Adobe Grrr

On 8/15/2014 3:52 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.

you brought it up, and as i expected. no cite.


You did read. Your response time was not enough for you to see my cites,
and read them.

--
PeterN

On 2014-08-15 19:38:29 +0000, nospam said:

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.

The problem is the Adobe Market & Typekit are touted as a feature of
CC. However, when the subscriber to the Photograph Plan try to access
either one, they are told they need to upgrade. They are not told this
in any of the marketing information for CC. They have to dig and
research, and bitch to discover why there subscription isn't good
enough to have the doors to the stores opened for them. That seems to
be short sightedness on the part of Adobe marketing.
Why on earth would I, currently paying $9.99/month for PS CC 2014 +
LR5, upgrade to the single app plan for PS CC 2014 only at 19.99/month
just to get my foot in the door of the store?

Adobe has a lesson to learn from Apple and the iTunes store here. Buy
access to any part of the CC and you should have access to developers &
vendors selling their wares for whatever apps you are subscribing to.
Fortunately it works that way for Add-Ons where Pay & Free items are
available. Like in the iTunes store some are useful and superb and add
to productivity and others are crap, some are free-bees setting the
bait for pay stuff, but that you can deal with.

We should have been told up front that when we subscribed and got all
that was actually touted, PC, LR5, Behance, 20GB CC storage that we
weren't getting access to the Market & Typekit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.

You did read. Your response time was not enough for you to see my cites,
and read them.

so much for eod.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
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.

I think the point it that OP [thinks he] has already paid and does NOT want
to pay again.

One has this problem with BT.


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?

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014081513161174819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-08-15 19:38:29 +0000, nospam said:

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.

The problem is the Adobe Market & Typekit are touted as a feature of CC.
However, when the subscriber to the Photograph Plan try to access either
one, they are told they need to upgrade. They are not told this in any of
the marketing information for CC. They have to dig and research, and bitch
to discover why there subscription isn't good enough to have the doors to
the stores opened for them. That seems to be short sightedness on the part
of Adobe marketing.
Why on earth would I, currently paying $9.99/month for PS CC 2014 + LR5,
upgrade to the single app plan for PS CC 2014 only at 19.99/month just to
get my foot in the door of the store?

Adobe has a lesson to learn from Apple and the iTunes store here. Buy
access to any part of the CC and you should have access to developers &
vendors selling their wares for whatever apps you are subscribing to.
Fortunately it works that way for Add-Ons where Pay & Free items are
available. Like in the iTunes store some are useful and superb and add to
productivity and others are crap, some are free-bees setting the bait for
pay stuff, but that you can deal with.

We should have been told up front that when we subscribed and got all that
was actually touted, PC, LR5, Behance, 20GB CC storage that we weren't
getting access to the Market & Typekit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


Indeed and a discussion like this tells me that Adobe are a software
supplier to avoid if possible.

On 2014-08-17 16:44:58 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2014081513161174819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2014-08-15 19:38:29 +0000, nospam said:

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.

The problem is the Adobe Market & Typekit are touted as a feature of CC.
However, when the subscriber to the Photograph Plan try to access either
one, they are told they need to upgrade. They are not told this in any of
the marketing information for CC. They have to dig and research, and bitch
to discover why there subscription isn't good enough to have the doors to
the stores opened for them. That seems to be short sightedness on the part
of Adobe marketing.
Why on earth would I, currently paying $9.99/month for PS CC 2014 + LR5,
upgrade to the single app plan for PS CC 2014 only at 19.99/month just to
get my foot in the door of the store?

Adobe has a lesson to learn from Apple and the iTunes store here. Buy
access to any part of the CC and you should have access to developers &
vendors selling their wares for whatever apps you are subscribing to.
Fortunately it works that way for Add-Ons where Pay & Free items are
available. Like in the iTunes store some are useful and superb and add to
productivity and others are crap, some are free-bees setting the bait for
pay stuff, but that you can deal with.

We should have been told up front that when we subscribed and got all that
was actually touted, PC, LR5, Behance, 20GB CC storage that we weren't
getting access to the Market & Typekit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


Indeed and a discussion like this tells me that Adobe are a software
supplier to avoid if possible.

All griping aside, Photoshop + Lightroom gives me a workflow I am
comfortable and productive with. It remains the standard against which
all others of the genre are measured. It is far more balance in price
at $9.99/month than working out on the Adobe upgrade treadmill.
The disappointment is finding this one failing in their marketing plan.
However, that is not going to stop me from using PS + LR, but it
effectively blocks me from spending anything in their Market, and that
is dumb.

--
Regards,

Savageduck