Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 8, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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.
    RichA, May 8, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 8, 9:37 am, PeterN <> 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.
    RichA, May 8, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 3:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On May 8, 9:37 am, PeterN <> 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
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 1:50 PM, Bowser wrote:
    > On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), 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.

    >
    > 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
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 08/05/2013 20:58, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    > On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article ,
    > "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), 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.

    >>
    >> 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
    Martin Brown, May 8, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:58:11 -0500, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article ,
    >"Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), 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.

    >>
    >> 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
    Tony Cooper, May 8, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> 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.
    nospam, May 8, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    Mayayana, May 8, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:08:55 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> 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
    Tony Cooper, May 9, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> 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.


    there's actually quite a bit, but what matters is that one does more
    than the other.

    > 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?


    nothing stupid about it.

    why pay for features you don't need?

    if elements does all you need then buy elements. if it doesn't, then
    buy cs or another product that better matches your needs.

    > 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.


    you need to learn how to read.

    i said *pros* can justify the price because it has features they need
    or want. it will probably pay for itself fairly quickly.

    non-pros don't generally need the additional features, so why should
    they pay for features they won't use? in the event they do, they can
    get cs or maybe something else entirely.

    > 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.


    exactly.

    > >> 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.


    if you are going to say the price of a $1000 mac is too high, then a
    $1000 pc is also too high.

    but you didn't.

    it's always macs are too expensive but similar pcs which cost the same
    are not. in fact, they're never mentioned. that's why it's bashing.
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> 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.

    >
    > That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
    > cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
    > commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
    > just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
    > Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
    > leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
    > it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
    > to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
    > commercial margin for its products.


    apple does not charge more. macs and pcs with similar specs cost about
    the same. if there's a price difference, it's because of different
    specs, not the logo.

    also, apple is ahead by far more than a few months. it took google
    about 3 years to switch gears and catch up with the iphone (it was
    originally targeting blackberry). microsoft ditched windows mobile,
    which was very popular at the time, and began working on their iphone
    competitor, aka windows phone. it still hasn't quite caught up but it's
    getting there. it was only last year that a viable competitor to the
    ipad appeared, some two years after the original ipad came out.

    > >> 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.

    >
    > "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.


    he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
    expensive but he neglects to mention that.
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:02:31 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > On 5/8/2013 1:50 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), 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.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > 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,


    The same old question is just how much such piracy affects the company.

    > and Adobe has a right to protect
    >
    > itself from theft.


    Of course, but the interesting thing is that are those thefts actually loses in the long term for the company. Companies always say yes but is it really true.
    Whisky-dave, May 9, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    android Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:02:31 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > > On 5/8/2013 1:50 PM, Bowser wrote:
    > >

    ---
    > > 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,

    >
    > The same old question is just how much such piracy affects the company.
    >
    > > and Adobe has a right to protect
    > >
    > > itself from theft.

    >
    > Of course, but the interesting thing is that are those thefts actually loses
    > in the long term for the company. Companies always say yes but is it really
    > true.


    Adobe had, in the early days, an interest in undercutting their market
    opposition. Pirated software did that. New ventures had difficulties in
    establish themself since PS was available for "free" and PS already had
    critical mass in the market. MS and Office, the same thing...
    I'd say that piracy was as good a friend to Adobe and MS as Jolly Roger
    was to Union Jack!
    --
    teleportation kills
    android, May 9, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
    > >> cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
    > >> commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
    > >> just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
    > >> Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
    > >> leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
    > >> it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
    > >> to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
    > >> commercial margin for its products.

    > >
    > >apple does not charge more. macs and pcs with similar specs cost about
    > >the same. if there's a price difference, it's because of different
    > >specs, not the logo.
    > >
    > >also, apple is ahead by far more than a few months. it took google
    > >about 3 years to switch gears and catch up with the iphone (it was
    > >originally targeting blackberry). microsoft ditched windows mobile,
    > >which was very popular at the time, and began working on their iphone
    > >competitor, aka windows phone. it still hasn't quite caught up but it's
    > >getting there. it was only last year that a viable competitor to the
    > >ipad appeared, some two years after the original ipad came out.

    >
    > You quote Google.


    i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    google again (nexus 7).

    > What about (for example) Samsung?


    what about them?

    > >> >> 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.
    > >>
    > >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.

    > >
    > >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
    > >expensive but he neglects to mention that.

    >
    > He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
    >
    > 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".
    >
    > He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
    > non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
    > being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' 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".'?


    he calls it "the mac argument".

    it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.

    if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/9/2013 1:10 PM, Bowser wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:02:31 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/8/2013 1:50 PM, Bowser wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), 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.
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >
    > Two issues here:
    >
    > 1. It is a done deal. There are lots of news stories on this one, very
    > few positive.
    >
    > 2. Moving their SW to the cloud won't prevent piracy. Hardly. Thieves
    > will still steal, and crackers will still find a way.
    >
    > This is naked greed by Adobe, nothing more.
    >


    About two weeks ago I received a market survey from Adobe, on whether I
    would be interested in moving to the Cloud. The survey was after the
    announcement that development on CS 7 had stopped. Adobe would like you
    to think its a done deal, but I suspect it's a market test. MS tried
    this a few years ago, and go slammed back by user protest. I have signed
    a petition against the movement to the Cloud. My signature will be
    worthless unless several hundred thousand others join in. Also, if we
    give strong indicators of market resistance, instead of just bitching
    and monaing, Adobe will come around. Meanwhile, wht an opportunity for
    Corel to get back in the game.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, May 9, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <518be8bc$0$10838$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > About two weeks ago I received a market survey from Adobe, on whether I
    > would be interested in moving to the Cloud. The survey was after the
    > announcement that development on CS 7 had stopped.


    the announcement that it will be cloud only and there will be no cs7
    was a couple of days ago.

    any survey you got two weeks ago predates that announcement.

    > Adobe would like you
    > to think its a done deal, but I suspect it's a market test.


    creative cloud came out last year and the market test was this past
    year.

    presumably, it met their expectations for them do creative cloud only.
    it's a done deal.

    there's always a possibility they might reintroduce a non-cloud
    version, but this would have to fail miserably for them to do that.
    it's not very likely.
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:26:13 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Eric Stevens
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
    >> >> cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
    >> >> commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
    >> >> just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
    >> >> Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
    >> >> leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
    >> >> it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
    >> >> to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
    >> >> commercial margin for its products.
    >> >
    >> >apple does not charge more. macs and pcs with similar specs cost about
    >> >the same. if there's a price difference, it's because of different
    >> >specs, not the logo.
    >> >
    >> >also, apple is ahead by far more than a few months. it took google
    >> >about 3 years to switch gears and catch up with the iphone (it was
    >> >originally targeting blackberry). microsoft ditched windows mobile,
    >> >which was very popular at the time, and began working on their iphone
    >> >competitor, aka windows phone. it still hasn't quite caught up but it's
    >> >getting there. it was only last year that a viable competitor to the
    >> >ipad appeared, some two years after the original ipad came out.

    >>
    >> You quote Google.

    >
    >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    >google again (nexus 7).
    >
    >> What about (for example) Samsung?

    >
    >what about them?
    >
    >> >> >> 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.
    >> >>
    >> >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
    >> >
    >> >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
    >> >expensive but he neglects to mention that.

    >>
    >> He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
    >>
    >> 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".
    >>
    >> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
    >> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
    >> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    >> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    >> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' 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".'?

    >
    >he calls it "the mac argument".
    >
    >it's not the mac argument.


    Yes, it's the "mac argument" that you use.

    > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    >
    >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?


    The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs. There are
    people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
    of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
    high. They aren't interested in the "do more".

    The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
    entry level machine at a low price. There's no need to mention PCs
    with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
    in them, either.

    That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
    market works for just about every type of product. Automobiles are a
    prime example of this.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, May 9, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    > >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    > >
    > >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    > >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

    >
    > The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.


    only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.

    a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
    talking about.

    > There are
    > people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
    > of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
    > high. They aren't interested in the "do more".


    and they're not interested in the higher priced pcs either.

    but you don't mention that, do you?

    there are also people who don't have any interest in the cheapest thing
    available. they want a quality product and willing to pay for it.

    you don't mention that either.

    > The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
    > entry level machine at a low price.


    some do, others do not.

    and what they're really interested in is solutions, not specs.

    > There's no need to mention PCs
    > with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
    > in them, either.


    then there's no need to mention either one, so why single out macs?

    this is about bottom-tier versus mid-tier products, not mac versus pc.

    > That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
    > market works for just about every type of product.


    it's a slam against macs if you only mention macs.

    if you *also* mention similar priced pcs, then it's about price tiers.

    but you don't.

    > Automobiles are a
    > prime example of this.


    cars and computers are marketed very differently.
    nospam, May 10, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> You quote Google.

    > >
    > >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    > >google again (nexus 7).
    > >
    > >> What about (for example) Samsung?

    > >
    > >what about them?

    >
    > I dunno.
    >
    > What about them in the context of iPhone?


    they copied it so well that even samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the
    difference in court. that's one way to catch up.

    > >> >> >> 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.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
    > >> >
    > >> >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
    > >> >expensive but he neglects to mention that.
    > >>
    > >> He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
    > >>
    > >> 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".
    > >>
    > >> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
    > >> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
    > >> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > >> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > >> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' 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".'?

    > >
    > >he calls it "the mac argument".

    >
    > And what's wrong with that?


    it has nothing to do with macs. that's what.

    it's different price tiers. that's all.

    > Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
    > on Mac to claim "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"?


    if someone only mentions macs, yes. why single them out, when there are
    other products with similar specs that cost about the same?

    > >it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    > >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.

    >
    > Do you really mean that Apple and Mac supporters have never claimed
    > "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"? I would be surprised if they haven't as that statement is
    > perfectly true. Why are you objecting to it?


    i'm objecting to tying it to macs when ignoring that similar pcs cost
    about the same. it's furthers the longstanding myth that macs are more
    expensive. they are not.

    > >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    > >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

    >
    > Because you and Tony Cooper were not discussing high-end PCs in
    > general but the position of Macs in the current hardware market.


    nope, it was about adobe's new cloud strategy and the two tiers of
    photoshop.

    it had nothing whatsoever to do with macs until he brought it up.

    > He
    > was quoting Mac's argument to explain Adobe's attitude to the pricing
    > of the high end image processing software. Somehow you have got so
    > bound up that you are arguing against your usual position.


    i'm not bound up at all. i'm just calling him on his usual bashing.
    nospam, May 10, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    2,922
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. One-Shot Scot

    Rental DVDs: "Rental Only - Not For Resale."

    One-Shot Scot, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,476
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
  3. Mikhail
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    364
    Stephen
    Jul 28, 2009
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    165
    Sandman
    Sep 2, 2013
  5. RichA

    Apple's foray into the "service/rental economy"

    RichA, Jun 3, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    349
    Whisky-dave
    Jun 17, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page