A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Adobe Grrr



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 15th 14, 02:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default 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
  #2  
Old August 15th 14, 04:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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?
  #3  
Old August 15th 14, 01:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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
  #4  
Old August 15th 14, 02:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
R. Mark Clayton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default 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



  #5  
Old August 15th 14, 03:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Adobe Grrr

In article ,
says...

"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.


Just an aside but at the time that the lawsuit was resolved the
Republicans controlled the Senate and Ronald Reagan was President, so it
was far more the "era of the Republican Party" then than it is now.

: 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



  #6  
Old August 15th 14, 07:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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?
  #7  
Old August 15th 14, 08:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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
  #8  
Old August 15th 14, 08:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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.
  #9  
Old August 15th 14, 08:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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
  #10  
Old August 15th 14, 08:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,alt.graphics.photoshop
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adobe Grrr PeterN[_5_] Digital Photography 66 August 25th 14 10:38 PM
Adobe Grrr Robert Coe Digital SLR Cameras 1 August 15th 14 02:49 AM
Grrr... lens misery D.M. Procida 35mm Photo Equipment 6 February 28th 07 02:12 AM
Windows Color Managment, Adobe Working Spaces, Adobe Gamma Andy Leese Digital Photography 9 November 24th 06 04:38 AM
Adobe After Effects 7.0 PRO, Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 for Windows XP, and tutorials, Adobe After Effects Plugins Collection (WINMAC), updated 19/Jan/2006 [email protected] Digital Photography 0 February 2nd 06 07:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.