Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 39 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 63215 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2657


« Reply #620 on: May 10, 2013, 12:12:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe changed their mind a little during these few months...

Where does it say that Adobe Systems Incorporated gave up their freedom to change previously announced plans?

If we'd all paid in advance for improvements to Photoshop that would be released every 18 months up to 2020, then we would be right to feel aggrieved if Adobe changed their plan -- but we didn't pay in advance.

We knowingly licensed Photoshop as-is -- not as it may be in some imagined future.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 12:15:41 PM by Isaac » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2657


« Reply #621 on: May 10, 2013, 12:22:55 PM »
ReplyReply

What made you think that anything Adobe tells you can be trusted to be the truth?

My expectations of Adobe Systems Incorporated are that they will provide software as described, under license conditions as described -- and they have.

A line of argument that can justify any behaviour whatsoever and doesn't invalidate people's objections. Maybe you should go back to trying to understand the humour in that cartoon...

No, not a "line of argument that can justify any behaviour whatsoever" but simply an answer to the question that was asked.
Logged
Gothmoth
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #622 on: May 10, 2013, 12:56:15 PM »
ReplyReply


Quote
Where does it say that Adobe Systems Incorporated gave up their freedom to change previously announced plans?

read more about legal issues here:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2657


« Reply #623 on: May 10, 2013, 01:16:45 PM »
ReplyReply

read more about legal issues here

See -- South Park, Season 15, Episode 1, April 27 2011 -- "HumancentiPad" ("Don't read about 'HUMANCENTiPAD' on a full stomach")

"Combine both story lines — the HUMANCENTiPAD one hinged on the notion that people don’t read the Apple agreements they sign off on, and thus allow themselves to be tracked at any location and human-centipeded — and you see that the themes are Parker-Stone perennials: Knowledge really matters; many people are lazy and thus prey to exploitation."
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #624 on: May 10, 2013, 04:28:56 PM »
ReplyReply

afaict history's great painters did constantly upgrade their materials -- new synthetic pigments ...etc
Logged

Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #625 on: May 10, 2013, 05:40:04 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the advantages of CC is that Adobe has made Australian prices the same as US. This is significant as there was a price difference for one of the suites of $1000. Adobe was asked to front the Australian parliament over its pricing.
They haven't reduced the Australian price, they've just increased it less than the American ones. I paid $307 for each of my last two Photoshop upgrades, which works out to just over 15 months rent at the current price. Even at the rip-off Australian upgrade price, you'd still pay less to own the software and upgrade at every new version than you'd pay to rent it. If you want a few of the CS applications the new pricing may admittedly save you money.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 05:45:02 PM by Chris Pollock » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2657


« Reply #626 on: May 10, 2013, 06:01:13 PM »
ReplyReply

afaict history's great painters did constantly upgrade their materials  -- new synthetic pigments ...etc

I agree; they probably didn't upgrade their materials while taking a bathroom break, debauchery break, breakfast break, sleeping, ... or when no upgrades were available...

I'm so pleased that we have that correction in-place Wink
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #627 on: May 10, 2013, 07:05:46 PM »
ReplyReply



I agree; they probably didn't upgrade their materials while taking a bathroom break, debauchery break, breakfast break, sleeping, ... or when no upgrades were available...

I'm so pleased that we have that correction in-place Wink
Outstanding diversionary move, even by your standards, Isaac, and your standards are high. One example of a change of artistic technology in the entire 19th century is not evidence of constant change, as you almost certainly know but of course could never admit. I am beginning to see a pattern here.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2657


« Reply #628 on: May 10, 2013, 07:16:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, I'm happy to admit that you're correct to correct my comment.

I carelessly and wrongly copied the phrase "constantly 'upgrading' their materials" from graeme's comment.

Happy now? :-)
Logged
Peter Le
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


WWW
« Reply #629 on: May 10, 2013, 07:33:03 PM »
ReplyReply

     So Isaac.......who are you really......what is your position at Adobe. You seem to have taken this on as a personal crusade.......
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #630 on: May 10, 2013, 07:40:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Happy now? :-)
Yes, thanks, and apologies if my tone became narky. My original "one line" correction was as discreet as I could possibly make it, but I think worth making, as the the topic is an interesting one. A couple of observations. Painters' studios are sometimes preserved after their deaths, and provide a record of their use of materials. I am always struck by the number and variety of brushes and half-squeezed paint tubes and wonder if these are area where they do look for improvements, constant or otherwise, or whether they just don't do garbage disposal. I also wonder whether great photographers actually do constantly change their tools - I suspect it may be less often than many amateurs.

This is all very OT, I know, but I think the topic can stand it. Enough said.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2657


« Reply #631 on: May 10, 2013, 09:41:30 PM »
ReplyReply

...what is your position at Adobe. You seem to have taken this on as a personal crusade...

No connection to Adobe Systems Incorporated.
No personal crusade.

Like someone said in one of these discussion threads - there's enough not to like about the Adobe announcement without endlessly repeating misunderstandings, misinformation and cynical speculation.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2657


« Reply #632 on: May 10, 2013, 09:49:02 PM »
ReplyReply

My original "one line" correction was as discreet as I could possibly make it...

I expect to make mistakes, I expect to be corrected.

I don't feel being wrong and being corrected is much of a problem. On a good day, I'll learn something.
Logged
Simon J.A. Simpson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


« Reply #633 on: May 11, 2013, 02:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeeesh, I really feel embarrassed by all the photographers who completely and totally misunderstand intellectual property and copyrights. You buy Photoshop? You don't own Photoshop, you own the right to use Photoshop for either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. Both transaction are the same principal. The only difference is with a subscription you lose the right to use after your subscription expires. With a perpetual license, it doesn't expire until such time as you no longer have a computer it will run on.

Jeff, this is not the case in the European Union.
See: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-07/cp120094en.pdf

In the EU we buy the software license we own it and can resell it.  In effect we own the software.  Another reason for Adobe to go down the subscription route ?

FUD, Jeff !?  Enough of it going around at the moment.

Blimey, Lula's on fire !
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #634 on: May 11, 2013, 02:21:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Simon, I think even in the EU all you own is the right to use the software by virtue of your license, and to resell the use of the license. You don't own the intellectual property, and if you don't own the intellectual property you don't really own the software. Maybe this is all just semantics in terms of its end-effects, but nonetheless a real distinction.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
WaitingForAnR10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #635 on: May 11, 2013, 03:16:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Simon, I think even in the EU all you own is the right to use the software by virtue of your license, and to resell the use of the license. You don't own the intellectual property, and if you don't own the intellectual property you don't really own the software. Maybe this is all just semantics in terms of its end-effects, but nonetheless a real distinction.

Yes, it is a matter of semantics.  What the users are concerned about is the issue of a permanent license, versus a temporary license to use the software which is paid for by some kind of subscription.  End the subscription and you end your use of the program, with any of the functionality it provided.  In the previous model you could elect to not upgrade, but you still retained the use of the older software.  Now, you won't.

Despite any claims to the contrary, no one has been suggesting that the users owned the intellectual property contained in the product, its respective software code, or the right to copy and resell the product.  It's been strictly about use of that product by the licensee, although that may not always be clear from the posts.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 05:05:24 PM by WaitingForAnR10 » Logged
plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #636 on: May 11, 2013, 03:45:00 PM »
ReplyReply

...I have been considering the nic package but now will definitely pass on it.   I would not buy photokit sharpener today.   I won't buy any plugins for a software that may not have a future for me.

I'm about 1/3 through reading this monster thread but wanted to comment on Joe's remarks.

You don't have to avoid plug-ins because of this situation. Many plug-ins also work with other (non-Adobe) hosts or, in the case of Topaz photoFXlab offer a standalone solution for running Topaz and some other third-party plug-ins. No image editor/host is required to apply, stack and edit effects. AKVIS also offers standalone versions of their plug-ins.
Logged

Free digital imaging ezine
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #637 on: May 11, 2013, 05:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

In the EU we buy the software license we own it and can resell it.

In the EU (as in the US) you buy a license to use the software and you can resell that license. You own a license...that's a tangible part of intellectual property.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #638 on: May 11, 2013, 05:33:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it is a matter of semantics.  What the users are concerned about is the issue of a permanent license, versus a temporary license to use the software which is paid for by some kind of subscription.  End the subscription and you end your use of the program, with any of the functionality it provided.  In the previous model you could elect to not upgrade, but you still retained the use of the older software.  Now, you won't.

Despite any claims to the contrary, no one has been suggesting that the users owned the intellectual property contained in the product, its respective software code, or the right to copy and resell the product.  It's been strictly about use of that product by the licensee, although that may not always be clear from the posts.


Yes I am totally aware of what users are concerned about - I said as much in several posts above and was the first person to recommend that users be offered an opportunity to own a perpetual license to the latest version they were using once they decide to not renew a subscription contract. See reply #435. Simon specifically said in the EU the users effectively own the software. The fact is they own a license to use the software. It does have the same end effect if all you do is use the software, but the users rights as an owner of a license and an owner of the software are very different. So it's semantics in some respects but not others.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 963


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #639 on: May 11, 2013, 06:50:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Just wonderin..

If PS users break down into three main categories, as I think they generally do:

1 - Large corporations and multi license users, with constant upgrades to the latest versions across all platforms. Substantially the largest group size.

2 - Home/small business and amateur photographers with single user licenses, with upgrades when they can afford it. Unknown group size.

3 - Pirated/hacked illegal users of PS with no intention of ever buying a license, yet with almost immediate access to the latest versions across all platforms. Anyone who cares to Google to find the URL of a torrent/download website.

If Adobe has now changed its PS delivery and licensing method to cater more for the requirements of group 1, as this is the targeted market PS was always supposed to be aimed at, but in so doing was fully aware it would alienate a large proportion of group 2, which way does Adobe think group 2 will now migrate towards the next time they want to upgrade, group 1 or group 3?

I personally will not use a pirated copy of PS and will stick with what I've got, but I know a hell of a lot of photographers who were already struggling to afford being part of group 2.

OK, that's me out of this discussion now, as I think we are all wasting our energy re-analysing something that has already taken place, because we don't have a cat in hell's chance of changing the future direction of Adobe's licensing methods. What's done is done, we are all going to have to learn to live with it  Sad

Dave
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 06:52:30 PM by Dave (Isle of Skye) » Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
Pages: « 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 39 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad