Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Inducement To Piracy, Adobe Style

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the arrr-me-hearties dept.

Piracy 272

S Vulpy writes "A post at the Social Science Research Council's website talks about how piracy greases the wheels of the Adobe Creative Suite marketplace by making it easier to deal with Adobe breaking compatibility between versions. Quoting: '... such incompatibility doesn’t involve exotic functionality, just straight text layout into columns and boxes. The kind of stuff that has been core functionality of publishing software since the early 1990s. Translate this dilemma to Brazil or Russia, where incomes are a fraction that of the US and you get a very simple outcome: massive piracy of Adobe products. In fact, go through this process in the last month of a 4-year project on a deadline and one could understand becoming extremely sympathetic to such a perspective. This, as we’ve argued, is not a defect of the Adobe business model, it is the business model.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Soon (4, Insightful)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | about 3 years ago | (#35723256)

income in the states will will be a fraction what is was. Who is going to pay Adobe then?

Re:Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723310)

Just follow where the cash is going. China, India, and the UAE will happily pay Adobe's fees when Americans can't.

Re:Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723510)

Bingo. Look at the airlines. Asia is buying A380s. The bulk of 787 orders are coming from Asia as well. Meanwhile the ancient US fleet is falling apart; thirty year old planes shredding in flight.

Johnnie's at home till 35 working [theweek.com] off his education debt. No law degree? You're fucked in the USA; everything else is outsourced.

Re:Soon (1)

bberens (965711) | about 3 years ago | (#35723598)

The plane you're referring to (shredding in flight) was 15 years old. Your hyperbole makes it sound like planes are falling out of the sky in droves. The bulk of 787 orders are coming from Asia because Asia is a growth market, while USA is a mature market. USA is in maintenance mode while Asia is still building up. The US infrastructure has been and will be maintained as quickly as is necessary. In the airline fleet, for example, if passengers are happily flying on the 15 year old planes, why bother buying new ones? It's not like driving around a 15 year old car where you barely do oil changes anymore. These things are refurbished regularly and are in fine shape.

Re:Soon (1)

Altus (1034) | about 3 years ago | (#35723650)

You really think lawyers are in high demand right now? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Soon (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 3 years ago | (#35723694)

Parent is correct. One of my friends is a fully licensed lawyer who can't find a job. I believe he's currently working at a clothing store. This has been the case for about a year.

Re:Soon (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 3 years ago | (#35723514)

Sure, 'cause China has such a well-established tradition of respecting other countries' intellectual property rights! And India has such a tradition of anti-corruption in business. And of course the UAE knows the Koran forbids cheating non-muslims out of money!

Re:Soon (2)

Bert64 (520050) | about 3 years ago | (#35723566)

China have done perfectly well up to now by not paying for software, why would they suddenly start?

Re:Soon (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 3 years ago | (#35723328)


Re:Soon (1)

jaskelling (1927116) | about 3 years ago | (#35723450)

Outside of Fortune 500 companies, I'd love to know which businesses can afford to upgrade this stuff on a yearly basis as well. I currently work for a broadcasting & print graphics group and previously worked for a national movie/tv/newspaper company. Stuff like this gets expensed out and depreciated on multi-year cycles. That includes not only the hardware, but the software on them. Because of restrictions involving proprietary software, we're currently standardized on Windows Vista with Office 2007, Acrobat 8, and CS4 products. The only upgrades that occur prior to that happen when a new employee or workstation is required, and they wind up being a guinea pig. Many of the businesses I interact with bitch about upgrading Windows and Office on a consistent basis, and that's not even every year. They're sure as hell not going to upgrade CSx suites every year with their even higher costs.

Re:Soon (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 3 years ago | (#35723532)

Wow, you're company springs for Vista with Office 2007??? I'm still running XP with Office 2003 (and constantly receiving documents created with Office 2007 that don't quite format correctly with Office 2003.)

Re:Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723622)

I run into that all the time at my job. We are a franchise and the corp office sends us Office 2007 docs all the damn time. We only have Office 2003. Google docs to the rescue! It can import all office versions and save em out in a 2003 readable format. I love it.

Re:Soon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723842)

Considering that the rich are getting richer, and the rich are the ones who buy the software anyway, probably the same people who always have been paying Adobe.. except they'll be paying more because Adobe knows their target customers have been making money hand-over-fist since the beginning of the "great recession."

Torrent Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723274)

Could someone please post a torrent of adobe's latest software?

Ideally something safe and easy...

Let me be the first to say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723280)

Shut the hell up. We know you think piracy is wrong is EVERY situation. Just because it's law doesn't make it right. Just because they (Adobe) are in the right doesn't make it right for everyone in the world. Just shut up, damn.

Vendor lock-in .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 years ago | (#35723314)

So, basically, vendor lock-in is good for the vendor, and it allows the vendors to make a new version of the tool which is no longer compatible so that people need to upgrade on a pretty regular basis.

And, yes, I can certainly see how if the software is going to cost you more than a decade's worth of income or more, you're going to pirate it.

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (2, Insightful)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | about 3 years ago | (#35723550)

or, you know, don't upgrade at all. keep the damned 2004 version. it's not like the 2004 (or something) version was so bugged that no quality stuff came out that year.

so shut the hell up, go see some doctor for the obsessive compulsive problem about using the latest and greatest release of all and get the job done.

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (2)

AdamThor (995520) | about 3 years ago | (#35723618)

And I guess hope that 2004 is the version that your co-workers decided to keep as well? And that you don't have to get any new licenses because a new member joined your team? B/C each version is fairly significantly incompatible with the others. So says the article.

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (3, Informative)

t2t10 (1909766) | about 3 years ago | (#35723626)

That may work if you're a nerd living in your mother's basement. However, back in the real world, people collaborate, and that's when network effects come in: when your customers send you files in the latest format, you need to be able to read them.

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (2)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | about 3 years ago | (#35723904)

if a customer wants to dictate the technology the customer is to provide the required licenses for the work to be done. or, at least, that's what happens when you and your customer are serious and professional about your work.

and then there are the other improvised self learned 'professionals' that work on the six-month-project-soon-to-be-discarded-because-it's-a-mess-of-incompatibility-and-misunderstandings.

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723640)

Yes of course, but speaking as a former design freelancer I can tell you that your clients (especially the bigger ones) will be running newer, incompatible software. Are you going to require them to exclude or find a way to recreate all those nifty new features before handing you necessary source files?

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 years ago | (#35723646)

The problem is ... we get documents from people who have upgraded because they had no choice (a new purchase for a growing company for instance) or because they didn't realize they'd need to save as an older format all the time for people who haven't upgraded.

It turns into a big pain in the ass, and the end result is you usually eventually end up upgrading just to smooth out the workflow, that costs you less money than time wasted trying to get document in the older format.

All because its part of Adobe's plan to sell you new software, not because there is an actual reason for the compatibility issues.

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (1)

richie2000 (159732) | about 3 years ago | (#35723682)

The #1 reason people upgrade is not because the old software was buggy or ran too slow, quite the opposite. Instead, the vendors keep changing the file formats to force upgrades. How is that an obsessive-compulsive problem with customers? Is it an obsession, wanting to be able to actually read the files that people send you? Perhaps being a control-freak dictating what everybody else is using is a lesser evil?

Re:Vendor lock-in .... (1)

Lord_Jeremy (1612839) | about 3 years ago | (#35723656)

Argghhhh! Not only am I a pirate but I am expressing frustration with Adobe!

My family art business has to do a lot of Photoshop work on photographs and uses InDesign for promo material. We also put out a book recently that was almost completely laid out with InDesign. As the IT guy of the business it is my job to make sure that all the hardware and software used for these tasks is functioning. Over the years, we've purchased Photoshop 3, 5, 7 and more recently Adobe CS Design Suite 1 and 2. The purchase of 7 actually necessitated me upgrading an iBook and a Power Mac G4 to Mac OS X because although it did "support" OS 9 it was horribly buggy and slow. Then I had to buy CS1 because 7 didn't like the iMac G5 on 10.3. Eventually the Power Mac was replaced with a Mac Mini G4 and I had to buy CS2 because CS1 crashed a lot in the 10.4 it came with. Next came a MacBook Pro running 10.5. Go figure, CS2 is not supported on Intel Macs (and has been known to actually break their OS). Considering how recently CS2 had been purchased, I was given the green light for an illegal copy of CS3. Of course, for the other machines to be able to open CS3 files I had to install it on everything. Then I discover that CS3 really really hates PPC Macs. After months of trying to live with the issues, I'm forced to replace the Mac Mini with an Intel iMac. Fortunately the iMac G5 is no longer needed, we couldn't have afforded two new Macs. The new iMac comes with 10.6, yay! Except that CS3 has fatal bugs in Snow Leopard. No worries, download CS4 and install. In the process working on another book, we sent a number of CS4 InDesign documents to a graphic designer, who modified them in CS5 and sent them back. *sigh* Off to download CS5 and upgrade again just so we can open a couple layout files... While I was working on the MacBook Pro, I noticed that it now has four different versions of Adobe CS installed on it - CS2, CS3, CS4, and CS5. I tried running the uninstaller for CS2 but it wouldn't launch, just bounced the dock icon for several minutes before disappearing. Good god I hate Adobe software...

This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

drdread (770953) | about 3 years ago | (#35723318)

As a casual user, I really can't justify ponying up the dollars they demand...so I went looking for alternatives. GIMP for Photoshop (recent GIMP versions are very good, BTW), Inkspace for Illustrator, etc. I was pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to move off Adobe's products altogether.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723350)

Problem is maintaining compatibility. Layer styles are greatly missed in GIMP.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (4, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 3 years ago | (#35723366)

This. Of course, they're be the usual whining about how Gimp is supposedly unintuitive (i.e., it's not set up exactly like Photoshop), or how it doesn't support color separation for print (even though most people are just using it for web graphics).

And Inkspace gets better with each version, it's already much more usable (I think) than Gimp.

If you're a small company, just starting out, and you're not locked into Photoshop for some reason, there's no reason to start producing files in that format. If you're starting up a web-based company, and need to produce some graphics for your website, just create it in Inkscape [inkscape.org].

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35723424)

It's been a while since I loaded up Gimp, but they were making strides on making the interface sane. The bigger issues at that time were the tablet support and format compatibility. I definitely remember when Gimp had a terrible interface, it was being worked on last time I used it, not sure how much progress they've made since then.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (2)

t2t10 (1909766) | about 3 years ago | (#35723648)

I doubt the sanity of the Gimp interface matters much; Adobe's own interfaces are insanely bad. In fact, if anything, the Gimp interface is considerably more consistent with the rest of Gnome than Photoshop is with the rest of Windows.

What matters is that it is different from what people are used to.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 3 years ago | (#35723782)

I tried Gimp out about a year ago and it was atrociously bad. Unusable. I doubt it has radically improved in that short space of time. Still, Adobe's interfaces are bordering on bonkers too. You just get used to it.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (2)

CyberK (1191465) | about 3 years ago | (#35723426)

I totally agree, and with Scribus coming along nicely for your InDesign needs, there really isn't any reason why a "occasional photoshopper" can't do just fine with free tools instead of pirating Adobe. Plus, free software rarely breaks compatiblity without any sort of migration path, so you don't even have worry about repirating once a year.

Maybe someone should package all these tools into a Free Creative Suite?

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (2)

leenks (906881) | about 3 years ago | (#35723580)

Like http://ubuntustudio.org/ [ubuntustudio.org] ?

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 3 years ago | (#35723832)

Hah! on the audio side of things they have Ardour 2 which I found really hard to use. They say on the site that it is "geared toward people familiar with Pro-Tools". I can assure you it is not! Similarly Gimp is not geared toward people familiar with Photoshop. These alternatives which I would love to use and support simply need to be better than they are. I don't expect to see that happening soon.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | about 3 years ago | (#35723898)

I'm a little hesitant to read "Scribus coming along nicely." I use it for a newsletter project I design for a charity (so I do not have to shell out for InDesign, naturally) and I find the GUI performance to be god awful! Waiting for the screen to redraw while scrolling as well as weird hiccups when selecting text blocks makes for a ... challenging... experience. I'm running the latest version on XP, so perhaps YMMV on Linux.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

webrunner (108849) | about 3 years ago | (#35723460)

Gimp is not just not "exactly like photoshop", it's not layed out like any other Windows application. If you're on Mac or Linux is fine, but someone accustomed to Gimp will struggle needlessly with the (incidentally monstrously ugly [to the point of making it difficult to use]) interface. Gimpshop and gimphoto are fine but are several major revisions behind gimp proper.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#35723554)

GIMP looks (and feels) like ass on OS X. And I don't mean Kim Kardashian's ass, I mean Cowboy Neil's ass.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723492)

If you're a small company, just starting out, and you're not locked into Photoshop for some reason, there's no reason to start producing files in that format. If you're starting up a web-based company, and need to produce some graphics for your website, just create it in Inkscape.

The reason is that the person starting the small company likely used Adobe products while in school, as will be the case for pretty much every person he hires, because Adobe nearly gives the stuff away to students.

Small companies in particular can't afford the decrease in productivity associated with learning new software.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#35723568)

Microsoft too - students can get dirt-cheap education licences of Office and Visual Studio. It's just a good business strategy - give them the software now, get a loyal customer for years to come.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (2)

charlievarrick (573720) | about 3 years ago | (#35723502)


If you're a small company, just starting out, and you're not locked into Photoshop for some reason, there's no reason to start producing files in that format. I

But when you want to hire employees or freelancers or accept files from clients or send files to a printer or basically do anything beyond doodling in your bedroom you are locked into the Photoshop/Indesign/Illustrator/PDF/EPS Adobe ecosystem because it's the defacto standard in the creative market.

Which is a main point of TFA.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723894)

And just to add, if you are a small company, you will eventually start becoming a stopgap for big companies, and then you WILL need your Adobe products to open their files. If you are in the graphics business you must be very, very small and isolated to not need an Adobe product. I am in a small 2 person business, but our clients can have anywhere between 10 to 50000 employees. We need Adobe products even though we are small.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723632)

This. Of course, they're be the usual whining about how Gimp is supposedly unintuitive (i.e., it's not set up exactly like Photoshop), or how it doesn't support color separation for print (even though most people are just using it for web graphics).

And Inkspace gets better with each version, it's already much more usable (I think) than Gimp.

If you're a small company, just starting out, and you're not locked into Photoshop for some reason, there's no reason to start producing files in that format. If you're starting up a web-based company, and need to produce some graphics for your website, just create it in Inkscape [inkscape.org].

Gimp is shit. You should be slapped in your face for recommending it. It is the worst graphics program ever made.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 3 years ago | (#35723660)

There's no reason to use Python. If you're a small company, just starting out and you aren't locked into Python already, Visual Basic is actually getting really good! Sure it's not setup exactly like Python...

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 years ago | (#35723740)

they're be the usual whining about how Gimp is supposedly unintuitive (i.e., it's not set up exactly like Photoshop),

The fact that it isn't setup exactly like photoshop has little to do with it. Photoshop Elements isnt' like Photoshop, but I have no problem using it. MS Paint isn't setup like photoshop, but its usable. Lots of other image editors 'arent setup like photoshop' but they are all usable. GIMP is just a fucking mess and it'll remain that way until you guys get over your denial and the devs make it not suck. Just complaining about the whiners who don't like it isn't going to do anything productive. Hell, now days the UI isn't the biggest killer. Its usable, yes still utterly revolting.

or how it doesn't support color separation for print (even though most people are just using it for web graphics).

Yes, for those people with real design jobs, not 'making websites in mommies basement', that sort of thing is rather important. Clearly you don't know what professional graphics artists actually do and seem to think making pretty pictures for web pages is makes you a professional graphics artist.

If you're a small company, just starting out, and you're not locked into Photoshop for some reason, there's no reason to start producing files in that format.

No reason at all, except ... being able to share those documents with other people who won't use GIMP for any of the reasons above and god knows how many more.

You can deny reality all you want, but its not going to make everyone start using GIMP no matter how much you jump up and down and scream about how awesome it is, for most of us, it doesn't fucking cut it. Accept that, fix that, make a tool that fits the job at hand, then more people can use GIMP. Sit around denying it all the time and GIMP will remain an example of what might have been, but never will be.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 3 years ago | (#35723748)

You seem to be ignoring the other parts of the Adobe Creative Suite: Illustrator, In Design, Dreamweaver. I'm no fan of Adobe, but Gimp is merely an alternative to Photoshop and a poor one at that.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 3 years ago | (#35723910)

The problem is HR needs you to have experience with Adobe products or your resume is thrown in the trash. Gimp who what??

I am starting a business and I hate and oppose piracy. I feel terrible and hypocritical owning a cracked version of Dreamweaver but I need experience in using it in order to not starve. I could try to use Vi and firebug only but if my business fails (90% chance it will, given statistics) then I need to have experience to fall back on. I could use paint.net and get away and *lie* about using photoshop (dishonest as well), but Illustrator is not something you can make up or do without if your future employer sits you in front of a mac with it and says do this by 12:00???

I am praying for the adoption of html 5 so we can get rid of flash. THis has hurt my ability to earn a living as a web programmer simply because all candidates pirate it and learn it that way and it is a job requirement now to have x years of experience using it for non flash sites. I believe free alternatives are the answer to piracy. Remember people pirating Oracle 12 years ago? How about today? Zelch. People use Mysql now. Also it frees us from Windows to use non propriteary alternatives. But nothing exists that is similiar to Frontpage or Dreamweaver. Gimp frankly sucks. Paint.net is promising but it shows how incompatible Mono is with .NET as it can not be ported to Linux easily.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723526)

For the casual user there are tons of products, the ones you mentioned and from other first line vendors, like Apple, Microsoft and Adobe. It is absolutely clear that these programs are primarily designed for people that make money off of them. Enough money to pay people, even if it is only yourself. And if you are getting paid for it, and you have a large network of people that you work with, from co-creators, clients, and output vendors, there simply is no overall cheaper solution in real money, output quality and time.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | about 3 years ago | (#35723528)

What is your replacement for Acrobat? I would love a nice form editor that allowed me to create a form with editable fields and what-not.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 years ago | (#35723552)

And that is where the network effects come in. It's very difficult to use Gimp when everyone you are collaborating with uses Photoshop. Openoffice is a good suite, but when everyone else is using Office there will be compatibility issues. There is more software for Windows than any other OS because it's the OS most people use. Being popular is an advantage for software.

Re:This is why I have given up on Adobe (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 3 years ago | (#35723928)

Can you recommend a good opensource or cheap replacement for Fireworks that will run fine on Windows? I've tried several options but they were all disappointing against Fireworks.

old reliable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723386)

Ah it's good to get my daily SlashKos dose, where there's always a featured story about how stealing is justified because of teh evil capitalismz0rz!!

Re:old reliable (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35723454)

Capitalism is fine, but abusing a monopoly position isn't. Good luck working professionally if you haven't got the latest version of Photoshop. Whether Gimp does everything you need or not, anybody that you're working with is probably going to be requiring a Photoshop compatible file.

Re:old reliable (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#35723562)

You don't need 'the latest version of Photoshop' to put out a .tiff file or a .jpg. Even PS 7 will do that just fine (as will GIMP). If you want to bend your models arm in non anatomic positions with Puppetwarp, yeah, you'll need CS 5. However, there are many older ways to make impossible looking humans or whatever it is that you're planning on altering.

The whole rant seems to revolve around InDesign. The other CS programs (Dreamweaver, Illustrator, PS, and to some extent Flash) tend to be much more conservative.

/.gov.science.fiction..swashbuckling thievery.gov (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723392)

so it's adobe? pirates? they have a boat? who didn't know

is this guy now our enemy too, or do spies like us?;

real math; taking one (1) life =crime vs. humanity

give US a minute here. this can't be right? isn't there justdenyable
homicide? that's the old time religion? god's will? too many of us (by
about 5 billion)? still foggy? in these complex times, it can be
disgustingly enlightening to return to the teachings of the georgia stone
trustdead freemason 'math'?

freemason kids traumatized by native teachings

we're not the only (chosen) ones? the natives must have made some
mathematical errors? let's see, wasn't that problem taken care of before?
& before that. let's check the georgia stone, all the answers are there?
not to fret then, the #s never lie?

the GSM get their tiny (ie; selfish, stingy, eugenatic, fake math) .5
billion remaining population, & the money/weapons/vaccine/deception/fake
'weather' alchemist/genetically altered nazi mutant goon exchangers, get
us? yikes

the 'fog' is lifting? more chariots will be needed?

with real math, even being remotely involved in lifetaking (paying for,
supplying endless ordinance) is also a crime against ALL of the world.

