Not having BDF is a huge deficiency of Accordance. (There are others, but we understand that priorities and the business model always determine the rate of filling these obvious gaps.) BDF is the sister tool of BDAG which so frequently refers to it. I have the hard copy of both and the module of BDAG. Obviously there has to be a list of priorities. But sometimes certain academic resources have to be made available not for the profit they bring the company but for the legitimacy they provide to a software company that would aspire to be designated academic. BTW, I think BDF, as the most recognized academic NT grammar, would eventually bring in a good profit for Accordance!
Just a personal note: it is somewhat discouraging to hear that the preparation of a certain resource, no matter how valuable or even if recognized as das Standardwerk in its field, is not pursued simply due to the intensive labor involved. The impression is that Accordance takes its monopoly-like position in the Mac market for granted at the expense of its faithful customers who have already committed substantial resources to one Bible software and have no option to turn elsewhere without great financial loss. The fact is I like Accordance and don't want to turn elsewhere, but the undesirable impression remains nonetheless.
Jonathan, thanks for the feedback. Regarding your personal note, please allow me to clarify. The fact that a resource involves a significant amount of labor does not mean that we will not undertake it. Nor does the potential loss of investment mean we will not undertake it. I could name a large list of resources that we currently have available, or are currently producing that we have committed to because of their academic value and will probably never recoup our development investment on.
Regarding BDF, we obviously know its value; it's been around for a long time, and these requests are not the first we've had for it. When I said 'long story short', that means there has been considerable discussion on acquiring this resource, and without divulging unnecessary details, it is a complicated situation. In the end we will most likely have to e-text the resource ourself, and then also license it from UChicago Press. This does not mean we will not ever get it; it means that for now, with the other major projects we are investing in, it is not our top priority. Please do not read anything else into it; we have to make decisions like this all the time and given this recent peak of interest, I will look into putting it back on the table for discussion.
My apologies for any undesirable impression. Thanks for being one of the many 'faithful' customers that make our app and community what it is.
Edited by Rick Bennett, 04 May 2012 - 07:39 AM.