Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Jun 5, 2013.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <kp2h6t$7om$>, Paul Ciszek
    <> wrote:

    > >> > in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
    > >> > guaranteed.
    > >> >
    > >> > it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
    > >> > original raw) degraded it.
    > >>
    > >> Who is making this guaranty?

    > >
    > >read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.
    > >
    > >here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
    > >goes in is exactly what comes out.

    >
    > Because Lightroom 3.6 could not import RAW files from my OM-D,


    3.6 is too old for that camera. that's your problem.

    upgrade to 4.x and it will work.

    > and I
    > couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,


    what plugin was that?

    > I downloaded the DNG converter. I converted my files, opened the DNG
    > file in Lightroom, and found the images had horizontal stripes.
    >
    > The screwup might be in Lightroom 3.6 rather than the DNG converter;
    > I won't know until I get a better computer, can install a more recent
    > version of windows, and can finally buy Lightroom 4.0.


    something went wrong somewhere. that's not normal. you're using
    outdated software that doesn't support your camera, so it's not
    surprising you got bogus results.

    > >there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
    > >with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
    > >writing a corrupt file.

    >
    > My RAW files read fine in Olympus View, which can export 16 bit TIFF's,
    > so the problem is not with the camera.
    >
    > No matter how perfect the DNG format is, it is entirely possible for
    > the programmer writing a converter to screw up.


    sure, but that isn't common.

    it's also possible for a raw processor (no dng conversion) to screw up.

    nothing is perfect.
     
    nospam, Jun 9, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013060912424764440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> and I
    > >> couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,

    > >
    > > what plugin was that?

    >
    > Probably the latest ACR which does not run on LR3.


    the camera raw plugin doesn't work in any lightroom. it's built into
    lightroom itself.

    > It is well worth the
    > upgrade to LR4, which runs the current RAW process engine.


    yep.
     
    nospam, Jun 9, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013060913450038165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>>> and I
    > >>>> couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,
    > >>>
    > >>> what plugin was that?
    > >>
    > >> Probably the latest ACR which does not run on LR3.

    > >
    > > the camera raw plugin doesn't work in any lightroom. it's built into
    > > lightroom itself.

    >
    > Exactly. However, LR still uses the ACR RAW process engine, and LR3.6
    > will not update to the latest ACR 7, 2012 process.


    right, which is why i asked what plugin he tried.
     
    nospam, Jun 9, 2013
    #23
  4. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:42:47 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-09 11:37:13 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <kp2h6t$7om$>, Paul Ciszek

    >
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>>>> in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is

    >
    > >>>>> guaranteed.

    >
    > >>>>>

    >
    > >>>>> it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or

    >
    > >>>>> original raw) degraded it.

    >
    > >>>>

    >
    > >>>> Who is making this guaranty?

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

    >
    > >>>

    >
    > >>> here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what

    >
    > >>> goes in is exactly what comes out.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Because Lightroom 3.6 could not import RAW files from my OM-D,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > 3.6 is too old for that camera. that's your problem.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > upgrade to 4.x and it will work.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >> and I

    >
    > >> couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,

    >
    > >

    >
    > > what plugin was that?

    >
    >
    >
    > Probably the latest ACR which does not run on LR3. It is well worth the
    >
    > upgrade to LR4, which runs the current RAW process engine.


    Do you think that with a subscription you'll automatically get access to the lastest version of the software such as new camera raw or will you have to buy CS7, CS8 as increases over your original subscription.

    Will the same subscriptionn get you later CS releases or will they be additional subscription charges to downloaed the lastest.

    Maybe even Adobe don't know this yet but it's something I was thinking about last night.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 11, 2013
    #24
  5. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2013 11:12 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-11 05:59:04 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >> Do you think that with a subscription you'll automatically get access
    >> to the lastest version of the software such as new camera raw

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> or will you have to buy CS7, CS8 as increases over your original
    >> subscription.

