Adobe - The writing on the wall comes into view

In article , David E. Ross
wrote:

the difference is that a cloud service will have multiple redundant
copies in their data centers with multiple redundant data centers.

while not impossible (nothing is 100%), the chances that all copies in
all data centers are destroyed and the service itself disappears
without a trace is much less than the chance of your single hard drive
failing, or destroyed to fire or flood, or stolen.

Do you not remember what happened to Megaupload?

do you not know why it was shut down? it was intended for hosting and
distributing pirated content, not long term storage.

amazon, google, microsoft, apple, dropbox, adobe and other cloud
services aren't going to suddenly disappear without a trace.

some services have shut down, but they've announced it *before* it
happened and gave users ample time to move their data elsewhere.

On 2018-08-31 09:43, Mayayana wrote:

Interesting development for anyone who got
suckered into renting Adobe software. The next
update, according to a blog post, will apparently
only run on Win10 greater than v. 1607:

Yeah, everyone's slowly dropping older versions - e.g Intel's stopped
updating their graphics drivers for Win7 a year ago, even tho market
share is still there. And with Win10 changing the name of the game every
6 months, eventually you have to deprecate support for the older
versions. Altho with the monthly rent model, you can expect companies
like Adobe to be raking in cash like never before; it is a certainty
that they can afford to maintain several versions of their products.

In other words, you can keep renting. You just
won't get any of the new features you're paying for.

Aren't Adobe sneakier than most and put icons to cloud-executing
functions in their software? Meaning once they stop supporting your
version, you can click all you want on that "super duper cloud-powered
picture enhancer" icon in the toolbar, nothing will happen?

And if you quit then don't forget to first back
up all your work locally from that famous "free"
cloud storage, or you'll lose it.

Never really understood that. If I want cloud storage I will want it for
all files, e.g. not only for Adobe-edited pictures, so why the hell
would I want to use Creative Cloud Storage?

Amazing how the 3 people who answered you so far are all defending the
rent model...

Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Memberavid-Suzuki-Fdn/EFF/Red+Cross/SPCA/Planetary-Society
oO-( )-Oo BIT: The increment by which programmers slowly go mad.

"Neil" wrote

| It won't surprise them that they no longer get
| what they're paying for? Getting regular updates
| is pretty much the only reason for rental software.
|
| They are *not* paying for the _new features_ of software versions
| incompatible with their computers.
|

They will have to continue to pay the rental fee
if they want to keep using it. But they won't get
the new features. Yes. You don't get it?

If you're happy with your Adobe deal then don't
worry about it. It's not for me to say you shouldn't
rent from them. It was just a cautionary tale for
people who might not have thought through the
implications of the rental trend.

In article , B00ze
wrote:

And if you quit then don't forget to first back
up all your work locally from that famous "free"
cloud storage, or you'll lose it.

Never really understood that.

that much is clear, nor does the person to whom you're responding.

users's files are *local*, but can optionally sync to the cloud.

in fact, you can disconnect from the internet and continue to edit
photos, create brochures, etc. it does need to ping adobe every 30-90
days to verify payment, but that's it.

nothing is lost if you stop paying, other than not being able to use
the apps you are no longer paying for. however, some apps will still
work without payment, but with some features disabled.

numerous non-adobe apps can read adobe's files, so there is no lock-in,
or just export them to another format.

If I want cloud storage I will want it for
all files, e.g. not only for Adobe-edited pictures, so why the hell
would I want to use Creative Cloud Storage?

because creative cloud apps running on multiple devices and platforms
and with multiple users can work seamlessly with adobe's cloud.

nothing prevents you from using other cloud services, but you may lose
some functionality if you do. also, nothing prevents you from using
more than one cloud service either, or none at all.

Amazing how the 3 people who answered you so far are all defending the
rent model...

actually, they aren't. they're clearing up a lot of misinformation.

"David E. Ross" wrote

| Do you not remember what happened to Megaupload?
|

That's a good point. And not only because of
the implications of losing your data. Storing files
on their server, especially without paying for it,
allows them to claim co-ownership. There have been
a number of cases already that have dealt with
that tricky issue. Here's a case from 12 years ago:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060509...3-6050295.html

A subpoena demands gmail from an account, including
all deleted gmail. They didn't subpoena the person.
They subpoenaed Google.
A similar case involved the US gov't claiming they
should have access to EU email on MS servers in
Ireland.

The cloud trend amplifies that issue. Neither tech
companies nor governments have an interest in
you owning your data. If your data is always editied
by their product and stored on their server it can
be claimed that your files are actually something
like an entertainment service provded by them.
That's essentially what Google claims now with
gmail. Megaupload was a similar case. The files were
treated as the property of MU and seized, despite
much of it being the legal property of customers.

"B00ze" wrote

| Aren't Adobe sneakier than most and put icons to cloud-executing
| functions in their software? Meaning once they stop supporting your
| version, you can click all you want on that "super duper cloud-powered
| picture enhancer" icon in the toolbar, nothing will happen?
|

I don't understand. As far as I know the software
is all running locally in the first place. It just pretends
to be cloudy in order to justify rent. So it should still
work. But the only rational excuse they had for rental
in the first place was that people would always have
the latest at the same price. Now, without having
a recent version of Win10, you still pay the same
price but don't get the latest. It seems that a price
cut in the rental fee would be the least they can do.
But I guess they don't think they need to. They've
got PS addicts over a barrel.

| Amazing how the 3 people who answered you so far are all defending the
| rent model...
|

And defending it forcefully. Neil pretty much says that
anyone who doesn't go out now to buy Win10 and rent
PS CC is a non-pro loser. They're not just saying they
personally find it more economical.

Come to think of it, no one did say they find it more
economical. And it's unlikely they would. Adobe themselves
said the idea in the first place was to figure out a way
to charge people who skip versions. Most customers
were buying every other version -- skipping every second
version. Adobe was under pressure to keep coming out
with new, jazzy features that people would buy. But they
didn't have any big improvements to sell. Graphic editing
is a mature product. They already have critical things like
layers. Most of the "new features" tend to be dummy
functions that are just presets of several editing techniques.

So Adobe increased profits by setting a rent that
was slightly cheaper than buying every version but
notably more expensive than buying less frequently.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Megaupload was a similar case. The files were
treated as the property of MU and seized, despite
much of it being the legal property of customers.

very little on megaupload was the legal property of its customers.

the reason for its existence was to host and distribute pirated
content, which is why it was shut down.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Amazing how the 3 people who answered you so far are all defending the
| rent model...

And defending it forcefully.

no.

Neil pretty much says that
anyone who doesn't go out now to buy Win10 and rent
PS CC is a non-pro loser. They're not just saying they
personally find it more economical.

he didn't call anyone a loser, nor is there anything to buy. the vast
majority of adobe cc customers are already running win10, either via a
free upgrade from win7/8 or the computer they're using shipped with
win10.

the whining is mostly from people who weren't planning on using the
products anyway.

Come to think of it, no one did say they find it more
economical.

eric did.

And it's unlikely they would. Adobe themselves
said the idea in the first place was to figure out a way
to charge people who skip versions.

adobe did not say that.

what they said was they wanted a more consistent cash flow rather than
large bursts every 18-24 months and very little in between.

they also said that they wanted to release features when they're done
rather than hold them until the next major release, as much as 2 years
later.

adobe also doesn't care if people skip versions. why would they? in
fact, they even offer month to month plans, so someone could buy one
month, skip the months they don't use it and then pay for another month
at some future point.

Most customers
were buying every other version -- skipping every second
version.

some might have, but not most, certainly not pros.

Adobe was under pressure to keep coming out
with new, jazzy features that people would buy. But they
didn't have any big improvements to sell. Graphic editing
is a mature product. They already have critical things like
layers. Most of the "new features" tend to be dummy
functions that are just presets of several editing techniques.

you've clearly never used what you're bashing.

lightroom's dehaze, for example, is not a 'dummy function' nor is it a
simple preset.

So Adobe increased profits by setting a rent that
was slightly cheaper than buying every version but
notably more expensive than buying less frequently.

no.

standalone versions of photoshop cs and lightroom together were around
$800 or so and were updated roughly every 18-24 months, so skipping a
version would give about 3-4 years use until the next purchase,
depending when within the cycle you bought and when adobe updated it.

adobe offers photoshop and lightroom for $10/mo, so over a 4 year
period, it would cost $480, or a little more than half the cost of the
standalone versions, but updated multiple times during those 4 years,
whereas the standalone versions would not be updated at all other than
minor updates for the first year or so, mostly bug fixes.

at $800 for the standalone versions, the break-even point is just under
7 years, in which time several standalone versions would have been
released.

looking at release dates, photoshop cs6 was released in may 2012 and
cs2 in april 2005, so that's *four* versions in a 7 year span, and the
differences are *substantial*.

On 8/31/2018 11:54 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Neil" wrote

| It won't surprise them that they no longer get
| what they're paying for? Getting regular updates
| is pretty much the only reason for rental software.
|
| They are *not* paying for the _new features_ of software versions
| incompatible with their computers.
|

They will have to continue to pay the rental fee
if they want to keep using it. But they won't get
the new features. Yes. You don't get it?

When that arrangement becomes financially impractical, or if they
require the new features they'll most likely make a change. The reality
is that for most, the cost of the "rental" is far less than the cost of
"ownership" (that never existed in the first place). You don't get it?

--
best regards,

Neil

On 9/1/2018 12:23 AM, Mayayana wrote:

Neil pretty much says that
anyone who doesn't go out now to buy Win10 and rent
PS CC is a non-pro loser.

I said no such thing. If you want to have a conversation, it's not a
good idea to lie about what the other individuals are saying.

Come to think of it, no one did say they find it more
economical.

If you could do elementary math, you would see that the CC model is far
more economical for pros. To continue to argue otherwise is simply
exposing your inability to do that math.

Other users have many other low-cost graphic app options, even from
Adobe, which has also been pointed out, so there is no rational
justification for criticizing the CC model to those users either.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 08/31/2018 08:11 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:

Users that store their work files
solely in anyone's cloud will eventually learn the errors of their ways.

more accurately, solely in a single location.

however, given a choice, a one copy in the cloud is safer than a one
copy on a local hard drive.

I'd much rather have a single copy on my working hard drive than a
single copy at a remote location that I don't actually have access to
access to.

you have access to it.

Access that is under someone else's control, unlike with a local copy.
Note that I'm not against offsite backup, just having ONLY offsite backup.

the difference is that a cloud service will have multiple redundant
copies in their data centers with multiple redundant data centers.

A backup you can't restore is not a backup. THEY can block that
restoration. If you have your own backup, you can restore it if you want to.

while not impossible (nothing is 100%), the chances that all copies in
all data centers are destroyed and the service itself disappears
without a trace is much less than the chance of your single hard drive
failing, or destroyed to fire or flood, or stolen.

I was not recommending a single hard drive. I keep at least TWO backups
at home (that's a minimum of 3 instances). Offsite backup is in addition
to that.

ideally, always have multiple copies, with at least one offsite.

Yes, and at least one onsite.

yes, but again, if there is *only* one copy, it's safer in the cloud.

If it's in the cloud, you don't have it. You have an "agreement" to give
it to you. I've seen too many failed companies, to have that much
confidence in such agreements. I'd have the local backup FIRST, then
offsite.

one copy is an incredibly bad idea, but unfortunately, it does happen.

One thing I remember from years ago, is to have at least TWO backups (on
different media). People often don't seem to know that anymore. You
could add an offsite backup (but be sure to consider the restore
process. You don't have a backup if you can't restore).


--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Jesus got stuck in the chimney flue. Jesus got stuck, we don't know
what to do. Now that virgin-born Jew is turning blue, Cause Jesus got
stuck in the flue."

"Mayayana" on Sat, 1 Sep 2018 00:23:43 -0400
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"B00ze" wrote

| Aren't Adobe sneakier than most and put icons to cloud-executing
| functions in their software? Meaning once they stop supporting your
| version, you can click all you want on that "super duper cloud-powered
| picture enhancer" icon in the toolbar, nothing will happen?
|

I don't understand. As far as I know the software
is all running locally in the first place. It just pretends
to be cloudy in order to justify rent. So it should still
work. But the only rational excuse they had for rental
in the first place was that people would always have
the latest at the same price. Now, without having
a recent version of Win10, you still pay the same
price but don't get the latest. It seems that a price
cut in the rental fee would be the least they can do.
But I guess they don't think they need to. They've
got PS addicts over a barrel.

I've been using TaxAct for many years. This latest version (2017)
will not work if you do not have the latest updated version of
Internet Explorer 11. Deal breaker, and the end of a satisfied
customer.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:

Users that store their work files
solely in anyone's cloud will eventually learn the errors of their ways.

more accurately, solely in a single location.

however, given a choice, a one copy in the cloud is safer than a one
copy on a local hard drive.

I'd much rather have a single copy on my working hard drive than a
single copy at a remote location that I don't actually have access to
access to.

you have access to it.

Access that is under someone else's control, unlike with a local copy.
Note that I'm not against offsite backup, just having ONLY offsite backup.

nope. it's under *your* control. you can upload/download at any time,
for any reason.

it's possible that internet access might be interrupted, however, it's
also possible (and more likely) than the local hard drive fails or is
damaged due to fire/flood/etc.

the difference is that a cloud service will have multiple redundant
copies in their data centers with multiple redundant data centers.

A backup you can't restore is not a backup. THEY can block that
restoration. If you have your own backup, you can restore it if you want to.

no, they can't block anything unless you stop paying for the service,
which should be obvious.

ask the people who lost everything in the california fires or the
hurricanes last year about how easily they can restore from the hard
drive that is now ash or corroded from the water or has microorganisms
growing inside it.

while not impossible (nothing is 100%), the chances that all copies in
all data centers are destroyed and the service itself disappears
without a trace is much less than the chance of your single hard drive
failing, or destroyed to fire or flood, or stolen.

I was not recommending a single hard drive. I keep at least TWO backups
at home (that's a minimum of 3 instances). Offsite backup is in addition
to that.

i'm not recommending a single anything.

however, *if* there is one copy of something, for whatever reason, (and
it definitely does happen, despite being a bad idea), it's *much* safer
in a data center at a company whose entire business model depends on
reliable backups, versus on a hard drive sitting on someone's desk, who
clones it every day or two (more likely every week or two).

ideally, always have multiple copies, with at least one offsite.

Yes, and at least one onsite.

yes, but again, if there is *only* one copy, it's safer in the cloud.

If it's in the cloud, you don't have it. You have an "agreement" to give
it to you. I've seen too many failed companies, to have that much
confidence in such agreements. I'd have the local backup FIRST, then
offsite.

amazon, google, microsoft, apple, dropbox aren't going to fail or
disappear any time soon.

one copy is an incredibly bad idea, but unfortunately, it does happen.

One thing I remember from years ago, is to have at least TWO backups (on
different media). People often don't seem to know that anymore. You
could add an offsite backup (but be sure to consider the restore
process. You don't have a backup if you can't restore).

yep.

it's called the 3-2-1 rule: three copies, on two different mediums,
with one offsite.

that's a good starting point, however, the more valuable the data, the
more copies there should be.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote

| I've been using TaxAct for many years. This latest version (2017)
| will not work if you do not have the latest updated version of
| Internet Explorer 11. Deal breaker, and the end of a satisfied
| customer.

They do say they accept other browsers, though.

Personally I don't get the tax products. As a
self-employed person it would cost me $100 to
have TaxAct do my taxes, at very little cost to
them. Almost all profit. Since it's online they don't
even have to box a CD. Wouldn't it be cheaper to
have a real person at H&R Block?

I think it usually takes me about 3-4 hours to
get my records together, do the math, and fill out
the forms. Since I have last year to work from
it's not a big job. The worst part is the MA state
forms, which are not editable PDFs! I end up doing
screenshots, opening those in Paint Shop Pro,
using the text tool to fill them out, then putting
them back into the PDF.

That's a pain, but most of the work is stuff
I'd have to do anyway, even if I paid someone
to do my taxes. They'd be charging me $100 just
to do the math and look up possible deductions.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Personally I don't get the tax products. As a
self-employed person it would cost me $100 to
have TaxAct do my taxes, at very little cost to
them. Almost all profit. Since it's online they don't
even have to box a CD. Wouldn't it be cheaper to
have a real person at H&R Block?

no.

h&r block charges $125 for a typical return, $350 (and up) for
self-employed and corporate/llc returns:
http://www.taxserviceprices.com/hr-block-prices/

that's less than what a real accountant would charge.

if you do it yourself, it's $111.98 for self-employed.