ACCORD I WAS SOMEHOW UNABLE TO POST MY OWN BLOG SUBMISSION, SO I AM PUTTING MINE HERE. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON MY “COMMENT.” CHEERS.

    What price do we pay for our reliance on computer software? Software is generally designed to improve efficiency, productivity, and accessibility. In January, we read an article that stated that Google is making us dumb. The response to this statement in the blog was general rejection that we experience a net loss with our use of technology. But the question I pose is how much should we confidently rely on the software in light of its limited reliability and should we draw a line as to where we must be self-sufficient?

    Just this past Tuesday (I think), as many of you may have scornfully noted, Blackboard was down all evening and late into the night. For many of us, Blackboard is our notebook, our textbook, and our mode of communication with our classmates. Though I personally had little need for Blackboard that night, my friend had a midterm on Wednesday which she could not study for to her best ability because practice exams, a couple readings, and several powerpoints were only available to her on Blackboard (she never backed them up to her computer). We are all so used to the convenience of electronic copies of documents and programs that we are often at a complete loss when our electronic systems fail us (ask the grad students who have lost their dissertations to computer failure). While professors may be willing to extend deadlines for technological disaster and documents can be backed up, other problems with software reliability can cost lives.

    An example found in our textbook, the United States utilized the acclaimed Patriot missile system to provide protection for its soldiers from Iraqi Scud missile attacks during the Gulf War. Though the Army proclaimed 95% effectiveness of its Patriot missiles, it was later found that its effectiveness was in actuality as low 9%. The true reason our soldiers were surviving these missile barrages was because Iraq’s missiles were themselves terribly faulty and rarely reached their targets. When they did find their target, however, loss of life was extensive. On Feb 25, 1991, 28 soldiers in a barracks were killed by a Scud because the Patriot missile system didn’t even fire in defense.

    I agree that we benefit far more than we lose from using technology like Blackboard and the Patriot missile system. But our dependence on their reliability often costs us dearly. If my friend had printed out everything on her Blackboard, then she could have studied effectively for her exam, but isn’t the boon of Blackboard that our course materials would be easily available anywhere, anytime? And if the Army had not been so confident in its billion-dollar project Patriot missile system, would they have set up barracks in range of Iraqi Scud missiles?

    It’s easy to look back and criticize unwarranted confidence and reliance on technologies, but how much more confidently do we rely on technology and infrastructure today than we did in 1991? Don’t you think we should always be prepared for the possibility that our technology will fail us?

    ReplyDelete
  12. THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO LUKE'S COMMENT

    As much as new technologies should make our lives more convenient, your observation that we must prepare ourselves for its failure is accurate. With the requirement that all Carolina students have laptops, there comes the the risk that, if students should all rely on their laptops for storing school documents (and personal ones, seeing as how these computers can become as integral to our personal lives as they are to our scholarly ones) they put themselves at great risk of losing everything-- hard drives are fragile devices. If we are to allow ourselves to rely on this technology, we must take proper measures to protect ourselves from the consequences of their failure. Backing up our hard drives, localizing (downloading) documents and important software, password-protecting our computer-- all these are extra steps we should take. We need to use technology's convenience as a tool, not as an enabler to let us become lazy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. IN REPLY TO LUKE'S POST

    As Ben pointed out, the tendency is to get lazy. I do have an external hard drive, two in fact, but the one that still has space on it is not used as a backup. For me, it's just an extension of my hard drive because I don't have enough space for my data and hate burning CDs and later having to dig through them all to find what I need. I know it's rather foolish and right after this post I plan to backup my documents folder but it's a very alluring trap. It's much easier to trust that your hard drive won't crash and that 'hey, I've always had good luck with computers, it'll be fine' than to go to the effort and sometimes monetary expense of protecting your data.

    I also think 'what about the people who are completely reliant on GPS?' What are they going to do the day their system fails and they don't have an actual map in their car? Of course you can always stop and ask someone, but if you're a long way from home/your destination, there's no guarantee they'll be able to help. I definitely think we need to be a little more careful with our technological reliance tendencies, but I also think our generation, and particularly those younger, may be a little too steeped in the ease of use and instant gratification it has provided to make the extra effort.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Great point. Companies should be held liable for their actions. I know that this might be along the same lines but I feel like this about Windows and AOL software. I swear just when you figured out how to use it, they are always upgraded it and when you use the upgrade it never works! I thought the purpose of the upgrade is to make the software better instead of worse. The only thing I see is the software making my computer slower and making me aggravated because the system is just useless. I agree with Ben and Luke. I think that technology is suppose to make our life easier instead of harder. However, I feel like the more we become technology advanced and dependent on our own creations, it becomes more unhealthy for us because we are unable to know how to act when these technologies are down. Bottom line: We as a society need to become less dependent on technology and make technology more dependent of us

