I hope you feel better now.
Have you looking into Corel Graphics Suite? Great software, reasonable price and no activation.
BTW, it’s a Canadian company.
Bob
What ever happened to that American…Ralph Nader?
Nader would likely be against it, if he knew about it. He is against MS, in general, you know.
BTW, it’s a Canadian company.
Usedta-be. Bought by Vector Capitol, <
http://www.vectorcapital.com/> now in San Francisco. I’m not sure that they wouldn’t add activation if they weren’t so concerned about simply keeping the doors open.
I know about the buyout. I voted no, but even at $1.05 a share I made money. But nothing’s really changed there. Still based in Ottawa, but yes, American ownership.
bob
Oh, well, I still have PS 6. If activation of PSCS becomes an issue down the road, so many other things will be leading up to it that either crackers will have it all figured out, or someone else is competing with a better product, or one can regress to PS 6 or 7.
Between NAFTA and GATT, we are all under the corporate thumb.
You can, of course, raise the non-corporate finger and go live in the woods…….
I realize not everyone can live in the woods, Lawrence. But if you would have put your money in a toque and started a collection instead of buying the PSCS upgrade, you could have sent me the Adobe Non-Naders, one-by-one.
We can introduce them to Devil’s Dip and my trusty Newfoundland "Corel" –before I tie them to my toboggan. I love screamers…so send Levine first. 8^)
Terrat,
Surely you’re aware that the Internet and peer-to-peer networks has vastly changed the amount of software piracy going on? I said this in another thread and I’ll say it again here: companies that do not adapt to the Internet will go out of business.
Think about these facts:
1. Prior to CS, Photoshop has been using virtually no copy-protection for the last 10 years.
2. P2P networks like Kazaa are at an all-time high, with more users trading illegal software and data than ever before.
3. The music industry itself has largely been blamed in the media for the amount of music piracy out there today. Why? It is said that the music idustry did not adapt to the Internet fast enough, and tried to ignore it.
It is truly short-sighted to think that a company like Adobe can refuse to change with the times and continue to prosper.
~Hanford
Cracks keep companies on their toes. If they expect certain benefits from activation, it will be legit and transparent. If not, have a go at the crack.
Competition is what makes capitalism run. Sometimes, the competition isn’t exactly where you expect it, but is exactly where it is needed.
Ah, yes…
Do you really believe they created activation to stem the piracy that goes
on in P2p networks?
A lot of this *is* the casual piracy. But yeah, nothing about activation is going to stop the serious thief.
There is already a crack out (Fully working Ctrl works.) for PsCS. So
whomever want to crack and pirate PSCS can.
Ah, but you’re NOT running the exact same bits as was on the CD – and you have no way of comparing them – and you’re trusting the band of thieves who put the crack together to not tuck in a virus or trojan horse.
If you trust a bunch of crackers more than Adobe, that’s your right. But don’t be surprised if all your financials are sent out at 2 in the morning.
-Scott
Nagash wrote:
Do you really believe they created activation to stem the piracy that goes on in P2p networks?
In part, yes. You don’t have to be a hardcore Warez haxor to use Kazaa. In fact surveys have shown that a large percentage of p2p users don’t realize the files they’re copying are illegal. To me, that’s about as casual as it gets. And it’s not just p2p, it’s also the proliferation of CD-Rs.
There is already a crack out (Fully working Ctrl works.) for PsCS. So whomever want to crack and pirate PSCS can.
Whoever wants to can break a window to steal the stereo out of my car. But I still lock my car. It reduces the possibility of theft. Same thing with Photoshop and activation. It will deter a large percentage of users who would otherwise bootleg the program.
There are no benefit to the end user in the use of activation.
So, by that argument, Photoshop should be free, right? I mean, there’s no end-user benefit to having to pay money to get it. That’s for Adobe’s benefit.
There may not be a direct benefit to the end-user for Activation, but assuming the backlash does not outweigh the amount of money saved due to lack of piracy, then it is to Adobe’s benefit, which in turn benefits the customer.
~Hanford
Software piracy has been around longer than Adobe–longer than the Internet; as long as software itself. Programs used to be smaller, so the advertising campaign was "Don’t copy that floppy." User groups were established for sharing copies of dBase II, WordStar and Lotus 1-2-3. People are very good at rationalizing.
The difference now is the numbers are bigger, and if you plot it all on spreadsheets, it looks like software companies are losing-out royally, yet they seem better able to keep the doors open than their forebearers were–oh, that’s right, the numbers are bigger.
Nothing has changed; it’s just bigger. Yet they think that when they convert the thieves into customers, and eliminate multiple copies shared in one office, they’ll have to make the spreadsheet charts smaller to make room for all those upward lines.
Luckily, the software business is not only bigger, it’s still cyclical–copy protection was tried a generation ago, too.
Leave aside the company problem of casual copying. The companies problems have been empathized with in every post since the program was made available. Just set it aside for a minute.
I was asking for a comsumer protection route? What laws or standards protect the individual American from invasive corporate intellectual property rights? And so could be extended to individuals in other countries who would wish to buy this product.
The individual Windows user –especially those in other countries have no recourse and less protection than the average American. –who also has no protection?
I’m not for casual copying or condoning theft. Both theft and the cost of anti-theft programs; as well, are usually built into the price of the product. And the personel to answer the phone calls alone will cost. Plus, the business who is deactivated and so loses good name or work reputation will sue the corporation (because Americans do that sort of thing). And we will pay more… But lets not talk about Adobe’s casual copying problem. Lets set it aside and look at our own rights for a change.
What does this mean to the individual consumer who has paid top dollar for a program he needs to complete his work? (De-Activation will happen to eveyone over time.) What will it mean to you to be arbitrarily de-activated and to be on the leash with a company who has put dirty code on your hard drive?
There is a basic "wrongness" that would allow a company to have this kind of right over their own customers. And there is a wrongness that would allow a company to build this kind of instability into their product, which will be installed within your real property. There is a basic expectation that it will work or run in order for you to complete your work.
I want it to be like any product with a "good name". Like a good vehicle it runs well from the outset; is a dependable ride for many years, due to standard parts and service, and proper maintenance.
Don’t know how to write these ideas that a sincle customer has an right and expectation that a product will run once you buy it….
but assuming the backlash does not outweigh the amount of money saved due to lack of piracy, then it is to Adobe’s benefit, which in turn benefits the customer.
I really fail to see how any "Adobe benefit" turns into benefiting the customer. Please give an example, like one that has already happened? Otherwise, stop trying to blow smoke up my ***!
Customer backlash you have, piracy you have, it is beginning to should more like Iraq ever day.
Terrat, I agree 100% with you. If I tried hard I could probably patent your DNA and then own you too! <grin>
Jerry wrote:
I really fail to see how any "Adobe benefit" turns into benefiting the customer. Please give an example, like one that has already happened?
Here’s a real-life example of how an Adobe benefit is good for the customer:
If Adobe does not make money on Photoshop, then they will stop developing it, which would suck for us, the customers. Therefore, it is to our benefit that Adobe makes enough money to warrant new versions of Photoshop. Photoshop *does* make money, and we’ve seen 8 powerful upgrades of the product, and it’s development team is quite hefty (apparently, from the credits).
Now here’s a real-life example of how it can suck for the customer if Adobe does not make money:
On November 15, 2003, the product "Adobe Live Motion" was discontinued*. It only made it to 2.0, and it won’t be developed further. I’d say that is this is NOT a benefit to the current owners of Live Motion. My guess is they didn’t sell enough to justify the continued developement of it.
The jury is still out whether Activation helps or hinders Adobe’s bottom-line. My only point is that it is in the end-user’s best interest to see Photoshop piracy reduced and sales go up; this is why posts like "Photoshop should be free for everyone to use!" are few and far between.
~Hanford
* from: "Effective November 15, 2003, Adobe will no longer distribute LiveMotion 2.0. Though Adobe has decided to concentrate its efforts in other areas" on: <
http://www.adobe.com/products/livemotion/main.html>
I didn’t know that LM was cancelled. I guess that Flash was too established for a competitor to breack in.
Right, let’s just say Adobe manage to completely stop casual copying.
Now, how many of the people they’ve stopped are likely to actually buy a full-price copy?
If the answer is "loads" then well done Abobe. Material benefit.
If the answer is "practically none" then all that Adobe have achieved is a little bit of short-sighted and spiteful revenge on a few pirates whilst simultaeously annoying a significant minority of their existing customers.
No material benefit.
I know which one my money is on, but I guess time will tell.
The rest of the world needs to make competitive products with software licensing that more consumers are happy with. Look at other industries that were taken over, or at least offered viable competition to long standing big corporations. Japanese cars, Japanese steel. They toppled huge juggernauts. I believe it was the Wall Street Journal that just recently reported how American toolmakers are being driven out of business by foreign competition. Maybe, just maybe then, Adobe or Microsoft will reconsider their positions and practices if some foreign influences produce viable alternatives.
The rest of the world does not NEED help from something that they do NOT have to participate in. It is not logical to participate with a product or company that you don’t like the product or the companies practices.
Microsoft and Adobe were both small companies once. They own the market share now because no one is offering an alternative worthy of giving up what they already have. No one said that business competition was going to be easy. The built themselves into large corporations by being smart, and providing products and services people wanted and needed. Here’s the big clue people seem to be forgetting. Other people can start small and grow big too if they are innovative and persistent. Crying and moaning bring about short term fixes. Persistence, creativity and innovation bring about sweeping changes. It’s not unheard of for big corporations to fall by the wayside when smaller innovative companies came along. Instead we have defeatists who claim it can’t be done.
Competition, competition, competition. Not "protect me from the big evil empire."
Iain_McFadzen wrote:
Now, how many of the people they’ve stopped are likely to actually buy a full-price copy?
You’re missing the point. Just because these folks wouldn’t purchase a copy if the crack wasn’t available, does that make it right that they use it for free? Even for casual, non-commercial use? Absolutely not.
By your reasoning, it would be OK to let someone steal your car, just because they wouldn’t buy one of their own if they couldn’t take yours.
Brian
You’re missing the point. Just because these folks wouldn’t purchase a copy if the crack wasn’t available, does that make it right that they use it for free? Even for casual, non-commercial use? Absolutely not.
With all due respect, I think it is you who is missing the point. Completely and utterly.
Of course it is not right that they can use the software for free, but it doesn’t make the blindest bit of difference to Adobe’s sales figures either way, so why persue it (and antagonise a load of people who DO pay for the software into the bargain)?
