areidjr
Senior Member
Sorry about that. I forgot about it being from CS5 only.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Adobe must have consulted Pentax for pricing ideas
- Thread starter Cane
- Start date
Steve Coombs
Well-known member
I don't think it works that way. You save your files as you always have, hopefully in multiple locations. Definitely not just in the paltry 20G of cloud storage. You don't need the subscription or Photoshop to access these files in the future. And you do not need to be logged onto the Internet to use the application if you are a subscriber. You just need to log on every so often.
Model Mike
Veteran Member
I wouldn't use GIMP as a raw converter. Lightroom has much better support and is very reasonably priced.
Where GIMP would come in would be as a secondary bitmap editor for layers and mask type stuff which Lightroom can't do. I use PS for this, and frankly it's overkill most of the time. Assuming GIMP can read the particular flavour of TIFF that LR spits out, the 16-bit version should be a viable free alternative to PS. LR + 16-bit GIMP could make a killer combo.
Joseph Tainter
Forum Pro
Adobe may get a temporary surge in sales from this. I just ordered CS6, but expect it will be the last version of Photoshop that I buy. I might shift to Lightroom for Raw processing in the future--unless that goes to subscription too.
Joe
Joe
Gary Martin
Veteran Member
I've been using Photoshop since 1995, and it's become vital for my workflow. Since I have hundreds of gigabytes of layered 16-bit PSD files archived, I'll continue running CS3 as long as I can. Lightroom has become equally vital, but fortunately it's reasonably priced. That's where I do my RAW conversion, and where the latest version of ACR needs to be, so I'm set for now.
Although in their greed, I suspect Adobe will figure out a way to make older versions of Photoshop and newer versions of Lightroom incompatible somehow ;(
Although in their greed, I suspect Adobe will figure out a way to make older versions of Photoshop and newer versions of Lightroom incompatible somehow ;(
noel2
Senior Member
Considering the continued use of CS5 and earlier versions requiring activation, I fear that Adobe could eventually be capable of "neutralising" the installed software.
That happened to me with Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro that I had been using for some years, and which suddenly ceased functioning on my computer about a year ago with the message: activation needed.
I was unable to re-activate it or re-install it using the original CD because the quota of activations was "exceeded".
I tried to persuade Adobe that that could not be the case - to no avail - so I finally gave up and forgot about the software. But I would hate to have to do that with Photoshop...
That happened to me with Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro that I had been using for some years, and which suddenly ceased functioning on my computer about a year ago with the message: activation needed.
I was unable to re-activate it or re-install it using the original CD because the quota of activations was "exceeded".
I tried to persuade Adobe that that could not be the case - to no avail - so I finally gave up and forgot about the software. But I would hate to have to do that with Photoshop...
emem
Veteran Member
Does anyone wonder that Adobe software is some of the most pirated?
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
My view of why their software is often pirated is different from the above.
Adobe supplies desirable software at a price that reflects the value to their target customers and their own on-going development costs. Part of the value to the target customer is that this is software under continual development so that they shouldn't expect to be abandoned with a latest product that doesn't match the competition and is slipping even further behind. Another part of the value is that, being industry leaders or nearly so, a large part of what you get when buying Adobe software doesn't come from Adobe itself and is sometimes free. Books, tutorials, support in forums, etc.
Adobe are not selling commodities without expectation of further sales. But some people want their software to be priced like that and think Adobe's is too expensive for what they are getting. In effect, what they want to buy and what Adobe are selling (and want to sell) are different. Perhaps some of those people should go elsewhere.
There is another reason why people pirate Adobe's software, of course. Because they want something for nothing.
noel2
Senior Member
But, do you really beleive that software purchased, and used conformally to the licence can be deliberately "sabotaged" as I have experienced ?
One should be able to continue using older software that still serves its purpose without having to regularly update to newer versions.
If piracy there is, the villains are not those you are talking about....
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
I believe Adobe must stick to whatever contract the software was bought under. If they are breaking that contract, they are to be condemned. And if that particular person tries to get back to where they should be, Adobe have only themselves to blame.
But I am aware that sometimes the contract doesn't guarantee things will work forever. I still use Windows XP, Office 2003, and Dreameaver MX 2004. It is pretty obvious to me I need to move forward soon.
And from what I observe, pirating is often done by people who haven't suffered like that. The problems of one person don't justify others to pirate software.
(Disclaimer: before retirement I worked for a computer company selling hardware, software, and services. In effect, part of my salary was paid for by software revenues. Seen from that side, piracy is not a victimless act. I don't "shop" people who do it, but I don't do it myself. Measured over the years, software is one of the cheapest components of my photography, probably less than petrol, certainly less than hotels).
I see that Adobe has licenses for their older software, wonder if that resolves your problem using Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro. Refer to http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html That's adobe dot com slash downloads slash cs2_downloads
On the other hand you may already be using some other product and no longer in need of this information.
Bernie
On the other hand you may already be using some other product and no longer in need of this information.
Bernie
emem
Veteran Member
To pursue this particular discussion much further means getting into politics and ideology.
I don't know how far around the world this news went but here in Australia we had a Government Committee of Inquiry into the IT industry, particularly the disparity in pricing between what major software companies charge between USA and Australia. Apple, Microsoft and Adobe REFUSED TO ATTEND when invited to do so. In fact they had to be issued with sub-poenas to force them to appear before this committee and answer questions. This, to me, is an indication that these companies are already too large and too powerful when they think they can thumb their noses at democratically elected governments of countries in which they do business. The (eventual) outcome of their appearance before this committee was that they charge more in Australia for their products in Australia just because they can. They use geo-blocking to prevent Australians from circumventing their pricing policies in this country. No Barry, as far as I'm concerned companies such as Adobe are the enemies of democracy. I have no doubt you will find that statement over dramatic but I do not believe it is. I wonder if you've been reading reports from various countries how Apple and Microsoft pay minimal tax relative to their incomes by "creative book-keeping"? I certainly have.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
I am fully aware that Adobe operates "rip off" pricing in the UK, and I've said so in Adobe forums.
That is a reason to find an alternative. It isn't a justification for piracy. People shouldn't break into an Amazon.uk warehouse and steal stuff because they don't pay enough tax. People wouldn't expect to get away with a defense of stealing from a high-price jeweler because their prices are much too high.
If people don't like the way these companies operate (and I have lots of objections to them) then get the law changed. That is democracy. If they are actually operating within the law as it stands, that too is democracy.
A problem is that in many cases (not all) criticisms of these companies comes across as a post-hoc rationalization for taking something for nothing. If someone pirated software then donated the difference between the full price and the price they thought justified to charity, at least they could claim they are not trying to take something for nothing.
(ps: My specific objection above to Adobe's pricing isn't the high price in general. It is the high price in the UK, and Australia, compared with the USA).
Last edited:
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
Correction - my bad.
I meant: "If someone pirated software then donated the price they thought justified to charity, at least they could claim they are not trying to take something for nothing".
emem
Veteran Member
Yes, a valid point, were it that simple. Unfortunately it is not. Large, rich organisations have ways of garnering support among politicians and media owners. Controlling and changing public opinion, never mind politicians opinions, is never as simple as it would seem. Getting laws changed is a slow and difficult business. The world of big business is murky and complex to say the least. Take a look at the multitudinous lawsuits on copyright issues around the globe concerning LARGE IT companies. Are these a genuine attempt to protect intellectual property - or a cynical and tawdry attempt to stymie opposition? I would suggest the latter. And in the process they are quite prepared to make Joe Public forego some great advances in technology. The recent worldwide nonsense between Apple & Samsung comes immediately to mind. Heaven alone knows how many lawsuits Microsoft is embroiled in. My point here is that these companies will spend vast amounts of money to further protect their already protected positions and protect their vast profits. They will also spend vast sums to lobby politicians and keep the media on-side.
Another company that indulged in shameless profiteering was Sony. I find it hard to forget their rapacious greed in the music industry over the introduction of Compact Disc (CD) technology. Pioneered by Sony, they scoured the world buying up the rights to countless sound recordings prior to the release of this new technology. Had a publicly listed company done anything like that with shares, taking advantage of their immediate industry knowledge, they would have been guilty of insider trading and their executive officers charged with a criminal offence. No such laws existed to cover the music industry however so Sony got away with this scot free AND made a squillion dollars into the bargain, by charging us top dollar for the same music we had already paid for. No I know, I didn't HAVE to buy it. (And much of it I haven't, I can assure you).