    ReplyDelete
  15. IN REPLY TO LUKE'S POST

    I agree with the idea that, while the benefits of technologies definitely outweigh the costs, we should use them with caution and refrain from putting all of our trust into them. Technologies like blackboard and GPS make our lives a whole lot easier, but I think anyone would be foolish not to have back-ups. Like with the e-voting presentation we had this week, a system without any sort of back-up records would place doubt into every election, therefore eliminating the public's confidence in the voting system. I think it's worth it to put in that little extra effort to make a copy or back up your data to ensure our lives don't get controlled by technology.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I saw someone post about Datastudio in their Chemistry Labs. I took 3 Chemistry labs and everytime we had to use datastudio. This software was required and although its function was great it was very buggy. Oftentimes I would use my mouse pad, instead of the red ball in the middle of the IBM, and for this reason Datastudio would just crash and sometimes you would lose all your data. We got the hang of it and stopped using the mousepads (and saved our data more often) but even then Datastudio would just crash sometimes and you would have to restart your entire computer in order to reopen the software. They have been using this softeware at UNC for years and to my knowledge have never updated it. I would like to think that some of these bugs could be worked out in newer versions but maybe the school just doesn't have the money to get the newest version of this program?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I guess the reason that company like Finale can easily dominate the market is due to the barrier to entry for the professional software industry is very high, it requires large capital investment, long development cycle, and many professional developers. So those company would rather aim to release their "imperfect" product at first place, and use the sales revenue to fund their further improvement for the product. In addition, we need to understand those software company don't design bugs purposefully in order to make our life harder. There might be reasons like technical difficulties or limitation in capital resource that cause the imperfection to be inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. IN REPLY TO LUKE'S POST

    I definitely remember Blackboard being down on Tuesday and I definitely felt lost. I didn't have a tremendous need for it that night but if I did I would have been livid. You would like to think that some teachers would be understanding but unfortuneatly that isn't the case and I wouldn't be surprised is some teachers didn't extend due dates or push back exams.
    I think that our generation is very reliant on technology, almost to a fault. Yes, these technologies fail us at time but the amount that we can do with this technology surpasses those risks. Just look at the range of things we can do with technology that we wouldn't have the resources to do before. It is always important, in any situation, to realize the risks and always have a back up plan.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Although I am relatively uneducated when it comes to computer programming, I think producing software without bugs would be nearly impossible. Humans make the software and humans are prone to errors.
    Although Finale may be one of just a few choices for music composition, it is certainly not a natural monopoly, as would be the case with utility companies. Entrepreneurs are free to enter this market. In turn, I don't think that there should be any intervention on the government's part, if that is what you are suggesting.
    With time, I imagine that the software will become better. I remember when Windows used to freeze on me all the time. Now, that hardly ever happens.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Response to Luke's

    I agree with what Luke had to say about technology and how the benefits are greater than the costs. But people are also getting lazier and they want to have things done faster and easier. With that said some people tend to have a blind eye for the consequences of such technological advancements. The most obvious thing people forget to do is back-up their things on their computers. This small mistake can become very costly. There is also a problem with such sites as Blackboard. Some students tend to wait until the night before a test to get all the notes, old tests, and other materials from the site. And if Blackboard happens to go down, then the students are out of luck. This goes to show our dependency on technology and not realizing there will always be a chance that something can go wrong with technology. But overall, the benefits of software development and technology are much greater than the costs. We just need to be prepared for situations when things can go wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I can certainly empathize with having to use a very buggy, yet specialized software. A program which I use to type Chinese characters is great some of the time, but at other times it interferes with my ability to use other programs and will occasionally shut down my internet browser. As far as holding this company to a higher standard, I'm not quite sure what could be done to enforce/implement this. As a consumer I don't have very many options, but I could choose not to use it all or use another program. In the end though, I am much better off and enabled by using this program even though it brings the occasional headaches. It seems like in scenarios such as this where there is a need to adapt software but the companies don't have the time or resources to do so, some form of open source coding might alleviate some issues. While this brings along its own potential for bugs and misunderstanding, I think that if consumers had the option of using the "prefab" manufacturer's version or the version updated through open sourcing, there wouldn't be such a monopoly on individual programs and people could still work within a proven framework while exploring adapted, and hopefully better programs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In response to Luke's post:
    Backing up electronic information and having a contingency plan in place for when technology fails are certainly prudent measures to take, but it brings up the issue of deciding what steps are necessary/warranted when expediency is a huge reason for using technology in the first place. Just like your Blackboard example, one might ask, "What is the point of having these technologies if everything has to be put into an older style hard copy?" I feel that while these steps might seem cumbersome, if done regularly they can save a lot of time in the long run. It might not even require printing, but steps such as downloading all available blackboard materials to a thumb drive would be effective and after reading several posts I plan on doing that myself. Backing up data and being trained in more basic, less technologically reliant procedures can be a little time consuming now, but I feel like the potential they have for averting disaster longer down the road make such steps worth any amount of time and energy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. After going back and forth between a Physical and Mathematical Sciences major and an Economics with a minor in Environmental Studies, I have had to deal with my fair share of Mathematical modeling and Statistical analysis software. Because of this, there is nothing I like to complain about more than buggy programs that I am forced to use because of the classes I am in. If anyone has ever had to use any of these next few listed programs, you will understand what I mean: Maple, Mathematica, Matlab, or Stata.
    The problem I have with every single one of these programs is not that they are severely buggy (they actually have very few bugs in them), it is that they are the most anti-user friendly programs ever made. Each of these programs literally has its own programming language that you have to learn in order to use it properly. Thus, my problem with programs like this is not that they have bugs (at least, not in my case), but that a lot of them have terrible learning curves and that they are not even close to being user-friendly.
    What I am trying to say is, "Ben, I feel your pain."

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree with this post. We all have encounter similar issues as computers become more and more inseparable from our lives. Although some people may argue that the invention of viruses (or bugs) can be served as a way to check existed flaws within a system or a program, based on Consequentialism, I do not agree with the argument. More disadvantages have been brought than the potential advantages. A flaw in the system may not have an absolutely negative influence for people who use it; a virus, on the other hand, usually causes damages to some extents or brings inconveniences in some ways. Furthermore, a virus would enlarge a flaw in a system. It does not influence one system only, but sometimes has negative impacts spread out to different systems. According to Consequentialism, the sum of the negative consequences, either visible or invisible, would be larger than the positive consequences. Also, these negative consequences would not fulfill the principle of utilitarianism either, since the greatest happiness cannot be attain. Thus, it should be unethical to intentionally create, induce or enlarge these security issues.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's interesting that you note how Finale has a monopoly on the composing software market. I feel that happens A LOT of times in the IT world. Pretty much everyone uses Microsoft Office (the one field it seems Apple has yet to crack), everyone basically has either a Mac or uses Windows, and iPods are all anyone listens to any more (which is why they can charge $30 (!) when you lose that stupid USB cable).

    I'm not sure why this happens, but it may be lined to something we've also recently talked about--useability. For people to be able to work together, we need to have similar working planes. If you sat down at a computer and didn't see the Mac or Windows layout, I bed we'd all be pretty befuddled. We like things to be standardized. As we've mentioned in class, things that aren't (like TV remotes) can cause us headaches.

    This of course can lead to monopolies, which mean we're all tied to systems that have bugs and don't necessarily have incentives to fix them. I think the problem is honestly that we as consumers don't hold these companies accountable enough. We complain about their faults, but not in a way that makes people notice. I think this past week's Facebook privacy debacle shows what an effect people actually communicating their dislikes can have.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think that Ben raises an interesting point in the sense that a company who has a monopoly in a certain business area should be able to better there software to the point that it is really the best that it can be. However, I think that as a company that owns a certain "monopoly" aspect, it is hard to have something to compare it to, someone else to be working on the same type of software and push you to make yours that much better. With little competition sometimes comes less quality as can be probably seen here in the Finale situation. Its certainly frustrating as a consumer coming to expect only the best out of the "latest" software, but sometimes we are so spoiled that these problems in the interfaces we come across frustrate us to death. As Finale seems similar to the crappy cell phone I have or the stereo system I have that is constantly breaking down, we really place a lot of our time and money into stuff that isn't going to be perfect-regardless of the situation. What we do expect, as Ben does with Finale, is easy usability to the point that it's not a constant headache. That is something that is important for companies to realize, that if the users hate the program because it never works, then they wont tell others to buy it. All this goes to say, Finale and other such programs- get with the program (figuratively and literally).

    ReplyDelete
  27. LUKE'S COMMENT

    I also think that its a good point that we have become lazy to the point that we rely on technology so much that it effects how we protect ourselves, how we study, etc. Its pretty ridiculous that our lives are so reliant on technology that we don't even know how to look up books in the library anymore, let alone sit down and read them. We are so engulfed in this age that we put so much pressure on these software to perform that inevitably, we are going to fail every now and then. So I think my answer is yes, we should always be prepared for the computers to break and for the software to screw up and have a simple back up plan that allows us to keep functioning without skipping a beat. The Blackboard thing we have all experienced as with the horrible UNC email account that they give us and yes it certainly does put us at a loss when we really need it. But when it comes down to it, we should be able to call our professors (like in the ancient days) and talk to them about such things and figure out something. What really bothers me about this whole technology thing is the absence of one on on face time with other people that we miss because of it. Whether it be texting, Blackboarding, etc, we certianly take for granted what can be accomplished by meeting with someone to get things done. I do like the idea of always having a simple, non-technological back up plan though to keep ourselves out of trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well I think that Finale should be held accountable for its bugs. I really think all programs should be held accountable, I know that there is usually a list of options for different programs, but if a company wants you to use their program, they need to do what they have to in order to get rid of bugs. But I think that because Finale is one of the only music composition programs, it should be held more accountable just because it knows that people will rely on their software.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I empathise with you and buggy programmes. They're terribly annoying! There are times, however, when I tend to work around them and then adopt that 'style of use' into the way I work.

    For example, if something in programme doesn't work in a particular way it's supposed to and I find another (but probably more inconvenient way) of doing it, I'll stick to it, despite the fact that it may be more troublesome. Then, when the new version comes out fixed, I get slightly annoyed by the fact that I had to 're-adapt' to the new system.

    What can I say? Humans are creatures of habit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I also empathize with your complaints, as I think we all do. While I wish that there was some way for us to hold the makers of this software accountable, I do not believe that there is any way to do that directly. Market pressure is the only possibility and this is admittedly a slow and potentially unsuccessful process.

    Legislating performance of computer code, the only other foreseeable method, would undoubtedly hinder the creative process and make programmers much less likely to innovate. Often times, high quality software, that is simple to use and focused in purpose, is created by "small-time" programmers that do not work for large corporations. Legislation would stifle this process and deny users of good quality software.

    Unfortunately, I believe all we can do is live with the software and urge others to innovate. Ben, it sounds like you've found a niche market ripe for a new, competing software package.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In an ideal world, companies that hold monopolies over a certain commodity should be held responsible for any shortcomings of that commodity. But businesses are about making money...if they can continue getting away with not answering to the complaints of consumers, like Finale has been able to since the late 1980s, then why would they all of sudden try to do the right thing and spend some money to fix the bugs? Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical..

    ReplyDelete
  32. I agree with your opinion that Finale should be held responsible for these bugs because of the monopoly it holds in the industry. This software is very important to those who use it and should be improved upon by the company so that these bugs are fixed. With increasingly complicated software constantly hitting the market, it would seem like the company that creates Finale could eventually fix the bugs. There is software out there for editing video, creating extraordinary web sites and even complex video games. It seems like Finale shouldn't have a problem fixing these bugs at a relatively fast pace. Especially since the original software was released 20 years ago. While Finale does have a monopoly and can therefore do as it pleases (more or less) it should realize how much its users depend on it and provide them the same loyalty they provide it. This is important for any business, especially in today's increasingly technological world, where a viable competitor to Finale, with less bugs, could easily soon arise.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't believe that it is necessary for a company to be held accountable for such bugs for the mere reason that a program cannot be completely void of bugs. If this is the case, then at what point should we draw the line saying no more bugs are 'allowed'? I think that such a program will end up discontinuing itself with negative customer reviews and bad publicity. It will destroy itself, so why go through the time and money to legally penalize such a program?

    ReplyDelete
  34. The program is the most advanced and the only option, so if Finale did not exist then people would not have an option in the software niche. Also, software is constantly improving, but it’s hard to account for every bug or glitch so it’s impossible to be problem free. If severe damage can be prevented if the user continuously saves the data and the program works as advertised, then I don’t see how the company can really be held accountable. Bugs occur in all software programs and if this software did not exist there would be a less advanced option for composing music.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think that all of these comments have merit. On one hand it seems great to imagine a responsible company that is interested in developing bug free software for its users. But on the other, there are two main factors that I believe must be factored in when considering why I don't believe this is a big deal. One is that it's impossible to create bug free software, and since the bugs aren't crippling (just annoying) it's not that bad. Another issue is that since the company has a monopoly, you have to remember that it has less incentive to fix all of these bugs. In order to have a better product, you need to have another company to create competition.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is a problem I feel a lot of people run into when they are in your situation. I am an electronic journalism major and we have a standard editing suite called Final Cut Pro. While it is a Mac program and thus less buggy simply by name haha, it still crashes and resets playback settings at random. It is still much more of an annoyance than a complete breakdown of the usability of software. It is the coolest suite I've ever used and far superior than anything else but I agree that when a company controls a large part of the market it makes it much less likely that it will fix the bugs because it comes with little benefit financially for the company.

    ReplyDelete
  37. OH MY GOODNESS i couldn't agree with you more! I have to arrange music for the Loreleis, and use Finale 2007. It is the most difficult interface to figure out.... and is completely unreliable.

    Additionally, when I save something in Finale 2007, it is incompatible with other versions of Finale that were created after it (aka Finale 2008, 2009). This means when my assistant music director for Loreleis uses her Finale 2009 to create an arrangement and sends it to me, I cannot open it.

    Also, Finale used to have FREE downloads of Finale Notepad on their website. This was extremely helpful for me in my arranging as I could send my arrangements to other members of the group and they could download it easily. Now, they only have Finale Reader as their free download which only allows us to OPEN the finale files. The interface is sooo confusing that I have to pretend that I want to print in order to save it (it took me about an hour to figure this out). AND THEN i had to save it as a pdf file because I couldn't open it in the versions that the UL computers have of Finale Notepad.

    So there goes my rant... but Finale has a complete monopoly on the software, and obviously needs a lot of improvement. They have some great ideas but little follow-through. Thank you for this, Ben... I am glad there are others out there who hate Finale as much as I do!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have used many operating systems and programming features in my career with computers due to the fact that I started with computers in the early 90's and Windows 3.1. By far, the worst interface that I have ever used is CATIA (pronounced Cuh-Tee-Uh)which was actually addressed in one of the readings that we were assigned earlier in the semester. CATIA is a program that allows you to view parts, such as automotive parts, in 3 dimensions or in a wire-frame assembly. This system is used by Boeing aircraft in their design of parts and by Daimler Benz, where I worked in the design of vehicular parts. CATIA was designed by a French aerospace company and is not windows based. The interface resembles nothing I have ever used and being one that builds desktops, troubleshoots hardware problems, used DOS and BASIC extensively, and can usually fix most computers...CATIA is next to impossible to navigate without a "roadmap." In fact, our company hired an individual from Boeing to come and teach us a 40 hour training course in using CATIA. The program when used correctly was wonderful for viewing parts in 3D to check for compatibility and to measure dimensions, but as for being user friendly, it was horrific!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. This is in response to LUKE'S Post:

    With the new developments in technology each and every day we as a society are becoming more and more dependent as advances are made. But, I believe that advances and failure come hand in hand. We defiantly benefit far more than we lose by these changes but as a whole many have become too dependent on programs such as blackboard, email accounts, web maps. When sites are being updated many feel like their lives are over! The do not understand that there are other ways to go back finding out different information besides the computer. I am not excluding myself from this category because when professors announce new projects and include different reserves need to be used in the library we always have to go in an have a library introduction class. This is because many students do not go into the library and search through the card decks to see which paper work is in or already checked out. So, I feel that although technology is very beneficial I believe we all need to take a step back before we get too ahead of ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  40. In response to Ben's post.
    I actually haven't had an experience like this. For the most part I don't have any experience with specialty programs like Finale. The only experience I've had is with a statistical program called "Stata". For the most part my experience was great. Other than a large learning curve there were no problems at all. To my knowledge this is the only program of its kind other than extremely powerful programs that are not used for public use. That being said there were no bugs to speak off at all.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Luke's Post
    With technology continuing to develop, I agree that we do become more and more reliant on these technologies. To the direct question of whether or not google makes us dumber, I disagree. True, it does allow us to mindlessly find any information we like instead of figuring out the answer on our own, but for the most part, the information we look up on google are things that we wouldn't otherwise bother to find out. I think this is a good thing rather than bad, but I digress. In response to the idea that we are too reliant on technology and that this could cause serious problems, I believe that this is a necessary evil. With most technologies there are ways to get around the shortcomings. With blackboard we can save the materials to our hard drive, and after that we can back them up on an external hard drive. While this seems extensive, there are ways to protect against the possibility of losing material. Overall, I think that these precautions, while laborious sometimes, are a reasonable price to pay for the effectiveness of computer software.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Such experiences can be extremely frustrating, particularly when a grade or the success of a business transaction rides on the functionality of the software. However, despite the monopolistic position of the company, it should not be legally required to locate and repair each bug throughout the software, as long as false advertising is avoided. The consumer should conduct appropriate research to determine the quality of the product. There is no reason for the company not to gradually improve the product, then make updates available for download, unless the bugs are intentional and will be eliminated in the subsequent version of the paid software, in which case illegal activity is evident.

    ReplyDelete