Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

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

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

On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

--
PeterN

On 08/05/2013 20:58, George Kerby wrote:

On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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

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

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

their prices are competitive with similar products.

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

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

this should be obvious but apparently not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.

that part is true.

| I would not get too excited about a rumor posted as "fact," by Rich. As
| I said earlier, while Adobe is exploring the idea, it's far from a done
| deal.

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

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

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

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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

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

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

their prices are competitive with similar products.

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

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

this should be obvious but apparently not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.

that part is true.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do realize how stupid that sounds?

nothing stupid about it.

why pay for features you don't need?

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

First you say you can easily
justify the price, then you say you should buy Elements if you don't
need the full functionality of PS. The need of the full functionality
is the *only* justification.

you need to learn how to read.

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

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

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

exactly.

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

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

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

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

but you didn't.

it's always macs are too expensive but similar pcs which cost the same
are not. in fact, they're never mentioned. that's why it's bashing.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

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

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

their prices are competitive with similar products.

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

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

this should be obvious but apparently not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:28:25 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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

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

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

their prices are competitive with similar products.

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

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

this should be obvious but apparently not.

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

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

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

You quote Google. What about (for example) Samsung?

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

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

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

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

He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:

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

He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?

You seem to have been so entrenched in argument mode that you don't
even notice when he is in agreement with you.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens