score editor

StaffPad Comes to iPadOS (Reflections on App Store Pricing and Touch Screen Operating Systems)

Five years ago, StaffPad came to Windows Surface tablets. StaffPad is a professional music notation application that turns handwritten notes into beautiful music notation. It is built around the stylus being the primary input, and because the iPad did not have stylus support at launch, StaffPad remained Windows only.

Multiple years into Apple supporting its own official stylus, the Apple Pencil, StaffPad is finally here on iPad!

StaffPad’s intro video sells itself, so I am not going to write much about the app here. Instead, I point you to…

StaffPad’s Introductory Blog Post

Download Link to the App Store

Scoring Notes Review - a must read if you are interested

Since the features of StaffPad are covered in the links above, I want to comment on two interesting aspects of this release.

First, the price. At $89.99, this is no impulse purchase. I find it refreshing to see a professionally priced app like this on the App Store. For years, the App Store has seen a race to the bottom type approach for grabbing sales. Users are so used to <5 dollar apps that the idea of paying for software has diminished from reality.

IMG_2544.png

Increasingly, developers are finding that subscription based pricing is the only way to maintain software and put food on the table. There was a big discussion about this in the Apple community last week when beloved calendar application Fantastical released their version 3 and went to subscription pricing. As is customary when an app goes to subscription pricing, users of the application and bystanders alike were enraged at the idea of a calendar costing four dollars a month.

I couldn’t resist sneaking my love of Fantastical into this post. The interface is beautiful.

I couldn’t resist sneaking my love of Fantastical into this post. The interface is beautiful.

And the natural language input is one of many essential features that helps me get my work done more efficiently.

And the natural language input is one of many essential features that helps me get my work done more efficiently.

As a user of Fantastical, I was happy to keep supporting development. It is one of my most used applications on a daily basis and its features are essential to me having a full time teaching job, while also scheduling gigs, 25 private students, speaking engagements, and all of my other personal events.

Fantastical is what I would call a prosumer application. It offers more power to someone looking for an advanced and well designed calendar, and it has a wide appeal (everyone needs a calendar!). Four dollars a month is steep, but manageable. Now that the price is reoccurring, I do think it will appeal to a smaller audience, as each user will have to reevaluate on a monthly or yearly basis whether or not this application is continuing to be worth the cost.

StaffPad is very different. It is a professional creation tool. Much like Photoshop is essential to designers and photographers, score editors are essential to the lives of most musicians, composers, and music educators. By charging 89 dollars, StaffPad follows a long history of apps in its field, which are often priced between 200 and 600 dollars.

I have to wonder… if the iPad had more software like this, and from an earlier point in time, would users have adjusted their expectations and would more expensive professional apps be more viable? And if so, would the viability of such professional apps lead to more (and better) professional apps on iOS?

And furthermore, would Apple adjust to these trends? Apple still offers no free trial for apps (something that will definitely deter a lot of my music teaching colleagues away from giving StaffPad a chance). Not to mention that professional creative software has a tradition of volume licensing and educator discounts. Educators who would normally be able to afford a program like this for themselves or their class are going to be stuck if they are looking for the same options with StaffPad.

App developers get around to this in number of ways, an example of which is to offer a free app where you have to buy it as an in-app purchase after a week. Of course there is also the subscription model. I am glad StaffPad went with a more traditional model than a subscription because it fits within the tradition of how its class of software is priced. And my hope is that this just might convince more developers to bring their own apps to iPadOS.

Which brings me to my second point…

StaffPad doesn’t, and probably wont, have a macOS app. It is built entirely around stylus input. This is why it could only exist on Windows Surface tablets at first. I am thrilled it is on iPad, but this presents an interesting question for users of Apple products.

A Windows Surface user notices no distinction between whether or not StaffPad operates on a touch-based OS or a traditional point-and-click OS, because they are one and the same. Even as macOS and iPadOS move closer and closer together, this distinction has lead them to be products with very different potentials.

On the other end, all the other players in the score-editor field (Sibelius, Finale, Dorico) remain “desktop” applications that run on traditional point-and-click operating systems. With the power of the current iPad Pro, there is no reason these applications couldn’t exist on iOS, other than that developing for iOS is very different. None of these developers have shown any signs of bringing their programs to iPadOS any time soon, and I would suspect StaffPad has no plans for a Mac version.

I admire how Apple has held their ground about the iPad being the iPad and the Mac being the Mac. It has made both platforms stronger. But as the iPad becomes a more viable machine for getting work done, Apple has got to get a plan for how to solve this essential “input” question.

🔗 Dorico SE - A free version for everyone

Users who have been previously intrigued by the professional score editor Dorico but has been afraid to try it can now rejoice! Dorico now has a free version, Dorico SE, for all users. It only has basic functionality, but I suspect you will want to take the plunge after getting familiar with it.

Most people I know are hesitant to take the plunge on Dorico either because of its price (hard to beat free software like Musescore and Noteflight), or because they are hanging on to the comfort of Sibelius or Finale. Well now you don’t have to pay a dime to try the latest and greatest score editor. Seriously, it blows the others out of the water.

My only complaints:

  1. Annoying installation (but Avid’s is still way worse)
  2. Only one computer (so sad)
  3. No iOS app... but who has one other than Notion?

Try it today.

Pasted Graphic.png

🎙 Daniel Spreadbury and I talk Dorico.

In case you don’t subscribe to my podcast, I wanted to make sure you knew that I had the pleasure of interviewing Daniel Spreadbury, Product Manager of Dorico, last week.

Once we got going, this conversation ventured into great detail on the subject of Daniel’s start at Sibelius, using the different modes of Dorico, user interface design, the challenges of software development, the future of Dorico on mobile, and much more. 

I had a very fun time recording it and it is worth a listen if you have considered switching to Dorico. It is a must listen if you are in any way shape or form a nerd about user interface design or software development.

Here is a link to the episode: Listen here.

 

🎬 Adding an Index for Your Real Books in forScore

forScore 10 adds a feature that allows you to add indexes to large scores by uploading a CSV file that links the song titles to specific page numbers of the PDF. This is especially useful for real and fake books that have hundreds of songs all associated with one giant file. A competing score app called unrealBook pioneered this feature to my knowledge. I used to keep it installed on my iPad just for that one feature, but now, I can do everything I need to in forScore.

I created a video tutorial of how to accomplish this. See below:

 You can find the index files I reference in the video here

I don’t have a full technical understanding of how this feature works, so I tried to avoid explaining what is going on with the file. I think I am explaining it well enough that if you imitate my steps, you will be successful in most attempts. If there is anything unclear, let me know and I will try to clarify it in a future post.

One thing I did not cover in the video are the page offset settings at the bottom of the index settings screen. I have attached about 10 indexes to my forScore library and only twice did I need to use those buttons. In some cases, the CSV score may be offset by a few pages leading to the index not linking you to the correct songs. In these cases, I simply fiddled around with the plus and minus buttons until I got the result I wanted. I would be happy to redo the video with that step included if enough people are interested.