tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5026869257529481970.post5030654428977230537..comments2023-12-02T05:56:57.304-05:00Comments on Biblical Studies and Technological Tools: Logos for Mac and Accordance: Smackdown!MGVHoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13984044532444865131noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5026869257529481970.post-39315736854010432432008-03-26T14:49:00.000-04:002008-03-26T14:49:00.000-04:00Mark,Very nice job: very well said. Loved the tit...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Very nice job: very well said. Loved the title too!<BR/><BR/>SCSaundersAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5026869257529481970.post-14676920673712050332008-03-25T21:58:00.000-04:002008-03-25T21:58:00.000-04:00Someone who has been involved with publishing and ...Someone who has been involved with publishing and who quite appropriately wishes to remain anonymous submitted the following comment:<BR/><BR/>As a publisher who has been involved in licensing multiple products to Logos and to Accordance (and who uses Accordance on his Mac and Logos on his PC), I would note only that there are several possible reasons why a particular publication would be available through one software developer and not another. (1) As already indicated, some publishers may choose to work strictly with one developer and not the other. Based on my experience, this would be rare (and foolish). (2) More frequently, a given product will be available from one developer but not another simply because the latter has good reasons for not seeking to license it. To state the obvious, larger companies have greater developer resources, both human and financial, and thus are more likely to provide a broader product line than a smaller (but still excellent) developer. There is nothing conspiratorial or insidious in all this; it is simply a business reality: each company seeks to use its resources as wisely as possible so that it serves the greater good over the long term. I have no idea why Accordance has no CPH and few Lutheran resources available (although I suspect explanation 2 above is close to the truth), but I do know that both Accordance and Logos are worthy of our fondness, thanks, and respect.MGVHoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984044532444865131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5026869257529481970.post-8954845810384943702008-03-25T16:26:00.000-04:002008-03-25T16:26:00.000-04:00I think just about everyone can agree that McCain'...I think just about everyone can agree that McCain's initial statement was a bit over-reaching. At the least, most of it was subjective, which means that there really can be no argument about it since it was, after all, just his opinion. But I think for the broader issue you hit the nail on the head:<BR/><BR/>"It is a bit suspect that an employee of Concordia Publishing House would criticize Accordance for not having CPH products when CPH appears not to be willing to license its products to Accordance but only to Libronix....but McCain's criticism of Accordance does appear to be self-serving and reflecting a conflict of interest."<BR/><BR/>The picture we are missing is why CPH has decided to license only to Libronix. Otherwise it's not really fair to slam another program because your company chose to license with the other company. At best, it's bad business practice to anger people with who are actively seeking out your company in order to make both your company and their own more profits.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps McCain or someone else in the publishing business could comment on this, but I assume the ultimate motivator is that traditional publishing houses are still ambivalent about how to approach the electronic format and they don't want too many competing resources for the same product. I don't know whether that argument really is to their advantage or disadvantage, but you can see the same thing happening in MP3 format/wars or more recently how movie studios were fighting over Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.<BR/><BR/>As a consumer I am annoyed to have to buy multiple "copies" of resources like BDAG (because they cost a lot!) for the book edition and the BibleWorks version I use. I believe it does ultimately hurt the paper-publishing industry. I am much more hesitant to buy paper commentaries because I know that at a later date I can get them much cheaper for the electronic ones. However, I am less likely to get the electronic version now because I know I will only get it for one program, when in reality the one I use most is the program that does not have the licenses to that material.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your commentary. It's nice to have a "neutral" ground to discuss the matter.Michael Hanelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08659181414078106398noreply@blogger.com