ALL (uninfactdead) MOMMYS......

the georgia stone remains uneditable? gad zooks. are there no chisels?

previous math discardead; 1+1 extrapolated (Score:mynutswon; no such thing
as one too many here)

deepends on how you interpret it. georgia stone freemason 'math'; the
variables & totals are objective oriented; oranges: 1+1= not enough,
somebody's gotta die. people; 1+1=2, until you get to .5 billion, then
1+1=2 too many, or, unless, & this is what always happens, they breed
uncontrolled, naturally (like monkeys), then, 1+1=could easily result in
millions of non-approved, hoardsplitting spawn. see the dilemma? can
'math', or man'kind' stand even one more League of Smelly Infants being

there are alternative equations being proffered. the deities (god, allah,
yahweh, buddha, & all their supporting castes) state in their manuals that
we needn't trouble ourselves with thinning the population, or being so
afraid as to need to hoard stuff/steal everything. chosen people? chosen
for what? to live instead of us? in the case of life, more is always
better. unassailable perfect math. see you at the play-dates, georgia
stone editing(s) etc... babys rule.

exploding babys; corepirate nazis to be caged (Score:mynutswon; hanging is
too good for them?)

there are plans to put them, (the genetically, surgically & chemically
altered coreprate nazi mutant fear/death mongerers (aka47; eugenatics,
weapons peddlers, kings/minions, adrians, freemasons etc...)) on display
in glass cages, around the world, so that we can remember not to forget...
again, what can happen, based on greed/fear/ego stoking deception.

viewing/feeding will be rationed based on how many more of the creators'
innocents are damaged, or have to be brought home (& they DO have another
one) prematurely.

not many bad guys survive a photon burst

you even knew that? cool. as a matter of fact, we're finding photons (in
their 'singular' form) to be quite useful as a general purpose life

seems like we already have enough rigging to escape a few of us out of
here, but if we were a bit more careful, we could extend our stay until we
could all go along. plus, by then, we'll have a clear destination?

looks like we're having a little trouble with math, science & history.
like we can't tell what happened, because there's now so many versions of
what we know didn't happen, &/or when, & how many innocents were
damaged/killed. seems like real history is catching up with us a bit
(definitely you & i), & may help us see, if we let it.

there's also some barely identifiable bad guys, as we're sure you know,
they peddle death, & some other not good stuff, for money etc...

it's not like they can be blown out of the sky, but we knew it would be
like this. we have a few billion little ones that we've grown very fond
of, so we're working on keeping them undead. as you likely already know,
their dna is highly advanced, & they are the vast majority, they have
better eyesight than birds, & are fully photon (intentional healing)
functional. hurting even one of them (or any of us) sets the whole cosmos
on edge. we've heard that from space, it now looks like we're making the
planet into a black hole. do we need a black hole, or any big holes, in
the planet?

Wasn't this Microsoft's business model? (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | about 3 years ago | (#35723396)

Seems that this just becomes the standard when you have a stranglehold on the market. Maximize global profits by squeezing every dime out of the rich countries while poorer nations are the wild west.

Re:Wasn't this Microsoft's business model? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 3 years ago | (#35723434)

Seems that this just becomes the standard when you have a stranglehold on the market. Maximize global profits by squeezing every dime out of the rich countries while poorer nations are the wild west.

I was just about to say this. It's also a very 20th century, as times are changing, and power is shifting. Look to businesses that have a grip on wrangling sustainable profit from all regions and not just rent-seeking via platform domination.

Re:Wasn't this Microsoft's business model? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723444)

Try reading the article. They mention that but that's not what they're highlighting.

I shall keep snagging them (1, Informative)

the_hellspawn (908071) | about 3 years ago | (#35723402)

Till the price of Adobe's stuff comes down to a real price of $19.99 I shall keep snagging the software for free. I don't profit off of my work, so don't care about licensing. The $600.00 cost is a bit much for programmers tweaking only the tools and changing some icons. The core code was wrote sometime back in the 90's, so they already picked up there ROI for the software.

BTW, Gimp is good for 4chan pics, but Photoshop is good for everything else.

Re:I shall keep snagging them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723456)

you are an asshole

Re:I shall keep snagging them (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | about 3 years ago | (#35723900)

I think it's a tad unreasonable to expect an extremely capable software program that can give you skills you can make money from as well as use produce work you can profit off of to be priced $30-$40 LESS then you're run of the mill video game release. If you're just a programmer "changing some icons" then gimp or other free alternatives should suite you just fine. You're argument is akin to saying you're going to keep stealing Wüsthof steak knives until they cost $1 because you're just using them to spread butter anyways.

upgrade in the last month? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723408)

Who goes through an upgrade in the last month of a 4 year project?

Re:upgrade in the last month? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 3 years ago | (#35723572)

Somebody knows that projects are never really completed, and that they will be maintaining the results of that project for the next 5 years, during which time the old software may get hard to find support for.

Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business? (4, Insightful)

MagikSlinger (259969) | about 3 years ago | (#35723410)

As an outsider looking in, I noticed Adobe never seemed to put any serious DRM on their software. Computer games put more effort into it than Photoshop ever did. I was always surprised how easy it was to install & use Adobe products with a single serial number used by thousands. I know they did make efforts to stop the distribution, but never as hard-core as Microsoft became with Office. And considering the prices they charged, I figured Adobe would.

Then it occurred to me after working with artists who trained on Adobe products (pirated in some cases), etc. that Adobe's _real_ market for the $1000+ titles are businesses: advertising companies, professional graphic designers, businesses, etc. Going after the hobbyist or the poor artists wasn't their style. And then it clicked: when the artists came to my company, they got the company to buy Adobe products. *THUNK!* The network effect [wikipedia.org]. If they can get more people used to using Adobe and associating certain high-value work with Adobe products, then the more likely they are to push for Adobe at work. And thus more money they can squeeze from businesses who make money.

So to me, allowing a certain low level amount of piracy was always part of Adobe's game.

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (2)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 3 years ago | (#35723504)

Actually they've had varying degrees of registration hoops over the years (if I recall for CS2 you actually had to dial a number to get key confirmation). That said, tools like Photoshop are so popular cracks and workarounds show up almost immediately after launch.

On the plus side newer versions seem to have fewer useful additions but more off-putting cosmetic changes that make cheaper alternatives more appealing.

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (2)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about 3 years ago | (#35723930)

The newer versions also seem to get more and more bloated and require more powerful computers to do the same stuff as previous versions of the software. I've never understood this. And the fact that each new version breaks compatability of older file versions with the new software version is a nasty tactic. Professional designers are forced to upgrade whether or not they can afford to, or indeed want to. This applies both to the hardware and software. On the Mac, you must have an Intel processor to use the latest version of Adobe CS!

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (1)

Thruen (753567) | about 3 years ago | (#35723588)

It's always looked to me like Adobe realizes the obvious, that the people pirating their software wouldn't be buying it anyway even if there was no other choice. It's widely used by hobby artists mainly because of piracy, otherwise they'd simply be forced to use a cheap or free alternative. I tend to think the situation is not all that different from piracy in other industries, most people who download things without paying would not have bought them even if downloading wasn't an option.

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (3, Informative)

Synn (6288) | about 3 years ago | (#35723602)

95%, if not more, of people using Photoshop don't need it. We tried for a major push for Adobe Elements at one place I worked at, but a lot of people wanted Photoshop just because it was the "grown up"/Real product.

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 3 years ago | (#35723778)

It's one of those things where even if Elements (or Gimp or whatever) does 99% of what you need it only takes that 1% to be deeply annoying.

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (1)

joeaguy (884004) | about 3 years ago | (#35723764)

Exactly. Its even worse than that. Most designers are aware of Gimp, and a few know of Inkscape, but when I talk to designers, they just don't want to use them. I explain that these programs are really free as in freedom, respecting you as a person and not calling you a criminal for not paying arbitrarily high prices, and offer most of the functionality you need for most projects, especially web stuff. Still, Gimp and Inkscape won't get you hired.

Design involves workflows, and Adobe through their suites owns the workflow. There used to be a bit more competition in the design world, with Quark (which has withered) and Aldus (which Adobe bought), and Macromedia (which Adobe bought), all bringing something to the workflow. Now Adobe owns it end to end. Designers want to design, and not worry about software. And to design, someone needs to pay you, and for someone to pay you, you need to use the tools everyone else is using. So you pirate Adobe so you can work with others, and when the day comes that you are working for the sort of place that might be mindful of the BSA, or you are making the big money yourself, you finally buy a license. All that time before then was kind of like an extended "trial period" really.

Still, I do think something can be done. There is plenty of design in free and open source software projects and companies. They should whenever possible insist on use of FOSS tools, and they should make a big deal about the fact that they use them, and why they use them. I know its a niche market, but Gimp has already found some success in the rather big money niche of film. There is a huge reserve army of unemployed designers who just might be interested in the whole "free as in freedom" idea as long as it also brought a little "money as in paycheck".

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (0)

StikyPad (445176) | about 3 years ago | (#35723776)

Are you kidding? Macrovision (what Adobe uses) is some of the most overbearing and insidious copy protection in existence. It will constantly try to "phone home" to verify registration information even if it's been previously verified, just in case the serial has been blacklisted. When you install/update other Adobe products -- even unrelated products, the same centralized copy protection will use the opportunity to sneak through and invalidate your installation/registration. And God forbid you don't update with all the security holes in Acrobat and Flash. Of course, none of this would be a problem for legitimate users, but once your installation gets flagged for some reason (erroneously or otherwise), it usually requires a complete re-install and likely digging through the registry to root out any old data.

Using cracked Photoshop and other Adobe products is certainly *possible*, but your comparison to games is completely reversed in my experience. Updates to things like no-cd cracks are usually released shortly after most game updates -- no such luck for Adobe products. And for the most part, game cracks tend to completely strip out all DRM, while "cracks" for Adobe products more often resemble keygens (or pseudo keygens which rely on either a list of compromised S/Ns, or an algorithm that generates 1 valid key out of n iterations where n could be several orders of magnitude higher than 1).

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | about 3 years ago | (#35723780)

Don't forget schools. Art schools have to buy tons of licenses with each new version release (although they are usually a version or two behind since CS2).

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 3 years ago | (#35723818)

This is due to two reasons:

1: DRM isn't needed in businesses due to the BSA. Fear of running afoul of the BSA keeps the licenses current in almost any company, and companies who don't license their software are just one ex-employee with an "anonymous" report away from being shut down due to large fines.

2: Adobe is the only game in town. Realistically here, the high end camera makers don't write plugins for the GIMP, so if one wants to make use of the RAW images from one's EOS-1 or other camera without losing data, they are either using Photoshop, or perhaps Lightroom. Ever see a pro photographer using the GIMP for their portfolios? Even though the GIMP is excellent, Photoshop is the anointed standard. This is similar when dealing in the CAD arena, one speaks AutoCAD [1], or they don't play.

[1]: Perhaps SolidWorks and CATIA for CNC stuff as a small exception.

Re:Wasn't piracy always a part of Adobe's business (1)

Pulzar (81031) | about 3 years ago | (#35723954)

Realistically here, the high end camera makers don't write plugins for the GIMP, so if one wants to make use of the RAW images from one's EOS-1 or other camera without losing data, they are either using Photoshop, or perhaps Lightroom.

Nikon and Canon don't write plugins for Adobe products, either. Adobe writes them, and they don't even have full access to RAW specs, as camera manufactures keep them proprietary and secret. Most of it is reverse-engineered, with some (unknown) data simple being unused by Adobe products.

If GIMP developers went through the same effort of reverse-engineering formats, they'd be able to support them, too. Although, I still don't see many serious professionals using GIMP -- the difference in other features and performance is just too great.

Cost and Alternatives (1)

fermion (181285) | about 3 years ago | (#35723416)

For many students, the cost and availability of the software is an issue. MS makes the software available very cheap to education to combat piracy. After the cost of the machine, Apple products are all but free. For certain programs, there are equivalent free alternatives. Typically such alternatives do not exist for Adobe products.

Therefore I would argue that Adobe is the last major software house that depends on piracy to promote products. Companies do not really have the time and money to train users. Consumers do not always have time to pay for training. Schools are not going to invest in the software. So we are back to the piracy method to create a market for the legal software.

Re:Cost and Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723520)

Through our educational software store, we can buy CS5 Design Premium (Mac en Windows) for ~28 Euro. So, in some academic communities they do try to reach out.

Re:Cost and Alternatives (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#35723600)

You forgot Autodesk. If you think Photoshop is expensive.....

That said, Autodesk doesn't seem to make it hard to pirate. You can just uninstall Maya and Mudbox on OS X and reinstall the 30 day trial. They offer great educational discounts (except that you have to be a real, live student).

The psuedo-libertarian mindset. (1, Interesting)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#35723436)

> Ah it's good to get my daily SlashKos dose, where there's always a
> featured story about how stealing is justified because of teh evil
> capitalismz0rz!!

+...versus the classic pseudo libertarian mindset.

          "Tort reform for the rich. Crime and punishment for the poor."

The sad part is that the poor buy into this nonsense and happily cheer along their corporate overlords as if the last 500 years of social and political progress never happened at all.

Intuit (2)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | about 3 years ago | (#35723490)

I can tell you from experience that Intuit (Quickbooks, Quicken, Peachtree...etc.) are the worst about this. A company can effectively run the same version for several years, but if they want to share their books with an accountant (as most probably will), then the client and the accountant must all have matching software versions. If the account decides to take the brunt, then they must have enough licenses to run multiple copies simultaneously which becomes VERY expensive, plus a version for each year that their clients have. Not only do the licenses cost money, but you better have at least a 100Gb drive on every computer to hold all versions, plus a hefty dose of RAM to handle the app, plus all the others that a typical accounting firm needs to run (Office, PPC, CCH...etc).

It's a fucking racket, I tell you. The partners at my accounting firm hate me when I have to deliver the budget.

Re:Intuit (2)

Hijacked Public (999535) | about 3 years ago | (#35723578)

I submit that Rockwell Software is yet worse.

If you have an Allen Bradley Logix series PLC, its firmware must match your version of RSLogix all the way down to the point release. Unless you maintain a support agreement there is no upgrade path, you just buy the full new version.

You can reflash the PLC's firmware but that often sticks you with known bugs.

Re:Intuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723808)

Or you can just buy a support agreement for a year and get all of your software updated at once. RSLogix has backwards compatibility for older firmwares while Adobe does not.

Re:Intuit (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | about 3 years ago | (#35723956)

What firmwares are Adobe products compatible with?

Sometime RSLogix is backward compatible but more often it is not. If you have different customers on different versions the only safe bet is install multiple versions.

Re:Intuit (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 3 years ago | (#35723608)

Are there Open Source accounting apps available? Seems to me that accounting isn't exactly rocket science, just about anybody can write an accounting app, even a Visual Basic programmer...

Re:Intuit (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | about 3 years ago | (#35723728)

Not with the tools, tables, laws and features that the commercial apps have. The software we use takes the guess-work out of each states' specific laws and provides neat little forms for every scenario. I suppose someone could build an open-source platform but they'd have to be a tax lawyer proficient in all states and a programmer and no one would ever put that much time into something that ends up being free. Once maybe, but every year Congress passes new laws that must be updated in the software in order to be compliant and get the most return for your clients as possible. It's an incredibly complicated process that some companies shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars for every year. If their accountant can't provide the best result for the money they'll go elsewhere.

