Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe Photoshop CC Pirated in One Day?!  (Read 12430 times)
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2013, 11:19:33 AM »
ReplyReply


And these costs add up to not $20 / month, but hundreds of dollars per month. Why is not everyone upset over those real pocket book costs, rather than something small like $20/month?


At what point did the amount of an expenditure become the singular criteria for determining if an expenditure is worthy of investment?

If I purchased every product that I could "afford" ... I'd have little left over for anything else ... We may only be discussing $20 per month, but that expenditure is not imaginary and it must meet the needs, desires and expectation of the person investing the currency. Whether it be considered a trivial amount or not.

"If you take care of the pennies, the dollars (or pounds) will take care of themselves" ...
Logged
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 222


« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2013, 11:29:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Other than I am required to pay for any improvements and new features whether they are useful to me or not ... that was not the case with a perpetual license. I consider that a very unique and substantial difference.
That's true, and having to prepay for upgrades that one might or might not want to use in order to continue to use the software sans upgrades is certainly a valid objection against the subscription model. Just saying that our discussions should be based on fact rather than myth and it is a myth to say you're compelled to upgrade.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131



« Reply #102 on: June 27, 2013, 11:38:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Any of us who actually engage with the folks at Adobe understand that point. It goes beyond just the complexities of the code base, although that is huge. The logistics involved in manufacturing a complete set of disks for each product and each version of the suite, the package design, manufacture and shipping for each country, customer eduction and all the other stuff that goes with a major release are immense. The human cost of forcing 50 or more highly creative engineering teams to all meet the same arbitrary deadline every x months is also immense. Like you, I've talked to a lot of these folks, and I've seen the demoralizing effect of having to defer new features because they didn't fit into the strait jacket of a fixed release cycle.

My prediction is that we'll now see a lot more innovation and better-quality code as stress levels go down and the different teams can get back to developing on their individual schedules, as they did before the Creative Suite came along. There are already indications of that. As for the complaints about it all being too expensive, I don't agree. In the realm of industrial-grade tools for the creative field, Adobe has always been the least expensive manufacturer out there -- one seat of Maya costs about the same as six seats of a CS6 design suite. Speedgrade was a hugely expensive product before Adobe acquired them and bundled it with Production Premium. I've never understood how they kept their end-user prices so low, so I'm not disposed to complain.

I don't really get this argument.  There are a slew of (admittedly much smaller than CS) apps that you buy and you get periodic feature upgrades until the next "major" release, at which point you have to shell out for the product.  Since the CC software has to be downloaded and installed to your computer anyway, I don't see why the CC scheme could not be offered on a perpetural license basis.  Every X months would consitute a "new" version.  All that takes is inserting some kind of identifier in the code. 
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #103 on: June 27, 2013, 11:40:19 AM »
ReplyReply

is certainly a valid objection against the subscription model.
objection is not against the subscription model but against the subscription only model...
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2660


« Reply #104 on: June 27, 2013, 11:41:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Other than I am required to pay for any improvements and new features whether they are useful to me or not ...

I doubt it will make you feel any happier to think about it this way but you are required to pay for the opportunity to use whatever features are provided: be they ancient, new, unimproved, improved.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264


« Reply #105 on: June 27, 2013, 11:42:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't really get this argument.  There are a slew of (admittedly much smaller than CS) apps that you buy and you get periodic feature upgrades until the next "major" release, at which point you have to shell out for the product.  Since the CC software has to be downloaded and installed to your computer anyway, I don't see why the CC scheme could not be offered on a perpetural license basis.  Every X months would consitute a "new" version.  All that takes is inserting some kind of identifier in the code. 

M$ offers new features for their products with perpetual license w/o any issues... there is no need to block anything in code and M$ example clearly shows that accounting is not a problem either (as well as Adobe's own LR for example).
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #106 on: June 27, 2013, 11:56:30 AM »
ReplyReply

That's true, and having to prepay for upgrades that one might or might not want to use in order to continue to use the software sans upgrades is certainly a valid objection against the subscription model. Just saying that our discussions should be based on fact rather than myth and it is a myth to say you're compelled to upgrade.

Where did I state such a myth? I mentioned that I was compelled to pay for such upgrades, no matter if I desired or was inclined to use those upgrades ... I never stated that I was compelled to install the upgrades. It seems the myth is of your own creation.
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


« Reply #107 on: June 27, 2013, 05:08:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Really ? I hadn't noticed that food had increased by the same percentage magnitude as Adobe software.

And as far as the cost of gear goes, I was under the distinct impression that it was going down not up. First there is the D800 which set a new benchmark, Fuji initiating, depending on how you calculate it, a > 20% price reduction, new standards in price/performance products from most of the manufacturers (and software vendors).. etc etc

And all this in a period when gold has declined from $1900 to $1200 in a few months.


Show me a list of your gear and the costs, and show me what you will pay for CS/CC.

Fifteen years ago, I would have had to have a wet darkroom - CS is a bargain.

Don't sell your gold at $1200, you will regret it.

I removed the insulting remark.

Life changes every day - get accustomed to this fact.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 12:25:14 AM by Glenn NK » Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Alan Gilbertson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #108 on: June 27, 2013, 07:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Since someone brought the subject up, a Photoshop 1.1 license was $1,000 (I'd guess that's around $2,000 in today's dollars). Photoshop 7, iirc, was $699 in 2003 or thereabouts. CS through CS6 stayed doggedly at $699, with upgrade prices that were so low I several times wondered how they could afford them, even as I jumped to take shameless advantage. Between 2000 and 2012, the purchasing power of the dollar declined to the extent that $699 in 2012 was the equivalent of anywhere between $443 and $524 in 2000, depending on what you base the calculation on (source: Measuring Worth online calculator). The overall consumer price index in the US went up by almost exactly 25% from 2003 to 2012, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. So the price of Photoshop in real terms has been been declining steadily for years.

File compatibility and accessibility are sensible concerns, but I can't bear any resentment as regards the price. It's worth taking a look at Adobe's FY2012 10-K, in particular the sections that cover competition (pp. 28-33) and risk factors (pp. 38-48) for some insight into the factors that the top execs have their eye on.
Logged
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #109 on: June 28, 2013, 12:12:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Nope, because Yaredna points not based on facts but speculation...he/she/it doesn't understand the implications of a dual licensing scheme–do you? If you did, you wouldn't ask the question.

As an fyi, my background is in medical image processing. I wrote 3D processing software (CT/MR/Angio) that was usually sold for 25k to 100k$ per unit, depending on the configuration. There is a K in this number. And yes, i do understand the implications of dual licensing: the first dual licensing product i designed was in 1994, for the Italian market. Back them, the healthcare reimburseent system in the Lombardi region, unlike the US, favored a pay-per-click mechanism.

It seems that you learned a lot just by talking with people. Good for you. I, on the other hand, graduated and worked in that field (software/image processing, satellite imaging, medical imaging), and i still don't claim I know, only speculate.
Logged
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #110 on: June 28, 2013, 12:25:28 AM »
ReplyReply

On the other hand, yaredna joined May 7th–also with an anonymous screen name and pretty much all of his/her/it's posts have been directed towards the Photoshop CC situation. Seems LuLa has gotten a bunch of new members due to the CC announcements...

Here are two clues:
The first 5 letters or yaredna: my last name
The first 2 letters: initials

And yes, I do have a public life outside of Lula. Google ?

By the way, I only joined to annoy you. Here you have it. Happy now? It is a pattern: when you fail to counter with arguments, you start the character assassination technique. Works well in politics, must work in photography too, right ? Keep attacking me instead of answering my questions or commenting on the issues that i raise.

Let us continue our conversation and try to understand if we can educate Adobe to reverse course. Microsoft just did that, with XBox one. Apple did that when they opened the SDK of the iPhone 3 to third party developers. If we understand the real reason behind Adobe's move, then we can unite and apply pressure.

So far, your comments have been off the mark:
. Stopping piracy
. Complexity of maintaining two separate branches of each application

If the reason is for some key executives of Adobe to spin-off an independent entity, that licenses the software source and commercialize an offering geared toward photographers (Knoll knock-knock), we can help accelerate this with so many possibilities, from financing to committing to purchase or write books etc...

My SPECULATION is that Adobe miscalculated, and leadership is too proud to admit it. They are leaving money on the table!

Now you can also join us in understanding the situation, rather than use your infrequent/frequent contacts with one or two executives at Adobe, and claim that you know the full story.

I tell you: even the Adobe leadership staff is still trying to understand what they really did.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 28, 2013, 12:35:21 AM »
ReplyReply

So far, your comments have been off the mark:
. Stopping piracy
. Complexity of maintaining two separate branches of each application

Care to point out where I said that CC was intended to stop piracy? Pretty sure I never mentioned piracy...My own feeling is that Adobe's anti-priacy effects have not been effective and I doubt that CC would change that...but hey, you're good at putting words in people's mouths. Care to point out where I said anything about piracy? Come on, I dare ya yaredna...

:~)
Logged
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #112 on: June 28, 2013, 12:41:34 AM »
ReplyReply

objection is not against the subscription model but against the subscription only model...

That's exactly it! Let them offer 16,000 different models, we couldn't care less, but why take away a model that worked for many of us?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 28, 2013, 12:46:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Here are two clues:
The first 5 letters or yaredna: my last name
The first 2 letters: initials

And yes, I do have a public life outside of Lula. Google ?

Uh huh...so, your name is Nadim Yared? So what...I guess I'm pretty stupid...I don't bother to try to decode screen names. But if that is your name, so what? You didn't join till AFTER CC was announced and I still don't know what your agenda might be in joining LuLa. I kinda doubt you joined just to annoy me...
Logged
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #114 on: June 28, 2013, 12:53:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Care to point out where I said that CC was intended to stop piracy? Pretty sure I never mentioned piracy...My own feeling is that Adobe's anti-priacy effects have not been effective and I doubt that CC would change that...but hey, you're good at putting words in people's mouths. Care to point out where I said anything about piracy? Come on, I dare ya yaredna...

:~)

You win!!!

Happy now? are you jumping up and down on your seat in front of your computer ? glad i made your day.

It seems that you are more interested in scoring points and regulating the site (when not busy with character assaassination), rather than offer insite on how we can push Adobe to offer back what it took, when they decided to force everyone to the subscription model.

Oh well... Once upon a time, we thought that you, a photographer, being listened to by Adobe's engineers and execs, were an asset to our community... How wrong were we.
Logged
yaredna
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


« Reply #115 on: June 28, 2013, 12:56:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Uh huh...so, your name is Xxx? So what...I guess I'm pretty stupid...I don't bother to try to decode screen names. But if that is your name, so what? You didn't join till AFTER CC was announced and I still don't know what your agenda might be in joining LuLa. I kinda doubt you joined just to annoy me...

I joined when I purchased Michael Reichmann videos, starting in 2005. I only contribute if i have something to add. When i felt that the issue of subscription was not well understood by fellow photographers, I started writing.
Joining Lula <> posting on its discussion site.

Now keep going with the character assassination. This is real fun!
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 28, 2013, 01:01:37 AM »
ReplyReply

You win!!!

I usually do...still looking for quotes where I said Photoshop CC was intended to serve anti-piracy efforts? Pretty sure you won't find those quotes...some others mentioned that but I'm pretty sure I didn't...

So, we're down to a discussion of the difficulties in doing both subscription and perpetual licenses? Just wanted to narrow the scope a bit. If you understand the issues of revenue recognition and generally accepted accounting practices and the difficulties of trying to maintain two sets of code–one the can get regular feature upgrades and the other that can't, then we can discuss the technical problems Adobe has faced and tried to deal with by cutting perpetual licenses. Care to offer any accounting and/or engineering solutions?
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 486


« Reply #117 on: June 28, 2013, 05:58:23 AM »
ReplyReply

So, we're down to a discussion of the difficulties in doing both subscription and perpetual licenses? Just wanted to narrow the scope a bit. If you understand the issues of revenue recognition and generally accepted accounting practices ..

Jeff,
No need.

I looked into the point that yaredna previously raised, and you took such objection to (without ever actually answering) - whether or not a dual licensing scheme was feasible – and found some interesting parallels.

There are numerous software companies that provide links and trading platforms into most of the major financial markets. These are USA Inc., and LLC's , often publicly quoted (NASDAQ, NYSE etc). Their software is intricate, needs frequent maintenance and is offered with interesting and varying subscription options. As an example:

<<
3-month lease   $297
6-month lease   $497
1-year lease   $797
Lifetime       $1,497
Lifetime PRO   $9,900 (interfaces with Bloomberg and Reuters)

Upgrade Policy
All future software upgrades, both minor and major,  are free. Both new and existing customers will benefit to maximum possible extent by never having to pay for new features or functionality. As technology progresses, so will your requirements and your software has to keep up.
>>

So I put it to you that,

(A) It is absolutely possible to program a dual licensing manager, as evidenced by other USA software companies, and
(B) That it is possible to do so under American accounting laws, notwithstanding the issues of revenue recognition and generally accepted accounting practices … which are common to large and small(er) alike. (fao John Beardy: John, have I assumed incorrectly on this point ?)

The only difference between these companies and Adobe are that the financial group all face competition whereas Adobe has a defacto monopoly. I think it therefore safe to conclude that Adobe COULD, if they so wished, offer a similar pricing plan without any great difficulty.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #118 on: June 28, 2013, 06:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I joined when I purchased Michael Reichmann videos, starting in 2005. I only contribute if i have something to add. When i felt that the issue of subscription was not well understood by fellow photographers, I started writing.
Joining Lula <> posting on its discussion site.

Now keep going with the character assassination. This is real fun!

You might be having fun...but others, not so much. Put a lid on it now.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2668



WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 28, 2013, 07:04:50 AM »
ReplyReply

(B) That it is possible to do so under American accounting laws, notwithstanding the issues of revenue recognition and generally accepted accounting practices … which are common to large and small(er) alike. (fao John Beardy: John, have I assumed incorrectly on this point ?)
You've slightly misunderstood, and Jeff doesn't say it's not possible but rightly refers to "difficulties". Better to say - possible but not at all easy. I've little doubt revenue recognition would have been one of a number of arguments in the decision-making process and it would have added its weight against continuing the perpetual-plus-subscription route.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad