Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

Reply
Thread Tools

Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
now cloud-based.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On 5/7/2013 9:14 PM, RichA wrote:
> Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
> fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
> in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
> the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
> companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
> decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
> to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
> institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
> your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
> provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
> now cloud-based.
>


That decision has not be finalized.

As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
movies, laughable.

this is more likely the future of movies:
<http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-House-Shows-Great-Promise-Onion-News-Empire-So-Much-54857.html>

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On May 8, 9:37*am, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 5/7/2013 9:14 PM, RichA wrote:
>
> > Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
> > fee to "rent" its use. *This is like movies and music which are going
> > in a similar direction. *Problem is, it makes these things subject to
> > the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. *The
> > companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
> > decide it offends the general public, they pull it. *This applies more
> > to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
> > institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
> > your possession. *Lastly, you also become victim of the service
> > provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
> > now cloud-based.

>
> That decision has not be finalized.
>
> As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
> proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
> movies, laughable.
>
> this is more likely the future of movies:
> <http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-Hous...>
>
> --
> PeterN


I'm not some Chinese guy earning $3000/year, living in the outskirts
of Beijing, where going to the movies costs the equivalent of $110 a
person. I don't want to watch illegally-copied "campots" of movies in
a theatre done with a video camera, if that is what you are referring
to. Ownership of a physical medium is KEY to preserving the freedom
to watch or do with a product what you want.

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On 5/8/2013 3:26 PM, RichA wrote:
> On May 8, 9:37 am, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2013 9:14 PM, RichA wrote:
>>
>>> Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
>>> fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
>>> in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
>>> the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
>>> companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
>>> decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
>>> to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
>>> institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
>>> your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
>>> provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
>>> now cloud-based.

>>
>> That decision has not be finalized.
>>
>> As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
>> proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
>> movies, laughable.
>>
>> this is more likely the future of movies:
>> <http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-Hous...>
>>
>> --
>> PeterN

>
> I'm not some Chinese guy earning $3000/year, living in the outskirts
> of Beijing, where going to the movies costs the equivalent of $110 a
> person. I don't want to watch illegally-copied "campots" of movies in
> a theatre done with a video camera, if that is what you are referring
> to. Ownership of a physical medium is KEY to preserving the freedom
> to watch or do with a product what you want.
>

Whoosh!

You don't even seem to know who Garry Trudeau is, Nor do you understand
what he is seeking to accomplish, artistically.

BTW, Before videotape, how many movies did you "own?" Why do you think
we had movie theaters. I have a reasonable collection of tapes and CDs,
but we still go to live concerts, and have willingly purchased tickets
for shows for far more than $110, each.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On 5/8/2013 1:50 PM, Bowser wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
>> fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
>> in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
>> the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
>> companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
>> decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
>> to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
>> institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
>> your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
>> provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
>> now cloud-based.

>
> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
> suffices, I'll move to another product. **** Adobe.
>


I would not get too excited about a rumor posted as "fact," by Rich. As
I said earlier, while Adobe is exploring the idea, it's far from a done
deal. While I do not defend avarice by any entity, I think that PS is
one of the most pirated software, and Adobe has a right to protect
itself from theft.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On 08/05/2013 20:58, George Kerby wrote:
>
> On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed),
> "Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
>>> fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
>>> in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
>>> the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
>>> companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
>>> decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
>>> to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
>>> institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
>>> your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
>>> provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
>>> now cloud-based.

>>
>> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
>> suffices, I'll move to another product. **** Adobe.

>
> Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
> seven years or so. **** em', indeed!


Unfortunately their competitors are also into ever increasing version
numbers bloatware adding features and bugs without customer benefits.

I don't often defend Adobe, but at least their JPEG encoder actually
does what it says on the tin.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:58:11 -0500, George Kerby
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article (E-Mail Removed),
>"Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
>>> fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
>>> in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
>>> the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
>>> companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
>>> decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
>>> to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
>>> institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
>>> your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
>>> provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
>>> now cloud-based.

>>
>> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
>> suffices, I'll move to another product. **** Adobe.

>
>Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
>seven years or so. **** em', indeed!


I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
include more than the lower priced comparable programs. The only area
where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.

The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".

I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?

The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
> >> suffices, I'll move to another product. **** Adobe.

> >
> >Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
> >seven years or so. **** em', indeed!

>
> I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
> the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
> include more than the lower priced comparable programs.


their prices are competitive with similar products.

if you consider macs to have high prices, then similar pcs also have
high prices.

the reason a $200 computer costs $200 is because it has lesser specs
than a $500 computer, which has lesser specs than a $1000 computer.

this should be obvious but apparently not.

> The only area
> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.


elements doesn't do as much, that's why it costs less.

that doesn't make the full photoshop overpriced. pros can *easily*
justify its price.

if someone doesn't need the functionality of the full photoshop, then
they should buy elements instead. that's why there are two products.

> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".


more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.

> I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
> have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?
>
> The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.


that part is true.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-08-2013
| I would not get too excited about a rumor posted as "fact," by Rich. As
| I said earlier, while Adobe is exploring the idea, it's far from a done
| deal.

It sounds like a definitive done deal in the news I've seen:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-575...cription-only/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-09-2013
On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:08:55 -0400, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
>> >> suffices, I'll move to another product. **** Adobe.
>> >
>> >Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
>> >seven years or so. **** em', indeed!

>>
>> I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
>> the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
>> include more than the lower priced comparable programs.

>
>their prices are competitive with similar products.
>
>if you consider macs to have high prices, then similar pcs also have
>high prices.
>
>the reason a $200 computer costs $200 is because it has lesser specs
>than a $500 computer, which has lesser specs than a $1000 computer.
>
>this should be obvious but apparently not.


Ah, you started your argument before you read the text. Lips get
tired? You didn't read the "the 'specs' include more than the lower
priced comparable programs".



>> The only area
>> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
>> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.

>
>elements doesn't do as much, that's why it costs less.


That doesn't wash. I've got CS6 and Elements 9. There is damn little
that Elements won't do that CS6 does. CS versions are very overpriced
when you consider a comparison of features delivered.

I use CS6 99% of the time, but only because I'm comfortable with
program having started out in earlier PS versions. (I bought E9 only
to share it with my daughter and teach her.)

>that doesn't make the full photoshop overpriced. pros can *easily*
>justify its price.
>
>if someone doesn't need the functionality of the full photoshop, then
>they should buy elements instead. that's why there are two products.


You do realize how stupid that sounds? First you say you can easily
justify the price, then you say you should buy Elements if you don't
need the full functionality of PS. The need of the full functionality
is the *only* justification.

Very few people need the full functionality unless they are using it
for business applications and need something like working in CMYK
color. Certain features, like Layers, have been available only in the
full version but later added to Elements. Content Aware Fill will
probably go over to Elements eventually.

>> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
>> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
>> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
>> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
>> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".

>
>more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.


How is that bashing? It's simple fact. If you don't need the specs
that Macs include, the price is too high to buy one.


>> I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
>> have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?
>>
>> The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.

>
>that part is true.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Searching For and Buying Health Insurance in a Bad Economy healthplans.cjb@gmail.com C Programming 0 02-11-2009 11:21 PM
Re: Banks and economy s_dubrovich@yahoo.com C Programming 3 11-03-2008 07:12 AM
Rental DVDs: "Rental Only - Not For Resale." One-Shot Scot DVD Video 0 09-11-2004 07:41 PM
America, Sweet America - I want to be there ! Zogby MCSE 188 08-15-2004 03:42 AM



Advertisments