Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe Photoshop CC Pirated in One Day?!  (Read 15173 times)
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2013, 02:43:09 PM »
ReplyReply

If Adobe had charged $1.99 for the full CC suite I'm pretty sure that none of this ballyhoo would have occurred. (A) because the new price would be a very substantial discount to the old circa $199.00 bi-annual tax for Photoshop alone, and (B) there are numerous advantages to the new CC model, dual platform, remote activation, frequency of updates etc etc.


True, but I don't believe that anyone with either a semi-pro or professional interest would seriously entertain basing their business and income on illegal and unsupported software. For what ? To save $240 a year ? How much did that latest newest and greatest 2.8 zoom cost you? 

For the hackers, yes, it's great publicity but in the end it's also cementing Adobe's dominance and pervasiveness.

Surprisingly (not) I've received an email from Adobe lowering the price of the FULL CC suite to £17.58 a month - that's about $320 a year !  (caveat - but for how long ?). What was the original offer price ? Just perhaps the take-up is not quite as great as Adobe would have us believe.

For the record, I don't use or condone pirated software in any guise. I've paid for every copy of Photoshop and Lightroom since 5 & 1  ..(longer than I can remember) but on this issue I'm firmly in the Bernard Languillier camp.

Nor do I condone any form of infringement ... been paying my way for all my Adobe apps (and every other vendor I have used wares from) since I first purchased Photoshop v2.0 in 1993. I was simply share my thoughts on human nature ... to the point that price is always relative to individual point of view, and there will always be a segment of society/culture that expects and/or will strive to garner something for nothing ... no matter how gracious a vendor may or may not be perceived to be.
Logged
FranciscoDisilvestro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2013, 08:43:24 PM »
ReplyReply

actually a little googling showed that it was not 24hours, but rather 1 hour or less.

Well, according to several sources (by googling a little), it could be pirated from the start, since the same trick used for the previous CS6 worked on the CC version.
Logged

yaredna
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2013, 09:37:22 PM »
ReplyReply

So, one more time, Asobe made it easier for the pirates and more difficult for its paying customers... Double the price (average per month), add limitations (forced to upgrade, forced to connect to internet every 30 days)... But keep the pirates happy.

Way to go, Adobe. Bravo!

Heck, i needed to move my wife's CS3 from her dead computer to a new hardware, and Adobe's support refused to help. It seems that the d**n pirates are getting a better treatment from Adobe.

And Heck, once more, Adobe doesn't even consider us, photographers or freelance independent web designers, as customers. We refuse to pirate because it is wrong, but Adobe doesn't want us as customers.

Way to go Adobe! Way to go...

And schewe, thank you for your enlightened post a couple of weeks ago about Adobe needing to protect its revenue from pirates... Damn right, 24 hours and it was allegedly hacked..
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5533


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2013, 10:17:05 PM »
ReplyReply

And schewe, thank you for your enlightened post a couple of weeks ago about Adobe needing to protect its revenue from pirates... Damn right, 24 hours and it was allegedly hacked..

Yeah, ya know, your past posts indicate you are disinclined to listen to reasonable discussion, so I won't bother to go down your rabbit hole...next?
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #24 on: June 21, 2013, 10:57:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, ya know, your past posts indicate you are disinclined to listen to reasonable discussion, so I won't bother to go down your rabbit hole...next?

Jeff ... though, I know deep down you are a lovable cuddly Teddy bear as a human being ... I'm not quite convinced you want a " reasonable discussion" ... I think you are more inclined that everyone accept your point of view without question and not have thoughts or opinions of our own that may differ with your own ...

While those of us on the outside may not be privy to the details and intimate knowledge you have access to ... we can surmise, maybe inaccurately at times, as to what the realty of the situation is.

All I am really saying is, there is room for difference of opinion, based upon what evidence is available to us as individuals ... unless or until, Adobe makes more official detailed information available ... your views notwithstanding ...
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5533


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2013, 11:51:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff ... though, I know deep down you are a lovable cuddly Teddy bear as a human being ... I'm not quite convinced you want a " reasonable discussion" ...

You are wrong...yaredna is a provocateur...check his/her/it's posts (note the fact that the posts are anonymous and thus pretty much useless). You don't know me from Adam if you think I'm a "lovable cuddly Teddy bear"...I'm not...I would be perfectly happy to eat your throat if it served my purposes...
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2013, 04:46:23 AM »
ReplyReply

here is a politically charged analogy... Nazi Germany... Adolf H. & a regular SS ensign... both are bad guys, yet who do you think is "badder" ?
Surely the difference is in the impact of how they are. The regular SS ensign might be a whole lot nastier, but within a narrower sphere of influence.
Logged

gbillett
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2013, 06:46:40 AM »
ReplyReply

You are wrong...yaredna is a provocateur...check his/her/it's posts (note the fact that the posts are anonymous and thus pretty much useless). You don't know me from Adam if you think I'm a "lovable cuddly Teddy bear"...I'm not...I would be perfectly happy to eat your throat if it served my purposes...

Yaredna's posts :

Yup. I think we all got the lay of the land.
+1

'So...in summary, if I understand:
. A supplier (today, this Adobe. Tomorrow, this could be Canon) doubled its prices overnight
. They also forced their customers to upgrade every single release, whether they need it or not (if this was canon, imagine having to upgrade for every release, whether you need the features or not). Because they can.
. Some Customers got concerned about four things:
  - doubling of annualized cost
  - forced to upgrade and learn a new tool when they don't need or want to
  - supplier has no incentive to continue to innovate meaningfully to earn their upgrade business
  - no long term access to the creative results of using the tool (PSD...)

. Customers (mostly freelance photographers, graphic artists, video editors and web designers) raised these concerns
. A pack of "experts" start defending the company, its executives, its new business policy, and attacking viciously those who raised the concerns (we saw some here on this site, but many more on webdesign forums, graphic design forums, and other photography forums)

Oh well, masks have fallen... Goodluck getting that genie back in the lamp!'

'There is another idiom widely used in the US: "you can't teach an old dog a new trick"... I don't think that's the case of Jeff, but he sure enjoys acting like a stubborn maverick!

Guess what: in this day and age, some of us don't value these traits. These acts annoy us, and we simply surf to another place, or join another social network. This is not the '70s anymore.'

These are posts from the  Re: Adobe - Creative Cloud Update thread and comment ( without antagonism ) upon your hegemonistic postings on that particular thread.  You post anything you see fit about others and decry those who may be critical of you for doing so.  Perhaps someone should quote some of your comments as feedback on the Amazon site where your books are sold.   You might not worry about your sales but your legacy surely must worry you.  What goes around comes around.  One of my projects is following Franco around in Spain,  documenting sites of his bullying and excesses.  Feels like there's a need to do exactly the same with you.
Logged

Geoff Billett
www.geoffreybillettphotography.co.uk
www.spanishcivilwarphotography.co.uk

Author From Earth to Air   and Gateway to Nirvana
Photographs from Andalucia and the 2013 Kumbh Mela
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5533


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2013, 05:17:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Feels like there's a need to do exactly the same with you.

Go ahead...I can't think of a bigger waste of your time, but, hey, it's your time–waste it as you see fit.
Logged
yaredna
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2013, 08:15:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Go ahead...I can't think of a bigger waste of your time, but, hey, it's your time–waste it as you see fit.

Jeff, you are so defensive, it is not even fun picking at you anymore. Good luck selling your books, and good luck to Michael selling videos with your smiling face in them !

Have fun in your own universe, man!
Logged
yaredna
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #30 on: June 24, 2013, 08:30:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, ya know, your past posts indicate you are disinclined to listen to reasonable discussion, so I won't bother to go down your rabbit hole...next?

Reasonable discussion:

. a year ago, Adobe creates an alternative business model: subscription based. Very successful, according to their declarations (and related by you)
. The two models lived side by side beautifully for one year.
. A year later, Adobe decided to pull the rug underneath the feet of many professional freelancers, telling them, in 16 different ways, that Adobe is not interested in keeping them as paying customers.

. We heard from you two reasons:
  - Reason #1: the new model stops piracy. Well, we just saw that it did not. Schewe: 0,  disillusioned photographers: 1
  - Reason #2: it takes too much resources to maintain two versions.

Let's debunk the #2 for a second. Yes, I am a software engineer by training (long time ago). And I learn a concept called "subroutines", or "procedures", or "objects", or "separate processes", all could be used to establish two different behaviors depending on the environment.

In practicality, the Adobe new CS7 could have had a software that, basically, would say:
 - If (license = CC) then connect to servers every 30 days, and check if subscription is still running. If it is not, exit here
 - If (license = Perpetual), then connect to servers and check if license is valid and the number of activations

Bottom line: it would take Adobe one software engineer for a maximum of 1 month to develop, test and validate the code. Let's say it takes Adobe 10 engineers for 10 months, just for the sake of the exercise. 100 person month = 1 to 2 million $. Max.

How many freelance professional would it take to get 1 to 2m$ selling $199 upgrades ? 10,000 . Ten thousands. That's all.

Now go on trying to explain to us why Adobe doesn't want us as customers Huh

Adobe's decision defies logic. It even puzzled some of their own execs. There must have been endless debates, where the CEO pounded finally on the table and said: "My way or the highway". A corporation is not a democracy.

As to why you decided to defend Adobe and not your fellow photographers, that rationale escapes me.

You want a reasonable debate ? Try helping us understand why Adobe could not keep going with perpetual licenses and subscription. Too cheap ? Raise the price, and let the market decide. Too complicated  to maintain two releases? This is one release for the creative suite with two separate releases for the license manager, the only thing that needs two versions. What else, other than utter snobbism toward the base that made Adobe who it is today ?

Let me close by plagiarizing a quote from a recent Apple marketeer in a keynote speech at WWDC: "Reasonable discussion my a$$ !"
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5533


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 24, 2013, 01:51:58 PM »
ReplyReply

. We heard from you two reasons:
  - Reason #1: the new model stops piracy. Well, we just saw that it did not. Schewe: 0,  disillusioned photographers: 1
  - Reason #2: it takes too much resources to maintain two versions.


Show me anywhere that I said that Adobe did CC to stop piracy...go ahead (I'm pretty sure I never said that because I'm pretty sure it won't, doesn't). I do recall other people saying that was what Adobe had said but I don't think I ever said they adopted subscriptions and dropped perpetual licenses simply to stop piracy.

As for number 2, no, you don't get it. It's not just two license models, it's two different code branches with two different sets of features times as many applications that would have been in CS7. CS7 was dropped because Adobe had a lot of problems managing both code bases for all the various applications, not just Photoshop. Clearly photographers are fixated on Photoshop but when you factor in the entire suite of pro apps, the problems maintaining two sets of features and code becomes monumental.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8365



WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 24, 2013, 07:05:41 PM »
ReplyReply

As for number 2, no, you don't get it. It's not just two license models, it's two different code branches with two different sets of features times as many applications that would have been in CS7. CS7 was dropped because Adobe had a lot of problems managing both code bases for all the various applications, not just Photoshop. Clearly photographers are fixated on Photoshop but when you factor in the entire suite of pro apps, the problems maintaining two sets of features and code becomes monumental.

Based on your photography background, I am unclear about your programing knowledge Jeff, but it would certainly have been possible to code in such a way that there was no need to maintain several branches of code for 99.999% of the code. In fact my educated guess is that this is exactly how it was done.

The only reason why it may have been done differently is a mgt decision to make it hard to maintain these 2 branches, which stops to be an engineering issue.

Each CC build is a full traditionnal desktop app, right? You download a dmg and installl it like we used to.

All there was to do was to call one of the iterations CS7.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 07:26:49 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Damon Lynch
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 24, 2013, 07:10:09 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not just two license models, it's two different code branches with two different sets of features times as many applications that would have been in CS7.

Even this is simplified. In all but the most trivial software projects, there are many branches coexisting simultaneously. Pulling some of them together and putting out a release takes real time and resources. Few projects are blessed with someone of the mastery of a Linus Torvalds, who makes it look easy. So I'm not surprised Adobe ran into problems. What surprises me is how they got themselves into the situation to begin with.

And Bernard I do not agree with your analysis because when a release is a cut, updates for bug and security fixes must be released over the lifetime of the project.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8365



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 24, 2013, 07:25:02 PM »
ReplyReply

And Bernard I do not agree with your analysis because when a release is a cut, updates for bug and security fixes must be released over the lifetime of the project.

True, but we both know there are easy ways around this and we also both know that it would take a split second for Adobe architects to figure this out.  Smiley

I will not comment more on the technical aspects in this public forum.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5533


WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 24, 2013, 08:01:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Based on your photography background, I am unclear about your programing knowledge Jeff, but it would certainly have been possible to code in such a way that there was no need to maintain several branches of code for 99.999% of the code. In fact my educated guess is that this is exactly how it was done.

Well, let's see, I've managed two engineers working on 7 different plug-ins–which compared to Photoshop (not to mention the rest of the suite of products) is tiny...but we've had major problems trying to run parallel products so we killed off product support for earlier than CS3.

And, I've worked with the Photoshop engineers since Photoshop 4 as an alpha tester and directly with Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan on ACR/LR. So, while I don't write code (do you?), I'm painfully aware of the issues of code branches and trying to dev parallel products. Whether or not you want to believe it, trying to run CC subscription with evolving new features and a CS7 with locked in features while not 2X the work is considerably more difficult than what you seem to think it should be.

And whether or not you choose to believe it, it would take a massive reorg to change the accounting runs to allow incremental new features to be added to a perpetual license model. You also overlook that it's not just Photoshop but ALL of the pro applications that are in this scenario...so, you want Adobe to make modifications just for photographers and ignore the rest of the pro app users? We've already been down that road, photographers simply don't make up a large portion of Adobe users...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8365



WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 24, 2013, 08:16:30 PM »
ReplyReply

And, I've worked with the Photoshop engineers since Photoshop 4 as an alpha tester and directly with Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan on ACR/LR. So, while I don't write code (do you?), I'm painfully aware of the issues of code branches and trying to dev parallel products. Whether or not you want to believe it, trying to run CC subscription with evolving new features and a CS7 with locked in features while not 2X the work is considerably more difficult than what you seem to think it should be.

And whether or not you choose to believe it, it would take a massive reorg to change the accounting runs to allow incremental new features to be added to a perpetual license model. You also overlook that it's not just Photoshop but ALL of the pro applications that are in this scenario...so, you want Adobe to make modifications just for photographers and ignore the rest of the pro app users? We've already been down that road, photographers simply don't make up a large portion of Adobe users...

It can be done in such a way that it is very complex, or in other ways that make it super simple also for the full suite (regardless of the importance of photographers). This is mostly not an engineering decision, it is a business one.

The impact on accounting may be more significant, I wouldn't know.

And yes, I did code.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #37 on: June 24, 2013, 11:38:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Sometimes hacked software is an advantage for the company whose software has been hacked.

Way back in the early days of engineering CAD drafting, a company called Autodesk developed AutoCad and it ran on a PC not a mainframe.   There were several other full blown CAD systems costing many thousands of dollars, well protected, and not highly used - they disappeared in the '80's.

AutoCad was quite easily hacked - numerous people are still using hacked AutoCad.

As a result of the many hacked copies being used around the world was that AutoCad became the de facto standard for engineering companies, and it still is.  Wish I had invested in it in 1980.

Seems to be a lot of hate for Adobe - I'm wondering if we could move on and get over with the snits already?

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5533


WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 24, 2013, 11:51:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Seems to be a lot of hate for Adobe - I'm wondering if we could move on and get over with the snits already?

I agree...and it's gotten to the point where anybody who has an opinion that might diverge from the Adobe Haters is shouted down and ridiculed...Yes, there's been a sea change,some people are really upset and seem hellbent on extracting a degree of revenge on Adobe (and anybody who may have a differing view).

Now it seems some people gleefully get a thrill at the fact that apparently, CC has been pirated. Note that I say apparently because I've only heard claims not seen any proof that CC has been hacked, long term. Yes a few people may have been able to pirate some elements of the CC...how long that stands is yet to be seen. Every time a hacker hacks, a white hat counter hacks.

Who's to say that the next phone-home attempt on the hacked software won't crash and burn. I doubt Adobe is sitting there doing nothing about the situation. Course, that won't get any press because, well, Adobe won't be talking about their efforts at fighting the pirating...but the media seems thrilled that somebody is claiming to have hacked CC and pirated it.

In the grand scheme of things, this is all way to new to know how this is all gonna shake out.
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 698


« Reply #39 on: June 25, 2013, 12:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

This is mostly not an engineering decision, it is a business one.

No, it is an attempt to coerce yr client base ( not just photographers ), who Adobe think they have by the throat, into a massive price hike on the spurious pretext of accounting difficulties. It's trying to obtain maximum leverage out of a defacto monopoly. Business ? Not unless you're using it in the vein of Don Corleone.

In practicality, the Adobe new CS7 could have had a software that, basically, would say:
 - If (license = CC) then connect to servers every 30 days, and check if subscription is still running. If it is not, exit here
 - If (license = Perpetual), then connect to servers and check if license is valid and the number of activations

Bottom line: it would take Adobe one software engineer for a maximum of 1 month to develop, test and validate the code. Let's say it takes Adobe 10 engineers for 10 months, just for the sake of the exercise. 100 person month = 1 to 2 million $.

I think Yaredna makes an excellent point, Jeff - care to respond ?
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad