| Pages in topic: [1 2] > | Why are more and more agencies these days choosing memoQ or SDL Studio as their "preferred" tool? Thread poster: Michael Beijer
|
|---|
Michael Beijer 
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:00
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
Why are more and more agencies sending me stupid emails like this these days:
"Dear Colleagues,
We would like to inform you of some some stuff that is changing at TRANSLATION AGENCY X.
Over the last couple of months, we have successfully tested the CAT-Tool memoQ by Kilgray, and have chosen to implement memoQ as our primary CAT-Tool as of XXX.
As this is a significant change in our workflow that will most lik... See more Why are more and more agencies sending me stupid emails like this these days:
"Dear Colleagues,
We would like to inform you of some some stuff that is changing at TRANSLATION AGENCY X.
Over the last couple of months, we have successfully tested the CAT-Tool memoQ by Kilgray, and have chosen to implement memoQ as our primary CAT-Tool as of XXX.
As this is a significant change in our workflow that will most likely impact your work with us [meaning: you will need to buy it and use it to accept our projects], we would like to know more about your experience with memoQ […]
etc."
Most of the time, the agency in question will have chosen memoQ, but some of them also choose SDL Studio. As if these two CAT tools are the only two CAT tools in existence!
So, my question is: why are more and more agencies choosing memoQ or SDL Studio as their official/primary/preferred etc. CAT tool these days (and do you think this is a good/bad thing)?
Personally, I think this is very bad for the industry. What about you?
Imagine if novelists were sent emails telling them their publishers had all decided that from now on, all writers would have to use one of two types of pen, and one of two types of paper to write their books with? Sound crazy? Well, this is exactly what is happenig to us. Well, not to me, as I have declared war on SDL and Kilgray, not because I think the individual people behind the tools are bad people (I'm sure they are just like you and me: nice people, trying to pay their mortgage), but because their tools are contributing negatively to the landscape of our profession, on a large scale.
A couple more years of this nonsense, and it will be time for the EU or some other large body to step in and start fining people and launch an anti-monopoly investigation. Oh wait, that won't happen, as the EU chose, you guessed it, SDL Studio as their "preferred CAT tool" …
Michael ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Wrong assumptions | Nov 13, 2015 |
You make several assumptions that are wrong.
Firstly, Trados and memoQ are not the only tools agencies standardize on. Think of Memsource, Across etc., which are also used by a large number of agencies. In fact, there is far more diversity now than 15 years ago: back then, Trados probably had a share of more than 95% of those agencies that used a CAT tool (you are perhaps too young to have any knowledge of that time...); now, the market share of Trados is definitely lower than that,... See more You make several assumptions that are wrong.
Firstly, Trados and memoQ are not the only tools agencies standardize on. Think of Memsource, Across etc., which are also used by a large number of agencies. In fact, there is far more diversity now than 15 years ago: back then, Trados probably had a share of more than 95% of those agencies that used a CAT tool (you are perhaps too young to have any knowledge of that time...); now, the market share of Trados is definitely lower than that, thanks precisely to memoQ, Memsource, Across & Co. Of course, the share of agencies that are using a CAT tool is much higher in 2015 than it was in 2000, so Trados has a smaller share of a larger market.
Secondly, the translation market is very fragmented (compared to many other industries): the 10 or 20 largest players worldwide only represent a small size of the total market. This means there is no shortage of smaller agencies a freelance translator can choose to work for. After all, there’s no law that says you have to work for one of the larger agencies that want to impose their tool of choice. Take me: I’m a "boutique" translator and quite naturally, I work for "boutique" agencies (and direct clients, who couldn’t care less about the tool(s) I’m using). See: the larger agencies that insist on you using a certain tool are usually ones that pay lower rates and have less interesting texts to translate, which means I don’t really have an incentive to work for them.
Now, there is also a solution to your problem: start your own agency, and pick up your own tool, not Trados/memoQ, a better one  ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:00
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Imaginary voyage through the mind of a language industry captain. | Nov 13, 2015 |
Dominique Pivard wrote: You make several assumptions that are wrong. Firstly, Trados and memoQ are not the only tools agencies standardize on. Think of Memsource, Across etc., which are also used by a large number of agencies. In fact, there is far more diversity now than 15 years ago: back then, Trados probably had a share of more than 95% of those agencies that used a CAT tool (you are perhaps too young to have any knowledge of that time...); now, the market share of Trados is definitely lower than that, thanks precisely to memoQ, Memsource, Across & Co. Of course, the share of agencies that are using a CAT tool is much higher in 2015 than it was in 2000, so Trados has a smaller share of a larger market. Secondly, the translation market is very fragmented (compared to many other industries): the 10 or 20 largest players worldwide only represent a small size of the total market. This means there is no shortage of smaller agencies a freelance translator can choose to work for. After all, there’s no law that says you have to work for one of the larger agencies that want to impose their tool of choice. Take me: I’m a "boutique" translator and quite naturally, I work for "boutique" agencies (and direct clients, who couldn’t care less about the tool(s) I’m using). See: the larger agencies that insist on you using a certain tool are usually ones that pay lower rates and have less interesting texts to translate, which means I don’t really have an incentive to work for them. Now, there is also a solution to your problem: start your own agency, and pick up your own tool, not Trados/memoQ, a better one
OK, let's assume that you're right (which you probably are), but then I still have the following (messy, confusing) question:
I'm trying for the moment to imagine that I actually own a translation agency, a relatively large one. Not a huge one, just a relatively large one. OK, having now painted this picture in my mind, I will proceed to imagine that I, as the director of this imaginary company, am thinking of ways to optimise my business, and basically make as much money as I can without pi$$ing off too many people and keeping my translators relatively happy. My thoughts then turn to memoQ and SDL Studio. Would it be possible, I wonder to myself, that by purchasing the server version of one of these monstrous and buggy TEnTacles, and asking all of my translators to use only e.g. memoQ or Studio, I might somehow make more money in the end? That is, after subtracting the cost of buying the software from Kilgray or SDL, and paying for all the various support and upgrade fees.
OK, let's step out of my imagination and back into Proz Land. Although I'm sure many of you reading this will have been fooled by my flight of fancy above, I actually have no experience of being the owner of a translation agency, and so have no clue as to whether selecting a preferred CAT tool for your translation agency and trying to get all "your" translators to use it would actually pay off in the end. Is it worth it? Or are there other reasons, other than financial that I am missing? You (Dominique) go to those conferences, etc., and mingle with the "captains of our industry". You tell me Or at least try to venture a guess.
That is: why do agencies (once they reach a certain size) often decide to select a preferred CAT tool and enforce its use?
Michael
[Edited at 2015-11-14 09:43 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 08:00
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Yes, those e-mails... | Nov 13, 2015 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
Why are more and more agencies sending me stupid emails like this these days?
I've had agencies announce their allegiance with other tools as well. I adapt to it by CAT hopping. If hopping is not possible, I politely tell the client that I can't use that tool but that they're welcome to use my services. Sometimes then they find ways to accommodate me.
MemoQ is pretty easy to CAT hop, as it has a fairly robust bilingual review export format, and clients seem to have no trouble figuring out how it works. It's not as sturdy as Wordfast Pro 3, but miles better than that of Trados 2009+. In fact, the Trados bilingual review roundtrip is so unreliable that when a Trados client sends me an export DOCX, I ask them to send me the SDLXLIFF instead (which I then translate in Wordfast Classic).
Michael Beijer wrote:
That is: why do agencies (often once they reach a certain size) often decide to select a preferred CAT tool and enforce its use?
Simple: the PMs need to support the tool(s) translators use, and it's easier to support one tool, and it's more productive to support one tool very well than to support several tools poorly. These CAT tools (MemoQ and Trados 2009+) also have many integrated services that PMs can use to automate things (i.e. make it simpler for themselves). I think most translators will choose to adapt to the agency. If you choose not to, then you'll be one of only a few, and that shouldn't be too much of a burden, so try it.
[Edited at 2015-11-13 20:21 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
| Because Trados is problematic | Nov 14, 2015 |
Because Trados is problematic. I bought Trados and Wordfast in the same time in 2014. I tried Trados, found substantial problems in first month, then uninstall it (think about IDR 8 MILLIONS I spent on Trados being wasted). I, then, used WF to present from 2014. I also worked "Trados-required projects" in WF.
BTW, MemoQ is too expensive, its rate does not fit to translation rate trend, which has been lowering down or stagnant.
[Edited at 2015-11-14 08:32 GMT]
| | | | | Preferred or mandatory? A question about agencies being entitled to choose | Nov 14, 2015 |
Envision this situation... you are going on a trip overseas, and book a rental car online. The car rental company's web site shows one example of a particular car group, however they warn you that a similar/equivalent car of another make may be actually provided. When you get to the rental location, you may ASK if they have your favorite car brand in that range, however they are under no obligation to have nor to provide it to you.
Likewise, if a translator will be undertaking a job... See more Envision this situation... you are going on a trip overseas, and book a rental car online. The car rental company's web site shows one example of a particular car group, however they warn you that a similar/equivalent car of another make may be actually provided. When you get to the rental location, you may ASK if they have your favorite car brand in that range, however they are under no obligation to have nor to provide it to you.
Likewise, if a translator will be undertaking a job single-handed, it supposedly doesn't matter which CAT tool s/he will use. Of course, there are valid reasons - e.g. absolute wording consistency - why some nonspecific CAT tool may be required.
Teamwork on one same job may require the use of one same CAT tool by all involved, however such projects are not everything in the trade.
Some typical cases I've been in... (of course, every translator will have theirs)
I use WordFast Classic. Quoting one of my best clients, the unanimous voice among them says, You may use any CAT tool you like, as long as you leave no trace of its use on the deliverables.
Some prospects (they'll never be my clients) say, You MUST have Trados. It doesn't matter if you'll be translating script-less video for dubbing, please do not contact us ever again unless you have Trados. This is our carved-in-stone house policy. Kindly refrain from trying to convince us to change it, at is the one thing we've decided to preserve forever in our company. Anything else is negotiable, as long as you have Trados. (Call it SDL Studio, whatever they like.)
One client had a series of giant translation projects, where she would be using a worldwide team of 10-15 translators connected to one common TM on the cloud, being shared and built in real time by all of them. To each participating translator who didn't have it already, she provided a MemoQ portable license. One of the requirements, of course, was being used to work with some nondescript unspecific CAT tool. For several months, I was one of the members of that successful team. After these projects were over, I returned to my old WordFast.
Another client sent me a project and a link to download Passolo. No idea on whether its free or not. I did it on Passolo, delivered it, and then uninstalled the program.
Back to the rental car analogy. Say you own a Toyota. Now and then you go on assignments where clients provide you with a Ford or a VW from their fleet (or rented) to drive. However NO sensible client will ever say that you MUST BUY, say, an Audi, otherwise your driving services will not be accepted. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Costs for an agency | Nov 14, 2015 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
My thoughts then turn to memoQ and SDL Studio. Would it be possible, I wonder to myself, that by purchasing the server version of one of these monstrous and buggy TEnTacles, and asking all of my translators to use only e.g. memoQ or Studio, I might somehow make more money in the end? That is, after subtracting the cost of buying the software from Kilgray or SDL, and paying for all the various support and upgrade fees.
The main operating costs for a translation agency is not the CAT tool they are using (even though you may be thinking the version of Trados, memoQ etc. they use, complete with server and all) is humongously expensive: it’s the employees (eg. PMs) they have to hire to run their business. These people expect to receive a salary every month, can you believe this? When your project has 10 languages et hundreds of file, it is very time consuming to send everything (documents, TMs etc., even when packages are being used) back and forth. It’s a lot more efficient to make these available on your server. If you (as the agency owner) can handle the same amount of business with 2 PMs instead of 3 (thanks to higher efficiency/productivity), the "expensive" software will have more than paid for itself. Besides, CAT tools are only one part of the equation: agencies also need to perform all kind of non-translation related tasks, like billing, for which there are dedicated software (Plunet, XTRM etc.). Take Plunet: it integrates (plugin) with Studio and memoQ. Does it with the (allegedly better and less expensive) CAT tool you have in mind for your agency?
At the extreme end of the scale, you have an outfit like translated.net, that claims to manage 150,000 freelancers with a ridiculously low number of PMs (can’t remember the exact number), thanks to their T-Rank™ algorithm that identifies the best-qualified translator immediately available for each project" . And "thanks to our lower operating costs, we are able to use better translators" (LOL!).
| | | | Rolf Keller
Germany
Local time: 08:00
English to German
| TMs are no philtres anyway | Nov 14, 2015 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
Personally, I think this is very bad for the industry>. What about you?
Agreed. But no direct client, no agency, no tool provider and - last but not least - no translator will ever orientate its individual behaviour to what the industry would benefit from in the long term. All humans work for money and/or for joie de vivre, although some of them don't admit that fact. [/quote]
their tools are contributing negatively to the landscape of our profession, on a large scale.
Agreeed again. But this holds for any Translation Memory tool as well. These tools are definitely needed for certaintasks like "Produce a manual for a new or a different car model, taking an existing manual as a starting point." Essential precondition for this workflow: There is a unbroken and linguistically monitored communication & proofing chain in both directions between the final text product and the original authors. Otherwise the translation memory will be turned into a huge heap of scrap sooner or later. But in reality there is no such chain which means that even for such TM-appropriate texts the TM tools are not really valuable – they just save time at the expense of quality, i. e. at the expense of the car manufacturer (angry buyers, unnecessary service requests, frustrated translators who will refuse to rework the stuff next year, ...)
And of course there are many texts for which a TM tool is counterproductive, because it tempts the translator to a "chopping style". Depending on the language this is more or less bad regarding the style, but in any language it leads to unprecise or false translations because the way one reads original & translation is an inappropriate way. At KudoZ you can see many young people who have never translated without a TM tool and thus are on the same low level as many young non-translators: They never have trained to read more than one single sentence in connection, so they are not able to grasp obvious meanings, logical references and so on, if these info isn't given bite-sized in the very same line. The most poular statement from such people reads "Unfortunately there is no context at all", which means "I'm not able to see a page of text as a whole, let alone more than one page."
Unfortunately some agencies urge translators to use such tools even for things like media releases or ads. Phew, do they really think that this will save money or time? Actually the translator needs additional time for the TM handling, compared to a simple, overtypable .doc file. So, as good translators are a rarity, why not release them from unnecessary TM fiddling? Just get "text mechanics" do that work. Architects don't want to lay bricks.
| | |
|
|
|
Stepan Konev
Russian Federation
Local time: 09:00
English to Russian
| Can't see the problem | Nov 14, 2015 |
Even earlier versions of software allowed me to use my tools regardless of what was the LSP's choice.
Memsource, Transit, Old Trados, Trados Studios, LB Xliff Editor, what else... can be easily processed using memoQ.
Today, CAT tools become even more flexible and compatible. As José Henrique Lamensdorf mentioned above, you can use any tool you like.
| | | | Michael Beijer
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:00
Member (2009)
Dutch to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Fragmented so-called standards | Nov 14, 2015 |
Stepan Konev wrote:
Even earlier versions of software allowed me to use my tools regardless of what was the LSP's choice.
Memsource, Transit, Old Trados, Trados Studios, LB Xliff Editor, what else... can be easily processed using memoQ.
Today, CAT tools become even more flexible and compatible. As José Henrique Lamensdorf mentioned above, you can use any tool you like.
Yeah, sure, I can handle SDL Studio, memoQ, even Transit, etc. files easily in my CAT tool (CafeTran) too, but the process is never seamless. I CAT hop all the time (and am quite good at it, if I don't say so myself), but do I enjoy hopping? No. Do I think hopping is conducive to good work being done? No.
Working with agencies who insist on doing everything in e.g. memoQ or Studio always involves a certain amount of nerding around, which is basically just a big waste of my time.
For example, I just finished a Studio project. No problem, I did it and sent it back, but the client had adjusted certain settings such that a whole bunch of incorrect segmentation was locked down in the file (an .sdlppx file) they sent me, so I couldn't merge or split segments in CafeTran. A pain in the a$$, and in no way conducive to high quality work.
Or even worse are those agencies that insist on asking you to do the job in a memoQ server project. Sometimes there are ways around this, sometimes there aren't. And then there is of course also the joke about the twenty different versions of memoQ that different clients are (still) using, not all of which are compatible with each other.
In an ideal world, of course, the industry would appoint a single body, to develop a single standard, and all CAT tools would then stick to this standard:
• a standard file format for translation files (src + trgt, incl. standardised metadata, such as Comment, Subject, Client, etc. fields)
• a standard file format for translation memories (we of course have .tmx, but most big tools have their own formats too; at least they are starting to include decent converter these days)
• a standard file format for segmentation rules
• a standard file format or API for online projects
• a standard file format for … etc.
Someone will now tell me that these standards all already exist. Yes, I know. But the CAT tool vendors have not succeeded in working together to actually use them properly, and contribute to their success and development.
[Edited at 2015-11-14 12:24 GMT]
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:00
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| Platforms, not applications | Nov 14, 2015 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
So, my question is: why are more and more agencies choosing memoQ or SDL Studio as their official/primary/preferred etc. CAT tool these days
The translation industry is growing up and a mature business. We can see this in the increasing depth and sophistication of the tools being offered. We can also see it in structural changes, such as the ascent of agencies that consolidate the industry by acquiring smaller firms, which gives them economies of scale.
Software is a part of this. CAT that works primarily for the translator - CafeTran, for example - is not what interests these agencies. Translation is just one part, albeit a key part, of a larger workflow. These agencies want to track, measure and automate as much of that workflow as possible. They're looking for companies that offer a software platform that supports this, even if some components of that platform may be inferior to other applications in certain ways.
Incidentally, note that very few companies are going to build a workflow that depends on one person, a single point of failure. Take the developer of CafeTran, for example. As far as I can see he's a lone wolf. By all accounts he does a great job given his limited resources, but what happens if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? I'm pretty sure CafeTran would disappear with him. That's not a risk I'd be comfortable with if I were making a decision on which LSP platform to select.
If the lead developer on SDL Studio were taken out by the same bus, I would expect development on Studio to be set back, but I would also expect that person's colleagues to keep going. Very likely they would have no problem continuing with maintenance releases and probably could also continue with development of the next version, albeit at a slower pace.
Regards
Dan
| | | | | An analogy with DTP | Nov 14, 2015 |
Michael Beijer wrote:
In an ideal world, of course, the industry would appoint a single body, to develop a single standard, and all CAT tools would then stick to this standard: ...
Someone will now tell me that these standards all already exist. Yes, I know. But the CAT tool vendors have not succeeded in working together to actually use them properly, and contribute to their success and development.
To illustrate, let's consider the "professional" DTP apps to be InDesign (and its father, Page Maker), QuarkXpress, and Frame Maker. The amateur-level DTP apps would be Microsoft Publisher, Serif PagePlus, and Scribus.
There is NO common ground between their files. As a Page Maker user for over a quarter century, I've seen "DTP file converters", tested them, and found none that worked reliably, when they did at all.
Some CAT tools can "trespass" into DTP-app files to allow translation of the text therein without having the specific DTP app, however someone having that DTP app will have to go there later and fix all the layout issues caused by text swelling or shrinkage during translation.
The worst case for translation is MS Publisher. It is capable of EXporting a DTP file into MS Word format, however it is INcapable if IMporting it back. Anyone who has ever done any kind of DTP knows that Word is - and will always be - a word processor, NOT a DTP app, no matter how many bells and whistles Microsoft patches into it.
The solution I found to offer translation AND layout fixing services in all DTP app files was beyond DTP... working on the PDF files all DTP apps - and other programs as well - are able to generate. An example of the entire process is shown here.
It is quite fortunate for Adobe that all three - PDF, InDesign/Page Maker, and Frame Maker - are their own.
However NO CAT-tool developer has its own DOC/DOCX - the market standard - word processor, and Microsoft doesn't have its own CAT tool that their marketing could impose as the one-and-only market standard. Hence bridges will have to be built outside.
Like Iceni developed Infix Pro to translate and fix the layout on DTP files, some smart software developer could make a bundle from devising a TM converter capable of transforming, for instance, a lame *.txt TM from WFClassic into a *.xliffploft - or whatever is that suffix - "as if" it had been originally created by SDL Studio, bridging all different CAT tools.
This could render it pointless to demand/impose one or another specific CAT tool, just as nobody specifies the distilling engine required to generate a PDF.
[Edited at 2015-11-14 12:11 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
2nl (X)
Netherlands
Local time: 08:00
| Efficiency for whom? | Nov 14, 2015 |
Dominique Pivard:
If you (as the agency owner) can handle the same amount of business with 2 PMs instead of 3 (thanks to higher efficiency/productivity), the "expensive" software will have more than paid for itself.
Yes, I guess that this is the way it works. But what is efficient for a PM, isn't necessarily efficient for a freelance translator (like me). For instance, I think that the memoQ server workflow (whenever I have to use it), is costing me a lot of time. Time in which I cannot translate.
And there's also the project configuration aspect:
Michael Beijer
For example, I just finished a Studio project. No problem, I did it and sent it back, but the client had adjusted certain settings such that a whole bunch of incorrect segmentation was locked down in the file (an .sdlppx file) they sent me, so I couldn't merge or split segments in CafeTran. A pain in the a$$, and in no way conducive to high quality work.
I often get Studio and memoQ projects that haven't been configured correctly:
- QA rules (from a template?) that make no sense, but do cost me a lot of time.
- Wrong segmentation.
- Error messages that I have to close (because of all kind of resources that weren't included in the package)
- etc.
One could argue that it is my task to get familiair with these market-leading CAT tools, so that I can adjust the project settings. On the other hand: isn't that what PMs are for?
Many of the issues I have to deal with, are caused by my clients' attempts to automate their workflows (which is an understandable desire):
Dan Lucas:
These agencies want to track, measure and automate as much of that workflow as possible. They're looking for companies that offer a software platform that supports this, even if some components of that platform may be inferior to other applications in certain ways.
...
Incidentally, note that very few companies are going to build a workflow that depends on one person, a single point of failure. Take the developer of CafeTran, for example. As far as I can see he's a lone wolf. By all accounts he does a great job given his limited resources, but what happens if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow? I'm pretty sure CafeTran would disappear with him. That's not a risk I'd be comfortable with if I were making a decision on which LSP platform to select.
Some PMs use templates that relate to all language that they have to handle. A kind of universal templates, with all kind of resources included – even when these resources don't contain a single entry for my particular language combination.
Is this efficient? Not for me. I have to check whether these huge termbases and TMs contain any relevant info (they hardly ever do).
Then there is this bus saga about Wordfast Classic, MetaTexis and CafeTran etc. For me it is no question that these developers have arranged that in case of crossing busses their code will be be handled by another responsible employee, business partner etc. Developers are not unique, no matter how talented they are. So another (hired) developer can and will continue development. (An interesting article that touches the replaceability of software developers: http://wordstar.org/index.php/wordstar-history )
And let us see this in perspective: there is no such thing as eternal usability of a program. Operating systems change. DTP software and other related software change, so CAT tools constantly have to adapt to this changing input. Look at WordStar, WordPerfect etc. They once were top of the bill. A market leader can easily lose its leading position:
(There's a long thread about problems with memoQ that freelancer have to deal with.)
While there is no such thing as eternal usability of a program, there are many examples where the products of these programs cause troubles after their life cycle: legacy file formats (like TTX).
[Edited at 2015-11-15 00:02 GMT]
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 11:30
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | I don't see the problem | Nov 16, 2015 |
From the perspective of an individual translator, I don't find this trend uncomfortable at all. After all, if in the end the two prize fighters left in the ring (memoq and SDL Trados) beat up all the other cat tools to extinction and then fight one another to the finish, leaving just one in the ring, things become all the more simple for me. I just need to buy that final winner and master that tool, instead dividing my money and effort in buying and mastering half a dozen competing products.
... See more From the perspective of an individual translator, I don't find this trend uncomfortable at all. After all, if in the end the two prize fighters left in the ring (memoq and SDL Trados) beat up all the other cat tools to extinction and then fight one another to the finish, leaving just one in the ring, things become all the more simple for me. I just need to buy that final winner and master that tool, instead dividing my money and effort in buying and mastering half a dozen competing products.
As for the analogy of publishers asking writers to choose between two pens, isn't that what they already do? Most reputable magazines and publishers have stringent style sheets which authors wanting to publish their works with them have to scrupulously adhere to, and most authors do so uncomplainingly.
[Edited at 2015-11-16 14:02 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | 2nl (X)
Netherlands
Local time: 08:00
| So for you it doesn't matter how efficient a CAT tool is? | Nov 16, 2015 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
I just need to buy that final winner and master that tool, instead dividing my money and effort in buying and mastering half a dozen competing products.
So for you it doesn't matter how efficient that one last remaining CAT tool is? No more competition, no more need for improvement?
| | | | | Pages in topic: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Why are more and more agencies these days choosing memoQ or SDL Studio as their "preferred" tool? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news related to CAT tools
