| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Adobe Grrr
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:52:06 -0400, John A. wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:27:44 -0400, PeterN wrote: : : ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a : brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only : available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't : a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on : the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem. : Has anyone else had that experience? : : TIA : : No help; just a kvetch. : : I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into : the "cloud". You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. : Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put : things online if you need to access them elsewhere. Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at breathtaking speed. : Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a : business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based, : but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that : software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like : say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure : the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the : connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall : but not interrupt use during a network outage.) Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're headed. Bob |
Adobe Grrr
In article , Robert Coe
wrote: : ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a : brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only : available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't : a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on : the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem. : Has anyone else had that experience? : : TIA : : No help; just a kvetch. : : I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into : the "cloud". You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. that's right! everything should be free! : Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put : things online if you need to access them elsewhere. Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at breathtaking speed. nobody is renting hard drives. putting stuff in the cloud offers a service for which the provider is entitled to compensation. many cloud services offer a free tier with paid additional capacity. if you don't need cloud access, don't subscribe. very simple. and that's just storage. there's more to the cloud than storage. : Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a : business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based, : but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that : software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like : say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure : the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the : connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall : but not interrupt use during a network outage.) Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're headed. nonsense, but even if that were true, so what? is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars? |
Adobe Grrr
On 8/14/2014 11:20 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Robert Coe wrote: : ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a : brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only : available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't : a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on : the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem. : Has anyone else had that experience? : : TIA : : No help; just a kvetch. : : I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into : the "cloud". You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. that's right! everything should be free! : Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put : things online if you need to access them elsewhere. Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at breathtaking speed. nobody is renting hard drives. putting stuff in the cloud offers a service for which the provider is entitled to compensation. many cloud services offer a free tier with paid additional capacity. if you don't need cloud access, don't subscribe. very simple. and that's just storage. there's more to the cloud than storage. : Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a : business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based, : but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that : software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like : say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure : the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the : connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall : but not interrupt use during a network outage.) Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're headed. nonsense, but even if that were true, so what? Agreed. is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars? That is not the point. The vendor ensures itself that the money received is the agreed upon price. The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. When the vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's called false and misleading advertixing. -- PeterN |
Adobe Grrr
"Robert Coe" wrote in message ... On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:52:06 -0400, John A. wrote: : On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:27:44 -0400, PeterN wrote: : : ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a : brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only : available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't : a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on : the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem. : Has anyone else had that experience? : : TIA : : No help; just a kvetch. : : I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into : the "cloud". You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less. : Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put : things online if you need to access them elsewhere. Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at breathtaking speed. No the judiciary eventually [s]quashed that. In the days you are talking about computer equipment generally required regular routine maintenance, so outright sale was unusual. The UK government bought some that were taken to an unknown final destination, but had guys trained up to maintain them them. : Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a : business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based, : but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that : software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like : say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure : the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the : connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall : but not interrupt use during a network outage.) Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're headed. Bob |
Adobe Grrr
|
Adobe Grrr
In article , PeterN
wrote: : Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a : business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based, : but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that : software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like : say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure : the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the : connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall : but not interrupt use during a network outage.) Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're headed. nonsense, but even if that were true, so what? Agreed. is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars? That is not the point. it is the point. if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking price for the product or service. The vendor ensures itself that the money received is the agreed upon price. The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. nobody said otherwise. When the vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's called false and misleading advertixing. who is doing that? nobody. why even bring that up? |
Adobe Grrr
On 8/15/2014 2:00 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: : Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a : business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based, : but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that : software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like : say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure : the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the : connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall : but not interrupt use during a network outage.) Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're headed. nonsense, but even if that were true, so what? Agreed. is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars? That is not the point. it is the point. Nope see below. if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking price for the product or service. The vendor ensures itself that the money received is the agreed upon price. The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. nobody said otherwise. not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right to feel taken. When the vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's called false and misleading advertixing. who is doing that? nobody. why even bring that up? Wrong. See above. Look further in this thread for citations. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing for you to argue about here. If a tird party publishes an alternative that wuld work for me, I certainly will revisit The subscription issue. I am the type of person who has given, and ****ed away thousands, accepted significant business losses, but does not like being screwed for even one cent. -- PeterN |
Adobe Grrr
In article , PeterN
wrote: if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking price for the product or service. The vendor ensures itself that the money received is the agreed upon price. The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. nobody said otherwise. not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right to feel taken. how did they do that? you got what you paid for. did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users? if so, cite it. |
Adobe Grrr
On 8/15/2014 3:38 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking price for the product or service. The vendor ensures itself that the money received is the agreed upon price. The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. nobody said otherwise. not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right to feel taken. how did they do that? you got what you paid for. did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users? if so, cite it. Do read what this is about. NObody is talking about anything like that. Do stop your strawman tactics. For me EOD. -- PeterN |
Adobe Grrr
In article , PeterN
wrote: if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking price for the product or service. The vendor ensures itself that the money received is the agreed upon price. The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. nobody said otherwise. not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right to feel taken. how did they do that? you got what you paid for. did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users? if so, cite it. Do read what this is about. NObody is talking about anything like that. Do stop your strawman tactics. For me EOD. you brought it up, and as i expected. no cite. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com