We agree that the casual pirate suffers, which in itself is no bad thing, but the primary question should surely be; Who benefits?
If stopping people who wouldn’t otherwise buy the software from using it is Adobe’s main drive in introducing Acvtivation (as seems to be the case), then they are just cutting their collective nose off to spite their collective face.
By your reasoning, it would be OK to let someone steal your car, just because they wouldn’t buy one of their own if they couldn’t take yours.
That’s not my reasoning, it’s yours, and it is ridiculous.
This issue is more like someone stealing my car and leaving an exact, full-functional copy in it’s place, or taking a copy of my car that in no way alters my ability to drive my own. Under those circumstances I wouldn’t give a monkeys either.
Iain_McFadzen wrote:
Of course it is not right that they can use the software for free, but it doesn’t make the blindest bit of difference to Adobe’s sales figures either way, so why persue it (and antagonise a load of people who DO pay for the software into the bargain)?
All the antagonism I’ve seen so far has been self-created by those spewing it, dreaming up all these theoretical ways that it’s going to screw them over someday without actually experiencing anything of the sort… the activation for Photoshop is about at painless as it gets; if you have an always-on internet connection you hardly even realize it’s happening.
This issue is more like someone stealing my car and leaving an exact, full-functional copy in it’s place, or taking a copy of my car that in no way alters my ability to drive my own. Under those circumstances I wouldn’t give a monkeys either.
So you have no principles, then? "Let the theives do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn’t affect me." Nice.
All the antagonism I’ve seen so far has been self-created by those spewing it, dreaming up all these theoretical ways that it’s going to screw them over someday without actually experiencing anything of the sort… the activation for Photoshop is about at painless as it gets; if you have an always-on internet connection you hardly even realize it’s happening.
That may be the case and it may not, but either way they are still paying customers and they are still annoyed.
So I’ll ask again. Where’s the trade off for Adobe? Who benefits?
So you have no principles, then? "Let the theives do whatever the hell they want, as long as it doesn’t affect me." Nice.
Going to so much trouble to inconvenience/ punish someone who isn’t actually hurting you in any way, shape, or form, and who’s punishment will not benefit you or anyone else in any way, shape, or form, just because "it’s not right" isn’t ‘principles’, it’s petty spitefulness.
Doing so when your actions are going to piss off the people who do pay their way, irrespective of whether or not their annoyance is justified, is completely moronic.
Iain_McFadzen wrote:
… isn’t ‘principles’, it’s petty spitefulness.
I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.
I am not advocating piracy. Piracy is wrong and you should go to jail if you do. I am not advocating the use of the crack.
What I am advocating is that Adobe is seeing me (IMHO) as a (Probable)Thief right off the bat. I have to jump thru hoops when I HAVE BOUGHT PS legally and with my hard earned money. I am not going to give away something I worked hard for to some idiot who just wants a copy. But in Using activation they are Assuming I will ;Hence Guilty of piracy until I prove I wont.
My question to Scott.
Why has Adobe averted every question about who makes the Activation? Why not state right off the bat its Macrovision?
Why not state what excatly activation does and how it does it?Why put a spin of simplicity on activation when its not that simple?
Why do I get out of it?
Whats the benefit to me in using activation?
If PS CS2 Comes out will there be a patch for PC CS to remove activation?
In some ways, we, the professionals benifit. If the "casual" users pirating the software leave and don’t buy it, there is less competition for our services, and less banal output from Photoshop, less opportunity to engage in identity theft etc.
Personally, I think that PS at 700 bucks or do is a steal. Go price Orcad for electronics, or much of the software from Cadence.
There are other programs. I’ve seen a great collection of images from Norman Koren on Picture Window Pro. $89.95.
My question to Scott.
Why has Adobe averted every question about who makes the Activation? Why not state what excatly activation does and how it does it?Why put a spin of simplicity on activation when its not that simple?
That would be like telling the world exactly how your burglar alarm system works in your house, thereby giving the thieves the knowledge to break in and circumvent the system.
Why do I get out of it?
Whats the benefit to me in using activation?
What is the benefit to anybody except the homeowner to having a security system in their house? And is that system by it’s installation an accusation that every neighbor is a thief?
Therefore, it is to our benefit that Adobe makes enough money to warrant new versions of Photoshop.
SMOKE! NOTHING BUT SMOKE.
Other than marketing ploys such as changing version names (8.0 to CS), do you really think there will be a PS 20.X? Or a 15.X or even, perhaps, a 10.X? Seamless integration of additional products appears to be the way to keep products alive. (Like PS + IR). Bill Gates learned that long ago, every new version of Windoz has included what were previously 3rd party additions (Norton like disk utilities, network stuff and on and on).
Eventually the market is saturated. Computer manufacturers are discovering that. Someone doing word processing doesn’t need it done at 10 GHz. (Nuclear device design by Al-Qaida and weather forecasting are another story). So why do we need such slight "improvements" at such high costs? Even my old "Image Styler" works just fine for what I need at times.
More may be "better" but it is not always needed. I agree that Adobe needs to make profits, just don’t tell me that that is going to be a great benefit to me!
viol8ion I dont see your analogy as correct.
Knowing that macrovision is the provider in no way lets someone know how to crack the activation. Macrovision is the largest provider of activation. It supplies Macromedia,Norton, and others.
I think (Not 100% sure and could be wrong) Macromedia does state they use Safe cast as their activation scheme.
The only hing I can come up with is the BAD publicity Macrovision got from the whole Intuit/Norton ordeal and that would make Adobe hide that fact that they are using Macrovision.
Scott. Has Adobe Come up with a plan for removing activation from PSCS1 once PSCS2 comes out? How will activation work then?
Jerry wrote:
More may be "better" but it is not always needed. I agree that Adobe needs to make profits, just don’t tell me that that is going to be a great benefit to me!
If you’re partisipating in this thread then surely you have *some* interest in CS, yes? My point is, for people who depend on Photoshop for a living, it in in their best interest that Photoshop continues to be developed, if only for OS compatibility and nothing else. If you don’t see that as a benefit, then I don’t really know why you care about the CS/Activation issue. There’s 7 other versions of Photoshop you can use.
Iain wrote:
So I’ll ask again. Where’s the trade off for Adobe? Who benefits?
It is clearly Adobe’s benefit. And I think the trade-off is that they lose some legit customers in addition to reducing piracy.
Going to so much trouble to inconvenience/ punish someone who isn’t actually hurting you in any way, shape, or form, and who’s punishment will not benefit you or anyone else in any way, shape, or form, just because "it’s not right" isn’t ‘principles’, it’s petty spitefulness.
The real-life incovenience is far greater for entering your serial number than it is for Activation.
~Hanford
Man, Penn State sucks this year.
Should Joe Pa be ousted?
Sorry, I just had to do it.
I still don’t get this ‘casual copying’ part. Do you really think that I would invest that kind of money in a product and give it away? It is outrageous that Adobe would suggest that I’m that stupid and need to be saved from myself using activation.
ID wrote:
still don’t get this ‘casual copying’ part. Do you really think that I would invest that kind of money in a product and give it away?
You’d think the same thing about people’s CD collections, but people sharing their entire music collection (often hundreds of dollars of music) on p2p networks is quite common. Apparently people don’t care. Here’s some "casual copying" scenerios that I have witnessed:
At the workplace: "hey, I am going to order another copy of Photoshop for our new employee, but he’s on a job that needs to be done tomorrow. Let’s just install a second copy here until the order comes in" <Order never gets around to being placed>
At the home: "hey, can I borrow your Photoshop CD? I want to see if it’s a program I’d find useful. If I do, I’ll buy it." <purchase is never made>
It is outrageous that Adobe would suggest that I’m that stupid and need to be saved from myself using activation.
Come on, you know that not everyone has the same scruples that you do. Do you find it outragous that they ask for your ticket at the movie theater? That you need to have your recipt when you return a product at a store? It’s silly to think that Activation is a personal attack on your character. It’s not there for you. Same with the serial number that is required on install.
I think it is outragous that people can’t believe that <gulp> Adobe is trying to stop piracy!!!! How dare they! Especially when IT REQUIRES A ONE-TIME CONNECTION TO THE INTERNET!!!! And that is takes metrics of my computer ARRRRRGGGHHHH! DAMN YOU ADOBE!!!!!
Do you really think that I would invest that kind of money in a product and give it away?
No.
So an associate has a legal copy, and says "Okay, you can borrow it now, until you get a copy… but don’t give copies, and especially don’t tell anybody the serial number." But their 12-year old kid didn’t hear about the agreement, and took a copy to school to share. But it’s old news at school, since the original owner’s 12-year old kid already brought a copy to school.
It is outrageous that Adobe would suggest that I’m that stupid and need to be saved from myself using activation.
They don’t think you’re stupid. They think there’s a chance that you might be a crook… or the parent of a 12-year old.
hanford_lemoore wrote:
but people
sharing their entire music collection (often hundreds of dollars of music) on p2p networks is quite common.
Correction: often THOUSANDS of dollars of music, robbing the artists of the few pennies they make on each CD sale.
If professional musicians wanted to give away their craft then they’d do something else as a career – no amount of "it’s about the art, not the money" rationalization can change that.
Brian
It’s still a bogus bunch of crap anyways! Still monitoring the fallout. Still like my suggestion best.
"a bogus bunch of crap"
Funny, I can close my eyes and imagine Chris Cox logging onto Kazaa, typing Photoshop in the search field and saying the exact same thing as results start popping up.
but Ive always been told I have an active imagination so dont mind me. 🙂
First, I’d like to say that I have never used MP3 or copied a music disk.
Having said that, I would also like to state and I believe that it is true for those that do "pirate" music CD ROMS that they would be more than willing to pay "authors" a nickel or a dime for the use of their creation.
The problem is in perception! A piece of plastic (perhaps costing 2 bits turns into a $10 CDROM.) Anyone with an IQ of over 2 digits is going to ask, "where the hell is the other $9.65 going?".
This is really something to consider. Ok, the pirate is screwing the creator out of a nickel or a dime but someone (or perhaps in plural) are loosing a lot more money on their parasitic attachment to the creator.
That being said, (and we all know that the farmer gets about a nickel for a $2 loaf of bread), consider software: OK, Adobe needs a profit margin to continue to develop new products. What is that worth and how much are we, the users, willing to pay for it? Current upgrade prices are about $149.00 the question is: does that represent a reasonable price? I say yes. However, then marketing of Adobe Elements is asking for $90+. This is the Photoshop introduction and almost every dollar spent to purchase it is totally profit. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. Sell the dang thing for 49.99 and make happy new customers!
