Adobe being punished for predatory marketing tactics

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:03:22 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tsk, Tsk. No support for software just a year after its inception,
moving on to newer editions, forcing people to upgrade whether they
needed to or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/tech...tock/index.htm



Just where does that link say that?

I think the OP is suggesting that this is the reason for poor sales - i.e.
Adobe's tactics are deterring purchasers.


I would like to hear it from the OP, then, in plain language, that is not
yellow journalism.
The article discusses the reasons for poor sales. The reason stated in the
article, is not what the OP implies through his posting.

Hummm, Sagging sales.

Worldwide economic distress.

Advertising revenues DOWN worldwide. (What gets cut from budgets
first? Advertising!)

Slumping and stagnant economies in the most productive markets in the
world....

But RichA thinks their sagging sales is because they are assholes.

Rich, just because YOU think like an asshole doesn't mean everybody IS
an asshole.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 19:07:28 GMT,
(GMAN) wrote:

In article , "Peter" wrote:
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
.. .

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tsk, Tsk. No support for software just a year after its inception,
moving on to newer editions, forcing people to upgrade whether they
needed to or not.



That sounds just like Microsoft and its Windows Products.

And just HOW many hundreds of millions of computers function every
second of the day under the evil Microsoft products?

When you look at what they have done, where they have gone and how
many trillions of working hours Microsoft products have racked up just
in helping improve the quality of life on this planet, Microsoft
products have without-a-doubt contributed to the advancement of the
human race more than any other physical factor in the history of
mankind.

I don't think that's too shabby a record.

But because YOUR computer crashed I understand YOU thinking they are
crap.

Sheesh!

Bruce wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Sep 23, 3:07*pm, (GMAN) wrote:
That sounds just like Microsoft and its Windows *Products.

They extended XP support to 2014(?) I think.

I'm not sure that makes Microsoft worthy of praise. For example,
Internet Explorer 9 will not be available for Windows XP, only for
Vista and Windows 7.

It's not available for MS-DOS, either.

Many people rejected the flawed Vista to stay with XP. Many companies
insisted that the "XP downgrade" option was included on PC that they
bought so they could avoid Vista's problems. It appears that these
millions of XP users will be forced to stay with Internet Explorer 8.

Or upgrade to Windows 7.

If you don't pay for your software then you really don't have much
right to complain that it doesn't do everything that you want.

--
Ray Fischer

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:52:14 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
om...
In article 1a7ff44c-3e69-4967-8b98-b6538c0a54f3
@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
Whereas Adobe simply
refuses to update raw conversion which kills the software's utility
for any new cameras.

Well no, because you can always convert to DNG and keep using an old
version of Photoshop. The DNG converter is free.


I had forgotten about DNG. However, IIRC I thought there were issues in
the
DNG conversion with some formats. I could be wrong, though.

I shoot Nikon, RAW (.NEF), download via Bridge with a setting that
automatically converts files from .NEF to .DNG, and process in CS4.

I have no idea what problems you might have heard about. I have none.
(Except for the images not being as good or as interesting as I
thought they would be when I pushed the shutter.)


It's just something that sticks in my head about conversion of RAW to DNG.
It was not in connection with the use of any Adobe products. As I said
above, I could be wrong and the issue is not worth pursuing. I am more
concerned my sharing the image issue you refer to in the immediately
preceding paragraph.


--
Peter

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:52:14 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
om...
In article 1a7ff44c-3e69-4967-8b98-b6538c0a54f3
@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
Whereas Adobe simply
refuses to update raw conversion which kills the software's utility
for any new cameras.

Well no, because you can always convert to DNG and keep using an old
version of Photoshop. The DNG converter is free.


I had forgotten about DNG. However, IIRC I thought there were issues in
the
DNG conversion with some formats. I could be wrong, though.

I shoot Nikon, RAW (.NEF), download via Bridge with a setting that
automatically converts files from .NEF to .DNG, and process in CS4.

I have no idea what problems you might have heard about. I have none.
(Except for the images not being as good or as interesting as I
thought they would be when I pushed the shutter.)


It's just something that sticks in my head about conversion of RAW to DNG.
It was not in connection with the use of any Adobe products. As I said
above, I could be wrong and the issue is not worth pursuing. I am more
concerned my sharing the image issue you refer to in the immediately
preceding paragraph.


--
Peter

On 2010-09-25 11:49:31 -0700, "Peter" said:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:52:14 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article 1a7ff44c-3e69-4967-8b98-b6538c0a54f3
@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
Whereas Adobe simply
refuses to update raw conversion which kills the software's utility
for any new cameras.

Well no, because you can always convert to DNG and keep using an old
version of Photoshop. The DNG converter is free.


I had forgotten about DNG. However, IIRC I thought there were issues in the
DNG conversion with some formats. I could be wrong, though.

I shoot Nikon, RAW (.NEF), download via Bridge with a setting that
automatically converts files from .NEF to .DNG, and process in CS4.

I have no idea what problems you might have heard about. I have none.
(Except for the images not being as good or as interesting as I
thought they would be when I pushed the shutter.)


It's just something that sticks in my head about conversion of RAW to
DNG. It was not in connection with the use of any Adobe products. As I
said above, I could be wrong and the issue is not worth pursuing. I am
more concerned my sharing the image issue you refer to in the
immediately preceding paragraph.

I have to agree with Tony on this. I have had no issues converting
Nikon RAW, (NEF) to DNG using LR2, Bridge, or DNG Convertor, and then
working with those files in LR, LR2, ACR, Bridge, CS2, CS4, or CS5.

The RAW files from my Fujifilm FinePix E900 (RAF) {Not a bad compact
BTW} were processed, either for DNG conversion, or ACR, as smoothly as
the Nikon NEF's.

When I bought my G11, Adobe had yet to update ACR to process that
particular version of Canon RAW (CR2), but I had no trouble converting
those files to DNG with LR2. The current versions of ACR and CS5
process the G11 CR2 files as expected, without issue.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010092514014651816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-09-25 11:49:31 -0700, "Peter" said:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:52:14 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article 1a7ff44c-3e69-4967-8b98-b6538c0a54f3
@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
Whereas Adobe simply
refuses to update raw conversion which kills the software's utility
for any new cameras.

Well no, because you can always convert to DNG and keep using an old
version of Photoshop. The DNG converter is free.


I had forgotten about DNG. However, IIRC I thought there were issues in
the
DNG conversion with some formats. I could be wrong, though.

I shoot Nikon, RAW (.NEF), download via Bridge with a setting that
automatically converts files from .NEF to .DNG, and process in CS4.

I have no idea what problems you might have heard about. I have none.
(Except for the images not being as good or as interesting as I
thought they would be when I pushed the shutter.)


It's just something that sticks in my head about conversion of RAW to
DNG. It was not in connection with the use of any Adobe products. As I
said above, I could be wrong and the issue is not worth pursuing. I am
more concerned my sharing the image issue you refer to in the immediately
preceding paragraph.

I have to agree with Tony on this. I have had no issues converting Nikon
RAW, (NEF) to DNG using LR2, Bridge, or DNG Convertor, and then working
with those files in LR, LR2, ACR, Bridge, CS2, CS4, or CS5.

The RAW files from my Fujifilm FinePix E900 (RAF) {Not a bad compact BTW}
were processed, either for DNG conversion, or ACR, as smoothly as the
Nikon NEF's.

When I bought my G11, Adobe had yet to update ACR to process that
particular version of Canon RAW (CR2), but I had no trouble converting
those files to DNG with LR2. The current versions of ACR and CS5 process
the G11 CR2 files as expected, without issue.



As I said, I may well be wrong.


--
Peter

On 25/09/2010 19:58, Ray Fischer wrote:
Many people rejected the flawed Vista to stay with XP. Many companies
insisted that the "XP downgrade" option was included on PC that they
bought so they could avoid Vista's problems. It appears that these
millions of XP users will be forced to stay with Internet Explorer 8.

Or upgrade to Windows 7.

Or use a better browser.

--
Bertrand, 5 years without IE and counting...

On 10-09-23 9:26 , Peter wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tsk, tsk. No support for software just a year after its inception,
moving on to newer editions, forcing people to upgrade whether they
needed to or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/tech...tock/index.htm

Adobe are being punished by the quality of their past products where
users do not see the need to upgrade as what they have does all they
need - most esp. in lean economic times where people are saving rather
than spending.

I still haven't upgraded to CS5 (PS only) as it doesn't really do much
more than CS3 that I need. It does have some nifty features (content
aware editing) and a nice HDR model (and more) - I just don't need it yet.

So I'm getting a lot of value from CS3, as I'll be able to upgrade to
CS5 (or CS6) at my leisure.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-09-25 12:56 , wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:26:18 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
Tsk, tsk. No support for software just a year after its inception,
moving on to newer editions, forcing people to upgrade whether they
needed to or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/tech...tock/index.htm



Just where does that link say that?

I never even bothered with his link. I mean it's CNN for crying out

Good point.

loud. Would you expect it to be complimentary about ANY big company?
CNN is the TV equalevent of The New York Times. Jaded, biased and
often just plain lying.

The NYT is certainly not of the poor quality of CNN.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.