The whole issue of Corporate greed and control is far more complicated than a bit of software here and there.
Barry Pearson
Veteran Member
Yes, it is very complicated. That makes it necessary to separate out the various issues, and see how different companies behave.
Microsoft has been an obstacle in many domains, trying to impose its own specifications on everyone else as de facto standards. Internet Explorer screwed up the conformance to W3C recommendations for many years.
But then they developed Windows Media Photo which became HD Photo as a potentially valuable alternative to JPEG (and others). They offered it to ISO, who have standardized it as ISO/IEC 29199-2, or JPEG XR.
Adobe own TIFF, and don't appear to tie anyone up with it. They offered it to ISO, which made changes to it to make it also a standard raw file format, and it formed the basis of ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP. Adobe has offered DNG to ISO to form the basis for the new version of TIFF/EP.
Adobe offered PDF to ISO, and we now have ISO 19005 (PDF/A), ISO 15930 (PDF/X), and ISO 32000-1 (PDF).
I've seen people condemn DNG as a raw file format because it comes from Adobe. But that is stupid! Whatever anyone's views about Adobe, there isn't a downside to widespread adoption and standardization of DNG.
Companies are complicated. Greed from the finance or legal department doesn't mean that all aspects of the company must be attacked in some way. There is no excuse for taking their software for nothing, which is a point that was making earlier.
I can't say that I'm well-versed in all the specifics of your discussion with Mike, but this is a valid point. To say otherwise essentially degrades into mob mentality.
noel2
Senior Member
Thank you for the advice ! I have not yet been able to get the installation running till the end (asks for "administrator" status - which I should actually have... ) but I'll keep on trying...
Tan68
Veteran Member
I haven't read through the thread and some other people may have similar thoughts as I do.
To me, the pricing is not a surprise. MS has long had licenses. Recently, they also rent/lease MS Office. It is a subscription model. Adobe saw it worked and thought they should join in. No surprise.
To me, this is all an extension of the 'cloud mentality'. I don't want all of everything I own to be cloud-based. Some people like it. Google pushes the cloud hard. Always connected. All the time. To them.
I bought some MP3 from Google and couldn't figure out how to load them directly on my device. All the information on their website touted the benefits of streaming everything. I later found that I could download the music file and not stream it only. But this information was buried. The cloud was pushed up front as if it were the only option. Because they want you to use this option. Only.
Anyway, my point is Google wants people connected to them all the time. People seem, to me, to be generally okay with this model. MS is pushing their cloud service. No reason for Adobe to not adopt the same practices.
I don't like it, but I think it is a logical extension of what consumers have accepted.
Every time I read comments from people that devices with not replaceable batteries are good enough and why would anyone want anything else or why would anyone want removable SD cards, I am sad. Not everyone will want to replace or swap a battery. Not everyone will want or use SD storage. But, if we accept things like that as well as being pushed towards always on streaming connections and cloud-only service, then I think things like this Adobe decision will just become more common.
It is what consumers accept.
To me, the pricing is not a surprise. MS has long had licenses. Recently, they also rent/lease MS Office. It is a subscription model. Adobe saw it worked and thought they should join in. No surprise.
To me, this is all an extension of the 'cloud mentality'. I don't want all of everything I own to be cloud-based. Some people like it. Google pushes the cloud hard. Always connected. All the time. To them.
I bought some MP3 from Google and couldn't figure out how to load them directly on my device. All the information on their website touted the benefits of streaming everything. I later found that I could download the music file and not stream it only. But this information was buried. The cloud was pushed up front as if it were the only option. Because they want you to use this option. Only.
Anyway, my point is Google wants people connected to them all the time. People seem, to me, to be generally okay with this model. MS is pushing their cloud service. No reason for Adobe to not adopt the same practices.
I don't like it, but I think it is a logical extension of what consumers have accepted.
Every time I read comments from people that devices with not replaceable batteries are good enough and why would anyone want anything else or why would anyone want removable SD cards, I am sad. Not everyone will want to replace or swap a battery. Not everyone will want or use SD storage. But, if we accept things like that as well as being pushed towards always on streaming connections and cloud-only service, then I think things like this Adobe decision will just become more common.
It is what consumers accept.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum