Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >>> Also, it is saddening to read a senior consultant with a PhD >>> suggest the use of a proprietary software package. >> >> It is the job of a consultant to recommend a reliable way of turning >> money into success. Would you buy a car without gas tank opening? "Oh, >> this car does not need refilling." > > You imagine that he receives some kind of revenue from suggesting the > use of proprietary software and that for this particular blog, it was > more lucrative to suggest Sibelius; otherwise he would just as > convincingly steered people to Finale?
No, I suggested customers to be wary of business models that they can't see working. The usual business model involves a gas tank opening, labelled "if things get stuck, pour in money here". It is usually a hefty lie that this will work for everything, but there are quite a few situations that can be taken care of with "more of the same". In contrast, "Let's just pray this car never stops" is not business. Business is turning money into success. If the thing does not run on money, it is not business but magic. Business customers have money, not charming powers. > Man, am I naive. I do see now what you find depressing about this. > How can we ever hope to get people to suggest LilyPond; by merit > only?! They won't give up their working cars and their mechanics. We need to offer something new. And new business models (like transpose-on-demand with electronic or overnight delivery when the soloist would be inconvenienced by wrong pitches). Ultimately things like a whole orchestra playing from electronic paper, getting acoustically synchronized page turns, live synchronized performance indications (the conductor makes a different decision in his partitura and the sheets from the musicians follow suit) and corrections. Including "let's take that aria one note down". Entertainers play the first notes of some piece by heart, and the score knows what registrations and accompaniment to use on their equipment, and in which transposition the supporting score should appear. There is a world of things that can be done with good-quality electronic typesetting that is beyond just replacing established high-quality typesetting on paper. If we want to tap into big business, it will be much easier not competing in the areas the existing players are best at. But rather in the areas that they suck at. And the input syntax of LilyPond is just a minor detail. It makes it harder to use LilyPond as a dependable building block. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
