Not everyone has a Meng looking out for them...

[Ludwig Bouwer]

Read this and count your blessings :O) 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-they-can-get-sued-for-using-old-versions-of-photoshop

Edited May 15, 2019 by Ludwig Bouwer
Missing link

[chuckebaby]

That link isn't working for me. But this one HERE is.

Our legal rights to any purchased software is defined by a "million word contract/EULA" that we skimmed through century's ago.

That contract said.. you agree that you don't have any legal rights.”
 

[Ludwig Bouwer]

Link fixed, thanks!

 

[Bapu]

I imagine they have to find the offenders first. How would they do that?

[JonD]

I thought the whole idea of cloud applications was so that the software company could have complete control of the software (Which is why I avoid most of it).

It was my understanding that from version 1 of any cloud software, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD the user would have to abide by certain restrictions, and if they didn't, the company could deactivate the user's copy.

Guess I'm just a bit surprised that in the article, it said the company SENT OUT LETTERS, which seems very 1990s -- since  I imagined that the first person who used his software past the contract date would not be able to activate. (I stopped using Adobe when they went to the cloud, so I have no idea how they work).

Edited May 15, 2019 by JonD

[mettelus]

25 minutes ago, Bapu said:

I imagine they have to find the offenders first. How would they do that?

Adobe is riddled with ping-backs to multiple servers, and intercepting them all creates an ever-changing landscape. Staying offline is counter-productive for some apps, since that is where they have most use, or what they are for in the first place.

Having said that, throwing litigation threats at people is sort of just that... Adobe wouldn't recover legal fees from individual users, but maybe from companies.

One nicety of Win 10 is that the OS itself shouldn't lock-out the CS6 (or below) apps in the foreseeable future. The amount of features added in the past 6 years hasn't been enough to even consider jumping on the CC bandwagon for me. If someone makes revenue from them, that is a different story that would take more consideration.

The timing of the announcement in the OP also coincides with Adobe doubling the CC price of those apps (the most popular subscription), so it comes across that they are testing how far they can push it.

[bitflipper]

Unfortunately, it's an increasingly popular strategy for software vendors looking to establish annuity income.

I have a critical utility that I use in my day job that I originally bought 20 years ago for $80. It did everything I needed. Then one day it stopped working, and I was forced to re-purchase the product for $240. Two years later it stopped working again and the price had gone up to $360. When I reluctantly went to buy yet another forced upgrade, I was informed that I can now only rent the software for $36 a month. And they had the audacity to try and convince me they were doing me a favor.

Fortunately, we currently have the option of switching to another vendor. But only for as long as the industry is still in transition to the predatory model.  There are already sectors in which that option has been completely removed.

Microsoft has made no secret of the fact that they want to make Windows a subscription. Here's how I see it progressing:

1. Initially, the subscription model will be optional. It will appeal to some business users.

2. Subscription will then become the only way to "buy" Windows. Many DAW users will be unaffected, as they have stayed on Windows 7.

3. Older versions of Windows will be intentionally made obsolete. This will be done through developers, who will be told they must do X in order to qualify for the Windows logo, and X is incompatible with older versions of Windows.

4. The end game will be to make running older versions illegal.

[InstrEd]

I'm not sure about Windows Home becoming free. I see Microsoft giving you a nag screen to update and  after a grace period you must update.
As always time will tell.

[mdiemer]

The future is open-source. someday, probably after I'm dead, people will be making music on Linux for free. The only thing they'll be paying for is the sounds, although many will just use freebies there too. It is in the nature of this stuff that you can't control it. Short of a totalitarian world government, the future will be free, or mostly free.

[emwhy]

A friend of mine is a broadcast engineer. They use the cloud version of Audition of 58 different workstations throughout their company.  They tried to negotiate a deal with Adobe to give them a blanket cost since there are so many licenses in use. Adobe told them "NO". The costs to my friend's company would have been staggering annually so they have dropped the program completely.  If you ask me (and you didn't) this a shitty way for Adobe to treat customers.

 

 

[marcL]

I hope all those companies that try to earn money in such a mean way go to hell!

I agree, a company has to earn money, but IMHO there must be always a fair deal between a customer and a service provider. Nowadays' trends are really a step back to the Middle Ages. More and more people do not own anything anymore, they are employees, they live in a rented appartment, they have a leased car and they have a bunch of subscriptions to pay. What a life, 100% dependency, bondslaves! The big companies, media and the polititians dictate our lives!

You say Middle Ages is exaggerated? Here in Sweden we pay about 400% tax for gasoline (income tax+gas tax) and it is not much better in other European countries. I really wonder about what kind of era we live in?

[mdiemer]

We need a change in laws regarding software. If you buy something and it's in your computer, you should own it. That's a great point there about the Middle Ages and Serfdom.  I understand about piracy, I have no problem with dongles or other ways to authorize. Intellectual property theft is wrong. But this business about renting everything has to stop.

Hopefully, this is just a stage in the evolution of the way we use software. That's why open source holds such great promise. People sharing their ideas, improving the tools they use to make music, or art or whatever. The software we use for these things is almost like language itself. you can't license language. At least for now, anyway. there are even disturbing trends regarding free speech in some places.

[Kurre]

It's the companies that have the power. Governments only rules over workers. Get used to it and get used to things not being done because a company can't make a profit on it.

[Gswitz]

idk. Interesting to read predictions.

I think the impact of Open Source should be considered.

I don't think there are that many people who can be pressed into staying with Windows. Lots of younger folks don't understand OS and related installed apps. They live on the web and any web conduit does the job.

If Microsoft begins leaning on everyone for subscription dues, I think they will be much more poorly received than ol' Cakewalk. We love Cakewalk and signed up for the dues out of loyalty. 

If I wasn't so thankful to the devs who give us this tool, I would have jumped and not returned. Many of us gifted when asked.

I don't use many apps these days that don't work fine on Linux, and I have Cakewalk (which I miss when I'm booted to Linux). 

My daughter would barely know she wasn't using Windows. Surely, she would not send them money.

So, it would probably work on the older generation. Are there enough retirees, flush with cash, who don't want to learn something new to bring Windows to a forever-end for a final pay-check?

Edited May 15, 2019 by Gswitz

[Gswitz]

1 hour ago, Kurre said:

It's the companies that have the power. Governments only rules over workers. Get used to it and get used to things not being done because a company can't make a profit on it.

Companies are not people. They are not free to act as they choose. They are legally responsible to their investors/stock-holders.

Companies must act for profits. It's a good thing from the perspective of the investor. They should use the money we invest in them to make more money. Otherwise, why would we invest? Who protects the grandma and grandpa who put their life savings in the hands of young companies? Right now, the courts.

From my perspective, the weird thing is that the courts protect companies as if they are US Citizens. They are not. They should not be protected by the constitution as citizens. They are just objects within the country... People participate in corporations usually, but it would be possible to imagine a bot corporation that doesn't have a human in it. Only human investors that give the bot fuel to create more money.

So, I think we should undo the court rulings that protect companies as if they were citizens themselves. It's possible for companies to be owned by foreigners all together. Non-citizens. All you need to do to get protections as a US Citizen is to buy a US Company? How weird.

We are the government. We choose what power to grant to companies. We can make constitutional amendments to force the court to treat corporations like the untrustworthy entities they are. We have centuries of corporate history to predict future behavior with.

Corporations are like bots. They are not full of good-will. They are not interested in making the world better. They are structures for money making. And we want them to be that.

We just want to legislate them like they are nothing more than money-making bots.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Gswitz

[bitflipper]

Sorry, all my fellow hippie dreamers, but here's how open source and shareware typically go...

Cool Edit Pro (shareware) -> Adobe Audition (buy once) -> Adobe CC (subscription only).

Yes, sometimes it does go the other way. The MP3 encoder is an example of that, but it's atypical. CbB users would do well to reflect on what a great deal they're getting.

 

[abacab]

I have a full copy of Adobe Photoshop that is almost 20 years old. I also have the last version of Adobe Lightroom that was sold with a perpetual license.

I have never subscribed to the Adobe Creative Cloud thingy. Although I suppose that if I was a professional graphic designer I might consider doing so. But even if I did,  then I would always feel a weird unease that if I ever stopped subscribing I would lose all access to my software and the ability to edit my creative works. So that's a non-starter for me!

[Gswitz]

31 minutes ago, bitflipper said:

CbB users would do well to reflect on what a great deal they're getting.

I really am grateful to so many for all they create. Cakewalk especially.

I'm not against corporations. I only feel they are not individuals and shouldn't be treated like individuals legally.

[mdiemer]

Predictions in this day and age are risky. I have no idea what the future holds, really. Things change too fast, technology moves too fast. I think we project our hopes more than anything, when we make predictions. So who knows? I'm just grateful we still have cakewalk. But I will make another donation at some point,  just to be on the safe side. I hope it's still around another 20 or so years. After that, I'll either be dead, or robots will have taken over the world.

[msmcleod]

In some ways it makes total sense for businesses to offer subscriptions to other businesses, especially if it's cloud based.

For one thing, it lowers the cost of ownership in the sense that you don't actually own the software. This has favourable tax implications, as it is seen as an expense which is tax deductible, rather than an owned asset (which you may have to pay tax on, depending on where your company is based and what you've bought).

If it's cloud based, it's really easy to expand storage, CPU's, RAM etc on the fly as you need it without having to buy hardware (same argument as above) and without having to redeploy your software.

The plugin subscription plans make total sense for small commercial studios.

For the average consumer though, it's may or may not make sense. Having the choice between buying it outright and a subscription is best, but forcing people to take a subscription and/or forcing upgrades on people without any guarantee that it will be backward compatible is really bad IMO.