Calumet files Chapter 7

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Eric Stevens:
There is a lot more competition when you are
subjected to an onslaught of choices from a plethora of
competing products.

Sandman:
Oooh, interesting. "onslaught" ey? May I be so bold
as to ask what you mean by "onslaught" here? Just so you're
prepared when Tony will question your usage of the word.

Tony Cooper:
Evidently "satirical reference" is another concept Popinjay does
not grok.

Sandman:
It seems Andreas is busy ascribing motives to another poster yet
again. While it may be true that it was a humorous reference, it
doesn't change the fact that you are known to question correctly
used instances of the word in question - so either Eric used the
word incorrect and thus you have no problem with it, or he used it
correctly and you should object loudly (and for weeks, if not
months).

Eric was poking fun at your usage.

Andreas said - working as Eric's spokesperson. Don't you think Eric has
brains enough to answer for himself?

You may just be catching on that it was intended as a humorous reference,
but we're all not that slow.

You may not have caught on that in response I used the humor (if intended)
to poke fun at you.

I have not made fun of "instances" of inappropriate use of the word
in question. There has been just the one clanger, not a plural of
uses. That's rather the point: no one else would use it that way.

....illiterate Andreas says, without any support.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
You are so far off track here that there's no
possibility at all of getting you to understand. Perceived
needs and perceived values have been established terms
almost forever. Well, "forever" in the history of studying
human behavior. I was reading case studies on this when I
getting my MBA from Northwestern University.

Sandman:
I am not claiming the term doesn't exist, I am
correctly pointing out that "perceived need" has nothing to do
with "want".

Tony Cooper:
I'm going to snip the rest of your reply because I see no reason
for a point-by-point reply to a series of bogus rebuttals.

Sandman:
I'm going to snip the rest of your reply since you don't have the
integrity to respond to logical arguments.

Good choice not to respond.

I know you think so, since you've yet to muster any courage to respond to
any of the salient points I've posted.

Now run away, little boy. And keep "not responding" to things you can't
handle in an adult manner.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write whatever
plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't even have to
know about it.

I don't know why you keep repeating this point. No one is
contesting it. We all know that anyone can write a plug-in for
Photoshop or LR and make that plug-in available to anyone without
Adobe's knowledge or consent.

What is at question is only what you should call it.

According to whom?

And where is the approval process "for use with Photoshop", Tony?

No one, as far as I can tell, has taken the position that plug-ins
must be approved by Adobe unless they are to be featured in Adobe's
Marketplace showroom.

Quite the opposite, in fact. It's agreed that anyone can write a
plug-in that works with an Adobe product and offer for free or for
sale. No approval from Adobe is necessary.

which is why anyone can call it a photoshop plug-in if they want and
many do exactly that. adobe doesn't need to approve and they may not
even know that the plug-in exists.

And regarding the name of the software, maybe we can go on what others have
called their plug-ins?

http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.cutandslice.me - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop Plugin"
http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin"
http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin"
http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin"
http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

All made by Adobe? Or Approved by Adobe?

You see, that's the question that the writers above prompt, and why
it's wrong for them to call their product a "Photoshop plugin". Some
might assume that "Photoshop plugin" means a plug-in authored by, or
approved by, Adobe. That may not be the case at all, and probably
isn't.

if someone assumes that, they'd be wrong.

there is no implication whatsoever that a 'photoshop plug-in' is
authored by adobe. it's nothing more than saying what type of plug-in
it is. it's very simple, but apparently much too complex for you.

It doesn't make any difference how many wrong uses you find. All that
shows is that people do it wrong.

it's not a wrong use.

nowhere in the photoshop sdk does it say what it must or must not be
called.

the only thing that's wrong is your belief and insistence.

According to what approval
process? But no, they can't be approved by Adobe, they need to have all
been made by Adobe:

Approval is not at question.

it was last month.

Tony Cooper
post processing
03/17/2014

"Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"

True, and I stand by it.

then you won't admit you're wrong. no surprise there.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Adobe apparently doesn't pursue infringements.

they do.

The availability of
plug-ins are beneficial to Adobe because it makes Photoshop a more
useful program and more desired. It would be costly for Adobe to
crack down. That doesn't mean that they don't have the legal right to
do so.

it's not an infringement.

obviously you *must* use the word photoshop in describing a plug-in
that adds functionality to photoshop.

whether you call it a 'photoshop plug-in', as do the vast majority of
users and most developers, or a 'plug-in for photoshop' which a few
developers do, makes no difference whatsoever.

the terms are *interchangeable* and both have the word photoshop in it.
if one is not infringing, then neither is the other.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


I haven't researched it, but I'm not convinced that the AF-S lenses
are a good investment when the body has the focusing motor as in the
D300. I'm using AF-S lenses, but I'm not sure I would buy another
one.

it's very clear you haven't researched it, because af-s lenses are a
better choice in almost every case. af-s lenses focus faster and do so
more quietly than non-afs. it also keeps your options open for choice
of cameras in the future.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

What about other instances where a manufacturer encourages third party
solutions for their products, say.. Apple? So Apple owns the trademark
"iPad", right, so the only "iPad dock" would be one made by Apple - no one
other than Apple "can" say "iPad dock"?