It is clearly Adobe’s benefit. And I think the trade-off is that they lose some legit customers in addition to reducing piracy.
Explain why it is in Adobe’s benefit. "Clearly" is not a explanation. The people who Activation will stop will not buy PS anyway. So, for about the four millionth time, who benefits?
Or is mildly irritating a few casual pirates a justifiable end in itself?
ID,
Do you really think that I would invest that kind of money in a product
and give it away? <<
You may not, but many folks do…….and once one person has a ‘free’ copy they are more than likely to pass that on to friends.
What I find really SHOCKING is that people consider software piracy not stealing. The best argument I heard from my collegue is that it’s only for learning so it’s not stealing. To this I said – "oh! can I screw your wife without any feelings as it’s only for learning and practising." He did not like it 🙂
I don’t let him anywhere near my PC. A thief is a thief.
Well I was dissappointed that there was no activation on the Mac side of things. Believe it or not, Sherlock beats KaZaA hands down at getting bootleg software. There is more ‘casual copying’ in Mac community than Adobe thinks. I can’t count the number of small, Mac based, businesses that have a plethora of bootleg software downloaded through Sherlock. They really missed the boat on this one.
Sure he could. But, then that would just prove that activation really is a bogus bunch of crap since you will have no trouble whatsoever finding a ton of Photoshop CS ISO, Zip or EXE files not to mention hundreds of cracks for it.
It is hard to believe that a company thinks so highly of their paying and honest customers that they are willing to do something that either at the very least irks them or outright pisses them off to do little more than placing a piece of scotch tape over a hole in the damn that one could fly a 747 through. They have done nothing to slow piracy. They have only irked or pissed off loyal paying customers.
There reasons and the end result for activation just don’t jive with the facts. Add to that that they have so far proven twice that they can’t be trusted and it is for me and a lot of other people a real issue.
If you are wondering about the proven twice thing it has to do with them putting out ImageStyler and then killing it and replacing it with LiveMotion and then killing it. Both done after one version and ImageStyler buyers not even being offered an upgrade to LiveMotion. This proves at least to me that they have no problems taking your money and then not making good on the product you buy. Lets face it both ImageStyler and LiveMotion are now purchase that are worth about as much as a bag of trash.
Now I am also sure with so many of you thinking activation is just fine and not wanting to see what it is really going to be used for that you think Adobe’s handling of the two products above is just fine. Your wrong, but then ignorance is bliss.
Robert
ID,
The only reason that the Mac version doesn’t yet have activation is that they couldn’t get it completed on time. Remember it is Marketing and not Engineering that decide when a product is to be released – the engineers have to work to that deadline and get as much working reliably as they can within the given time frame….
If you are wondering about the proven twice thing it has to do with them putting out ImageStyler and then killing it and replacing it with LiveMotion and then killing it. Both done after one version and ImageStyler buyers not even being offered an upgrade to LiveMotion. This proves at least to me that they have no problems taking your money and then not making good on the product you buy. Lets face it both ImageStyler and LiveMotion are now purchase that are worth about as much as a bag of trash.
Robert, how do you see this as proof that Adobe cant be trusted? They released two products, one of which was certainly NOT an upgrade to the other and neither did well so they didnt release future versions (they got up to version 2 of LiveMotion, BTW)
ImageStyler was a relatively cheap program designed to offer non-graphics professionals a way to make simple web art. If you have a recent version of Photoshop maybe you have noticed a little thing called Image Styles… That is what ultimately became of Styler
LiveMotion while not an overly complex program was designed for graphics and multimedia professionals primarily for the creation of Flash files. Saying ImageStyler users should have gotten an upgrade to LiveMotion would be about like saying that PhotoDeluxe users should have gotten an upgrade to it as well, even though it wasnt the same program and wasnt even designed for or marketed to the same general audience. LiveMotion had more in common with AfterEffects than either of those two programs..
In either case, how did Adobe not make good on the product? Is it because they stopped selling them at some point? Is it because they didnt offer upgrades in the form of future versions or to other relatively unrelated products? If that is the case, I can pretty much tell you that just about every software maker in the world is going to betray your trust at one time or another because just about all of them are going to release a product that doesnt do well from time to time (for whatever reason) and decided not to pursue future versions.
As for the products you apparently have not being worth anything, that is a matter of personal opinion. ImageStyler came out around the time of Photoshop 5 so it has been more than a few years and a lot of what it does may not seem all that special these days but it still does what the box said it would do, right? It is more or less the same with the unrelated product LiveMotion. Somehow breaking the programs would be proof that they betrayed your trust. Choosing not to develop them further is called business. There was no agreement between you and Adobe when you bought them that you would get a discounted price on some adobe product till the end of time when you purchased either of them. You paid a price and you got a product. How exactly did they cheat you?
I wonder how many of you "anti-pirates" are bona-fide poor folk. Just about everybody I know has plenty of pirated software on their computer. They make no money with it…use photoshop to stick a pair of boobs on a picture of your best friend in a swimming pool and email it around type of thing…record multi-track music sessions in protools, mix it and spread one’s music around…that type of thing. Earning $6.75-10 bucks an hour in a coffee shop or warehouse with half your money going to rent and the other half going to car/bills/food makes even the computer itself a luxury. Not to mention working full time in a job you really have no passion for leaving little time to persue your real interests. Owning specialized software and becoming fluent with it makes life a little bit more fun and tolerable. Downloading mp3’s of music you can groove to makes life a bit nicer, it’s a good thing. The artists and authors are making their money from the people that are in turn making money from it…and collectively, their formula doesn’t allow for a CEO or VP to take a pay cut. Increased profits are ESSENTIAL in every business formula, so when it’s said that "pirating" is cutting profits…FOOEY! The suits are refusing to give up their annual salary increase or *GASP!!!* take a pay cut and own one less brand new car or house. It’s a luxury I’ll never experience nor will anybody I know. I could rant about this for pages, but sheeit…look at the big picture. Over half the world’s population is on the brink of starvation, and at least 3/4 of us first-worlders are living paycheck to paycheck…and we’re up in arms because rich people are facing a leveling off of their earning potential. If you follow the money trail, that’s really what’s going on. It’s only gonna get worse folks, and it’s not because I’ve got 500 mp3’s playing on my computer through a copy of musicmatch jukebox I downloaded with a serial number.
I wonder how many of you "anti-pirates" are bona-fide poor folk.
Well, if it’s a poll… me. A non-earning year.
Just about everybody I know has plenty of pirated software on their computer.
Not me.
They make no money with it…use photoshop to stick
Then they could use The Gimp <
http://www.gimp.org/> or Photoshop Elements. They don’t have to steal.
Over half the world’s population is on the brink of starvation, and at least 3/4 of us first-worlders are living paycheck to paycheck…
They probably aren’t stealing Photoshop, either.
It’s amazing the number of people who can afford to buy computers, but they can’t buy software. Wouldn’t it be great if stealing computers were in-favor, instead of stealing software?
Then they could use The Gimp <http://www.gimp.org/> or Photoshop Elements. They don’t have to steal.
Trust me on this. If they’d steal Photoshop, they’d steal Photoshop Elements.
Bob
Robert Barnett wrote:
them putting out ImageStyler and then killing it and replacing it with LiveMotion and then killing it. Both done after one version and ImageStyler buyers not even being offered an upgrade to LiveMotion.
That’s simply not true. I had ImageStyler and got an upgrade from it to LiveMotion. I don’t remember if I called them and asked or if I got something in the mail, as it was awhile back, but I never would have bought LiveMotion otherwise.
There WAS an upgrade path. I can’t say how well publicized it was, but it was there.
Aside from that, I can’t say I’m really surprised they’ve dropped LiveMotion. It was always a pretty poor alternative to Flash. If it had been cheap, then maybe it would have found a market, but that wasn’t the case.
Mike
I guess I owe an apology for saying that ImageStyler and Live Motion were not comparable programs
I just remember going to an Adobe event where they were at the time touting ImageReady and ImageStyler back when ImageReady wasnt bundled with Photoshop and I remember that ImageStyler came in the non-high end packaging that the consumer stuff they were releasing at the time came in where as ImageReady came packaged like Photoshop and Illustrator were
I also remember that about twice as many people showed up for the ImageStyler half of the presentation and that most of those people had never used a graphics program before
I got a demo disk there and wasnt all that impressed
To me, LiveMotion is an entirely different program but apparently Adobe didnt think so and Im not above admitting when I get something wrong
What does poor have to do with anything? Does being poor give people the right to steal? I think not. Aside from that, it’s an insult to people who are poor to suggest that being poor alone decides how ethical they are. I know plenty of people who are poor who aren’t thieves.
VES
Now I’m doubly disgusted.
This post harps on & on about casual copying, downloading piracy, and the health of corporate Adobe. That’s not the real issues that an indvidual paying user should be caring about.
Yea Gods! What was the subject?…my disgust with the complacency of USA users. That legitimate users in other countries will be leashed to a foreign company in order to use a tool that is part of their job…with no recourse. My inkling that there will be long term as well as short term repercussion that a company will be allowed to put dirty code on an individual’s real property. We were discussing corporate ownership of intellectual property and how an individual fares under this kind of EULA regime.
What about the rights of an individual? What protection does an individual have?
What about the long term.
What happens if it is successful and every software outfit puts "deactivation" diry code on your hard drive? Say you have a one day deadline for some wedding images posted for the bride. You make one call for your operating system, another call to Adobe for PSCS, 50 calls for every filter, then you can start on ColorVision, Scanner software, camera software, printer software, then Office, and every other game or application you "own" under these EULAs
There would be a few exceptions to this scenario.
1. Hennie Lemiux, still in deep denial, would be at his desk pretending that his computer was still working while whispering, "It’s so easy–it’s paintless –it’s so easy"….
2. Viol would still be feeling "safe-as-houses" with his new CS-security alarm system, while sitting outside his locked door freezing.
3. And Levine…he threw up his hands…but it was too late and he won’t be found ’till Spring. 87)
Terrat I see your point but don’t get carried away 🙂
Well I don’t see why a company should not protect it’s property. It’s all about MONEY$$$ always has been always will be. Capatilism sucks but there is NO other alternative in this world.
This morning I saw a graffiti on the train station and it said "Captalism Kills" I was just thinking what other system does not kill?
Communism kills even more.
Selfishness is a natural human charecteristic. We have to be selfish to survive. It’s built into our system (It’s definetely built into mine)
If it bothers you so much you have the choice not to use anything that you don’t agree with 😉
Terrat, it’s just not real clear what you think the solution is supposed to be. Or maybe it’s just not real clear that you’ve thought it through.
Are you expecting users in the USA to petition the government to pass legislation about how software sold into other countries is supposed to function?
Are USA users complacent about what happens when somebody in Germany or France or Egypt has to deal with the fact that Adobe’s software requires activation?
Darn straight we are. It’s simply not our problem.
If you want to have YOUR government pass laws on how software imported into your country should behave, then go ahead and lobby for it in your own country.
Even if the USA did pass some sort of law covering the situation, there’s no way it would work in practice. All Adobe has to do is sell the software through a foriegn subsidiary that’s not bound by that law.
And there’s plenty of recourse. Use a different program. Use "The Gimp" or "Paint Shop Pro" or "Ulead PhotoImpact" or something else. They are viable alternatives that offer very much the same features as Photoshop.
Are they as good as Photoshop? Maybe not, but you have to decide which is more important, that last 5% of features and performance that Photoshop offers, or the inconvenience of having to activate the software.
If you absolutely MUST use Photoshop CS for some reason, then you’re just going to have to look at activation as part of the cost of doing business.
If Adobe goes out of business 10 years from now and you can no longer activate the software (despite their assurance that a solution would be provided) then you can be darn sure that there will be some other product on the market that will do the job. Adobe isn’t likely to go out of business without competition from other products being a big, big factor.
As a user, you have one and only one choice of action that makes any difference whatsoever. Either buy the program or don’t. If you don’t like activation then don’t buy the program. If enough people make that decision, Adobe will be foolish to ignore it. And Adobe hasn’t got a reputation for being foolish.
But if it turns out that most other users are NOT making that decision, then perhaps you should revisit your concerns to see how much of a practical, rather than theoretical, impact they really have.
Mike
my disgust with the complacency of USA users.
Sure. Blame America. Why not? Everybody does it!
Buy Corel Linix instead! Buy Corel Draw. Oh right, they’re owned by Americans now. So build your own world dominating operating system and world class photo editing package. But don’t call us when the Eskimos invade! 🙂
I’m still here, but I learned long ago not to argue with a fool.
Bob
I’m still here, but I learned long ago not to argue with a fool.
Bob
I don’t share your sentiment. Your point is way off base.
I don’t share your sentiment.
I don’t much care what you thing about it. This jackass is ripping Americans for Adobe’s corporate policies.
Your point is way off base.
The hell it is. Let him take is anti-American crap and post it somewhere else. There are Americans giving their lives to defend freedom all over the world and he’s got nothing better to do than blame Americans for software activation.
Go back to crayons and you’ll never have to worry about activation again. I just find this whole thing unbelievable. You’d think Adobe was showing up at your home and installing cameras to spy on you.
In short, get over it. It’s here and in some form or another it’s staying.
Bob
I don’t much care what you thing about it.
I was talking only about arguing with fools.
Apparently you made an exception to your rule.
Because they twice now have released a product and then killed it. Making everyone’s purchase of both of them a total waste of money since they will now have to by Flash.
Now I maybe more critical of companies but creating a product, releasing it, taking peoples money and then killing the product while at the same time releasing what amounts to an update to the product but calling it something else and then not providing upgrades to the people that bought the original product and then finally turning around and killing the new product which isn’t a new product just the upgrade to the old product that they killed. This all comes off as shady and a rip-off. It makes it seem that they changed the original products name just so they wouldn’t haven’t offer upgrade pricing.
It all comes down to trust. This coupled with the likely future use of activation technology, corporate greed and the way most companies are swinging makes it really hard to trust a word out of their mouths.
Agree or not it doesn’t matter it is shady and dishonest just like activation technology that does do what they say it was put in to place to do.
Robert
I don’t own or use pirated software and I am very much against piracy. I think companies have a right to charge what they want and to get paid for people using their software.
That however doesn’t mean that what Adobe has done with ImageStyle, LiveMotion and activation technology is right, fair or even justified.
The ImageStyle/LiveMotion thing just makes it really hard to trust them. After all if they have no problem creating two programs and then killing them off after people have spent their hard earned money on them, then how are we supposed to beleave that they won’t suddenly change their mind on what activation is used for or in this case what they would like us to believe it is used for. If they screw you once or in this case twice it makes it hard for people to trust.
Robert
It wasn’t publicized because their was a big stink about it at the time. The fact that you could call and get one just makes it even more shady. If they were allowing upgrades then they should have let people know about it. So add another reason not to trust them to the list.
I can’t think of another software company that has ever done this. Put out one product, then kill it then basically come out with its upgrade but call it something else just so they can fake customers out. Microsoft hasn’t even stooped this low. And, then to once again kill the product off. I don’t know someone got screwed and it isn’t Adobe.
Robert
Ok, so you don’t want to be leashed to a forgen company. Hell ever one is one way or another. I think maybe you are just upset that you are leashed to our country and we aren’t leashed to yours.
Frankly, I think there are many more important things for all consumers of every country to be concerned with more than where their software comes from.
Robert
Apparently you made an exception to your rule.
Apparently.
Bob
So many users don’t really understand their computers. They work alone, or with one or two others–there is no IT professional to support them. They are surprised when they look back on Friday, and realize that nothing went wrong with the computers during the week. They expect it; it’s a self-fulfilling prophesy.
They are afraid of upgrades in general, because they may not get out alive, and they don’t want to spend another week trying to get the computer to work again–and if they hear that software may not work if their computer dies, well, that’s just one more reason to avoid upgrades. "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Haw, haw, haw!" is not uncommon in business today–look at the old RIPs and people using QuarkXPress 3.x. [De]Activatioin just gives ’em more reasons to avoid upgrading.
I dont know much about ImageStyle/LiveMotion but I do know that Adobe killed PressReady. It was great product.
Jeff
It was great product.
And it still is. On Windows anyway. The Mac version won’t run on OSX and of course there’s no new printers but I’m still using it with my Epson 1520.
Which brings me to the point that if Live Motion were a good enough product to buy/use, the fact that there will be no version 3.0 shouldn’t really matter.
Bob
Which brings me to the point that if Live Motion were a good enough product to buy/use, the fact that there will be no version 3.0 houldn’t really matter.
You’d think. I’d agree, if they had done a 2.0.1 fix before discontinuing it.
I can’t imagine why anybody would want to stay on the leading-edge of Flash, when a good portion of visitors to Web sites won’t have the latest version.
You’d think. I’d agree, if they had done a 2.0.1 fix before discontinuing it.
If you’re saying it was discontinued with bugs, then I’d have to agree with you. It should have been patched first.
Bob
From what you are saying Bob, PressReady works with WinXP if you have a supported printer.
If that is so I will fire up my trusty old Epson 850.
Jeff
Yes, it works just fine on XP. Just remember to download and install the Win2K patch which is also needed for XP.
Bob
…when it goes before the whole Parliament for a vote, agreed to restrict enforcement measures to civil law, rather than the more draconian criminal sanctions… Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement directive, should not cover patent infringements… "Rights holders aren’t happy about this change but we felt that giving them the right to press for criminal sanctions (for people like file sharers) was not a good idea,"… still empower record companies and the like to press for civil law sanctions against individuals copying music or other digital data from the Internet for purely noncommercial purposes.
– Breach of copyright no crime under draft E.U. law <
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/28/HNipre_1.html>
<BOLD>An easy way to loose a customer:</BOLD> I can share an example of something that happened to me with an Adobe competitor: ULEAD. I have been a user of their "cool 3D" for a long time. I have been using their version 2.0 for a number of web site animated GIFs. About a month ago, I received a "bundled" 3.0 SE version with something else that I had purchased. I read the "Readme" files which told me that the big difference with the "SE" edition was that I would be missing some of the textures and such that were in the regular version.
Start to install. OH, NO. You must remove previous versions first. OK, off to never-never land went my old 2.0 version. Installed and fired up the new 3.0 SE version. Loaded a few of my older files and modified them a bit. HUMM, the export as a "animated GIF" option was grayed out. No way that I could get an animated GIF file. STRIKE 1! A email to ULEAD support produced: "Some of the copies do not have the animated GIF feature as it was too costly to include in the SE edition". STRIKE 2, now you insult my intelligence!
And the crowning glory (STRIKE 3) that lost me as their customer. I reinstalled. version 2.0 Oops, any file that I had used in that dang version 3.0 was now unreadable and unusable.
So far I have talked to customer service and FAXed the copy of my sales receipt that will qualify me for the "free" (minus shipping costs) upgrade to "CS" three times to Adobe. The last time I requested email conformation. That was a week ago. Is Adobe going to join ULEAD on my list of nasty suppliers?
Jerry,
Before you continue spamming that message, you might want to fix the typo at the top.
Thank you for understanding the graveness of the copyright matter r_harvey. And for the link. It is a relief.
There is no hate mongering against Americans on my part. I am a consumer of an American product as are the Americans. American’s now reside in a global community, whether they want to look out their windows or not.
Further it is not just an invasive code Adobe would put on my hard drive. It is your hard drive as well. You OWN it. You maintian it. It is your tool and so you should control what goes into it. We are all in the same boat.
Intellectual Copyright Laws will affect consumers (users) elsewhere. Adobe is just one company of many who would use intellectual property copyright to protect their assets at the expense of individuals rights.
The repercussions will be global and this means that it will affect American consumers too and not just Americans in America.
The Copyright protection of pharmaceutical corporations will prohibit your aged parents from purchasing affordable drugs needed to keep them ticking. These same people who can’t afford the medicines in the USA will have to further finance a lawyer to speak to the courts when pharmacetical companies find out they have been receiving across the border drug orders.
Parent’s of an American child who downloads French music will be held responsible for their child’s actions. It would be an American in Paris on a costly venture to hire a lawyer on his child’s behalf.
The individual needs to have some thunder in order to protect himself in the global world. I am not a fool for asking how do we straighten this out? I am not a fool for asking where do we start?
I am not a fool for wanting to keep my real property (my computer) in my sole possession. It is a basic right in a democratic society.
Just being accused by a corporation would ruin any individual who would pay to defend himself. Consumers globally need careful laws to ensure that corporate rights do not take basic freedoms away from individuals, no matter the country. -The freedom to choose, the right to own property and not be property, freedom to associate with whomever you wish, and to say what need to be said.
I now have nothing more to add on the matter of USA & International Copyright Laws now, Levine. It is a bad actor that would accuse me of hate, profess to know my opinion on a foreign war, and call me a fool as I try to discuss a way to keep my rights in a peaceful manner. So about that togoggan ride, Levine, I’ll see you at the bottom of the hill.
Besides, don’t blame us, blame the Aussies where the "test" started! We’re bi$#%hin but Adobe’s already convinced by the Aussie data!
Your rights? Spare me.
The only right you have here is to not purchase the software or go out and steal it. Go ahead and find one of those newly cracked copies. With any luck at all it will come complete with a new set of viruses.
Bob
The only right you have here is to not purchase the software or go out and steal it.
Nice. You’re a health care professional, right?
Regardless of the license "agreement" (which we don’t see until after purchase), there is some implied suitability for purpose, and a good faith agreement. Customers have a right to expect a product to work substantially as advertised, without doing nasty things on the side.
Sorry this rather OT but Bob I installed PressReady per your advice with the patch. Seems to work fine. Thanks for that.
What colour management settings do you use in IDCS? I seem to get best results with Postscript Colour management.
It is very close to the ‘printer proofs’ I receive.
Jeff
While it may withstand lawsuits better if they advised you on the outside of the box that use of the program requires a "service" running in the background, it DOES clearly state on the outside of the box that Activation is required which is one of the major beefs frequently discussed. In that respect at least, consumers can make an "informed" choice as to whether to buy it at that point. On the outside of the box it says:
"Internet or phone connection required for product activation"
That notwithstanding, proving in court that PS does "nasty things on the side" is another matter. A court may or may not see the verification of certain system data during each use as a "nasty thing". That may hinge entirely on how much data they are collecting that has anything to do with verifying a legitimate installation of the software, and what is being done with that information aside from verifying the legitimate installation of the software. My personal opinion, which I acknowledge could be wrong, is that just the general disdain or fear of how that information MIGHT be used would not sufficiently establish the proof needed for a judgement in the consumer’s favor. I would think they would have to show actual nefarious activity, or at least the strong appearance of nefarious activity. The service alone does not ipso facto indicate anything of that nature. But then civil juries can be fickle, and the burden of proof is considerably less than that required for a criminal conviction.
Either way, none of this much matters unless someone tests the legality of this practice in court, where "rights" are often decided, at least in the US. In the US, our "rights" consist of that which is granted by the Constitution, granted by law, and interpreted through case law, from a legal standpoint. Anything else assumed to be a right, may not withstand legal challenge.
VES
Sorry this rather OT
Hey, it’s a hell of a lot more pleasant than the actual topic.
I use the U.S. Prepress defaults. Works great.
Bob
Nice. You’re a health care professional, right?
Wrong.
Regardless of the license "agreement" (which we don’t see until after purchase)
Wrong again:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/main.html there is some implied suitability for purpose, and a good faith agreement.
Indeed there is. That’s why there’s a 30 day money back guarantee.
Customers have a right to expect a product to work substantially as advertised, without doing nasty things on the side.
Absolutely, but unless you actually experience a problem, you shouldn’t be complaining about it. This is computer software. Nobody guarantees that their software will run on any particular system. It’s impossible to test every combination of software and hardware there is.
I said it before, I’ll say it again…buy it, if you have a problem, return it. You keep avoiding this possibility for some reason.
Bob
The only right you have here is to not purchase the software or go
out and steal it.
Nice. You’re a health care professional, right?
Wrong.
What! With that warm, compassionate, empathetic demeanor?
Customers have a right to expect a product to work substantially as
advertised, without doing nasty things on the side.
Absolutely, but unless you actually experience a problem, you shouldn’t be complaining about it.
One vote doesn’t count, again, huh? If you check my record, you’ll see that I’ve complained about the insulting, accusatory, nature of [De]activation, not any particular implementation.
This is computer software. Nobody guarantees that their software will run on any particular system. It’s impossible to test every combination of software and hardware there is.
That’s one area where the Mac traditionally had (past tense) an advantage: a consistent, homogenous platform. Apparently you’re a programmer, so you know that the disparate nature of Wintel hardware is masked by consistent programming APIs, backed by a driver model that creates consistent conventions for addressing a variety of devices.
Of course, MS changes things constantly, and leaves great gobs of it under-documented. However, most changes are supersets of previous "standards." There is some promise that if you write using published APIs, and the device driver writers aren’t complete bozos (a tough issue), it’ll probably run.
Increasingly, as hardware matures (gets old), the device drivers will finally have gotten stable. This is one reason many users don’t jump on every new piece of hardware as soon as it ships. It’s also one reason people today are less likely to jump on every new software upgrade.
I said it before, I’ll say it again…buy it, if you have a problem, return it. You keep avoiding this possibility for some reason.
Check my record again. I am guilty, perhaps, of not repeating things as often as some, so it’s easy to miss. I truly was a stalwart Adobe supporter. I’ve not avoided or evaded the concept of giving people money in the hopes that any software protection scheme won’t affect me today, or in the future. I think it would be foolhardy to reward a company for treating potential customers as criminals.
Nope, just a lowly graphic designer/consultant.
Any your arguments still don’t work for me. Do you avoid stores with anti-shoplifting tags? Spurn neighbors that lock their doors?
Bob
"HOLY PROZAC, BATMAN!
Some of these folks have way too much time on their hands.
Any your arguments still don’t work for me…
Somehow, I didn’t expect that they would. Have a nice holiday weekend.
Have a nice holiday weekend.
You do the same.
Bob
I just read this entire thread, and I’ll just make one comment: I won’t buy PSCS as long as they keep Activation. Will I buy it if they remove it? Probably not. I don’t need it. Elements works fine for me. I suspect this is true for a lot of people. The people who really NEED it will put up with Activation. But it might be a deterring factor for some, like me, who MIGHT have bought it. In the long run it may not hurt their sales…but it may not help them much, either.
Bert
Iain asked:
Explain why it is in Adobe’s benefit. "Clearly" is not a explanation. The people who Activation will stop will not buy PS anyway. So, for about the four millionth time, who benefits?
The beneift is to Adobe if Activation causes more legit upgrades than it hinders through disgruntled ex-customers. There is *NO* indication that Activation has not been effective in reducing piracy.
Or is mildly irritating a few casual pirates a justifiable end in itself?
I think a lot of people here are making assumptions about Activation’s effectiveness that are just basically guesses, without any real-world information. You have no information to claim that Activation has not been effective in reducing piracy and forcing legitimate upgrades of Photoshop. You may have a hunch, but then again I bet Adobe has a hunch too, and I bet they’ve spent more time investigating their hunch than you have.
Activation was not cheap for Adobe to implment. My guess is they spent a lot of time researching the trade-offs to try and project whether or not they would make money or lose money from Activation.
On the flipside, the main argument I’ve heard from people against Activation has been privacy, which to me is only barely justifiable. The complaints here seem to be more of pet peeves rather than legit conserns for personal data or anonymity.
~Hanford
I think a lot of people here are making assumptions about Activation’s effectiveness that are just basically guesses, without any real-world information.
There is a lot of real-world information about [De]activation available. See any number of threads here, or search. It’s not conjecture.
On the flipside, the main argument I’ve heard from people against Activation has been privacy,
Privacy is good. So is the absolute assurance that [De]activation is perfect, and nothing can ever possibly go worng.
Privacy is good. So is the absolute assurance that [De]activation is perfect, and nothing can ever possibly go worng.
You mean like hitting the incorrect key combinations on your keyboard? <VBG>
Seriously though, perfection is a pipedream. Nobody will assure you that what you are buying is perfect.
Bob
Yeah, we all create and sell perfect stuff. Yet in the marketplace, we’re forced to buy imperfect stuff. It’s just not fair.
r_harvey wrote:
There is a lot of real-world information about [De]activation available. See any number of threads here, or search. It’s not conjecture.
I assume you’re refering to the cracks? Just because Activation is not 100% effective does not mean it is 0% effective. Some people here are assuming that it is, though. There is also a lot of assumptions going that "casual piracy" is just a few users, and again I think there’s nothing to base that assumption on.
Privacy is good
I agree, I just think the noise about Activation is driven by paranoia when it comes to CS’s activation. Adobe insists it does not collect personal information, which is the only assurance we’ve ever gotten from them, even in previous versions of Photoshop. My point is: If you don’t trust them with CS, why did you trust them on 7.0? on 6? on 5? Why do you trust any software you run?
~Hanford
I assume you’re refering to the cracks?
Of course not. Look at a news site or any technical journal. [De]activation is problematic for users and the poor delusional saps who think they’re going to put that shady part of their past on their résumé when they apply for their next jobs.
Just because Activation is not 100% effective does not mean it is 0% effective.
You’re not trying at all.
Why do you trust any software you run?
I don’t. Reasonable people reach a comfort level, but they are still prudent. Anything that reduces user confidence is bad for the software developer.
r_harvey wrote:
Of course not.
I’m not following what you’re refering to, then. I did a forum search for "[de]activation" and it only came up in this very thread.
You’re not trying at all.
I’m not following you here, either. People keep insisting that Activation is doing no good, and I don’t know where they’re getting that information from.
~Hanford
There are all sorts of articles all over the Internet about Activation issues. Search any news sites. Try a search engine. Ask a friend. Stop somebody on the street. The news is out there.
People keep insisting that Activation is doing no good, and I don’t know where they’re getting that information from.
Following your reasoning, therefore, it’s better to have it than not. Fine, odds are, it’ll work most of the time.
Macrovision will have sold activation to Adobe on the basis that it will improve the bottom line. That improvement will pay Macrovision’s fee. If it doesn’t perhaps Macrovision wont get a fee and Adobe will drop it.
Only time will tell.
Lots of things have been said about the rights and wrongs of activation. We had an almost 1000 post original thread. Now we have this one.
Anybody got anything to say that hasn’t been said ten times already? I doubt it.
Goodnight all
Jeff
Extra wrote:
They make no money with it…use photoshop to stick a pair of boobs on a picture of your best friend in a swimming pool and email it around type of thing…record multi-track music sessions in protools, mix it and spread one’s music around…that type of thing.
Doesn’t matter… Photoshop is a tool for artists, photographers, etc. just like brushes and cameras. You can’t rationalize that poor people who are interested in Photography should be able to steal a camera, so why can you rationalize that it’s OK for them to steal software. There is absolutely no difference between the two, save that cameras are tangible physical devices and software is not.
Brian
Your reasoning is flawed. When was the last time your lawn mower maker had a chance to download your family demographics? Because business thinks of people as "units", do you really think the demographic information is any less valuable?
Software is different.
Because business calls you a "unit" instead of recognizing your individual face, Business is still taking your personal information. For example, grocery store bar codes, lend whole new mean to the phrase: "You are what you eat".
