Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

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

  1. Paul Ciszek

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <kpa4jk$cuk$>, says...
    >
    > | 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.


    It's more insidious than that. When a business grows it has to have
    more seats. If their existing staff is using Office then they pretty
    much have to add Office seats. But Microsoft has changed the user
    interface twice since 2005 or so so those new seats are using a
    different UI from the others--to maintain consistency that business has
    to upgrade everybody to the new version and retrain everybody.

    Sooner or later many business are going to wise up and decide that since
    they have to retrain everybody anyway they might as well retrain them on
    Open Office, which they can keep using forever and add as many seats as
    they want with no license fees.

    > (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.


    In the case of handheld devices, they also get dropped, sat on,
    pilfered, washed, and otherwise lost in various ways requiring periodic
    replacement, with each replacement being effectively a new sale--if not
    to the original purchaser then to their insurer.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 12, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <kpabv9$qd0$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > 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.


    it's not always flash and most people don't download youtube videos
    even though it's inthe cache folder, so they *do* go back online for an
    additional viewing.

    > Likewise with PS/CS, there's online storage and the
    > whole thing will probably default to constant online
    > connection.


    only if you want to access the online storage. if you don't then
    there's

    > 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.


    there is no spyware and the only drm is so that you can't pirate it
    which does not affect honest people.

    > The critical point is that Adobe is forcing people
    > to subscribe to updates precisely because most people
    > don't actually need them.


    nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

    > (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.)


    maybe, but again, nothing stops anyone from canceling and switching if
    a competitor offers a product that better fits someone's needs.
     
    nospam, Jun 12, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:35:17 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.

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


    yes I know.

    >
    >
    >
    > 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.


    I'm not asking them to.
    But If anyone supcribes to whatever CS verions they'll have, if a person decides to stick with that version and NOT upgrade to the lastest OS and adopbe decide to support only current OS's does that mean they'll remove my oldCS from my computer because they don;t want to support it but will continue to charge me a subscription to adobe software what I can't use.

    If this is to complex perhaps I can give you an example.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2013
    #43
  4. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:35:19 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > 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.


    well that's good at least.


    > it requires internet access about once a month to validate that you are
    >
    > actually paying for it.


    Why can;t they use the the direct debit or whatever system you use to pay to check you've paid ?

    > other than that, no internet access is
    >
    > required.


    it's just that I know someone on a boat who has difficulty getting internt access, he searhces out lone places to work, he likes the peace and quite and will typically dispear for 1-3 months on projects.

    I don;t think you should need interntet acdcess to prove you are paying what adobe are doing is checking in case someone installs it and doesnl;t pay,so in effect making the life of genuine uses more difficult, not that theyhavent; doen this before.....have they ?

    See the license server situation. I guess some geniune users still want to be able to use CS2 despite adobe only wanting to support the laters CS's.


    >
    >
    >
    > > 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 would hope it'd be good for all those willing to pay for it.

    >
    >
    >
    > > 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.


    yes I know, and for any number of Mac computers you have in your household.
    I'd say that's a good for the vast majority of Apple users, why can't MS, or even adobe[1] do similar ?


    [1] yes I know some reasons, one is ineficcincy and another is that Apple make most of their margins on hardware not OS's or applications in general.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2013
    #44
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:42:05 PM UTC+1, 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.
    >
    >
    >
    > 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".



    Ah you're thinking along the similar lines to me then :)

    I'd hope that if you had a disk crash that you could just download the sotware again if you're paying a sub.

    It's not too unlike the music industry was they'll sell you a CD but you only have a license to the music, so if the CD gets destroyed you have to buya new one, rather than download a free copy of the music you've already paid for.
    Hopefully lessons will get learned......




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


    I agree and it seems that this 'micropayment' model could be the way forward.


    >
    > | 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 longas
    >
    > you subscribe.
    >
    > |
    >
    >
    >
    > It's unlikely that subscription will be better for most
    >
    > people. If that were the case they wouldn't be doing it.


    Well adobe obvioulsy see it better for them whether they see it better for the consumer might not be as relivant.

    >
    > 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.


    To a certain extend yes I agree, funnily enough a taxi service is better for me in that I don;t have a car or find I need one, so paying £5 when/if need one is good, paying a monthly subscripotion to a taxi company is NOT.


    > The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
    >
    > software was getting cheaper and better.


    I thought it was because Adobe were losign millions to downloaders.


    > 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.


    Yes I agree with that, less computers are being sold and tablets and small devices are the were the money is now.

    >



    > In other words, both hardware and software companies are
    >
    > frustrated that people no longer find value in constant updating.


    I used to update almost every 18 month now it's 3+ years .


    >
    > Many Apple users are suckers for the newest product.


    I think they take advantage of the fact that Apple prodcuts are better and hold their value longer and at a higher price point. Take a look at a 3-5 year old laptops on ebay.


    > 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.



    Yes a good money earner. I'm bettting the vast majority of MS office users coudl do everythijg they wanted on 10 year old versions.


    > (Almost everything else MS does
    >
    > loses money.) But in general, the market is just not growing.



    The Post PC market is.... along with the annoucnes it brings.


    > 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.


    I thinks that's a little harsh, I think what they want is for people to just keep paying for a product on what in the UK was coined the 'never never' a hire purchase type agreement.


    > 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'd say their products are expensive and nowerdays perhaps overpriced.
    I think part of the problem is that for the majority of people there are other products for far less that'll do what they want, adobe are staring at adwlindling market.



    > 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.


    it's a risky stratergy, Apple seem to have a beter one, let others write the software then appove it and make ~30% off the sales, just for listing it in the app store.


    >
    > 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.


    They still have quite a markup on their hardware which people are willing to pay some those people must think it's of value, the problem of the average PC users is they don't see this value.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2013
    #45
  6. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:36:25 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
    > 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.


    That's not to bad I guess, but could still, pose some problems.

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


    There's going to be two types of customers, supsription and .......yearly subscription.

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


    I guess it is nut then that's not the case it is one could be on the grid but not able or willing to connect to it. I know many muscians that refuse to have their main music computer connected to teh internet partly due to security the reast is intrurupts of the processor, checking things.


    > > 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.


    Most peoloe are too even scammers just want to make money, even charities want to make money, they aren't the same though.


    > > 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,


    No it isn't, well not much more.
    I pay my utilities bills every 3 months and many other bills regually every month I even had a macworld subscription none of these need to check my computer to see if I'm paying or not so why does adobe ?



    >


    and non-cloud software had copy
    >
    > protection, which didn't affect honest people.


    It did, far more than those less than honest.



    > > Adobe could, possibly, let

    >
    > > you use it from different computers, but it would still have

    >
    > > to be installed to each computer.

    >
    >
    >
    > so what?


    It's not cloud then is it, any more than backups on your HD aren't in the cloud.

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


    http://spoon.net/

    not tried it myself.
    But in the early days we were running X windows which was not meant to install software as such but still run it in RAM .



    > > 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.


    A meaningless answer.


    > 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.


    What latest version according to SD they will be only ONE version.
    (flashback to Highlander), there can be only one ;-)

    Which to me wouldn't make much sense.


    > > | if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be theway

    >
    > > 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.


    The lines between few, many, most and not everyone, might be more than a few pixels apart.


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


    That's true but there are more losers in a race than winners. (statistically)



    > > 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.


    We'll find out when it actually happens.


    > the point is to offer features more rapidly than before.


    I doubt that, the real reason is to get a streamlined business model which looks better on paper ;-) than the real world.


    > previously, new features could only be offered on a release cycle,
    >
    > which was typically 18-24 months.


    They could have done it quicker, but didn;t want to.

    > now, they can offer new features
    >
    > whenever they're ready. that's much *better* for users. why wait when
    >
    > it's ready now?


    indeed why wait for the new features why not have them now in CS6 or CS5 even.


    > > 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.


    Irrelivant supoort is totaly differnt from new features.
    Thre's absolutly no reason not to support an old product, that doesn;t meandevelop it further, but if your CS1 is faulty on XP it should be as fixable today as it was 10 years ago. They have alreeady back peddled on this with CS2
    which is why they are publising the serials for people to use, which I commend them for.


    >
    >
    >
    > > 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?


    if you could run CS1 on it 5 years ago why can;t you run CS1 on it today ?
    Is it because the faeries in the PC cave won't let me ?.


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


    Same with software isn;t it,but hardware does become faulty, software doesn't you do keep backups of installers don;t you, and thos edidital copies are 100% indentical so why shouldn;t it work ;-P


    > > 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.


    Keep doing that and you end up with cider :)



    >
    > 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.


    Yep beleive it or like it actually. makes me wonder what market share adobethink they'll get with a sub. service that charges more per month than most peole pay for a product for life.


    > > 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.


    True and of course CS and PS are differnt.
    Most photographers won;t need CS or any sort but photoshop is the key appl.

    >
    >
    >
    > > That's what Adobe

    >
    > > wants to stop.

    >
    >
    >
    > why? adobe had a sale.


    Had is past tense remove the old software from your computer and you'll have to subscribe to the lastest version.

    >
    >
    >
    > what adobe wants to stop is piracy,


    That's the main aim yes.

    >and to offer features not possible
    >
    > with a non-subscription model and in a more timely manner.


    What type of features could only be offered via subscription ?, nothhing.


    > > 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.


    but less so as cheaper products improve.


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


    How is it cloud based if your runnijg it from yuo HD, I don't think that's been explained or is it that the lastest buzz word is cloud, so you have toyou it in every paragraph to be seen as the blastes thing in technology.


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


    I wonder how CS will fair on mobile if at all, especailly if it's the future.

    >
    >
    >
    > how well they manage the transition remains to be seen.


    Adobe not very well I'd say.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2013
    #46
  7. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    |> The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
    |> software was getting cheaper and better.

    | I thought it was because Adobe were losign millions to downloaders.

    That might be part of it, but the market as a whole was
    making money hand over fist for years. Adobe and others
    did their best to catch cheaters, but they still had a virtually
    guaranteed sell every time they could manage to crank out
    a new version. And they had little competition. Catching
    cheaters was just gravy. And most businesses wouldn't
    take a chance with cheating. So Adobe and others had
    a dependable "cash cow". How absurd it is that Bill Gates
    has become the richest man in the world just selling utility
    software. The profit margins for these companies have been
    crazy. But those days are fading.

    Theft is the claimed reason for product activation, rental,
    etc. Security is another big excuse. As is convenience.
    There's some truth in all of that. But I think the overall
    picture is bigger than that. These companies are amoral.
    They go where the money is. Bill Gates once famously said
    that if the Chinese are going to steal their software then
    he wanted them to at least steal MS software. Then MS
    could figure out later how to get paid. Subscriptions on
    restricted devices that require an online connection
    essentially convert software to a broadcast service,
    regardless of how it's working under the surface. They
    convert software to a form that could keep the cash cow
    alive.

    (As with the youtube example and the Web as a whole: Most
    people have no idea that their browser is actually downloading
    files and assembling a page and/or playing a video from them.
    People already think of the Web as an interactive broadcast
    medium.)

    Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    become a utility product. Just as Bell had to be reined in
    when phones became ubiquitous. (In the 70s in the US
    people were forced to rent phones from Bell. If one
    managed to install a second phone secretly then Bell would
    charge for it. They could tell it was there by the voltage
    draw used by the bell in the ringer.)


    > ...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.


    | it's a risky stratergy, Apple seem to have a beter one, let
    | others write the software then appove it and make ~30%
    | off the sales, just for listing it in the app store.

    Yes, that's what MS is doing. I didn't mean to imply that
    they were capable of original thinking. :) Microsoft is trying
    to get people to write Metro apps, with MS tools, to be sold
    through the MS online store, where MS will take a cut similar
    to what Apple takes. MS is copying Apple. The main difference
    is simply that they don't have a market and therefore can't
    attract developers to risk their time.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 13, 2013
    #47
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:52:21 -0400, "Mayayana"
    <> wrote:

    >
    > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    >rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    >become a utility product.


    Adobe is no monopoly. To be a monopoly, a company has to be the sole
    supplier of a product, and the product has to be one in which there is
    a lack of viable substitute products.

    Adobe's product (in the case of Photoshop) is a software program used
    to edit images. There is a plethora of other programs available -
    ranging from free to fee - that edit images. That the product
    includes features not available in competitive programs does not make
    the product one that is non-substitutable.