I did a very cursory search, and the only instance I saw of such a
product that is not offered by Apple is Amazon's. In that case, the
descriptions are "IPEGA Speaker and Charger 2 in 1 Stand Mount Cradle
Multi-Function Docking Station for iPhone 5/4/4S, iPad 2/3" and others
like this. Note "for".

you're reading way more into what's not there.

all that 'for iphone 5/4/4s, ipad 2/3' means is that it won't work with
other iphones and ipads.

there are many products that say 'iphone dock' or 'iphone case' or
whatever.

However, it doesn't have to be "made by" Apple. If Apple distributes
it, the actual maker is immaterial.

if it's made by apple it will say 'apple blah blah'.

a panasonic ipod dock or otterbox iphone case is obviously not made by
apple.

For the record - I am totally with your line of thought, what I am
questioning is the entire "can". Anyone can call a plugin a "Photoshop
plugin" and Adobe can do nothing about it. And it is my position that they
don't want to do anything about it.

You have a good point. I mistakenly used "can" when I should have
used "could". "Can" has the meaning of "it's possible", and that's
not the meaning that I wanted to impart.

The creator of a plug-in *should* call it a "plug-in for Photoshop" to
eliminate any ambiguity.

there is no ambiguity. nobody but you is confused.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 23:31:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

nospam:
once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of
companies do.

To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any
approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe
product.

Only to "use with" Photoshop:

Tony Cooper
03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM

"they can approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for
Photoshop. The plugins on that page are evidently plugins
that Adobe has approved for use with Photoshop."

Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the approval
process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with" Photoshop.

See https://www.adobeexchange.com/producer

You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the plug-in on
their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while none are authored by
Adobe), but that failed to provide support for the claim that they approve
the plugins "for use with Photoshop".

I think the process begins here http://www.adobe.com/misc/terms.html
and the information you are after may be downstream of section 9.5

it doesn't.

all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write whatever
plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't even have to know
about it.

I suspect that when you get hold of the Adobe plugin SDK you are bound
by an Adobe license agreement.

Do you know what the curent agreement has to say on the subject?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 23:44:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized
resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.

so what?

So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at least
not to the extent that there is between independent camera stores.

nonsense. of course there is.

You don't get much competition when no one but Apple (or it's very
small number of authorized resellers, who are tightly
price-controlled) sells Apple products.

plenty of places sell apple products, including best buy and walmart,
two huge retail outlets in the usa. there are other stores in other
countries that sell apple products. heck there are even vending
machines that sell apple products.

as for the price controls, what the stores often do is include other
stuff, like gift cards, printers, carrying case, etc., to spice up the
deal.

and of course, there are all the non-apple products being sold.

there is *plenty* of competition.

There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an onslaught
of choices from a plethora of competing products. Acer vs Apple vs
Asus vs Compac vs Dell vs HP vs Lenovo vs MSI vs Samsung vs Toshiba vs
Vaio plus a whole lot more. All of these can be obtained in
conjunction with other stuff such as gift cards, printers, carrying
case, etc., to spice up the deal. Now THAT's competition.

apple is subject to a ****load of competition.

Read above:

"So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at
least not to the extent that there is between independent camera
stores."

there is.

How can there be when they are basically selling the one brand of
product?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the plug-in on
their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while none are authored
by
Adobe), but that failed to provide support for the claim that they
approve
the plugins "for use with Photoshop".

I think the process begins here http://www.adobe.com/misc/terms.html
and the information you are after may be downstream of section 9.5

it doesn't.

all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write whatever
plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't even have to know
about it.

I suspect that when you get hold of the Adobe plugin SDK you are bound
by an Adobe license agreement.

yes

Do you know what the curent agreement has to say on the subject?

yes

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an onslaught
of choices from a plethora of competing products. Acer vs Apple vs
Asus vs Compac vs Dell vs HP vs Lenovo vs MSI vs Samsung vs Toshiba vs
Vaio plus a whole lot more. All of these can be obtained in
conjunction with other stuff such as gift cards, printers, carrying
case, etc., to spice up the deal. Now THAT's competition.

apple is subject to a ****load of competition.

Read above:

"So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at
least not to the extent that there is between independent camera
stores."

there is.

How can there be when they are basically selling the one brand of
product?

apple stores sell more than one brand of product and users can go to
any store they want anyway.

apple stores are competing with every other store out there that sells
similar products, and they're doing extremely well at it.