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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe Grrr
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. You did read. Your response time was not enough for you to see my cites, and read them. so much for eod. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe Grrr
"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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe Grrr
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe Grrr
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 01:12 AM |
Windows Color Managment, Adobe Working Spaces, Adobe Gamma | Andy Leese | Digital Photography | 9 | November 24th 06 03:38 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 06:52 AM |