Germany’s BDÜ (Federal Association of Interpreters and Translators) recently published an update to its curated list of technical translators (Fachliste Technik).
The list features 340 professional translators, all of whom are BDÜ members and had to submit their qualifications to the association before being included in the list.
This article is based on the list of linguists specializing in translating technical documentation, a major sector in Germany given the country’s thriving Mittelstand (i.e., small and medium manufacturers), which often occupy leading positions in a particular niche.
The BDÜ advises buyers of technical translation that selecting professional translators is key to avoiding the potential risks arising from Germany’s strict product liability laws.
In addition to name, address, e-mail, and other personal information, the list also includes the translation productivity tools used by featured translators. The association published similar lists for the medical, financial, and legal sectors, but do not list any tools. A list for the energy sector, which did have tools, was published nearly two years ago.
Linguists were able to mention multiple tools. The sample size is relatively small (340 linguists). However, we feel that given the careful curation of the list by the BDÜ, it does provide a good indication of the overall market position of major tools among Germany’s technical translators.
We cleaned up the data for double entries as some translator profiles appeared more than once in different language combinations.
Top 5 Tools
Going by product (i.e., not by developer), SDL Trados Studio 2015 dominates with 22.2% of mentions. Local German champion Across comes in second with its Across Translator Edition basically receiving 11.1% of overall mentions. Closely following is SDL Trados Studio 2014 with 11%. Kilgray’s memoQ 2015 got 7.5%, while STAR Transit NXT rounded out the top five with 6.8% of mentions.
Top 5 Developers
SDL continues to dominate the market going by the number of tool developer mentions: 52% of all mentions are for SDL products. Here too, Germany’s Across is the runner-up at a distant 15.3%. Kilgray (memoQ) comes in third with 11%. Star (8.6%) and Wordfast (3.1%; or 10% percent higher if one includes Alchemy).
The Gist
The main takeaway from this well curated, yet still relatively small sample, is to show just how conservative this market segment is. SDL continues to benefit from its decades-old, first-mover advantage against challengers like Across, Kilgray, memoQ, and others. More recent entrants like Wordbee (a TMS with productivity features) or Lilt (adaptive MT) are completely absent from the list.
Share an article »
ProZ.com blog »
United Kingdom
Local time: 02:49
German to English
+ ...
The fact that "linguists were able to mention multiple tools" leaves some interesting questions unanswered, e.g. the proportion of a given translator's time spent using the respective software packages, and the change in these percentages over time. Translators are often effectively pressured into purchasing specific software so as to obtain regular work from particular sources or so as to cover their backs in relation to future oppor... See more
The fact that "linguists were able to mention multiple tools" leaves some interesting questions unanswered, e.g. the proportion of a given translator's time spent using the respective software packages, and the change in these percentages over time. Translators are often effectively pressured into purchasing specific software so as to obtain regular work from particular sources or so as to cover their backs in relation to future opportunities, so to speak - but it would be interesting to know what software is gaining ground as time goes on. Perhaps this will gradually become evident, to some degree, as subsequent surveys are published in years to come. It would also have been interesting if data had been collected with regards to the personal preferences of so many users.
In essence, I am not sure the data is sufficient to conclude that the market (in terms of all those who buy the software) is essentially very conservative (quite apart from the issue of sample size). It may arguably simply demonstrate that many linguists have felt they have had little choice but to adopt software that is already prevalent, while at the same time they may conceivably be finding themselves increasingly using one or more of the alternatives (and indeed may prefer them). Many of the translators may even already be using one or more of the less prevalent packages to a greater degree than a market leader, but nonetheless find themselves reluctant or unable to let go of something that still enables them to accept orders from certain clients who have embedded the more prevalent software into their systems.
If anything, my sense on the ground is that the newer entrants to the market are very much hot on the heels of the older brand(s), and may well in time overtake it/them. ▲ Collapse
Germany
Local time: 03:49
English to German
[Edited at 2017-04-05 06:21 GMT]
To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:
You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »
This discussion can also be accessed via the ProZ.com forum pages.