Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 24613 times)

daws

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 282
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #100 on: May 10, 2013, 03:56:52 PM »

How  long was "raw support for currently shipping products" in the past -- months not weeks?

You're citing Adobe's past practices as an indicator of what they will do in the future. In fact, this week has made it clear that what Adobe did in the past absolutely cannot be relied upon as an indicator of what they will do in the future.



Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #101 on: May 10, 2013, 03:59:20 PM »

I'm with Gothmoth on this one. For the couple of people who are vigorously defending Adobe on this without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see - one that makes the debacle that X-Rite tried to foist on us a couple of years ago, childlike in comparison - I'm wondering how you are reconciling that in your own mind. I'm only halfway okay with the new licensing scheme, but when you factor in the licensing agreement, the insult is almost too much to bear. That you're given no choice in the matter and half to agree to odious terms in order to proceed should have everyone, especially those photographers and former photographers who purportedly care about individual rights, scurrying towards the door. I really don't see how anyone, for or against this argument can read those terms and say they're okay with them, but I might be wrong.

Don't take this wrong...it is totally tongue-in-cheek....it could be worse, they could claim to own the copyright for all the images processed by PS-CC......oops....they probably missed that... ::)
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #102 on: May 10, 2013, 04:03:56 PM »

With all due respect....I do not think you have thought through this completely


With all due respect, you have done nothing to show why you think so.

Look, I do not mean to demean you.   However, if you do not know, then I suspect that you either do not use Lightroom or are not taking full advantage of it.
Logged
John

schaubild

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #103 on: May 10, 2013, 04:09:48 PM »

Well, Adobe already prepares the ground for some more entertainment:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 04:14:45 PM by schaubild »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11910
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #104 on: May 10, 2013, 04:10:22 PM »

Yeah...I wasn't clear.  Meant non-Adobe products.

Got to send either a flattened TIFF or one that has the flattened data inside it. Any 3rd party product can't understand the layers, that's proprietary Adobe stuff.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Justan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1928
    • Justan-Elk.com
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #105 on: May 10, 2013, 04:15:02 PM »

Well, they already prepare the ground for this:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html



Thanks for the post.

Parts of their licensing terms are nothing short of outrageous.

MarkM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 419
    • Alaska Photographer Mark Meyer
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #106 on: May 10, 2013, 04:40:58 PM »

Quote from: pfigen
without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see
Thanks for the post.
Parts of their licensing terms are nothing short of outrageous.

Specifically, which part do you find so outrageous and odious?

pfigen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 516
    • http://www.peterfigen.com
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #107 on: May 10, 2013, 05:11:05 PM »

Have your read those terms and conditions yet? There's so much that is patently offensive that it would take up way too much space here. Any photographer or creative who knows anything about and/or values his own rights will find it that way. That so many appear to have not read through it is a shame and especially those who are vociferously defending the what, with this language, becomes indefensible. I think folks are too wrapped up in the shock of the original announcement and are now only getting to the nitty gritty details now. The backlash against X-Rite with their restrictive language forced them to modify. Unfortunately with Adobe, this is nothing new. When Adobe upgraded their User to User forums, they also upgraded their terms and conditions relating to posting images and content in a way that pretty much makes it stupid to post anything there, much like Facebook.

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.
Logged

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #108 on: May 10, 2013, 05:12:00 PM »

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable, but having just spent £630 on PS CS6 just a few weeks ago what I actually want is support for a reasonable period, say 18-24 months of updates including new camera support. What I don't want is to have to give Adobe even more money for CC and the support I should be receiving with my new product.

Thoughts anyone?



Same here, at least I would expect Adobe to solve the annoying bugs like the disappearing cursor. It now feels I have never owned a complete normally working product and Adobe is forcing me to buy into a subscription model. I alread have little faith in their ability to solve bugs... I wish I could deliver an incomplete product to my clients and force them into buying more for higher prices from me. I have no confidence in Adobe they will fix current bugs in CS6, especially the disappearing cursor is annoying and has been in CS6 from the beginning.
Logged

Colorwave

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1007
    • Colorwave Imaging
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #109 on: May 10, 2013, 05:14:04 PM »

Hey, at least our cursor eventually returns, unlike our option for a perpetual license.
Logged

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2410
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #110 on: May 10, 2013, 05:17:53 PM »

Yeah, but you do need to Tab out of the program each time.

BTW, What is in it for me as a customer of Adobe?? What is my advantage?

