In the UK, we're used to getting our phones for free. Now, nobody is expecting to get an iPhone for free, however, this contract does show a marked change...
Here, when we take out a phone contract, we get a phone for free ( higher the rate of contract, the more expensive phone you can have ). The carrier will lock you into the contract for usually 12 months ( sometimes now 18 months ), in order to recoup the cost of the phone. That's fair enough, good value, everyone happy. If you *buy* a phone here, you aren't locked into a contract, and can switch provider or have Pay-As-You-Go etc.
With the iPhone, you have to *pay* for the phone, *and* you get locked into a min 18 month contract. So what cost is the carrier recouping? The fees it's paying to Apple, that's what.
In the first instance, the benefit and the cost-penalty go to the consumer. Fair play. In the second instance, the cost-penalty stays with the consumer, but the benefit moves to Apple. Someone somewhere is rubbing their hands with glee, but it's not the little guy on the street.
Sorry, it's a nice shiny device, with a very cool interface, but it's lacking in some important features, and I know a bad deal when I see one.
( a thinly veiled one at that ) to cut down on features as a pre-cursor to moving to their subscription based purchasing. A snr level spokesperson at Adobe laying the groundwork for cutting down on their development budget. The subscription based model means they remove the requirement to innovate continually to get new sales and produce revenue, as with subscription model revenue is a constant stream whether they release new versions or not. Win win for the corporation/shareholder, lose lose for the end user.
Seriously...? The practicalities of sending huge amounts of document data over a network for "realtime" use are just laughable, so I don't believe for one moment this is intended, clearly your data is staying locally, it's your executable coming over the wire. It lives on your machine and updates like a virus checker, won't run unless it authenticates every time you open it. That's not dissimilar to what these Apps do already.
No, this announcement has nothing to do with competitors or technology. This is a marketing announcement, to sow the seeds for generating more revenue for those lucky shareholders. This is a pre-cursor to subscription based computing/software. This is all about greed. Adobe are already greedy, their software prices are very high, they have a history of stiffing their customers ( Photoshop CS3 is up to 2x the price in the UK over the US version ).
Think about it. Adobe release a new Photoshop every, say 18 months? Every 18 months, the faithful devotees buy the upgrade, new users buy the software, and the feckless steal it. The money comes in, at least from the first two. If Adobe takes longer to develop, say 2 years, that's another 6 months before the money comes in. Now... if us suckers are paying monthly, and they don't release.... well, what difference does it make? Adobe still gets paid... hell, they can take as long as they like now, slash the development budget, they have a constant revenue stream, why innovate? If they take 3 years, well so what, it just means that the customer has paid twice as much for the older version. It's simple arithmetic.
Subscription based software isn't about making it easier to innovate ( which is what they will claim ), it's about removing the requirement to innovate.
OK, I should RTFA, and not rely on the/. synopsis, which is pretty contrary to the actual article itself. Clearly they did know about Wilhem. Thanks a bunch/.
The article is typical of some hack cranking out an article without understanding the technology or doing a shred of research.
Firstly there are two main types of inkjet ink, there's dye and then pigment. The difference between them is like watercolour vs oil-paint. Dye inks will soak into the fibres of the paper and change the colour of the paper fibres, pigment inks are the colour, they sit atop the paper as little blobs of colour, like oil paint.
The inkjet prints we've all seen fading are dye prints, which are prone to fading both by strong light, and by atmospheric contamination. They are also compounded by people buying third party inks and refills based upon the myth that they're "just as good". They might look bright an punchy when you print it, but two weeks later when it's fading maybe you'll realise why the big companies like HP, Canon and particularly Epson spend millions on ink research, and why their inks cost more.
The Archival inkjet printers we see on sale today pretty much exclusively use pigment inks, which have their own set of problems to overcome ( gloss differential, bronzing & metamerism ). Pigment inks are very stable, and can include other elements like gloss and uv filtering coatings. A lifetime of 75 years can be expected, longer if stored away for archival purposes. B&W prints can last even longer ( it's often the yellow that's the first to fade ).
Dye inks are becoming increasingly better in the longevity department too, the latest efforts from Epson have a much longer lifespan than previous dye inks.
The article suggests there is no standardised testing, this is not entirely true, the slightest bit of research would have yielded the standardised tests developed by Henry Wilhelm at the Wilhelm Institute. Virtually all the major manufacturers ( Epson, HP, Canon, Hahnemuhle etc ), with the exception of Kodak who are a bit naughty here, use these same tests for their quoted longevity claims. It's as close to a "standard" as there will ever be, and is widely accepted in the industry.
The best archival quality in wet-chemistry prints was considered to be Cibachrome, now refered to as Ilfochrome Classic. A good pigment inkjet will last as long or longer than a Cibachrome.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, we're used to getting our phones for free. Now, nobody is expecting to get an iPhone for free, however, this contract does show a marked change... Here, when we take out a phone contract, we get a phone for free ( higher the rate of contract, the more expensive phone you can have ). The carrier will lock you into the contract for usually 12 months ( sometimes now 18 months ), in order to recoup the cost of the phone. That's fair enough, good value, everyone happy. If you *buy* a phone here, you aren't locked into a contract, and can switch provider or have Pay-As-You-Go etc. With the iPhone, you have to *pay* for the phone, *and* you get locked into a min 18 month contract. So what cost is the carrier recouping? The fees it's paying to Apple, that's what. In the first instance, the benefit and the cost-penalty go to the consumer. Fair play. In the second instance, the cost-penalty stays with the consumer, but the benefit moves to Apple. Someone somewhere is rubbing their hands with glee, but it's not the little guy on the street. Sorry, it's a nice shiny device, with a very cool interface, but it's lacking in some important features, and I know a bad deal when I see one.
( a thinly veiled one at that ) to cut down on features as a pre-cursor to moving to their subscription based purchasing. A snr level spokesperson at Adobe laying the groundwork for cutting down on their development budget. The subscription based model means they remove the requirement to innovate continually to get new sales and produce revenue, as with subscription model revenue is a constant stream whether they release new versions or not. Win win for the corporation/shareholder, lose lose for the end user.
Seriously...? The practicalities of sending huge amounts of document data over a network for "realtime" use are just laughable, so I don't believe for one moment this is intended, clearly your data is staying locally, it's your executable coming over the wire. It lives on your machine and updates like a virus checker, won't run unless it authenticates every time you open it. That's not dissimilar to what these Apps do already.
No, this announcement has nothing to do with competitors or technology. This is a marketing announcement, to sow the seeds for generating more revenue for those lucky shareholders. This is a pre-cursor to subscription based computing/software. This is all about greed. Adobe are already greedy, their software prices are very high, they have a history of stiffing their customers ( Photoshop CS3 is up to 2x the price in the UK over the US version ).
Think about it. Adobe release a new Photoshop every, say 18 months? Every 18 months, the faithful devotees buy the upgrade, new users buy the software, and the feckless steal it. The money comes in, at least from the first two. If Adobe takes longer to develop, say 2 years, that's another 6 months before the money comes in. Now... if us suckers are paying monthly, and they don't release.... well, what difference does it make? Adobe still gets paid... hell, they can take as long as they like now, slash the development budget, they have a constant revenue stream, why innovate? If they take 3 years, well so what, it just means that the customer has paid twice as much for the older version. It's simple arithmetic.
Subscription based software isn't about making it easier to innovate ( which is what they will claim ), it's about removing the requirement to innovate.
OK, I should RTFA, and not rely on the /. synopsis, which is pretty contrary to the actual article itself. Clearly they did know about Wilhem. Thanks a bunch /.
The article is typical of some hack cranking out an article without understanding the technology or doing a shred of research.
Firstly there are two main types of inkjet ink, there's dye and then pigment. The difference between them is like watercolour vs oil-paint. Dye inks will soak into the fibres of the paper and change the colour of the paper fibres, pigment inks are the colour, they sit atop the paper as little blobs of colour, like oil paint.
The inkjet prints we've all seen fading are dye prints, which are prone to fading both by strong light, and by atmospheric contamination. They are also compounded by people buying third party inks and refills based upon the myth that they're "just as good". They might look bright an punchy when you print it, but two weeks later when it's fading maybe you'll realise why the big companies like HP, Canon and particularly Epson spend millions on ink research, and why their inks cost more.
The Archival inkjet printers we see on sale today pretty much exclusively use pigment inks, which have their own set of problems to overcome ( gloss differential, bronzing & metamerism ). Pigment inks are very stable, and can include other elements like gloss and uv filtering coatings. A lifetime of 75 years can be expected, longer if stored away for archival purposes. B&W prints can last even longer ( it's often the yellow that's the first to fade ).
Dye inks are becoming increasingly better in the longevity department too, the latest efforts from Epson have a much longer lifespan than previous dye inks.
The article suggests there is no standardised testing, this is not entirely true, the slightest bit of research would have yielded the standardised tests developed by Henry Wilhelm at the Wilhelm Institute. Virtually all the major manufacturers ( Epson, HP, Canon, Hahnemuhle etc ), with the exception of Kodak who are a bit naughty here, use these same tests for their quoted longevity claims. It's as close to a "standard" as there will ever be, and is widely accepted in the industry.
The best archival quality in wet-chemistry prints was considered to be Cibachrome, now refered to as Ilfochrome Classic. A good pigment inkjet will last as long or longer than a Cibachrome.