It has gone so far that I actually think of privacy and anonymity as the same. I forget that both are basic requirements for a person to live within a democracy. (The former allows you to practise your religion; the latter to vote with the secret ballot, for example.
Software is much more invasive.
Software is much more invasive.
True. I suggest you throw your computer away.
Bob
I hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving.
So, say you go to a football game. And near the end of the game, a large number of sheriff and crowd control personnel come out to stop people from coming on the field after it’s over. Do you assume they’re they’re because they don’t trust *you*? Or because there’s no possible way for them to treat the crowd as individuals, and there are enough individuals in the group who *would* rush the field in their absence?
-Scott
So, say you go to a football game. And near the end of the game, a large number of sheriff and crowd control personnel come out to stop people from coming on the field after it’s over.
I’ve never been to a football game. I assume there is a contract printed on the ticket that limits liability, tells everybody to mind their manners, and offers remedies if the game were to be rained out.
Do you assume they’re they’re because they don’t trust *you*? Or because there’s no possible way for them to treat the crowd as individuals, and there are enough individuals in the group who *would* rush the field in their absence?
I suppose most people attend games to enjoy the event. A few rabble rousers will likely attend, and there are a few guards and police to handle them. After all, if 50,000 people decided to do something anti-social at the same time, they would quickly overwhelm a few cops. There’s a kind of trust–they don’t put up barbwire barricades and motes full of piranhas, and fans promise to not ruin the playing field.
I suppose the fans do occasionally get out of control–but the football teams still haven’t been forced to install barbwire barricades and motes full of piranhas. If they did, many of the loyal fans would probably stay home–but the rabble rousers would probably buy season tickets.
Fortunately, Activation isn’t anything like barbed-wire barricades or motes full of pirahnas. Whew! I’d have to agree with you if it was like that. Even I wouldn’t buy PS CS then. I would buy an alternative (like I already have, PSP8) and then it wouldn’t be a problem either. There are choices.
VES
Fortunately, Activation isn’t anything like barbed-wire barricades or motes full of pirahnas.
Don’t blame me, it wasn’t my scenario to begin with. Actually, it’s more like a very small football park, where there’s only room in the bleachers for one fan, and there’s a guy with a sharp stick standing out front.
And, come to think of it, the rabble rousers at the end of the original scenario wouldn’t buy season tickets–they’d steal ’em… or jump over the fence.
Wow, after reading all the convincing arguments in this thread Ive come to the conclusion that Adobe should just do away with all protection schemes. Just get rid of the activation and the need for a serial number or even any kind of installation disk. In fact, if they really have their customers interests in mind, theyll make Photoshop freely downloadable so that anyone can download and install it on any system they are at any place in the world so that they will always have instant access to the software they paid for without any hassle.
After all, the people who are honest are going to buy it and the people who arent are going to steal it so why even bother with any of it? Having to have an installation disk or a serial number is just another sign that they dont trust their customers right there, especially with how they deactivated serial numbers with the patch that was released for Photoshop 7. I mean, legitimate users who had lost their serial numbers and were simply trying to reinstall their software when they went out on the net looking for a serial number were just as affected as the people who were downloading and installing pirated stuff.
Just think how serious this would be if Photoshop were a commercial application marketed towards business and individuals using it as a tool for profit rather than as a program for personal home private use. I mean, the thoughts on this are mind boggling. Whats next? Annual licensing fees? How dare they! This kind of thing on the part of Adobe for commercial software could cause a chain reaction. I mean, then what if the high end 3D market got wind of all this? Next thing you know it will be the same story with 3DS Max and Maya… In desktop design, Quark and Macromedia might even try to pull a stunt like this.
I work in a large company that has many people who have been there since the days of paste-up. They use Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXpress and a host of other commercial products on a daily basis and have no idea what all this software costs. Heck, tell them that they are using a few thousand dollars worth of fonts and they look at you like you have two heads
Many of us moonlight on our own for extra cash and from the buzz I typically hear around work when new versions of software come out, I dont think most of my coworkers are actually paying for any of it. These are people commercially using the software who either can afford to buy it or who shouldnt be using it if they cant and Im pretty sure that THESE are the kind of people that Adobe is targeting
And if they can keep a few Joe Schmos from reducing their product brand value by using a commercial grade application as a toy that they wouldnt consider worth the asking price to begin with, Im sure they wont loose any sleep over it.
I guess what Im trying to say is that everyone has a right to their concerns but if you dont like it, tough luck. Assuming you are a current user of some earlier version of the software, you can continue to hold out against the man and use your version until you are unable to find hardware that will run an OS that can support it
By that point, youll probably have a hard time competing with others in the industry who are using more advanced tools but we all have to live with the repercussions for the decisions we make. Adobe may loose a few legitimate home users of their software as a result of their decision.. Im sure they will probably loose a lot of pirating home and commercial moonlighting users as well (since a LOT of people out there are either not smart enough to seek out a hacked patch or are too afraid to use it believe it or not, a lot of people who use computers arent that knowledgeable about how software works). They may also loose a few legitimate business customers as well but I imagine the losses will be rather small and may be offset by those who actually purchase more licenses as they are given more pressure to comply with rules they should already be following. Last and probably least, I as a small time commercial user (moonlighting) have to live with the fact that Im providing less personal information to Adobe when I activate than I do when I register my software with them
well and that in allowing activation, I am giving in to the pressures of the man which may one day result in the end of democratic civilization as we all know it
Somehow, that thought just doesnt keep me up at night. Call me a fool. Call me short sighted if you like. In a few years, Ill call you out of business when you arent able to compete in a marketplace that has evolved. Or, if you are a personal user, maybe Ill call you an Elements customer.
and offers remedies if the game were to be rained out.
HA! THAT’S funny!
from the buzz I typically hear around work when new versions of software come out, I dont think most of my coworkers are actually paying for any of it. These are people commercially using the software who either can afford to buy it or who shouldnt be using it if they cant and Im pretty sure that THESE are the kind of people that Adobe is targeting
funny how if that’s the case they can just copy the non-activation-enabled corporate disk and take it home. sure makes you wonder. (Nice use of the elipse there by the way! <g>)
Executive summary:
If they have their customers interests in mind, theyll make Photoshop freely downloadable
people who are honest are going to buy it and the people who arent are going to steal it
Whats next? Annual licensing fees? …could cause a chain reaction. 3DS Max and Maya… Quark and Macromedia might even try to pull a stunt like this.
I work in a large company… [coworkers] use Photoshop, Illustrator, QuarkXpress and a host of other… have no idea what software costs. Many moonlight… when new versions come out, I dont think most pay for it… commercially using the software who either can afford to buy it or who shouldnt be using it if they cant and Im pretty sure that THESE are the kind of people that Adobe is targeting
And if they can keep a few Joe Schmos from reducing their product brand value by using a commercial grade application as a toy that they wouldnt consider worth the asking price… Im sure they wont loose [sic] any sleep over it.
everyone has a right to their concerns but if you dont like it, tough luck… use your version until you are unable to find hardware that will run an OS that can support it
By that point, youll probably have a hard time competing with others… using more advanced tools… Adobe may loose
[sic] a few legitimate home users… they will probably loose [sic] a
lot of pirating home and commercial moonlighting users… [and] a few legitimate business customers… I imagine the losses will be rather small and may be offset by those who actually purchase more licenses as they are given more pressure to comply… Last and probably least, I… have to live with the fact that Im providing less personal information to Adobe when I activate than I do when I register my software with them
well and that in allowing activation, I am giving in to the pressures of the man …In a few years, Ill call you out of business when you arent able to compete in a marketplace that has evolved. Or, if you are a personal user, maybe Ill call you an Elements customer.
So, you’re saying that you should agree with whatever terms your software supplier demands of you, because they have you by the short hairs. And if you don’t use the latest version of Photoshop, you’ll soon be out of business.
R_harvey wrote:
And if you don’t use the latest version of Photoshop, you’ll soon be out of business.
What? How?
Quote:So, you’re saying that you should agree with whatever terms your software supplier demands of you, because they have you by the short hairs. And if you don’t use the latest version of Photoshop, you’ll soon be out of business
No, I think he’s saying, people have a right to complain, but in the end, the private home user is not the target customer and they probably aren’t going to listen very much. I think he would also agree that the majority of pirates are private home users, not corporations and companies, and I would tend to agree.
I thnk he’s also saying, if you don’t like their agreement, you don’t have to do business with them, find a competitve product. No one’s forcing anyone to do anything here, UNLESS you want to use their software. That being your choice, to use it or not to use it.
Adobe is a corporation. The are in the business of making profit, and attempting to prevent the loss of that profit. Arguably, not many methods are going to be effective, if any, but it’s their choice to choose which protection they want. It’s their investment. And just because someone has bought previous versions, doesn’t mean Adobe owes them anything. Adobe owes them what they bought and paid for, and arguably the support to make that product work right. The fact that they offer upgrade plans means that they do offer something for customer loyalty and previous users who allegedly "help them become what they are today", but how far they take they is again up to them.
VES
the private home user is not the target customer and they probably aren’t going to listen very much
I vehemently disagree. I’m a private home user. I paid for my package(s) and I’d wager there are millions of us! Whether or not we moonlight in designing or manipulate family photos and "home user not the target audience" is – to put it bluntly – B.S.. The PAYING CUSTOMER is the target audience.
r_harvey wrote:
And if you don’t use the latest version of Photoshop, you’ll soon be out of business.
That really depends on what business you are in. A service bureau or prepress house? Perhaps. A designer or digital photographer (the primary target audiences for Photoshop)? No way…
I can do everything I need to do in Photoshop 5 as well as CS; there are CS tools that make it easier, but there’s very little in CS (extended support for 16-bit images being one example) that cannot be done in previous versions if you know what you’re doing.
Adobe isn’t really forcing anyone to upgrade here…
Brian
"unny how if that’s the case they can just copy the non-activation-enabled corporate disk and take it home. sure makes you wonder. (Nice use of the elipse there by the way! <g>)"
I can readily say that my coworkers are not walking off with corporate copies of the disks because they are all kept under strict lock and key. They may have been a little more loosely available back in the day but when we got caught using more copies than we had licenses for, that changed completely.
We aslo have strict measures in place for to prevent inappropriate use of recordable media and internet access so that lisenced content such as images and type sets can’t go walking either.
Mr. Milbut,
You vehement disagreement is noted. I think your wrong, but I’ll leave the vehemence out of it. I would imagine sales figures would pretty much point out what I’m saying, which I would post if I had access to them.
If you don’t think businesses "target" segments of the population, it’s time to realize it. Just being a paying customer doesn’t make you the guy they were looking to make the sale too. Sure, they’ll take you money. But their eyes are on the big guns.
It’s dramatic to say that is it bluntly BS, but drama doesn’t make it so.
VES
"So, you’re saying that you should agree with whatever terms your software supplier demands of you, because they have you by the short hairs."
No, Vernon did a good job of responding for me but I would like to add to his comments a bit:
Adobe isn’t the evil empire stepping in here. They are the makers of one of the most pirated pieces of software attempting to do something that other major players in their industry have already done to stop it. This kind of thing isn’t all that crazy either. If you look around at a lot of shareware out there, it is not that uncommon to find programs that phone home to ensure the software you are using is legit and if it isn’t, it won’t run, even if you have a serial number. It isn’t all that common in high end 3D software for them to use a product activation and/or dongle system either or to license the software annual rather than for a one time fee. I’m saying that for all the harping that is going on here, what Adobe is doing isn’t that severe. There is a lot further they could (and some day might) go than they have. While the argument can be made that this is the first step in a long road. I would counter argue that the first step came when you had to use a serial number.They aren’t trying to steal your sole. They are only trying to protect their own investment and you may not like that adobe doesn’t trust their customers but ultimately, someone had to buy that pirated version that everyone is using. A customer somewhere either didn’t keep good enough watch of their instillation media and serial number or gave it away. In most cases, customers ARE the weakest link in piracy even if it isn’t always intentionally.
Adobe doesn’t have me by the short hairs. They don’t own me. There is nothing that says I have to use their software. There is also nothing that says I can’t (in a worst case scenario) go back to school and enter a new industry if the restrictions in this one become not to my liking. There were a lot of people who left or retired from my industry when computers were phased in less than a couple of decades ago. As unimaginable as it may seem to some today, a similar change could be around the corner at almost any point for people who aren’t willing to change their way of thinking today either and leaving a business that you no longer feel comfortable working in (for whatever reason) isn’t necessarily something I would consider a bad thing.
"And if you don’t use the latest version of Photoshop, you’ll soon be out of business."
No that isn’t what I’m saying at all. Where I work we upgraded from version 3 of Photoshop to version 5.5 which is what we are still using today. Those of us who have to use the software are having a very difficult time following the requests of our customers because they see what our competition is doing and expect the same. The problem is that because we lack some of the features of newer versions it is more difficult and more time consuming and less consistent. At this point we can still get along but it is costing my company money because our designs take longer to produce through manual means even with the use of actions (where applicable) and are less flexible to change resulting in considerably more work on our part. One of two things is going to happen. We are either going to fall too far behind the industry to be competitive and a software upgrade will be needed or productivity gains expected by upper management to cut costs in the future will require hardware upgrades which will require new software on OS X (I use a mac at work)… Either way, if we don’t upgrade, we won’t be able to do what the other guys are doing in the same amount of time or with the same flexibility to design change in the and sooner or later our customers will catch on.
I use version 7 when I’m on my time (soon to be version 8) so I have first hand experience each and every day with how much more productively I use my time with the enhancements that have been implemented in just the last two releases.The latest version of Photoshop may not be needed but to remain competitive, a version that is no more than two or three behind probably is.
Ultimately, a photo in digital form is not much more than a grid of colored squares so I guess it could be argued that given the time and the patience, working on it as an incredibly detailed mosaic, just changing color a square at a time, there isn’t all that much you can’t do with CS that you couldn’t have done "by hand" with one of the first versions but I’d like to see anyone try to make a living doing their work that way. It is an extreme example to be sure and saying that someone may go out of business in a few years may be a bit of an exaggeration as well but as long as Adobe keeps coming out with newer versions that have advances in them and as long as your competition continues to buy them, you don’t really have the luxury of lagging too terribly far behind.
VES,
Corporate clients and businesses generally take the corporate licenses which do not require activation, (from what I have read). So even though I have no doubt Adobe is brainstorming and trying to implement ways to crack down on corporate licenses being violated, i think the activation part is aimed at single license buyers. . . .generally known as the home users. If home users were an insignificant factor in adobe’s marketing scheme then why would they have bothered with activation at all? Wouldn’t they have just written us off and concentrated their efforts on the big guns?
Cheers,
Rose
So………… I guess nobody can lend me their lawnmower?
Jerry Jensen ("How to Loose a Customer") isn’t the only one who has had a lot of trouble with Adobe’s Customer Service. I also had to fax a copy of my proof-of-purchase receipt THREE TIMES to get my free upgrade to CS from 7.0. In addition to the 3 faxes (1. "We moved and lost it", 2. "It must be somewhere in the queue and we can’t get to it", 3. CS showed up a couple of days later). This was in addition to a total of about 3 1/2 hours on hold, being transferred to wrong departments, and dealing with phone menus that were incorrectly configured ("Press 1 for Photoshop" actually went to Acrobat, with no option for returning).
This is typical of every experience I’ve had with Adobe’s Customer Service for the last 10 years, ever since Photoshop 3 for Windows came out. After this long, it would certainly appear that Adobe’s abysmal customer service is deliberate. Pretty sad, isn’t it?
Rose,
Well, first of all, I wouldn’t necessarily agree the the single license editions are targeted at home users. I would venture to say they are targeted more at small businesses. If you look at the box that PS comes in it says on right on it:
"The PROFESSIONAL standard of desktop digital imaging"
That doesn’t sound like home user to me. Know when we look at PS Elements 2 we see:
"Powerful yet easy-to-use image editing software for print, e-mail, and the Web"
That sounds like home user to me.
Now the fact that PS is one of the most pirated pieces of software out there by HOME USERS, is why they put protection schemes in the single license editions, not because they are targeting home users. They protecting themselves, or at least attempting to do so.
You can go to Adobe’s web site and read the overviews and tell who the software is aimed at. And the price points alone are also very suggestive.
And I didn’t use the term "insignificant factor", you did. I said the product was targeted for corporations. Home users are probably a tertiary market after small business users of single license editions. But clearly they put out Elements for the purposes of the home user.
And also, if you talk to some folks, the inclusion of the Activation system suggests to them that Adobe has "written them off".
VES
#112:
Adobe is a corporation. The are in the business of making profit, and attempting to prevent the loss of that profit. Arguably, not many methods are going to be effective, if any, but it’s their choice to choose which protection they want. It’s their investment.
Old spin. Plot customer trends in spreadsheets, and rationalize about which are expendable; pick up some large sites, lose some small ones. It’s all about short-term money–a good quarter, at the expense of long-term customer loyalty and diluting the brand name.
If I were an employee–just one person–I’d wonder when they’ll start treating me like a customer.
And just because someone has bought previous versions, doesn’t mean Adobe owes them anything. Adobe owes them what they bought and paid for, and arguably the support to make that product work right. The fact that they offer upgrade plans means that they do offer something for customer loyalty and previous users who allegedly "help them become what they are today", but how far they take they is again up to them.
They offer upgrade discounts to generate revenue, because it’s an industry standard, and to keep customers loyal. Of course, if they began a hardline policy about nobody getting a discount for loyalty, there’s nothing to encourage brand name loyalty.
#116:
If you don’t think businesses "target" segments of the population, it’s time to realize it. Just being a paying customer doesn’t make you the guy they were looking to make the sale too. Sure, they’ll take you money. But their eyes are on the big guns.
So what if small customers get caught in the crossfire. They’ll learn other software in school, take that preference to their first job in a small company, and as that company grows, so does their use of unencumbered software.
Even though MS gives away piles of software to schools, most technical users will graduate with a distrust of that company… and take that distrust with them throughout their career. Everything that minimizes loyalty, eventually moves up the food chain.
#120
Jerry Jensen ("How to Loose a Customer") isn’t the only one who has had a lot of trouble with Adobe’s Customer Service.
See #116. You’re not important.
I said the product was targeted for corporations.
Corporations are NOT necessarily who Adobe Photoshop is targeted for, but PROFESSIONALS! As a designer that works from home, I don’t fall into your category of CORPORATION, and yet you would summarily dismiss all of the PROFESSIONAL designers that do not work for a CORPORATION… your argument is all wet. It is professional designers that make sure they have the latest in software, it is corporations with bottom lines that are still using PS5.5.
Mr. Harvey,
It’s not spin, old or new. It’s the way it is. Adobe = business, business = make money. It’s that simple.
With regards to the upgrade plan, didn’t you just repeat what I said in different words? That’s what it looks like to me.
Now as far as business first, consumer second, that is not unusual for many businesses.
A couple of examples from my personal experience.
Canon – I sent in my camera for repair, and they wanted to know if it was a consumer repair or a professional repair. Professional repairs come first. They have pro reps for that reason, and that is exactly what the pro rep told me.
UPS – They deliver to businesses first, residences second. Fedex on the other hand has a dedicated residential delivery service. I use Fedex when at all possible for that reason.
Now, as a consumer who spends money on a lot of things, I don’t necessarily "LIKE" taking a back seat to businesses, I just recognize it as a fact of life and get over it.
PS is targeted at business, professionals and the like. That doesn’t stop consumers from being able to buy it, but purchasability doesnt’ define who it’s targeted at.
PS Elements is targeted at home users. Easy to use, more affordable, lacking in the features that many businesses NEED in their software (CMYK, proofing, etc.)
In my opinion, whether we like that or not, that’s the way it is.
Now, as time goes on, if the market segments change, perhaps Adobe will have to rethink their plans. As it is, we are the low men on the totem pole. It may not be what we want, but it’s the way it is.
VES
VES,
I apologize for not choosing my words very well. I guess I should have stuck to single license sale, which is what I meant. I think small businesses are run by home users, and buy photoshop because that is what their designers ask for.
I realize that being in computers, my circle of friends tend to have similar interests and therefore also tend to play around with graphical and web design, so my view might be a little biased. But, with that said, many of my friends and myself included have purchased Photoshop CS, counting off the top of my head I can think of 6 of us who have already upgraded. (It hasn’t been out that long). None of us are directly associated with graphical design business, although a few of my friends do put out some work on the side.
From my point of view, if 6 nobody’s have already upgraded just "because", then there must be tens of thousands of others who are doing the same if not more. By the way we all paid for our upgrades. I would think that Adobe, like all big corporations have different add campaigns targeted at their different audience groups, but I find it hard to believe that corporations are the "main" target group for photoshop. I would think that they are just another target group.
Photoshop is indeed the Professional standard, but hobbyists often produce professional quality work, and it is never seen by anyone other than their friends and family and they want the best for their hobby. . .not elements.
Now I didn’t mean to offend you, as a matter of fact I agree with most of your other posts. And for curiosity sake I would be interested to see how photoshop sales break down, because I definitely cannot say with ANY kind of authority that I am right. I am just adding my comments and feelings about it from my experiences.
Cheers,
Rose
viol8ion,
I didn’t summarily dismiss anyone, so don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t even state that Adobe summarily dismisses anyone. I stated my opinion as to Adobe’s business practices, I didn’t make them for them. If you don’t agree with my position, fine, but it’s not wet, whatever that means. What I eluded to was Adobe, like most other businesses, set priorities. In my opinion, the home user is the lowest priority. Above that is probably small business professionals, like yourself, and then at the top, companies and corporations.
I would agree that professionals is a more appropriate term though, and I can understand why I didn’t state that clearly, though I don’t understand why you are upset at me for expressing my opinion. (i.e. the explanation points) Disagree with me fine, but it’s just a discussion man, lighten up. (or not, your choice)
Professionals range from home professionals to company and corporate professionals. I believe their largest money stake is in the company / corporate professional, not the home professional. That is what I meant to say, though poorly stated, when I said they targeted corporations. Heck I even quoted the phrase on the PS box to another forum user.
Have a nice day,
VES
why you are upset at me for expressing my opinion. (i.e. the explanation points)
Not upset.. just making a point… even you stated in your post that Adobe PS ce is "The PROFESSIONAL standard of desktop digital imaging".. not the corporate standard. And I still would consider the profesional, whether home-based or working for a small advertizing agency the major customers, as large corporations are less likely to upgrade with every new release, and they are also MORE likely to have pirated copies as the users burn a copy or two on disk… it is my observation that most pirated copies began life as a copy from some larger corporate license holder.
I work for a corporation, and I was using 5.5 here until this summer when they finally bought 7.0. I won’t hold my breath for ce, as I doubt that I could justify the need for the upgrade to my boss. At home I have been using 6.0 since shortly after it was released, as it had features that I wanted as a professional working out of my home on side projects that just barely make me enough money to justify upgrades on every other version.
Anyway.. don’t take offense at my responses… it is nothing to get upset over, I just think that maybe you used the worng words by substituting Corporation for Professional, Photoshop is clearly a professional app. I never recommend it to home users that want an image editing app, I always point them to Elements or LE depending on their expertise (or lack thereof)..
anyway, peace!
Rose,
I was not offended, I’m just careful to explain things when I believe someone may have extrapolated my words beyond what I said. For instance, viol8ion stated that "you would summarily dismiss
all of the PROFESSIONAL designers that do not work for a CORPORATION" as if I was personally involved in Adobe’s business practices. This is something he took way out of context of what I said. I was expressing my opinion of what I thought Adobe does, not me, and I NEVER said anything about summarily dismissing anyone.
From my personal experience, I know no one else who has bought PS CS, and only a handful of other folks who even own a previous version of PS. I could use my experience to suggest hardly anyone else must be buying PS CS, but I know beyond my personal experience that that is not the case.
However, when I say professional, I think of the common usage of the word that suggests someone who does something for a living, makes their keep at what they do, not simply someone who produces quality work. Obviously I could be wrong, but I think that is also the context of their little diddy. Yes, I know about people who aren’t making money of their work who want the best, that’s why I bought it. I’m a home user too, I don’t make money off my use of PS. I’m not saying this from a biased point of view of a professional or corporate player. Very few people see my work. But that doesn’t make a difference as to my view of what Adobe is in business for. It just means that I accept that I’m likely third fiddle behind the business of large business users (companies or corporations), small business users (or home professionals).
But throughout the business world, you will find your "nobody" ( another of your words, not mine 🙂 ) consumers take second fiddle to company clients, or professionals. It’s not what I like, it’s not what I want to see, it just IS what I see.
As they say, "we’re all good" Rose, no beef here. 🙂
VES
viol8ion,
Thanks for your clarification. And I gave you credit for pointing out that I worded my statement poorly.
Thanks,
VES
I AGREE. Regardless of the stupid license agreements I want to own the software I purchase and run it on my computers now or in five years with or without internet access. I can’t even begin to express how upset I am that Adobe has sank to this sad level of requiring activation. I won’t move beyond version 7 because of it….I have not needed any of the new features since version 5 anyway.
I won’t move beyond version 7 because of it….I have not needed any of the new features since version 5 anyway.
Actually I use many features in 7 that are not available in 5.5, and don’t know how I made it for so long without them.
My g/f just bought CE for her print gallery, and I was playing with it this weekend… it has some really cool features. And it seems (to me) faster than PS7 was… of course they have a Mac dual G4 proc and are running Panther, so it beats the pants off of any of my systems.
Sure they can. But while you are using it, they can’t.
Bob
#112:
No, I think he’s saying, people have a right to complain, but in the end, the private home user is not the target customer and they probably aren’t going to listen very much. I think he would also agree that the majority of pirates are private home users, not corporations and companies, and I would tend to agree.
I was paraphrasing the bombastic bluster of #108; it was unreadable as presented.
#116:
It’s dramatic to say that is it bluntly BS, but drama doesn’t make it so.
Nor does naysaying disprove its validity.
#121:
Well, first of all, I wouldn’t necessarily agree the the single license editions are targeted at home users…
Okay, we get it. People at home only need Photoshop Elements, they don’t deserve anything more.
So you (presuming you are speaking for Adobe–and you are being quite presumptuous), are writing off a market segment? All that policy does is show spite to the home user, and mock the thief; hardly what you’d expect from a company that, as you say, is not interested in the little guy.
#124:
It’s not spin, old or new. It’s the way it is. Adobe = business, business = make money. It’s that simple.
Okay, we get it, already.
Bellicose, redundant rhetoric, is unsettling. I’m truly not wanted here.
I guess it must have been since you obviously didnt understand it. Funny how the person you are responding to it obviously understood just fine
The next time I need you to put words in my mouth for me Ill let you know.
In any event, Ive gone ahead and sent payment for your services. Spend it in good health! 🙂
Dear r_harvey,
You really have a proclivity for exaggeration.
#116
Hence the FACT that we are expressing OPINIONS. If we were relaying facts, we couldn’t disagree now could we?
#121:
Here is a prime example of how you try to blow my words out context. Embellishment does nothing to help you opinion. I spoke not about what people deserve, nor did I say anything about writing anyone off. Instead of exercising creative license with my words, why don’t you just stick to what I say?
#124:
Why do you think you are not wanted here, because I never said anything like that? Oh wait, you probably construed that out of my disagreement with your opinion. There’s no relationship there, but you probably found some link anyway.
But again, it’s not just rhetoric, bellicose or otherwise. I’m glad you finally get it.
If you want discontinue the exaggeration, perhaps continued debate may be worthwhile.
VES
You don’t seem to realize that it is not a fair, ethical or good deal to give up your freedom of speech for the right to remain silent.
Although, both painless or soft, Adobe’s de-activation policy is instited upon and against users who are or are not copying.
The Copyright Law was meant to "prevent copying". That is all it should legally be used for.
It has now been extended far beyond this purpose when it invades, or prevents in the public domain. I repeat, the law was not meant for monopolistic corporations to reach out and de-activate someone without due process. It is an arbitrary power they have assumed in the name of copyright.
You have no recourse before this happens. (See the number of people deactivated before they got up and running with WinXP on the microsoft site.)
You have a right to plead innocent or guilty in any other situation. So this "copy" law has now taken your right to speak out.
This copy law is being misused. It prevents you from exercising your right to speak up on your own behalf.
If Americans are prevented from using these basic rights, then in reality, they don’t have them.
Anyone else thing we should re-title this topic "A brief History of Whine" ????
Terrat,
You don’t seem to realize when constitutional issues arise in the US. There are NO constitutional issues involved here. IF you think there are, you need to contact a lawyer and see if a court will entertain the constitutionality of Adobe’s business practices. Somehow, I think they won’t, because of the reasons mentioned ad naseum before.
Who is denying your free speech? Nobody on here is censoring you. De-activation is NOT an issue of the First Amendment. It is a civil agreement in a license. If you feel that civil agreement is too far reaching, or in your words not "fair", then you should consult an attorney and sue Adobe. Here is the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, if you want to argue the constitutionality of the Copyright Laws themselves, you may find someone to entertain your ideas. But nowhere in there does it mention anything about corporations or licensing agreements. "Congress" is the government. The government can’t restrict these things (though it does in certain circumstances), but corporations can as long they do not base these restrictions on sex, race or religion.
Something you need to understand though about the terms you are using. Due process, free speech, they apply to how and when the GOVERNMENT, not corporations, can or can’t limit your actions. Adobe is not responsible for your due process, nor your free speech. Those are constitutional issues, not corporate or civil issues.
As far as recourse, yes you do have recourse. You have the same recourse that any person has, the civil suit. Lawsuits are the check and balance system between individuals, when wrongful acts are incurred that do not rise to criminal acts.
I think you may need a better understanding of the civil process, as well as constitutional issues as they work in the US. Just because Adobe may act under the provisions of the Copyright laws, does not make them a government entity, nor an agent of the government.
With respect to due process, here is the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This again refers to your protections from the GOVERNMENT. That is the nature of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They enumerate the powers, and limitation of the Government vs. the People, not the People vs. the People. That is where civil law comes in.
As a footnote, here is a link to one already decided challenge to the aforementioned Copyright Laws:
<
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms =copyright&url=/supct/html/01-618.ZO.html>
Here was the SC’s summary:
"In accord with the District Court and the Court of Appeals, we reject petitioners challenges to the CTEA. In that 1998 legislation, as in all previous copyright term extensions, Congress placed existing and future copyrights in parity. In prescribing that alignment, we hold, Congress acted within its authority and did not transgress constitutional limitations."
That specifically refers to the Copyright Term Extension Act, which was deemed constitutional.
VES
Len,
Absolutely. And feel free to use the Caps Lock.
Bob
If Americans are prevented from using these basic rights, then in reality, they don’t have them.
Oh, please. Grow up and get a life already.
Don’t buy the stinkin software. Nobody cares.
Bob
Anyone else think we should re-title this topic "A brief History of Whine"????
Yes. Except for the word "brief."
This is getting to deep for me. I just want to stay away from Kodak.
I just want to stay away from Kodak.
….And Disney.
Okay, a yes from me as well. But I’m sure I upset the "brief" balance on this one… 🙂
VES
