They just announced that they're stealing back the product they sold to their erstwhile customers. "It could be way worse" is a hell of a response to that.
"We just stopped support for your Silverado. You can drive it for one more year, then we're coming to take it out of your garage. We have a deal with Ford for you to get an F-150 with a discount."
"It could be way worse, at least I get to use it for another year, I hope they're getting a kickback from Ford."
What’s with the outrage? Do you own a Finale license? I’m sorry if you do, this does suck for people who still want to use Finale, but “stealing back” seems like hyperbole. The product (along with their income stream related to it) is shutting down permanently. It died, and no amount of commentary is going to bring it back.
Assuming you have a vested interest in the outcome here, what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic? What would you have done if it was your business? Have you ever had a business and had to plan the shut down a product people had paid for? Please actually consider those questions carefully.
Sometimes businesses lose. You can’t force a business to make a profit or to sell something they don’t want to sell or can no longer make. There’s no good way to shut down a product. And there’s no product ever that has ceased that didn’t have buyers right before they stopped taking money.
It’s a fact that it could be worse, and I already explained why, because often it actually is worse, especially with tech companies.
And yes, I hope the devs at MakeMusic are okay. I don’t understand why internet commenters wouldn’t, especially if they’re Finale fans.
If you do a quick read of the announcement, it sounds at first like "after next year, it's impossible to use Finale anymore" (a closer read indicates that what goes away is the ability to activate a Finale install, so existing copies will keep working until you get a new computer). And for a lot of people, those who are reading the announcement that way, this is going to be a "my library of scores becomes permanently and completely inaccessible" situation. Especially because, to my knowledge, no one has a working Finale music file -> their own music file converter (people have working converters from MusicXML, but you have to open up Finale to convert from its format to MusicXML, and Finale only added MusicXML support relatively recently).
It's this library archival stranding that is driving a lot of outrage from some quarters, especially if you're misreading the announcement, as noted above.
That’s a great point, and I’m happy to overlook any initial misunderstandings. I would be very concerned as well if I had a Finale library, even knowing MusicXML might be available. I don’t have a Finale library, but I know at least one composer who does and is probably freaking out right now. I’m going to call him today.
I don't have a proverbial dog in this race but I agree with the outrage and I don't think "stealing back" is at all hyperbolic.
I guess if you're really really really young and all you know is subscription based software, then that is the world you know and you might just be accustomed to it and accept it.
But if Finale has been around for 35 years, then it existed long before "cloud" and long before subscription software was a thing.
If someone has invested money and time into using that software, into creating project files that only work with it, in learning how to use that then it is not remotely acceptable in my opinion to disable their access to something that they have paid for and invested in. I don't think that "stealing" is an inappropriate word to use in that case. Not even a little bit of hyperbole.
Does that mean that MakeMusic should continue to invest their own resources into maintaining it? Absolutely not. To answer your question: "what do you actually want to have happen to Finale that’s realistic for MakeMusic?": I would suggest that they allow people who have paid for it to continue to use it indefinitely.
This might mean that they need to release a patched version that's not going to activate remotely through their servers with a download link that will eventually expire.
I acknowledge that that doesn't cost them "absolutely nothing" but it's not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost) and it prevents them from being akin to your fridge manufacturer saying "we are discontinuing this model, as well as repair services for this model, therefore we are going to enter your house and physically remove your fridge one year from now so that you will be forever unable to use the thing that you paid us money for." What they get in return for this one time "end of life" service for their paying customers is customer retention and good will. I mean, I know that I will never consider buying anything from MakeMusic as a result of hearing that they might shut off my access to things I bought and paid for at any time.
Users who’ve paid for it can continue to use it indefinitely, albeit with no support after 1 year from now. The fridge analogy is wrong. MakeMusic is not going to remove the software from your computer.
> it’s not a major expense (also happens to be a fixed cost)
That’s unlikely to be true, and not anyone’s decision but MakeMusic’s. What if they don’t have the money? It’s not reasonable for me to ask you to pay me $10 on the grounds that it’s not a major expense and is a fixed cost, right?
Users who’ve paid for it can continue to use it indefinitely, albeit with no support after 1 year from now
FALSE.
From the announcement, "It will not be possible to authorize Finale on any new devices, or reauthorize Finale".
