Why was classical music moved to it's own tree node?

[jen-s]

I have to agree with TZ02, with the added note that once I learned of the new "feature" and revised my settings, I found that all the customization I'd already done to the display was lost, and I had to repeat it. I guess that's better than finding that MM had in fact lost several dozen albums -- including a few that actually aren't classical music -- but it's still a great big pain in the user experience.

[DJSigma]

Do you think the average user will ever change it, even if they don't like it? It's way too complicated for non-technical users.

If I wasn't the sort of person that tinkers around with software for a week or two before deciding whether I like it or not, I'd have binned MediaMonkey straight away. There are tons of options for "power users" and that's great - I love that about the software - but it's hardly the most intuitive piece of software to use (and the overall UI isn't very nice either IMO, but that's another story).

People aren't really saying this for their own good either cos people that have stuck with MM (i.e. many of the people that post here) already know what you can do with it. It's feedback that, if I had created this software, I would use to make it more user friendly. It doesn't mean that any features need to be removed, but my goal would be trying to get as many people using the software as possible cos that's more people paying for licenses, and that means making it as user friendly as I can from the moment you install it. Putting some of the customisation options for your library behind the pay wall only makes the situation worse too, as mentioned here: -

So in MM4, if you don't want to see all the sub nodes; want to configure your Collection configuration; the advertised solution: Buy Gold.

[nohitter151]

Putting some of the customisation options for your library behind the pay wall only makes the situation worse too, as mentioned here: -

So in MM4, if you don't want to see all the sub nodes; want to configure your Collection configuration; the advertised solution: Buy Gold.

A problem for cheapskates only. The Gold only features have to actually be desirable (as in this case).

[DJSigma]

Being able to play music with MM is desirable, so make that Gold only too.

The point was, you need to find the right balance of free features and features that are locked away behind the pay wall. Not being able to manage collections (i.e. your own library of music) without paying is just a cheap way of trying to get people to pay and it's likely to put people off the software.

It makes absolutely no difference to me if you ignore customer feedback.

[classicoflamingo]

I like the idea of the classical music subcollection for the reasons pointed out above. What I'd prefer changed, however, is mm's method for selecting which tracks are put into it. Obviously there are many sub-genres within classical, like opera, baroque, romantic, choral, etc., etc., and it is unfortunate the mm is only able to select tracks tagged as classical. Perhaps rather than selecting tracks this way it could be possible to have a tick box in the preferences information of each track, asking whether or not you'd like the track to be in the classical subcollection, or more generally, a drop down box of current subcollections that you'd like your track to be put into, perhaps? Thanks!

[dannyno]

Being able to play music with MM is desirable, so make that Gold only too.

The point was, you need to find the right balance of free features and features that are locked away behind the pay wall. Not being able to manage collections (i.e. your own library of music) without paying is just a cheap way of trying to get people to pay and it's likely to put people off the software.

It makes absolutely no difference to me if you ignore customer feedback.

You could argue that people like me, who have paid for the software, are the customers to whom MM need to be listening most of all. In fact, you could argue that people who haven't paid for the software aren't really customers at all.

And people like me, who have paid for the software, might well want to say that the free version should be clearly differentiated from the version we've paid for. Otherwise, what do we gain from paying for it?

So how might you differentiate?

Well, maybe you offer the full version but only for a limited time period before you have to buy it. But we're talking about music collections and people putting a lot of time in building and maintaining collections, so that's not really a good option in this particular case. Potential customers would think: I'm not putting a lot of time into this because if I decide not to buy it then all that time will have been wasted.

Or maybe you limit the functionality of the software. This immediately looks better because people can use it to a certain extent but then have to pay for more functionality. Potential customers might think: "well, I don't mind experimenting with this because even if I don't end up wanting to buy the software I haven't wasted all my time".

Seems to me that having some limitations on free users' ability to manage their collections is absolutely a fair enough way of differentiating free from paid-for music-management software.

[dannyno]

(Not to be interpreted, by the way, as a criticism of DJSigma for not being a paid users, because I don't know whether they are or not. My point is a general one.)