    You are not denied the ability to own a program that edits images
    without using the Adobe product. You are only denied the specific
    features in the Adobe product that competitors have not included in
    their product. Competitors are not denied the ability to add features
    to their product with similar function.


    > Just as Bell had to be reined in
    >when phones became ubiquitous. (In the 70s in the US
    >people were forced to rent phones from Bell. If one
    >managed to install a second phone secretly then Bell would
    >charge for it. They could tell it was there by the voltage
    >draw used by the bell in the ringer.)


    Ma Bell was the sole supplier of a service. There were no viable
    substitute products.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 13, 2013
    #48
  9. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:52:21 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > |> The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
    >
    > |> software was getting cheaper and better.
    >
    >
    >
    > | I thought it was because Adobe were losign millions to downloaders.
    >
    >
    >
    > That might be part of it, but the market as a whole was
    >
    > making money hand over fist for years. Adobe and others
    >
    > did their best to catch cheaters, but they still had a virtually
    >
    > guaranteed sell every time they could manage to crank out
    >
    > a new version. And they had little competition. Catching
    >
    > cheaters was just gravy.


    Did they actually catch any and what happened when nthey did.

    > And most businesses wouldn't
    >
    > take a chance with cheating.


    I guess that depends, on how likely they thinbk they are of getting caught.

    I was mac software auditor here, then I found someone had brought one copy of somehig (not Adobe or MS) and copied it on to 5 macs. I told my bosses and they said it's OK because we're education, I checked the EUAL and it wasfor just one computer, I informed by boss and the next day I was told my job was to collect the information and hand it over and not to comment on it, a week later I was taken off the job and it was given to someone else.



    >So Adobe and others had
    >
    > a dependable "cash cow". How absurd it is that Bill Gates
    >
    > has become the richest man in the world just selling utility
    >
    > software.


    Strange isn;t it, and MS is also probbaley the most pirated software too.
    maybe Adobe should lok at that link ;-)


    > The profit margins for these companies have been
    >
    > crazy. But those days are fading.


    Yep, now it's about making small profits a million times over.
    Adobe seem to me missing nout on this idea.


    >
    >
    >
    > Theft is the claimed reason for product activation, rental,
    >
    > etc. Security is another big excuse. As is convenience.
    >
    > There's some truth in all of that. But I think the overall
    >
    > picture is bigger than that. These companies are amoral.
    >
    > They go where the money is. Bill Gates once famously said
    >
    > that if the Chinese are going to steal their software then
    >
    > he wanted them to at least steal MS software. Then MS
    >
    > could figure out later how to get paid. Subscriptions on
    >
    > restricted devices that require an online connection
    >
    > essentially convert software to a broadcast service,
    >
    > regardless of how it's working under the surface. They
    >
    > convert software to a form that could keep the cash cow
    >
    > alive.


    Which could be good for everyone but teh greedy will spoil it.


    > (As with the youtube example and the Web as a whole: Most
    >
    > people have no idea that their browser is actually downloading
    >
    > files and assembling a page and/or playing a video from them.
    >
    > People already think of the Web as an interactive broadcast
    >
    > medium.)


    Some back this stuff up every hour too ;-)


    > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    >
    > rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    >
    > become a utility product. Just as Bell had to be reined in
    >
    > when phones became ubiquitous. (In the 70s in the US
    >
    > people were forced to rent phones from Bell. If one
    >
    > managed to install a second phone secretly then Bell would
    >
    > charge for it. They could tell it was there by the voltage
    >
    > draw used by the bell in the ringer.)


    That's, intresting I thought we in the UK we the only ones to put up with that sort of thing.


    >
    > | it's a risky stratergy, Apple seem to have a beter one, let
    >
    > | others write the software then appove it and make ~30%
    >
    > | off the sales, just for listing it in the app store.
    >
    >
    >
    > Yes, that's what MS is doing. I didn't mean to imply that
    >
    > they were capable of original thinking. :)


    Of course not who would :)

    >Microsoft is trying
    >
    > to get people to write Metro apps, with MS tools, to be sold
    >
    > through the MS online store, where MS will take a cut similar
    >
    > to what Apple takes. MS is copying Apple. The main difference
    >
    > is simply that they don't have a market and therefore can't
    >
    > attract developers to risk their time.


    Perhaps they'll have to giove serious discounts on their hardware like the xbox. Aple seem to be able to make a very good profit on their hardware, that's probbely why they won't licence OS X on PCs.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2013
    #49
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    | > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    | >rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    | >become a utility product.
    |
    | Adobe is no monopoly. To be a monopoly, a company has to be the sole
    | supplier of a product, and the product has to be one in which there is
    | a lack of viable substitute products.
    |

    That's technically true, but it works out like a
    monopoly. Adobe sets their prices with no serious
    competition because they're industry standard. As
    a result their prices are multiple times higher than
    any competitor. The software industry has long set
    prices based on what the product is worth to
    business rather than based on cost to produce
    + profit. Since PS is the standard, Adobe can charge
    whatever they like.

    What if Ryobi started charging for drills based on
    how much profit they represented for carpenters?
    What if pan companies did the same, based on
    restaurant profits? Or paper companies? We'd have
    $3,000 drills and pans, with office paper at $1/sheet.
    That doesn't happen because there's real competition.
    If Ryobi were the only maker they could charge $3,000,
    but since they're not, they can't get away with it.
    Adobe has competitors, in theory, but that doesn't cut
    their price down.

    Microsoft is not a monopoly either. There's
    Apple, Linux, BSD, etc. But MS still has over 90%
    of the market, and they're extorting payments
    from Linux-using companies based on threats to sue
    over *unspecified* patents.

    Samsung and Apple are at each other's throats with
    patent lawsuits. The industry is operating by factors
    like lawsuits, patent and copyright threats, incompatibility
    by design, etc. That was OK when it was all new, but
    now computers and common software are commodities.
    Personally I don't think these companies have any right
    to claim design patents, nor to make excessive profits.

    .... But I guess that begins to get into a debate over
    where we draw the line between business regulation
    and outright socialism. And these days, under the current
    Ameri-European corporatocracy, regulation is socialism. :)
     
    Mayayana, Jun 13, 2013
    #50
  11. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:30:29 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
    > | > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    >
    > | >rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    >
    > | >become a utility product.
    >
    > |
    >
    > | Adobe is no monopoly. To be a monopoly, a company has to be the sole
    >
    > | supplier of a product, and the product has to be one in which there is
    >
    > | a lack of viable substitute products.
    >
    > |
    >
    >
    >
    > That's technically true, but it works out like a
    >
    > monopoly. Adobe sets their prices with no serious
    >
    > competition because they're industry standard.



    It wasn;t always true, years ago quark was the leading DTP software
    clsly followed by freehand and perhaps others.
    Freehand and indesign were competeing with quark which apparently was more difficult to use, then there was the proper combining of DTP in teh form of ACS, including illustrator.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2013
    #51
  12. Paul Ciszek

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:30:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
    <> wrote:

    >| > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    >| >rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    >| >become a utility product.
    >|
    >| Adobe is no monopoly. To be a monopoly, a company has to be the sole
    >| supplier of a product, and the product has to be one in which there is
    >| a lack of viable substitute products.
    >|
    >
    > That's technically true, but it works out like a
    >monopoly. Adobe sets their prices with no serious
    >competition because they're industry standard.


    You're confusing two economic conditions: monopoly and supply/demand.
    A company that can set prices that are significantly higher than the
    competition can do so because of the merits of the products and the
    demand for the product.

    >As
    >a result their prices are multiple times higher than
    >any competitor. The software industry has long set
    >prices based on what the product is worth to
    >business rather than based on cost to produce
    >+ profit. Since PS is the standard, Adobe can charge
    >whatever they like.


    That Adobe is the "standard" indicates the demand factor of the
    market. The market demands Adobe because Adobe offers the features
    that the market wants. Competitors are not barred in any way from
    developing similar features.

    > What if Ryobi started charging for drills based on
    >how much profit they represented for carpenters?
    >What if pan companies did the same, based on
    >restaurant profits? Or paper companies? We'd have
    >$3,000 drills and pans, with office paper at $1/sheet.
    >That doesn't happen because there's real competition.
    >If Ryobi were the only maker they could charge $3,000,
    >but since they're not, they can't get away with it.
    >Adobe has competitors, in theory, but that doesn't cut
    >their price down.


    The fallacy of your example should be evident to you. Ryobi is not
    offering any features or advantages to the customer that Black and
    Decker or other drill suppliers are not offering. Milwaukee and
    Makita products command higher prices because the customers feel the
    product is better made.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 13, 2013
    #52
  13. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest


    > Catching
    > cheaters was just gravy.


    | Did they actually catch any and what happened when nthey did.

    Here's an interesting one about Microsoft:

    http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

    It explains the Business Software Alliance, which is
    a front organization set up by the major companies
    (including Adobe) to do their dirty work. An architect
    friend once told me that they had had invitations
    from the BSA, similar to the IRS. They catch a lot
    of people because unhappy employees turn them in,
    then the BSA shares a cut of the spoils with the
    person who called them. (The US IRS offers a 15%
    cut to anyone who turns in a tax cheat.)

    My only experience with Adobe was through my
    brother. He had received PS4 with a scanner, back in
    the old days when it was little more than shareware.
    When he tried to get the update to PS5 he was told
    that since he had entered a company name during
    setup, the software did not belong to him. He had to
    get an official letter from his then former employer
    (who was nice enough to accomodate him) saying
    that they did not buy the software. ...Since then
    I always put "none" in the company field. :)

    One of the advantages with product activation,
    online spyware contact, rental, etc., is that it's easier
    for these companies to enforce passively. If the
    software is rigged to not work unless conditions are
    met then illegal installs can be blocked without
    confrontation.

    >

    I was mac software auditor here, then I found someone had brought one copy
    of somehig (not Adobe or MS) and copied it on to 5 macs. I told my bosses
    and they said it's OK because we're education, I checked the EUAL and it was
    for just one computer, I informed by boss and the next day I was told my job
    was to collect the information and hand it over and not to comment on it, a
    week later I was taken off the job and it was given to someone else.
    >


    Interesting. I imagine you know more about this
    than I do, then.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 13, 2013
    #53
  14. Paul Ciszek

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <kpcm2d$qa2$>, says...
    >
    > |> The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
    > |> software was getting cheaper and better.
    >
    > | I thought it was because Adobe were losign millions to downloaders.
    >
    > That might be part of it, but the market as a whole was
    > making money hand over fist for years. Adobe and others
    > did their best to catch cheaters, but they still had a virtually
    > guaranteed sell every time they could manage to crank out
    > a new version. And they had little competition. Catching
    > cheaters was just gravy. And most businesses wouldn't
    > take a chance with cheating. So Adobe and others had
    > a dependable "cash cow". How absurd it is that Bill Gates
    > has become the richest man in the world just selling utility
    > software. The profit margins for these companies have been
    > crazy. But those days are fading.
    >
    > Theft is the claimed reason for product activation, rental,
    > etc. Security is another big excuse. As is convenience.
    > There's some truth in all of that. But I think the overall
    > picture is bigger than that. These companies are amoral.
    > They go where the money is. Bill Gates once famously said
    > that if the Chinese are going to steal their software then
    > he wanted them to at least steal MS software. Then MS
    > could figure out later how to get paid. Subscriptions on
    > restricted devices that require an online connection
    > essentially convert software to a broadcast service,
    > regardless of how it's working under the surface. They
    > convert software to a form that could keep the cash cow
    > alive.
    >
    > (As with the youtube example and the Web as a whole: Most
    > people have no idea that their browser is actually downloading
    > files and assembling a page and/or playing a video from them.
    > People already think of the Web as an interactive broadcast
    > medium.)
    >
    > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    > rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    > become a utility product. Just as Bell had to be reined in
    > when phones became ubiquitous. (In the 70s in the US
    > people were forced to rent phones from Bell. If one
    > managed to install a second phone secretly then Bell would
    > charge for it. They could tell it was there by the voltage
    > draw used by the bell in the ringer.)
    >
    >
    > > ...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.

