Slashdot Mirror
Inducement To Piracy, Adobe Style
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.'"
income in the states will will be a fraction what is was. Who is going to pay Adobe then?
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
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. 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.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
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?
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.
Loading...
Th
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.
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.
crazy dynamite monkey
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Like http://ubuntustudio.org/ ?
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.
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.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
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.
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.
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.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
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.
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
http://saveie6.com/
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!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Really? You're going to tag on the cost of CS5 to your clients bill? I don't know what kind of "serious and professional" work you do but if anyone did that in most industries they'd be looking for a new client.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Consider also the Tacoma Narrows fiasco, now some decades ago, which in my opinion is not a mistake that competent engineers make, but one due to social promotion at the highest levels of our education system
I know you're young, but the social promotion you're talking about didn't start until the 70's and wasn't commonplace until the 90's (I remember kids flunking often enough). The Tacoma Narrows Bridge went wacky in 1940. The engineers who designed and built that bridge were probably taught in 1910-1935. They're the great-great-grandparents of the spoiled "everyone wins" generation.
The Minnesota I-35W bridge collapse is indeed a symptom of our inability (or at least shortsighted unwillingness) to maintain our infrastructure. But the Tacoma Narrows (a.k.a. "Galloping Gertie") collapse happened in 1940 -- that's before the "empire" you claim is declining even existed! (The United States became a "superpower" during/after/because of WW2.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Personally, I find the best feature of CS5 to be that trial expiry no longer works. Every time it starts on my PC, it claims I've got 30 days left to evaluate, then when it finally actually starts it claims the trial has expired but I can run it *just one more time*.
Rinse and repeat.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Seriously, how hard can it be to not upgrade. If you're working on a huge project in-house, don't upgrade your software half-way through, unless you're prepared to update all copies of it.
InDesign, the software mentioned in the article, will automatically upgrade the format of the document when opened in a new version with no warning. This can be a problem. It also does allow you to downsave by one version (CS5 can save as InDesign Interchange format, which will open in CS4. CS4 to INX for CS3).
If you have the Creative Suite, you really should be on volume licensing - even if it's just one copy. It's not a well known fact, but individuals can purchase volume licensing and there is no minimum buy-in to their TLP licensing program. Licensing copies are cheaper than retail box copies, you can re-download your installers if you lose them, Adobe keep a record of your serial number/proof of purchase if you loose it or are audited and you can purchase maintenance if you want to keep your copies up-to-date for less than the regular upgrade cost.
Also, with licensing, if you purchase a copy of, say, CS5, but you're running all CS4 licenses in your studio, you can install a copy of CS4 instead using your CS4 volume license serial number.
There's no arguing that the Creative Suite is expensive, but if you're smart about it, you can keep the costs down a bit.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne