David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> writes: > >> Has anyone ever actually engaged with any major publishers to identify >> the factors that are of interest to them in engraving software, and >> the features that Lilypond would have to implement in order to meet >> their requirements? > > Judging from my experience in print publishing, the most important > feature is that output quality is not competitive. > > They have taken large investments in their current tools, their > operators, their experts, their workflows, dependencies, and customer > base and expectations and pricings. They are major publishers not just > since yesterday. They have what it takes to crank out good scores at > competitive prices. > > Getting them interested is only feasible if LilyPond opens new business > areas for them. They won't be interested to change to LilyPond in > already established areas because it would mean putting them on equal, > or actually on worse footing with newcomers. > > Short of being able to offer new _business_ models, you'll get > stonewalled. They'll have to react if you manage to upset the > established markets with LilyPond, but they won't actively participate > before that is the case.
I forgot to add: if the output quality is _not_ competitive, they will be more likely willing to experiment with new business models involving LilyPond. If it looks like it could be competitive, they'll very much try discouraging anybody from looking at LilyPond. Sacrificing new business models is a small price to pay for protecting the established business models from the rise of disruptive technology. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
