«

Yo, Folks!

Something I've been meaning to ask for yonks:

Is there any difference between 'academic' software packages and normal
retail packages?

For eg: Adobe sells a Photoshop bundle for around $NZ 2,300; but the
academic version of the same sells for about $NZ 900 (example prices only
but I think they're not too far off the mark).

Is a non-student buyer getting anything extra for forking over the full
commercial price?

....Or is it time for the canny Scotsman in me to pretend he's a student
again!


Cheers, Tony McKee

--

---
I am a part of all that I have met... yet all experience is but an arch
Wherethro' gleams that untravel'd world whose margins fade
Forever and forever... 'ere I move.

===-- Ulysses --===

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:26:18 +1200, "Tony McKee" <>
wrote:
>
>...Or is it time for the canny Scotsman in me to pretend he's a student
>again!
>
>Cheers, Tony McKee
>
Getcha self a student ID card. Or a student in the family.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.

In article <ywOTa.90757$>,
says...
> Yo, Folks!
>
> Something I've been meaning to ask for yonks:
>
> Is there any difference between 'academic' software packages and normal
> retail packages?

In most cases the license terms forbid you for using it for other than
instructive or tuition. Most of the software I have used under A/L is
fully functional.

> For eg: Adobe sells a Photoshop bundle for around $NZ 2,300; but the
> academic version of the same sells for about $NZ 900 (example prices only
> but I think they're not too far off the mark).
>
> Is a non-student buyer getting anything extra for forking over the full
> commercial price?

Yes, they are getting the ability to use the software for commercial
purposes.

Tony McKee allegedly said:

> Yo, Folks!
>
> Something I've been meaning to ask for yonks:
>
> Is there any difference between 'academic' software packages and normal
> retail packages?

They both come from proprietary software vendors who impose marketing-driven
limitations on the use of their software.

If you use open Source software, these issues don't exist - or are the rare
exception.

--
Steve

In article <ywOTa.90757$>,
"Tony McKee" <> wrote:

> Yo, Folks!
>
> Something I've been meaning to ask for yonks:
>
> Is there any difference between 'academic' software packages and normal
> retail packages?
>

Yes, you are NOT allowed to use the accademic software for any
commercial puposes.

In article <eKPTa.7044$>,
Steve <> wrote:

>
> They both come from proprietary software vendors who impose marketing-driven
> limitations on the use of their software.
>
> If you use open Source software, these issues don't exist - or are the rare
> exception.

Apart from the fatc that commercial software is a standard which other
commercial companies use and require file compatability. Also the fact
that GIMP sucks big time, its interface design is terrible, so bad in
fact that I dumped it within hours and went back to an old version of
photoshop.

The cost of the software is only a smaill fraction of the costs of
running a computer commercially, it is the person who sits behind it
that is the most expensive component.

Much of the work I do is charged out at $100/hr, so over the life of the
software (lets say 3 years), I only need 20 hours more productive time
and the software has paid for itsself, that is 7 hours per year, or
about 2 1/2 minutes per working day. I would however loose more hours of
productivity than that just installing, confirguring and learning such a
non-standard package, never mind the fact that I believe photoshop is
actually a better package by a long margin.

In article <eKPTa.7044$>,
says...
> Tony McKee allegedly said:
>
> > Yo, Folks!
> >
> > Something I've been meaning to ask for yonks:
> >
> > Is there any difference between 'academic' software packages and normal
> > retail packages?
>
> They both come from proprietary software vendors who impose marketing-driven
> limitations on the use of their software.
>
> If you use open Source software, these issues don't exist - or are the rare
> exception.

Show me an open source programmer who doesn't earn money for their work
in real life.

The issue is ideological - MS or anyone has to right to charge for their
work.

The linux community has not helped themselves by producing blatant clones
of successful commercial packages.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:26:18 +1200, "Tony McKee" <>
wrote:

>Yo, Folks!
>
>Something I've been meaning to ask for yonks:
>
>Is there any difference between 'academic' software packages and normal
>retail packages?
>
>For eg: Adobe sells a Photoshop bundle for around $NZ 2,300; but the
>academic version of the same sells for about $NZ 900 (example prices only
>but I think they're not too far off the mark).
>
>Is a non-student buyer getting anything extra for forking over the full
>commercial price?
>
>...Or is it time for the canny Scotsman in me to pretend he's a student
>again!
>
>
>Cheers, Tony McKee

They're always the same Tony. Academic licences, and the reduced
prices that go with them, are just a means of getting students to use
commercial software which they normally couldn't afford to buy.
There's nothing philanthropic about it though, just manipulative
marketing. Get people using your software at school and they'll
continue to use it in the workplace.

It's a typical example of the hazy legal cloud that hangs over
software licensing, because it's a classic case of discriminatory
pricing. Legislators have left software in the 'too hard' basket for
years, and it will probably stay that way.

One of the unanswered questions is whether your licence is still legal
when you no longer qualify as 'academic'.......ie leave school or
'varsity etc. I have the strong suspicion it isn't.

Gavin

In article < >, Mainlander
wrote...
> The linux community has not helped themselves by producing blatant clones
> of successful commercial packages.
>
The correct model is to buy-out your competion

In article <ywOTa.90757$>,
says...
> Yo, Folks!
>
> Something I've been meaning to ask for yonks:
>
> Is there any difference between 'academic' software packages and normal
> retail packages?
>
> For eg: Adobe sells a Photoshop bundle for around $NZ 2,300; but the
> academic version of the same sells for about $NZ 900 (example prices only
> but I think they're not too far off the mark).
>
> Is a non-student buyer getting anything extra for forking over the full
> commercial price?
>
> ...Or is it time for the canny Scotsman in me to pretend he's a student
> again!

Apart from the non-academic use provision others have mentioned there
*are* other caveats.

For instance the student version of XP Office has no upgrade rights, you
have to pay full whack (academic or plain) for the next version. I don't
know about other M$ academic offerings but I bet they have the same
limitation.

Another thing is that many big applications have components that are
licenced from other providers. For instance the equation editor in both
Word and WordPerfect are licenced from the same third party. The OEM and
academic versions of WordPerfect are lacking some of the third party
components that exist in the full product. That is one of the reasons why
they can offer the product at such a reduced price.

The last point probably doesn't apply to Microsoft products however
because they could afford to offer a full version as a loss leader.