    >
    > No. There will not be a CS7.
    >
    >> Will the same subscriptionn get you later CS releases

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> or will they be additional subscription charges to downloaed the lastest.

    >
    > At this point no, but who knows what the future holds.
    >
    >> Maybe even Adobe don't know this yet but it's something I was thinking
    >> about last night.

    >
    > Keep thinking. It gives you something to do.
    >

    My main concern, is how much incentive will Adobe have to continue
    development, if they have a locked in set of users. It might not be that
    easy to switch. Right now CS6 has a compatibility mode, that makes the
    file usable with earlier versions. Can they remove that feature so I
    can't use my images in CS6. If I do go to the Cloud, I will probably
    save everything as a tiff file.
    BTW I am probably going to use LR5 for cataloging, as DXO plays very
    well with it, and I cannot go directly from DXO to PS. ( At least I
    don't know how. )


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 11, 2013
    #25
  6. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

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

    > Do you think that with a subscription you'll automatically get access to the
    > lastest version of the software such as new camera raw or will you have to
    > buy CS7, CS8 as increases over your original subscription.


    you always will have the latest version. that's the whole idea.
     
    nospam, Jun 11, 2013
    #26
  7. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:12:13 PM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-11 05:59:04 -0700, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Do you think that with a subscription you'll automatically get access

    >
    > > to the lastest version of the software such as new camera raw

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes.
    >


    Well at least that's good news I guess.


    >
    > > or will you have to buy CS7, CS8 as increases over your original

    >
    > > subscription.

    >
    >
    >
    > No. There will not be a CS7.


    So rthere's just be a product which yuo can't really identify what it is.
    Seems a little odd as OS's update Adobe won;lt renaem their product.
    So I guess it'll work with any versions of the OS transparently.


    > > Will the same subscriptionn get you later CS releases

    >
    >
    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >
    >
    > > or will they be additional subscription charges to downloaed the lastest.

    >
    >
    >
    > At this point no, but who knows what the future holds.


    Yes it;'s not like anyone can prediict that a company might charge more for a 'better' product perhaps every year a small 'inflation' increase.


    >
    >
    >
    > > Maybe even Adobe don't know this yet but it's something I was thinking

    >
    > > about last night.

    >
    >
    >
    > Keep thinking. It gives you something to do.


    Yes thinking is good, in fact it's quite a necessatiy for most.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 12, 2013
    #27
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:41:40 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Do you think that with a subscription you'll automatically get access to the

    >
    > > lastest version of the software such as new camera raw or will you have to

    >
    > > buy CS7, CS8 as increases over your original subscription.

    >
    >
    >
    > you always will have the latest version. that's the whole idea.


    I've got teh lastest version thanks trouble is it's won't work on my current mac mini or my G4 tower.
    So I'm wondering 5 years down the line whether they will be a OS or hardware that CS6 won't run on, will I need two or more subscriptions or will the current CS version in coming years run on my old hardware.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 12, 2013
    #28
  9. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    | > No. There will not be a CS7.
    |
    | So rthere's just be a product which yuo can't really identify what it is.
    | Seems a little odd as OS's update Adobe won;lt renaem their product.
    | So I guess it'll work with any versions of the OS transparently.
    |

    That's an interesting point. Given that the online aspect
    of cloud software is, to a great extent, just an illusion of
    marketing, it's certainly possible that one could get a
    subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
    required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
    actual software will no doubt be installed locally. The
    situation could be much worse for Mac users, who have
    never known the convenience of an OS that's designed
    for backward compatibility.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 12, 2013
    #29
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:05:11 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > No. There will not be a CS7.
    >
    > |
    >
    > | So rthere's just be a product which yuo can't really identify what it is.
    >
    > | Seems a little odd as OS's update Adobe won;lt renaem their product.
    >
    > | So I guess it'll work with any versions of the OS transparently.
    >
    > |
    >
    >
    >
    > That's an interesting point. Given that the online aspect
    >
    > of cloud software is, to a great extent, just an illusion of
    >
    > marketing, it's certainly possible that one could get a
    >
    > subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
    >
    > required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
    >
    > actual software will no doubt be installed locally. The
    >
    > situation could be much worse for Mac users, who have
    >
    > never known the convenience of an OS that's designed
    >
    > for backward compatibility.


    I must say I've never really found that to be the case.
    What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
    photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a PC.
    I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not be resticted to a conputer that has internet access.
    if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be the way to go and be good for the consumer.
    I'm suprised Apple or MS haven't done this with OSs.
    Just pay a subscription of say $10 a month and you always get the lastest software your hardware can handle on any machine in your home for as long as you subscribe.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 12, 2013
    #30
  11. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <kp9utu$abm$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > | > No. There will not be a CS7.
    > |
    > | So rthere's just be a product which yuo can't really identify what it is.
    > | Seems a little odd as OS's update Adobe won;lt renaem their product.
    > | So I guess it'll work with any versions of the OS transparently.
    >
    > That's an interesting point. Given that the online aspect
    > of cloud software is, to a great extent, just an illusion of
    > marketing,


    it is not an illusion of any kind.

    > it's certainly possible that one could get a
    > subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
    > required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
    > actual software will no doubt be installed locally.


    that's no different than non-subscription software that drops support
    for older systems. there's no point in maintaining compatibility with
    systems very few people use.

    resources are better spent moving forward and offering features the
    majority of users will use.

    > The
    > situation could be much worse for Mac users, who have
    > never known the convenience of an OS that's designed
    > for backward compatibility.


    as usual, wrong.

    apple historically goes well out of their way to maintain backward
    compatibility, anywhere from special case code for popular apps so they
    continue to work to full fledged emulation for processor or operating
    system transitions.

    however, at some point, the number of people who run older software is
    not worth the effort to keep supporting them. you have to cut the cord
    and move forward.

    it's more important to implement features that millions of users will
    want, rather than maintain compatibility with 20 year old software so
    that a handful of people will be happy and who probably won't be buying
    anything new anyway (i.e., they're not even users anymore).
     
    nospam, Jun 12, 2013
    #31
  12. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

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

    > > > Do you think that with a subscription you'll automatically get access to the
    > > > lastest version of the software such as new camera raw or will you have to
    > > > buy CS7, CS8 as increases over your original subscription.

    > >
    > > you always will have the latest version. that's the whole idea.

    >
    > I've got teh lastest version thanks trouble is it's won't work on my current
    > mac mini or my G4 tower.
    > So I'm wondering 5 years down the line whether they will be a OS or hardware
    > that CS6 won't run on, will I need two or more subscriptions or will the
    > current CS version in coming years run on my old hardware.


    adobe has said they'll update cs6 for bug fixes, hardware
    compatibility, etc.

    however, at some point, it won't be worth it to support legacy
    hardware. they are not going to port cs6 to arm chips, for instance.
     
    nospam, Jun 12, 2013
    #32
  13. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

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

    > What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
    > photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
    > would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
    > PC.
    > I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not be
    > resticted to a conputer that has internet access.


    it doesn't require internet access to run.

    it requires internet access about once a month to validate that you are
    actually paying for it. other than that, no internet access is
    required.

    > if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be the way to
    > go and be good for the consumer.


    for many consumers it will be. for others it won't.

    > I'm suprised Apple or MS haven't done this with OSs.
    > Just pay a subscription of say $10 a month and you always get the lastest
    > software your hardware can handle on any machine in your home for as long
    > as you subscribe.


    mac os is not a subscription but it's $20 to upgrade to the latest
    version.
     
    nospam, Jun 12, 2013
    #33
  14. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    | What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
    | photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
    would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
    PC.
    | I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not
    be resticted to a conputer that has internet access.

    If it's a subscription there would have to be Internet
    access. That's the whole idea. It's "cloud" software.

    What I was noting is that the cloud idea is an idea to
    make more money. In many cases cloud software is not
    actually online at all, as is apparently the case with
    Adobe's subscription. In other words, it makes no sense
    to run such complex software anyplace but on your
    computer. The subscription model, requiring an online
    connection, is really just DRM. Adobe could, possibly, let
    you use it from different computers, but it would still have
    to be installed to each computer. If you installed to your
    Mac today you could be forced to buy a new Mac in, say,
    two years when Adobe drops support for your current Mac
    OSX version. Since it's a constantly-updating subscription,
    you won't have a choice to just "keep the old version".


    | if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be the way
    to go and be good for the consumer.
    | I'm suprised Apple or MS haven't done this with OSs.
    | Just pay a subscription of say $10 a month and you always get the lastest
    software your hardware can handle on any machine in your home for as long as
    you subscribe.
    |

    It's unlikely that subscription will be better for most
    people. If that were the case they wouldn't be doing it.
    The whole point is to obsolete your car and sign you up to
    a taxi service. If the taxi were not going to make more
    money they wouldn't do it.

    The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
    software was getting cheaper and better. Ten years ago
    most software was notably improved with each new version.
    The same was true with PCs. For a long time now, both PCs
    and software have reached a level of maturity where they're
    good enough for most things. A PC bought in 2003 runs XP
    and can run most software sold today. But a PC sold only 5
    years earlier might be 300 MHz CPU, with a 2 GB HDD and
    32 MB RAM, running Win98. Many people would have replaced
    such a PC withing a year, because getting the 450 MHz CPU
    made a *big* difference in performance.

    In other words, both hardware and software companies are
    frustrated that people no longer find value in constant updating.
    Many Apple users are suckers for the newest product. And
    Microsoft succeeds by getting a fee for every PC sold and by
    regularly coming out with new versions of MS Office that business
    people feel they have to buy. (Almost everything else MS does
    loses money.) But in general, the market is just not growing.

    Many of the people in this group talk about being satisfied
    with their older version of CS or whatever. That's what Adobe
    wants to stop. They want to set it up so that you're basically
    buying periodically and they don't have to keep trying to cook
    up new improvements that justify buying the latest, grossly
    overpriced version of their product.

    I've heard rumors that MS is thinking about an OS subscription
    model. In many ways WinRT/Metro is already that. They've
    arranged it so that the average person will buy a device with
    Windows 8 or RT, then sign up for a Microsoft ID online, then
    start paying for all sorts of trinket tile apps, essentially turning
    Windows itself into an online service and shopping. The bad
    news for MS is that no one is buying the Metro tile apps. But
    that's where they believe the future lies -- not in selling software
    but rather in using software to be a commerce middleman.
    Apple is doing a similar thing with iPads and iPhones. Those are
    not exactly computers, and not every app is subscription, but
    basically it's a subscription services/shopping/entertainment
    device. The fact that you don't officially rent iOS is just a
    technicality. Apple gets a cut from most of what happens on
    the device. The actual cost of the device and OS is fast
    becoming their cost of doing business, rather than their product.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 12, 2013
    #34
  15. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    | > it's certainly possible that one could get a
    | > subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
    | > required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
    | > actual software will no doubt be installed locally.
    |
    | that's no different than non-subscription software that drops support
    | for older systems.

    Yes, that's true. Because it's basically the same thing,
    as I was pointing out. You have a remarkable ability to
    argue stridently with *anything*, even if you have to
    agree in order to do so. :)

    I'm just highlighting the point because when people
    hear about cloud software they think of it running online,
    through their browser. That's mostly a farce; cloud
    marketing. But people don't understand that, so they're
    not so likely to consider the fact that they might be
    hooking themselves into a hardware upgrade track
    along with the subscription, just as they wouldn't think
    they might need a new TV to see the latest shows.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 12, 2013
    #35
  16. Paul Ciszek

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:42:05 -0400, "Mayayana"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >| What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
    >| photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
    >would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
    >PC.
    >| I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not
    >be resticted to a conputer that has internet access.
    >
    > If it's a subscription there would have to be Internet
    >access. That's the whole idea. It's "cloud" software.


    As I understand, it's software that is downloaded to your computer and
    requires periodic checking in, using the Internet, with Adobe to be
    validated as currently active. "Currently active" means "paid for".

    That is not what I would call "cloud" software.

    The only difference between the subscription based version and the
    non-subscription based versions of Photoshop is that previously there
    was one validation step on installation and now there are periodic
    validation steps. In both cases, the software is on the user's
    computers and the output of the software is (or can be) on the user's
    computers.

    After last week's camera club meeting, a group of us went out to
    dinner the subscription program was discussed at length. The members
    who are not currently users of Photoshop were quite excited about it.
    It will allow them to try Photoshop at very minimal expense compared
    to the old system. (Yes, Photoshop free trials for 30 days have been
    available, but anyone who thinks they can really get into Photoshop in
    30 days is delusional.)

    Several of the members who have been long-time users and have already
    paid the big bucks for the program and the upgrades were very
    negative.

    I'm neutral. I have CS6, and I really don't care what Adobe chooses
    to do for future business. CS6 is all that I expect to need or want.

    What really interests me about Adobe's very bold move is that it may
    lead other software vendors to follow suit. There are programs out
    there that have an initial cost that is too high for me to want to buy
    without knowing that they would be truly useful to me.

    30-day trials are not all that informative for a somewhat complex
    program. I like to work at my own speed without a deadline because
    these programs are not essential to my workflow.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 12, 2013
    #36
  17. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <kpa4jk$cuk$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > | What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
    > | photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
    > would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
    > PC.
    > | I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not
    > be resticted to a conputer that has internet access.
    >
    > If it's a subscription there would have to be Internet
    > access. That's the whole idea. It's "cloud" software.


    nope.

    in adobe's case, there needs to be periodic internet access, about once
    a month. the rest of the time no internet access is needed.

    yearly customers can run it for about 3 months without any internet
    access.

    that's a long time to be off the grid.

    > What I was noting is that the cloud idea is an idea to
    > make more money.


    surprising as it may seem, companies are in business to make money.

    > In many cases cloud software is not
    > actually online at all, as is apparently the case with
    > Adobe's subscription. In other words, it makes no sense
    > to run such complex software anyplace but on your
    > computer. The subscription model, requiring an online
    > connection, is really just DRM.


    no, it's much more than that, and non-cloud software had copy
    protection, which didn't affect honest people.

    > Adobe could, possibly, let
    > you use it from different computers, but it would still have
    > to be installed to each computer.


    so what?

    obviously software has to be installed for it to be used.

    > If you installed to your
    > Mac today you could be forced to buy a new Mac in, say,
    > two years when Adobe drops support for your current Mac
    > OSX version. Since it's a constantly-updating subscription,
    > you won't have a choice to just "keep the old version".


    nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

    if at some point in the future adobe drops support for an old and
    outdated mac (or pc), you just don't upgrade to the latest version
    they're offering. no big deal.

    > | if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be the way
    > to go and be good for the consumer.
    > | I'm suprised Apple or MS haven't done this with OSs.
    > | Just pay a subscription of say $10 a month and you always get the lastest
    > software your hardware can handle on any machine in your home for as long as
    > you subscribe.
    > |
    >
    > It's unlikely that subscription will be better for most
    > people. If that were the case they wouldn't be doing it.


    wrong. it's very likely that it will be much better for many people.

    it won't be better for everyone, but that's just reality.

    in order to move forward, some people are left behind.

    > The whole point is to obsolete your car and sign you up to
    > a taxi service. If the taxi were not going to make more
    > money they wouldn't do it.


    no, that's not the point at all.

    the point is to offer features more rapidly than before.

    previously, new features could only be offered on a release cycle,
    which was typically 18-24 months. now, they can offer new features
    whenever they're ready. that's much *better* for users. why wait when
    it's ready now?

    > The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
    > software was getting cheaper and better. Ten years ago
    > most software was notably improved with each new version.
    > The same was true with PCs. For a long time now, both PCs
    > and software have reached a level of maturity where they're
    > good enough for most things. A PC bought in 2003 runs XP
    > and can run most software sold today.


    nope. quite a bit of software now requires win7 or later (or maybe
    vista), including the latest versions of photoshop and lightroom.

    companies have been dropping support for xp for quite some time.

    > But a PC sold only 5
    > years earlier might be 300 MHz CPU, with a 2 GB HDD and
    > 32 MB RAM, running Win98. Many people would have replaced
    > such a PC withing a year, because getting the 450 MHz CPU
    > made a *big* difference in performance.


    and?

    people replace hardware when a newer model can do something their
    current model cannot.

    > In other words, both hardware and software companies are
    > frustrated that people no longer find value in constant updating.
    > Many Apple users are suckers for the newest product.


    more apple bashing.

    > And
    > Microsoft succeeds by getting a fee for every PC sold and by
    > regularly coming out with new versions of MS Office that business
    > people feel they have to buy. (Almost everything else MS does
    > loses money.) But in general, the market is just not growing.


    the pc market is not growing.

    however, the mobile market is growing like crazy. that's the future,
    whether you want to believe it or not.

    > Many of the people in this group talk about being satisfied
    > with their older version of CS or whatever.


    that's because it was overkill to begin with.

    > That's what Adobe
    > wants to stop.


    why? adobe had a sale.

    what adobe wants to stop is piracy, and to offer features not possible
    with a non-subscription model and in a more timely manner.

    > They want to set it up so that you're basically
    > buying periodically and they don't have to keep trying to cook
    > up new improvements that justify buying the latest, grossly
    > overpriced version of their product.


    people were already buying periodically.

    what they want to do is concentrate on cloud based software rather than
    support *both* cloud and non-cloud.

    > I've heard rumors that MS is thinking about an OS subscription
    > model. In many ways WinRT/Metro is already that. They've
    > arranged it so that the average person will buy a device with
    > Windows 8 or RT, then sign up for a Microsoft ID online, then
    > start paying for all sorts of trinket tile apps, essentially turning
    > Windows itself into an online service and shopping.


    wrong. you have this ridiculous idea that tablet apps are trinkets and
    that anything mobile is solely for shopping.

    that is so out of touch with reality.

    mobile is the future.

    > The bad
    > news for MS is that no one is buying the Metro tile apps. But
    > that's where they believe the future lies -- not in selling software
    > but rather in using software to be a commerce middleman.


    the future is mobile and microsoft knows it, and it has nothing to do
    with being a middleman.

    how well they manage the transition remains to be seen.

    apple and google have the mobile market now, with windows phone gaining
    a little bit. microsoft could be a viable 3rd place player, however.
    that's quite the change from the 90s, something a lot of people can't
    accept.

    > Apple is doing a similar thing with iPads and iPhones. Those are
    > not exactly computers,


    ipads and iphones are *exactly* computers.

    in fact, they are more capable than the computers on people's desks
    10-15 years ago, with faster processors, more memory and storage and
    higher resolution displays and *significantly* more capable apps.

    > and not every app is subscription,


    *none* of the apps are subscription. zero. nada. zilch.

    some of the apps may offer subscription services, such as the new york
    times, but that's not really any different than paying for web access
    to the new york times on a desktop or laptop computer. it can be used
    without a subscription but with less capability.

    > but
    > basically it's a subscription services/shopping/entertainment
    > device.


    absolutely wrong.

    > The fact that you don't officially rent iOS is just a
    > technicality.


    wrong. it's a real computer with a real os with real and very capable
    apps.

    > Apple gets a cut from most of what happens on
    > the device.


    so what? adobe gets a cut when you buy adobe software. best buy gets a
    cut when you buy something there. the grocery store gets a cut when you
    buy food.

    why are you so against a company making money for a product or service
    offered?

    > The actual cost of the device and OS is fast
    > becoming their cost of doing business, rather than their product.


    wrong yet again. if that were true, they'd be giving them out for next
    to nothing, and they are not.
     
    nospam, Jun 12, 2013
    #37
  18. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <kpa5ul$l9n$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > | > it's certainly possible that one could get a
    > | > subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
    > | > required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
    > | > actual software will no doubt be installed locally.
    > |
    > | that's no different than non-subscription software that drops support
    > | for older systems.
    >
    > Yes, that's true. Because it's basically the same thing,
    > as I was pointing out. You have a remarkable ability to
    > argue stridently with *anything*, even if you have to
    > agree in order to do so. :)


    i'm not arguing at all. you're focusing your complaints on cloud
    software when it applies to *any* software.

    i'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

    > I'm just highlighting the point because when people
    > hear about cloud software they think of it running online,
    > through their browser.


    some do, some don't. not everyone understands technology.

    > That's mostly a farce; cloud
    > marketing. But people don't understand that, so they're
    > not so likely to consider the fact that they might be
    > hooking themselves into a hardware upgrade track
    > along with the subscription, just as they wouldn't think
    > they might need a new TV to see the latest shows.


    they're not hooking themselves into anything. if they don't want to
    upgrade hardware, they don't have to.

    you can't see past your hatred for progress to realize what's actually
    going on.
     
    nospam, Jun 12, 2013
    #38
  19. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > 30-day trials are not all that informative for a somewhat complex
    > program. I like to work at my own speed without a deadline because
    > these programs are not essential to my workflow.


    true, and because of that, some apps have a limited number of launches
    instead.
     
    nospam, Jun 12, 2013
    #39
  20. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    | As I understand, it's software that is downloaded to your computer and
    | requires periodic checking in, using the Internet, with Adobe to be
    | validated as currently active. "Currently active" means "paid for".
    |
    | That is not what I would call "cloud" software.
    |

    No. I see what you mean. And if one only has
    to connect periodically then it's clearly not running
    online. But I think there's a conflation in the marketing.
    Microsoft's new XBox takes a similar approach. One
    doesn't have to stay online, but one has to connect
    periodically. And one's games/settings are stored online
    so that one can use "one's own" games from anywhere.
    The whole approach blurs the line. Some software, like
    gmail, is mostly or entirely online. Other software, like
    PS, is not. But people are being trained to think of it
    as an online service, just as people have been trained
    to think of youtube videos as a broadcast, so that
    Google can control views and put ads in each viewing,
    despite the fact that the video is actually downloaded
    as an FLV file and played locally... and that there's really
    no reason for people to need to go online for a second
    viewing.

    Likewise with PS/CS, there's online storage and the
    whole thing will probably default to constant online
    connection. If people don't think of it that way then
    they're faced with buying a copy of CS with spyware
    and DRM added, paying for it via perpetual installment
    plan. The critical point is that Adobe is forcing people
    to subscribe to updates precisely because most people
    don't actually need them. (I saw one analysis that
    seemed to make sense, explaining that many people
    now skip at least one version of popular software
    between updates, whereas almost everyone used to
    buy each version, whether it's Windows, CS, MS Office,
    or whatever. Subscription model allows Adobe to basically
    prevent people from skipping updates. I wonder, though,
    if they might also be thinking about future competition.
    If I need to buy new software I'm likely to look around
    to see which I think is the best deal. But if I have a
    subscription then the effort and upset of switching brands
    would require big motivation.)
     
    Mayayana, Jun 12, 2013
    #40
    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. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    187
    nospam
    Jun 4, 2013
  2. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    217
    luxitman
    Jul 3, 2013
  3. philo 

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    philo , Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    272
    nospam
    Jun 5, 2013
  4. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    283
    PeterN
    Jun 7, 2013
  5. PeterN

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    PeterN, Jun 5, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    195
    PeterN
    Jun 5, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page