Re:Intuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723766)

My guess would be that it's not writing the app that is the problem. Rather, it's getting all your clients to use it, or write adapters to read the files written by Intuit and others. It may still even out, in the end, but it is unlikely, and even more unlikely that an accounting firm would be willing to risk dumping the several hundred k$ at the very least that developing such an application would cost.

the arguments are completely irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723536)

The author says that Adobe's pricing and upgrade policies are anti-consumer. There's a quite simple remedy: don't buy from Adobe (and don't steal, or infringe, from them either). Use someone else's products, or develop your own. If you use Adobe's stuff, you need to abide by their terms and provisions, paying for a license where necessary.

What would you make of a long article explaining point by point why the GPL presents unreasonable terms for a technology vendor to adhere to? Right - if they don't like it, they should look elsewhere to satisfy their needs. Those who willfully disobey (like the people who ripped off BusyBox) should be sued and/or prosecuted. I know that most people on this forum agree to that when it comes to the GPL. But when it comes to music, or games, or proprietary software, people get a little bit silly. In the latter case, it seems that copyright can be set aside if enough people make enough plausible sounding arguments why the world would be better off.

This is the world is overtaken by ants story... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723628)

Piracy is not what drives the business model. Piracy is a variable that gets dealt with, and sometimes the best way to deal with it is through benign neglect, as is pointed out by the Microsoft model.

What you perceive in Adobe as being driven by the pirate, or you desire not to update, is simply a failure to understand that you are not the target market. The target market is not just one person, but the professional eco-system. And more important that the price at anytime, the solution provides the overall cheapest solution in time and payment for time, but in also professional and creative ability, which also leads to less time used, and more money saved.

Adobe strives to make sure that the value of the upgrade to the primary market is worth the upgrade. IE the sum of the additional features and efficiencies from creative to output are more valuable than the costs. There are complaints everytime, but by those that don't appreciate the business model for a large variety of reasons. But if you carefully notice, the program continues to gain prominence in the target marketplace at the expense of nearly other product and workflow.

The question of piracy is important, especially in the key target markets, because there are many many people who exploit the Adobe tools and make money off them who would rather not pay. It is also true that there is more products, especially in the Photo arena that are getting play. Not so much GIMP, but products that provide frames and retro and non-digital feel to files. And programs that came with cameras and the smart phone. But none of these are going to be replacements for the target market that Adobe and actually the market, has come to depend on.

Acrobat (2)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | about 3 years ago | (#35723636)

My computer at work is licensed for Acrobat 8 Professional. After upgrading Microsoft Office 2003 to 2010, I can no longer create PDF files from Word documents. Looking online, the solution to this issue from Adobe appears to be "upgrade to Acrobat X". Yeah, thanks.

Re:Acrobat (3, Insightful)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 3 years ago | (#35723816)

Wait. Microsoft did a major change in their software. After upgrading to the new version of Word you discovered that Adobe's four year old software didn't know how to talk to Microsoft's brand new software. And this is Adobe's fault?

Re:Acrobat (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723876)

You don't need Acrobat to create PDF files from Word 2010.

File Menu -> "Save & Send" -> "Create PDF/XPS Document".

Re:Acrobat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723966)

What do you expect Adobe's solution to be? They should update half-decade old software to match a new product from Microsoft? Why don't you expect Microsoft's new product to work with older versions of Acrobat instead?

Creative Suite for the masses? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723754)

I know the party line is everything needs to be free or nearly free but you might as well say Porsche needs to sell it's cars for $5,000 or less because some people can't aford them. There are free options for some of the parts of Creative Suite but it was never intended to be the option for everyone. Most software has actually come down in price over the last 20 years inspite of most prices doubling. Maya used to sell for the price of a sports car where as today you can buy the full version for $3,700 and they used to have a two grand version. These are considered professional softwares and they require an investment. There's lots of things I'd like but I can't aford them. I've spent tens of thousands on software over the years and done without nice things to aford them so why should some one else gets theirs for free?

At least they are consistent (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | about 3 years ago | (#35723836)

Adobe, like Intuit and Microsoft, has worked for decades to establish a dominant position in their market. They are entitled to milk it as hard as they want, reap the benefits and suffer the consequences. I've seen drug companies do the same with drugs protected by patents. Once they establish an installed base with a dependency, they raise their prices, sometimes ten- to fifty-fold. Their customers have fewer options, too. Of course, once the patent rights expire, the drug price drops like a rock. Adobe walks a fine line, seeing pressure from public domain programs like gimp and competitors like Microsoft. They do it their way at the risk of someone offering an easier/cheaper alternative. The cost of their software is not just the product price. Many spend far more on training. CS5 is very complex and not many know it end-to-end. Actually, they benefit from the high cost, as those who have mastered it can earn a good living off it. There is a whole ecosystem behind keeping this business model.

adobe sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35723856)

search Ingram's database for Adobe products and you will get 11,000 results. crazy. french english education government premium basic bundle volume points.

PDF's created in Windows are now broken when opening them in Mac OS X. Portable Documents my ass.

Flash running the CPU's and fans on millions of Macs must increase energy consumption around the world.

Photoshop and Illustrator should have been combined into one app years ago.

Adobe sucks ass...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account