Well if you examine this subscription rate, and consider it's been around nearly 3 years, either folks are renewing or other folks are subscribing for the first time. Either way, as of figures we can look at today, the model and the stock prices indicate this is working for both Adobe and a lot (7 million) of their customers.
I don't see how that's pertinent. If you need the utility or the software, you pay for it.
Probably more? Got any data to back that up?Oh dear me do you seriously think CC isn't being pirated , probably more so now.Based on Adobe's profits there are clearly more of me than there are of you.
I can't blame Adobe for going this route as their software has been hacked and pirated more than any company I know.
How did they force you?
Why do I get the impression you think Adobe have only 7 million customers.
It seems to me you only see what you want to see, its pertinent to a lot of people not everyone wants another utility bill, it may suit the Adobe fan boys not me.
Next you will be telling me CC is not being pirated or that it has ben reduced since the inception of CC. Your very fond of asking people " got any data to back that up " maybe I should do what you do go to an Adobe run site I wonder what kind of answer you would get as opposed to an independent siteProbably more? Got any data to back that up?Oh dear me do you seriously think CC isn't being pirated , probably more so now.Based on Adobe's profits there are clearly more of me than there are of you.
I can't blame Adobe for going this route as their software has been hacked and pirated more than any company I know.
I never said any different. " your point being "
Again I never said it was.
And boy aren't a lot of people paying the price for those so called upgrades, the Adobe forums bear that out. One particular post sticks out like a sore thumb, it Started in 2013 around the time CC started and continued until 2016 wow that's a hell of a long time for people to complain about CC, AND GUESS WHAT Andrew "THEY ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER " below is the link for your facts, but hey don't worry Andrew I'm sure with your unbelievable devotion to the Adobe Shareholders you will find a way to twist things around, but remember before you do " Don't forget the facts. As per usual I will leave you with the last word as it tends to keep you happy.
IF you do, you are not reading the data I've supplied. View the data again.
No, I don't make up stuff. You said you thought CC was pirated more; show us some proof.
You can and should ask for proof. Especially around these parts because there's a huge amount of speculation posted every day. That's why I ask for some evidence but often don't get it.
That CC has very little if anything to do with pirating software! Again, YOU raised the point of CC being more pirated than non CC so, show us the proof.
It's an interesting theory, might be correct. But it might not be as there's not a lick of proof this is true.
Again, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to subscribe or continue to subscribe. You can cancel at any time. The facts, again, that you apparently missed is that since subscription began the adoption rate (7 million) and the stock has gone up. How do you attribute that?
No. I'm not suggesting a lot of people did not expressed disappointment with the subscription model, I'm providing the FACTs that in three years, there have been 7 million subscriptions and the Adobe stock has gone way, way up! Those are facts!
That's all fine and you're justified to be upset. Doesn't change the facts about the number of subscribers and the success financially towards Adobe. Where do you think that came from?
You're writing more nonsense.
That's an idiotic statement and if you take a little time actually researching before you post more nonesense, you'll see the statememnt is absolutely false. You'd see the vast majority of my posts are aiding other's on the subject of Color Management. But since your posts thus far have been fact free, par for the course to make such a silly and easily dismissible statement!
It wasn't a thread that I'd intended to respond to, yet difficult to resist. The "holding the gun to one's head" sparked it. If anyone is holding a gun to anyone's head, it's Adobe. Adobe and their marketing scheme has reached into the depths of partaking of those who have become accustomed, the victims.
Wow, you don't know many smart people or you are talking about people who download the product and spend 3 minutes a day or people who probably can't figure out what to do no matter how much time you give em.
So you need to learn and master everything in this and all software products before you can decide if you want to buy it?
So you've been subscribing for 3 years now?
You should. I have too. Options are good.
I see. So they create a tool that's innovative and useful and lots of people pay for it, and that's taking advantage of the customer? Really?
What view is that? Producing tools lots of people need?
And that's fine! All purchases, leases, subscriptions work the same way: the product is either worth the price or it's not. You want to stop subscribing, do so.
What makes Adobe a company who's products are designed and aimed at hobbyists? Is that the same for Canon and Nikon and (fill in the blank for professional level tools)?
So the post that I linked is lies and nonsense, I'll leave that for others to decide ?
Is it really an idiotic statement all I see are similar responses like this one. Very helpful indeed, amazing your the only one to respond in a 2 page thread, I wonder why is it because your so knowledgeable about Color Management you think you have a divine right to talk down to people, because that's what you actually do, although you may not realize it, is it any wonder why no other member joined in the discussion. There are many more similar response posts by you Andrew, but what the hell its what you contribute.
I'm sorry that reality and facts continue to ruin your life. If indeed, ignorance is bliss, you must be a in a continual state of ecstasy!
Trying to educate you (as often as possible, with facts).
How's this instead (more appropriate?) :