    >
    > | it's a risky stratergy, Apple seem to have a beter one, let
    > | others write the software then appove it and make ~30%
    > | off the sales, just for listing it in the app store.
    >
    > Yes, that's what MS is doing. I didn't mean to imply that
    > they were capable of original thinking. :) Microsoft is trying
    > to get people to write Metro apps, with MS tools, to be sold
    > through the MS online store, where MS will take a cut similar
    > to what Apple takes. MS is copying Apple. The main difference
    > is simply that they don't have a market and therefore can't
    > attract developers to risk their time.


    However there's a lot of Windows out there and a lot of kids out there
    and the Microsoft entry-level tools are free and quite good.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 13, 2013
    #54
  15. Paul Ciszek

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, tonycooper214
    @gmail.com says...
    >
    > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:30:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >| > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    > >| >rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    > >| >become a utility product.
    > >|
    > >| Adobe is no monopoly. To be a monopoly, a company has to be the sole
    > >| supplier of a product, and the product has to be one in which there is
    > >| a lack of viable substitute products.
    > >|
    > >
    > > That's technically true, but it works out like a
    > >monopoly. Adobe sets their prices with no serious
    > >competition because they're industry standard.

    >
    > You're confusing two economic conditions: monopoly and supply/demand.
    > A company that can set prices that are significantly higher than the
    > competition can do so because of the merits of the products and the
    > demand for the product.
    >
    > >As
    > >a result their prices are multiple times higher than
    > >any competitor. The software industry has long set
    > >prices based on what the product is worth to
    > >business rather than based on cost to produce
    > >+ profit. Since PS is the standard, Adobe can charge
    > >whatever they like.

    >
    > That Adobe is the "standard" indicates the demand factor of the
    > market. The market demands Adobe because Adobe offers the features
    > that the market wants. Competitors are not barred in any way from
    > developing similar features.


    Well, if one of the features desired is "open a .psd file" then they are
    barred. Microsoft at least saw the writing on the wall with that one
    and opened up their document formats.

    > > What if Ryobi started charging for drills based on
    > >how much profit they represented for carpenters?
    > >What if pan companies did the same, based on
    > >restaurant profits? Or paper companies? We'd have
    > >$3,000 drills and pans, with office paper at $1/sheet.
    > >That doesn't happen because there's real competition.
    > >If Ryobi were the only maker they could charge $3,000,
    > >but since they're not, they can't get away with it.
    > >Adobe has competitors, in theory, but that doesn't cut
    > >their price down.

    >
    > The fallacy of your example should be evident to you. Ryobi is not
    > offering any features or advantages to the customer that Black and
    > Decker or other drill suppliers are not offering. Milwaukee and
    > Makita products command higher prices because the customers feel the
    > product is better made.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 13, 2013
    #55
  16. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, J. Clarke
    <> wrote:

    > > >As a result their prices are multiple times higher than
    > > >any competitor. The software industry has long set
    > > >prices based on what the product is worth to
    > > >business rather than based on cost to produce
    > > >+ profit. Since PS is the standard, Adobe can charge
    > > >whatever they like.

    > >
    > > That Adobe is the "standard" indicates the demand factor of the
    > > market. The market demands Adobe because Adobe offers the features
    > > that the market wants. Competitors are not barred in any way from
    > > developing similar features.

    >
    > Well, if one of the features desired is "open a .psd file" then they are
    > barred.


    competitors aren't barred at all. the psd format is publicly documented
    and many apps already support it.

    > Microsoft at least saw the writing on the wall with that one
    > and opened up their document formats.


    except when they didn't, like wmv. it's been reverse engineered with
    varying levels of compatibility.
     
    nospam, Jun 13, 2013
    #56
  17. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    |> The main difference
    | > is simply that they don't have a market and therefore can't
    | > attract developers to risk their time.
    |
    | However there's a lot of Windows out there and a lot of kids out there
    | and the Microsoft entry-level tools are free and quite good.

    The Metro apps are different. They can be
    written with javascript, C++, or .Net, but
    however it's done they're not Windows software,
    in the sense that they can't run in Windows
    itself -- only in the Metro tile UI of Windows,
    on Windows RT (which is Windows in name only),
    and on Windows phones. (As I understand it those
    various tile UIs don't take exactly the same
    software, but it's mainly port-able between
    the platforms.) So anyone who wants to write
    tile apps will need to learn a new system and
    buy tile UI products to test on. Meanwhile, MS
    needs to have all popular apps ported if they
    want to sell phones. It's not enough getting
    kids to write lots of silly diversion apps.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 13, 2013
    #57
  18. Paul Ciszek

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:04:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, tonycooper214
    >@gmail.com says...
    >>
    >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:30:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >| > Personally I think we're long overdue for regulation to
    >> >| >rein in these monopolies and recognize that software has
    >> >| >become a utility product.
    >> >|
    >> >| Adobe is no monopoly. To be a monopoly, a company has to be the sole
    >> >| supplier of a product, and the product has to be one in which there is
    >> >| a lack of viable substitute products.
    >> >|
    >> >
    >> > That's technically true, but it works out like a
    >> >monopoly. Adobe sets their prices with no serious
    >> >competition because they're industry standard.

    >>
    >> You're confusing two economic conditions: monopoly and supply/demand.
    >> A company that can set prices that are significantly higher than the
    >> competition can do so because of the merits of the products and the
    >> demand for the product.
    >>
    >> >As
    >> >a result their prices are multiple times higher than
    >> >any competitor. The software industry has long set
    >> >prices based on what the product is worth to
    >> >business rather than based on cost to produce
    >> >+ profit. Since PS is the standard, Adobe can charge
    >> >whatever they like.

    >>
    >> That Adobe is the "standard" indicates the demand factor of the
    >> market. The market demands Adobe because Adobe offers the features
    >> that the market wants. Competitors are not barred in any way from
    >> developing similar features.

    >
    >Well, if one of the features desired is "open a .psd file" then they are
    >barred. Microsoft at least saw the writing on the wall with that one
    >and opened up their document formats.


    I'm not aware of any prohibition that disallows any software developer
    from designing a program that opens .psd files. As I understand it,
    some extant programs other than Adobe's do just that. GIMP, for
    example.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 13, 2013
    #58
  19. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/12/2013 10:05 AM, 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.
    >
    >


    In the scheme of things there will come a time when Adobe will stop
    supporting CS6. So, if you get a new camera, or a new operating system
    you might have to either subscribe, or look for another product. I don't
    know how many remember the uproar when MS abandonded support of VB and
    switched to dot net.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 13, 2013
    #59
  20. Paul Ciszek

    Mayayana Guest

    | In the scheme of things there will come a time when Adobe will stop
    | supporting CS6. So, if you get a new camera, or a new operating system
    | you might have to either subscribe, or look for another product. I don't
    | know how many remember the uproar when MS abandonded support of VB and
    | switched to dot net.
    |

    In a way that was part of the same trend. .Net had
    two reasons: 1) To compete with Java on servers and
    2) to nudge Windows programmers out of the system
    and into "web apps".
    .Net server-side was a big success. Web apps never
    really happened. And using .Net for real Windows
    software didn't make much sense. It was slow and
    bloated, just like Java.

    Now, 12 years later, MS is still trying to close the door
    to the Windows API so that they can control the platform,
    while nudging Windows programmers into tile trinkets.
    Meanwhile, VB is still more widely supported than .Net
    and few people are willing to be led by the nose into
    Microsoft's Tile City.

    As always, these changes are being
    made mainly for money rather than because they make
    sense. But it does make one wonder. If people accept
    Adobe's inflexible ultimatum of subscription or leave, that
    could be the beginning of a general trend toward renting
    functionality on interactive-TV-style devices, with no
    local storage. The implications are all the more interesting
    given the PRISM spying in the news and the way it highlights
    how much less privacy people have when they operate
    through corporate services rather than privately. It's just
    a lot easier and less "abrasive" to rifle through someone's
    desk when it's spread across corporate servers than when
    it's a physical item in a physical house on private property.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 13, 2013
    #60
    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:
    179
    nospam
    Jun 4, 2013
  2. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    209
    luxitman
    Jul 3, 2013
  3. philo 

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    philo , Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    263
    nospam
    Jun 5, 2013
  4. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    275
    PeterN
    Jun 7, 2013
  5. PeterN

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    PeterN, Jun 5, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    188
    PeterN
    Jun 5, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page