Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

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

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
    fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
    in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
    the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
    companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
    decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
    to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
    institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
    your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
    provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
    now cloud-based.
    RichA, May 8, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    That decision has not be finalized.

    As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
    proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
    movies, laughable.

    this is more likely the future of movies:
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Bowser Guest

    This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
    suffices, I'll move to another product. **** Adobe.
    Bowser, May 8, 2013
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I'm not some Chinese guy earning $3000/year, living in the outskirts
    of Beijing, where going to the movies costs the equivalent of $110 a
    person. I don't want to watch illegally-copied "campots" of movies in
    a theatre done with a video camera, if that is what you are referring
    to. Ownership of a physical medium is KEY to preserving the freedom
    to watch or do with a product what you want.
    RichA, May 8, 2013
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    You don't even seem to know who Garry Trudeau is, Nor do you understand
    what he is seeking to accomplish, artistically.

    BTW, Before videotape, how many movies did you "own?" Why do you think
    we had movie theaters. I have a reasonable collection of tapes and CDs,
    but we still go to live concerts, and have willingly purchased tickets
    for shows for far more than $110, each.
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
  6. RichA

    George Kerby Guest

    Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
    seven years or so. **** em', indeed!
    George Kerby, May 8, 2013
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    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, May 8, 2013
  8. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    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.
    Martin Brown, May 8, 2013
  9. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
    the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
    include more than the lower priced comparable programs. The only area
    where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
    featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.

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

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

    The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.
    Tony Cooper, May 8, 2013
  10. RichA

    Guest Guest

    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.
    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.
    more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
    that part is true.
    Guest, May 8, 2013
  11. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    Mayayana, May 8, 2013
  12. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Ah, you started your argument before you read the text. Lips get
    tired? You didn't read the "the 'specs' include more than the lower
    priced comparable programs".

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

    I use CS6 99% of the time, but only because I'm comfortable with
    program having started out in earlier PS versions. (I bought E9 only
    to share it with my daughter and teach her.)
    You do realize how stupid that sounds? First you say you can easily
    justify the price, then you say you should buy Elements if you don't
    need the full functionality of PS. The need of the full functionality
    is the *only* justification.

    Very few people need the full functionality unless they are using it
    for business applications and need something like working in CMYK
    color. Certain features, like Layers, have been available only in the
    full version but later added to Elements. Content Aware Fill will
    probably go over to Elements eventually.
    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.
    Tony Cooper, May 9, 2013
  13. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    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.
    "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
    Eric Stevens, May 9, 2013
  14. RichA

    Guest Guest

    there's actually quite a bit, but what matters is that one does more
    than the other.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Guest, May 9, 2013
  15. RichA

    Guest Guest

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

    Eric Stevens Guest

    You quote Google. What about (for example) Samsung?
    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.
    Eric Stevens, May 9, 2013
  17. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    The same old question is just how much such piracy affects the company.
    Of course, but the interesting thing is that are those thefts actually loses in the long term for the company. Companies always say yes but is it really true.
    Whisky-dave, May 9, 2013
  18. RichA

    android Guest

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

    Guest Guest

    i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    google again (nexus 7).
    what about them?
    he calls it "the mac argument".

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

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

    Bowser Guest

    Two issues here:

    1. It is a done deal. There are lots of news stories on this one, very
    few positive.

    2. Moving their SW to the cloud won't prevent piracy. Hardly. Thieves
    will still steal, and crackers will still find a way.

    This is naked greed by Adobe, nothing more.
    Bowser, May 9, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.