Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

| 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.

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

| 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.

In article 2013061310430875249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2013-06-13 10:04:11 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

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.

Strange. PSD files open just fine in Apple's "Preview" & "Aperture",
just as they open in Lemke's "GraphicConvertor", "Acorn", or
"Pixelmator".

And will continue to do so until Adobe modifies the format so that they
don't work anymore, or chooses to sue them into submission.

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

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

In article , tonycooper214
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.

For a while they were requiring that one sign one's life away to get the
documentation--apparently that policy has changed because I see it up on
their site with no protection now.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

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.

For a while they were requiring that one sign one's life away to get the
documentation--apparently that policy has changed because I see it up on
their site with no protection now.

not even remotely close to true. all they wanted back then was an adobe
id, which takes less than a minute to sign up. no big deal.

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

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.

Strange. PSD files open just fine in Apple's "Preview" & "Aperture",
just as they open in Lemke's "GraphicConvertor", "Acorn", or
"Pixelmator".

And will continue to do so until Adobe modifies the format so that they
don't work anymore, or chooses to sue them into submission.

except the format is documented and has been for a long time (at least
ten years, likely much longer) and they've never sued anyone for using
it. in fact, they're encouraging people to write apps that support psd.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

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
old CS 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.

nothing is removed from your computer, however, you will need to pay to
keep it active.

older software (cs6 and earlier) is not affected in any way.

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

download it again or restore from a backup.

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 buy a
new one, rather than download a free copy of the music you've already paid
for.

amazon and itunes let you re-download music you've already bought.
their library is in effect, your cloud storage.

amazon even lets you download a digital copy of cds you bought from
them.

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

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 ?

because a given installation has to validate itself to confirm that
it's not pirated.

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.

that's an edge case.

the vast majority of users, especially adobe's target market (graphics
professionals) have full time internet access.

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 they
havent; doen this before.....have they ?

how else would they confirm it?

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.

they can keep using cs2 as long as they want and as long as they have a
system on which it runs.