If I have to reinstall it for any reason, such as my computer dying, or I get a virus, or I upgrade my computer, or any myriad of reasons, I am completely SOL and can no longer "continue to use it indefinitely".
Yes! Your existing authorized Finale installations will continue to work as long as your current computer is working.”
BTW, I did make the mistake of saying ‘forever’ in another comment, but FWIW ‘indefinitely’ doesn’t mean forever. Also, it doesn’t matter what I say, I don’t work for MakeMusic, just read the whole FAQ.
You just really like arguing for the sake of arguing don't you?
I'm sure that if I opened a dictionary I would find the distinction, but most people treat the words 'indefinitely' and 'forever' as synonymous. Nit-picking on that minutia kind of makes you come across like the obnoxious little brother who does the "But I'm not touching you!" thing to his sister. It's just annoying and most reasonable people know exactly how 'indefinitely' and 'forever' will be interpreted.
Yeah sure, in a way. It’s kinda dumb in the sense that ‘as long as your computer is working’ actually means ‘ending soon’, for the majority of people in the real world. That seems obvious though. Few people if anyone can keep their current computer working with a software app that freezes. It might stop working in a year, it might be more than that, or might be less than that (which they explicitly admit re: Sequoia).
It’s a sort of glass-half-full spin, perhaps, but doesn’t seem misleading to me in light of all the FAQ entries and the letter. They are very clearly and explicitly recommending users move off of Finale asap, and not wait for the computer to stop working, whatever that might mean. If someone really truly depends on Finale professionally, and can’t move within a year, it’s not outside the bounds of possibility to freeze their computer, buy a new one for everything else, and keep Finale running for a while. I would in no way recommend that, but I’ve seen people do it before.
I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine.
What you’re actually complaining about is the fact that the software was remotely authorized in the first place, starting over 3 decades ago, not that it was discontinued and will stop. It’s fine and fair to be against the idea of releasing software that requires remote authorization, I’m not arguing against that idea. But if you are, then don’t buy it in the first place. Software that is remotely authorized always comes with the risk that authorization will go away, it would be pretty silly to assume otherwise.
Why should their agreement with Steinberg factor into this?
There is no need to maintain the auth server just make the one-time cost of removing the requirement of the auth server.
As for this particular EULA, if the publisher stops selling the software, they shouldn't be able to revoke existing licenses based on it. The license was granted in exchange for a fee, creating an expectation that the software could be used indefinitely under the agreed terms. Their EULA specifies that revocation is linked to breaches by the licensee, not the publisher's business decisions.
Their EULA lacks any clause that allows revocation simply because the software is no longer sold. Revoking a license under these circumstances would remove their right to use a product they legally purchased, which is a violation of their consumer rights. The publisher's decision to withdraw the software from the market shouldn’t negate the licensee's ability to continue using it as originally intended.
Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one. It literally doesn't matter. It's their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.
> Why should their agreement with Steinberg factor into this?
I’m speculating, but it could be possible that turning off authorization is Steingberg’s request or stipulation for offering a Dorico discount. Was that not clear before this point? If true, does it change your calculus at all?
> Software being remotely authorized is an implementation detail not a contractual one.
Section 9 “Authorization” of the June 2021 EULA disproves that claim.
> It’s their job to allow software legally purchased to continue to function however they are able to do it.
Says who? Do you have any laws or contracts you can cite to back that up? I know you’re just trying to convince me that they shouldn’t be able to turn off remote authorization of new installs next year, however turning off authorization is a thing that can happen with any software packages that use remote authorization, because remote authorization is a common practice. Again, I’m not debating the ethics of said practice. But if you think that remote auth should be illegal, then you should never have bought Finale in the first place.
> Section 9 “Authorization” of the June 2021 EULA disproves that claim.
Yes, that binds the user to authorize their copy. The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.
As for the legality, this is pretty contentious issue in many countries which is why we are having this discussion rather than it simply being an open and shut case. A fair amount of this Wikipedia article is dedicated to this subject:
Authorize contractually. It is not an implementation detail, right? It’s specified that it will authorize by internet connection, or otherwise by manual key entry on every subsequent launch.
> The company must therefore provide the means for them to authorize.
That’s a logical assumption, if the company wants to do business, but isn’t stated in the EULA or the law. Pay special attention to Finale EULA sections 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
All this gets extra problematic when a product or a company dies or is transferred. There are very few laws that try to force a product to continue existing once its creator decides to shelve it for any reason, even if it would be trivial for the creator to do so.
Personally, I agree with the guiding principles of the First Sale Doctrine. What we’re concluding here is that your beef is with the idea of software authorization for purchase-once (non-subscription) software that is locally installed and doesn’t depend on cloud services. As a principle, that’s fine, I don’t disagree with it. Given the specifics in this case, it’s not known yet how many people the auth server shutdown will affect next year, but it is possible (I speculate!) that the discounted upgrade path to Dorico might not exist in it’s current form if Finale left the auth server on.
Nobody who bought is unaware that it’s remotely authorized. And, there’s a 30 day refund policy, so if they find out after purchase, they can change their mind.
You might have a point when it comes to, say, MS Windows, but not Finale.
Maybe, but the problems with your new argument are 1) Finale requires explicit authorization, it’s a manual process the user has to do when first launching so you seem to be speculating or making things up, 2) this moved the goal posts for the thread and you’re undermining @wvenable’s argument and others by suggesting they didn’t understand what they were doing 3) it doesn’t matter what your or I think about consumers, what matters is what the EULA and/or sales contract said.
And why did you quote “IT people”, who said anything about IT people?
> And why did you quote “IT people”, who said anything about IT people?
I'm not the person you're replying to but I interpreted what they were saying as meaning "tech savvy."
The average, non-tech-savvy user doesn't necessarily understand the concept of client/server applications let alone realize that what makes the software that they purchased work is bound to a remote server / someone else's computer that could one day disappear.
I've been following this thread and in another reply it was pointed out that Finale has a 30 day money back guarantee, that "everyone" who uses Finale knows about the remote activation mechanism and that if they discover it after purchase and do not agree they can take advantage of that 30 day money back guarantee.
I think this argument is weak.
What a user typically experiences after installing new software is a dialogue asking them to enter their email and password that was used at the time of purchasing.
What happens after that is not necessarily clear.
Does it need to send the email and password to a remote server in order to verify the license every single time the application starts, or is this a one time activation?
From the user's perspective, is it made blatantly clear that the software is asking for the information for the purpose of product activation or is it merely for personalization purposes?
For that matter, does it actually serve any functional purpose at all, or is it just annoying data collection that can't be skipped?
20 years ago, EULAs were one of the big talking points online when it came to software companies. There was a question as to whether EULAs would actually be enforceable, binding contracts that courts would recognize at all. This came up time and time again because of some of the content that these EULAs included. I can't remember any specifics, but I remember that there was some really eyebrow raising stuff in some EULAs. Regardless, it was well understood that most end users blindly clicked "I Agree" without ever reading the EULA. It was seen by most as an annoying thing that you had to do when installing software, and few understood the point or gave it a second thought.
My argument is that when it comes to product activation, most end users probably view it as similar to clicking "I Agree" on the EULA. I doubt very much that most non-tech-savvy users are really thinking about the fact that someone else's computer is going to need to be running in order to activate their software should they need to re-install or if they lose access to the Internet. And very few are thinking about the possibility that the company could go out of business or one day just decide to stop activating the software on re-installs because they feel like it.
I'm repeating some of what I've said in earlier replies of mine ... but this really comes down to contracts and by "contract" I don't necessarily mean a hand-written and signed document laying out terms, I just mean the agreement that was between the vendor and purchaser. That agreement can be complicated because you've got the EULA on the one hand, the company's marketing on the other and what a court would recognize and enforce if it were litigated.
I'm personally more concerned with the implied agreement because I doubt anyone will choose to litigate over this (unless there is an institution somewhere that invested a lot of money in Finale and expected to be able to use the software in perpetuity). The implied agreement matters because this speaks to what promises MusicMaker was making to their customers and if they reneg on that promise, when money is at stake, it makes them a shit company that no one should ever do business with in the future.
I also really don't understand why you're "simping" so hard for MusicMaker. Is it that you've taken a position and you're debating it as an academic exercise or out of boredom? Or are they paying you? I mean ... I've never seen anyone go to bat so hard in favour of a company screwing over their paying customers.
> I'm not the person you're replying to but I interpreted what they were saying as meaning "tech savvy."
I certainly meant "tech savvy" at the last-- if not out right someone who works in IT. The kinds of questions you rhetorically asked re: the activation process are the kinds of questions I'd ask as an IT worker evaluating a product for use in a business. Those kinds of questions are well beyond what the average tech saavy person would even think to ask. They are "unknown unknowns" to people who haven't dealt with intricate software licensing arrangements.
> I also really don't understand why you're "simping" so hard for MusicMaker. Is it that you've taken a position and you're debating it as an academic exercise or out of boredom? Or are they paying you? I mean ... I've never seen anyone go to bat so hard in favour of a company screwing over their paying customers.
Thanks for articulating this. I was thinking the same thing-- particularly as I watched your interaction the grandparent poster in other parts of these comments. I wanted to say something like this but couldn't come up with an articulate way to do it quickly.
It’s much better you didn’t before, except now you did which sadly undermines the rest of your argument. I wasn’t particularly defending MakeMusic, I was just resisting a pitchfork mob thread that was posting misinformation by people who have absolutely zero actual intent to run Finale next year, and no they’re not paying me :eyeroll:. @gspencley just didn’t understand my position before deciding to troll with multiple mean-spirited low-class and ad-hominem attacks that are wildly against HN guidelines. Unfortunately for him, that demonstrates his argument is weak and that he knows it, since he didn’t feel like he could make his point without stooping to name-calling. Now you know it too.
> I guess that depends on what they want, and what their agreement with Steinberg is, and maybe the EULA, and maybe how much money and time they have to maintain an auth server machine.
Their agreement with Steinberg doesn't absolve them of their rights to me.
> That’s unlikely to be true, and not anyone’s decision but MakeMusic’s
The nuance here is that it depends on the contract between MakeMusic and their customers. If I'm purchasing a subscription and the fine print makes it clear that service may be discontinued at any point for any reason, fair enough. If I make a one-time purchase and expect that I will be able to use what I paid for indefinitely, then them taking down their activation servers without providing a workaround might be a violation of their contract with their customers.
But I'm not making a completely ill-informed proposition when I suggest that the expense would be minimal and fixed for MakeMusic to do what I suggested. Obviously I don't know all of the details about how their software works, so I can't know for sure. I'm making certain assumptions based on how long their software has been around, the fact that they have a remote activation mechanism and having developed software professionally myself for over 25 years.
I guess you can call it stealing if you want. The word steal has many figurative meanings, such as ‘you stole my heart’. When a product fails, yes it eventually becomes impossible to use, even when you paid for it. To me it seems like misleading and hyperbole to call it stealing because you’re implicitly assigning malice to the business that simply failed, because they failed and aren’t getting value from the software becoming EOL, because they’re offering refunds to people who paid recently and haven’t had time to get value.
Do you call all products and business that fail or go out of business “stealing”?
If you read the letter and FAQ in their entirety, you will see they are not making it impossible to continue to use Finale. Customers who paid can continue to use it, for as long as their computer works. They are turning off new activations on new machines, in a year from now. It’s hard to imagine that mattering very much in the face of the facts that Finale is now dead, cannot be purchased, and is going to be obsolete eventually due to incompatible OS changes no matter what. But if you depend on Finale enough to not upgrade your computer, you can continue to use Finale as long as you want.
> Do you call all products and business that fail or go out of business “stealing”?
I have plenty of products from companies that go out of business. Some of them even have servers that they depend on. At least one of the companies did the right thing and allowed their physical hardware product to continue to be used by people running their own servers.
It's not rocket science. It's should be the right and moral thing to do. Are they legally required to do it? No. Should they be? Probably yes.
It's one thing if I buy a tool and it breaks down naturally. That does happen... in the physical world. It should NEVER happen in the software world, not for a standalone tool. If a company that sold you the tool (which you expected to use indefinitely) then goes out of their way to make sure you can't keep using that tool, then yeah, that's stealing.
Actually, it's not stealing. It's sabotage.
(And yes, they are making it nearly impossible to keep using finale. Unlike software, computers do break down. Or sometimes Microsoft forces everyone to get a new computer, as it seems will happen next year with the forced obsolescence of Windows 10 and forced move to Windows 11.)
I hope people treat you with respect and understanding and don’t attack you for stealing if you ever need to discontinue any of your software products or happen to go out of business. I have had my own software business, and had to plan the sunset of a paid product, and it would have been hurtful if people accused me of stealing when I was already hurting due to being out of money and feeling like a failure. Thankfully, none of my customers did that to me, as far as I know.
As you point out, it’s Microsoft or Apple forcing you to upgrade. Why are you blaming MakeMusic for that? If you don’t upgrade, then your currently running copy of Finale will continue working. It’s completely unrealistic for most people to not upgrade, but still, it’s not MakeMusic’s fault that people upgrade.
> I hope people treat you with respect and understanding and don’t attack you for stealing if you ever need to discontinue any of your software products or happen to go out of business.
No-one is attacking MakeMusic for discontinuing their product, yet you continue to assert this.
People are attacking MakeMusic for removing a way that you can continue to use their product as long as there are no technical limitations preventing you. No-one is saying "Oh, it needs to support Windows 14 and macOS 18". They are saying "there is nothing wrong with the software I purchased, nor the hardware I wish to run it on. You are just arbitrarily preventing me from doing so".
They don't have to keep activation servers running. Create a patch that disables the online activation requirement. Done.
I understand this distinction. I understand why some users are upset. However, I am getting dogmatic blowback in this thread by some people who admitted never purchasing Finale, and are not interested in discussing the pros and cons of any tradeoffs or alternatives, and don’t even want to consider the possibility that this isn’t fun for MakeMusic either.
It sucks if people expected authorization would continue to work forever. How many people would actually use that if it existed, and what is a reasonable user base threshold below which they can turn it off? It doesn’t matter what I think, but I don’t think leaving the auth servers on is going to benefit more than a very tiny handful of people at most, and thus probably isn’t worth the effort. And again, it’s entirely possible this is all coming at Steinberg’s request and was deemed an acceptable tradeoff by MakeMusic, assuming that it would benefit more people than it would harm. The discount vs activation tradeoff very well might benefit more people than it harms.
Personally, having run a software business, and having known others who’ve run software businesses, I see failed businesses, failed products, and company acquisitions all under the same umbrella of causing real problems against the expectations of buyers. All of those situations cause changes to the EULA, and people don’t like change, especially when they’ve paid money for constancy, I can completely and totally understand that. I was just trying to calm the pitchforking down a little… and not doing that great of a job, obviously.
If MakeMusic is offering the Dorico discount in return for no competition via turning off the auth servers, in a way that’s almost like Steinberg acquiring Finale but killing it. Maybe that could have happened, and maybe this way was cheaper and less legal paperwork for both parties, I dunno. Nobody else here does either.
> but I don’t think leaving the auth servers on is going to benefit more than a very tiny handful of people at most, and thus probably isn’t worth the effort.
You say this, but of the composers who haven't moved to Dorico by now, they're probably very set in their ways. So I'm not sure "very tiny handful" is accurate.
I don't actually think they should be required to maintain auth servers, hence the patch.
> And again, it’s entirely possible this is all coming at Steinberg’s request and was deemed an acceptable tradeoff by MakeMusic
I still have no idea why this relevant or appropriate. "Hey, we might have been willing to continue to "allow" you to use the software you know, you bought, but another agreement sounded more appealing to us". That would actually be pushing on the concept of tortious interference (where a third party induces a first party to renege on their agreement with a second).
> And again, it’s entirely possible this is all coming at Steinberg’s request and was deemed an acceptable tradeoff by MakeMusic, assuming that it would benefit more people than it would harm. The discount vs activation tradeoff very well might benefit more people than it harms.
Entirely so. And maybe for some, the financial aspect is what's holding them back. But to be clear, Finale itself has been several hundred dollars (I believe I paid $299), so I don't know that that was the distinction for some.
Also, there is the removal of choice. "We're turning off the activation servers. You can pay $179 to some other company, or lose access to the software you'd already paid for". I don't know that your "oh you're not losing it, because you can keep running it, if it's already activated" is anywhere near the argument you think it is.
> but of the composers who haven't moved to Dorico by now, they're probably very set in their ways. So I'm not sure "very tiny handful" is accurate.
Fair point, maybe more people will be caught than I think. I do know a composer that hasn’t moved yet, and he is pretty set in his ways.
On the other hand, it’s also possible that the whole reason Finale is shutting down is because the user base is already too small. And, even people set in their ways are now being notified that Finale is going away, which is news, so a lot of the people still left will certainly move before the year is out, right? We’re both speculating on how many will be left and whether we can subjectively call that many or few, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to estimate those still left in a year from now will not be the majority of the user base they had last week.
I agree with you that suggesting people can continue to run Finale is a weak argument. If you look, you might notice I’ve actually argued that it’s pretty unrealistic for most people and probably not going to work for long. I only corrected people who’ve incorrectly claimed or implied they would lose any and all access, and I only did that because that’s what the Finale FAQ says and I assume people are getting angry before reading and understanding the entire situation. People have a year to install Finale on a new computer, and if it’s really super important they can setup a machine that won’t get upgrades or other applications on it, and Finale might continue to work for longer than a year. That’s still unrealistic and I neither expect nor encourage it, but it is an option, should someone sufficiently motivated want to take it. Seems better to me to take the Dorico discount or explore MuseScore or Sibelius or something else and not waste time wishing Finale would continue to run.
This is the kind of software which is going to have a small number of dedicate users who depend on it a lot. The fact that there's a small number of them is outweighed by the disproportionate amount that it affects them, likely professionally.
(Artists get very attached to their tools: this happens with physical objects as well, where e.g. it's very common for an artist to have hoarded up a very large stock of their favourite pen/pencil/brush because it was discontinued. Not an option with software that's had its auth servers turned off)
Yes, you’re totally right. I’m aware of this (what artists do), and they are pulling the rug out from under these people by discontinuing Finale. Leaving new installs working beyond 1 year won’t actually fix that, for even most of the die-hard artists attached to Finale. That’s the part that nobody here is admitting, despite the fact that it’s true. The set of people who aren’t willing to move to Dorico or Sibelius or something else, and also who will be technically able to keep Finale running even if new installations are allowed, that set is near empty or empty. Keep it running with new installs allowed is almost as unrealistic as keeping it running without allowing new installations on new machines. It’s unrealistic to assert that allowing new installations will make anything significant better for a meaningful number of people. Finale is dead. In theory or in principle, abstractly, it does suck they’re disabling new authorizations in a year, but in reality it’s not going to matter. In the mean time, if that move enabled Dorico to feel good about offering a $450 discount, that might really help a lot of people. I’m just guessing, but it could help more people than will still be trying to run Finale next year.
Upgrade? What my CPU melts and I need a new computer. This has nothing to do with Microsoft of Apple. All they have to do is allow their product to continue to be installed -- it's easy. Nobody expects anything else from them. If, for whatever reason, it no longer installs on Windows 17 -- so be it. As long as it was not explicitly sabotaged by it's creator to not run.
I "own" Finale and the Garritan instrument package, which cost me around $600 on a student license. I remember having to guide my music composition teacher through installing his MIDI interface which connects his keyboard to Finale when he upgraded his computer.
He is the conductor of a local musical group and rewrites the scores for different instruments depending on the orchestra he can find/pay.
This guy has spent thousands of dollars over the years, and now he is faced with.... what? Relearning the interface? Can he still open his old scores, and (rather importantly), will the score "work" in its entirety, with all the accidentals in the right place, the lyrics in the right position and split to the correct notes to be sung, the trumpets in the right key, the timpani using the correct symbols, the repeats and coda correctly defined, the personal additions still working? What about linking each instrument to the correct MIDI output or instrument package?
This goes way beyond just cost, even if for a musician who doesn't make tons of money. The intellectual investment over decades is hard to express to someone who doesn't write music for a living.
You may not understand the scale here. There are about a hundred thousand users, a lot of whom had thousands of scores in this format. Some tens of thousands. It's not a straightforward proposition to simply jump to another platform, especially since there's no perfect conversion between any notation software given the proprietary algorithms involved, and the sheer complexity of music notation itself. It's a bad day for a lot of people.
"We just stopped support for your Silverado. You can drive it for one more year, then we're coming to take it out of your garage. We have a deal with Ford for you to get an F-150 with a discount."
"It could be way worse, at least I get to use it for another year, I hope they're getting a kickback from Ford."