The updating thing is no issue to me. I am alway online and can update instantly. Faster bug fixes?  after Adobes performance on CS6 I have no faith in that. But honestly, what is the real gain for Adobe customers?? I don't see it.
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #111 on: May 10, 2013, 05:23:43 PM »

With all due respect, you have still done nothing to show why you think so.

I don't give LR lessons, talk to Jeff  :)
Logged
John

MarkM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 419
    • Alaska Photographer Mark Meyer
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #112 on: May 10, 2013, 05:38:33 PM »

Have your read those terms and conditions yet? There's so much that is patently offensive that it would take up way too much space here. Any photographer or creative who knows anything about and/or values his own rights will find it that way. That so many appear to have not read through it is a shame and especially those who are vociferously defending the what, with this language, becomes indefensible. I think folks are too wrapped up in the shock of the original announcement and are now only getting to the nitty gritty details now. The backlash against X-Rite with their restrictive language forced them to modify. Unfortunately with Adobe, this is nothing new. When Adobe upgraded their User to User forums, they also upgraded their terms and conditions relating to posting images and content in a way that pretty much makes it stupid to post anything there, much like Facebook.

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.

That's what I thought. You have nothing specific. It's pretty easy to be shocked, SHOCKED, at the things you find in TOS agreements, but when it comes down to it, it's boiler plate that you find in just about every software and service TOS agreement you read. The writer of that blog is clearly pissed at Adobe and is looking for anything to mad about—it's almost all hyperbole. Or he's never looked at another TOS agreement before today. So that's what I asked: what is in there that is so outrageous and unusual? That they can change their terms? That they can object to objectionable material? That they might show advertisements when you use their service. I'm not defending them, I don't love anything there, I'm just sincerely curious what specifically you object to.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11910
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #113 on: May 10, 2013, 05:41:54 PM »

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.

Come on Peter, you can do better than that can't you?

Got to agree with Mark, that's not a useful reply. If there's some nasty bits there, let's see em. Since I don't play a lawyer on TV, I'd appreciate too, having someone point out something I should be pissed about.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

AFairley

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1484
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #114 on: May 10, 2013, 06:06:47 PM »

There is nothing really unusual about the TOS.  Some of the terms likely are not enforceable if push came to shove. 
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #115 on: May 10, 2013, 07:30:19 PM »

"Got to agree with Mark, that's not a useful reply. If there's some nasty bits there, let's see em. Since I don't play a lawyer on TV, I'd appreciate too, having someone point out something I should be pissed about."

See my post at #46, but I'll take a stab at what should cause mild disappointment in the TOS.

1. No refunds, never, no matter what even if it crashes.

2. No requirement for support, never. 

3. Adobe can cancel your subscription for a reason or for no reason.

4. If, Shudder/Shake and Content Aware doesn't quite operate the way it's advertised and destroys the 15 layers you've been working on Tough Sh..  Ain't Adobe's problem.

5.  If you are rude with support because you can't understand the dialect, you can be permanently cut off from support with no recourse with a permanent license and no refunds if you're in the "Cloud" rent mode.  Nevertheless, your credit card will be wacked for 50% of the amount remaining unpaid on a one year subscription.

6.  Adobe says SantaClara county is the only venue for litigation, and if you commence an action against them for a warranty breach, you must first pay them $1000 because you have agreed that they have given you no warranty of any kind for any purpose.

So there you are, on a deadline for delivery of of your product and, as we have experienced, CS 6 won't launch because of the most recent "update" that requires me to pay attention to the days remaining.  If I don't, Adobe program manager self-destructs and I can't even download a copy from my own account because it tells me I have to contact support.  I wait for 45 minutes, and then get told to leave a phone number and someone will contact me within 48 hours.   What's my recourse?

Well for example, if I'm a New York resident and have the bucks to pay a lawyer, that Adobe Warranty Waiver is null and void unless it was signed before the purchase.  There are other escapes from the Warranty Waiver in almost every other state, but Adobe's legal "beagles" as Mr. Schewe likes to refer to them, have placed some discouraging language and threatening financial penalties in the Purchase/TOS agreement.  Unfortunately, there are, as Mr. Schewe has characterized them, snakes who, like Adobe's beagles, like to eat and therefore have to charge a fee that will easily exceed the purchase price of your Adobe software.

Other than these minor objections, I see nothing wrong with Adobe's agreement


Ken Richmond

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11910
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #116 on: May 10, 2013, 07:48:14 PM »

Thanks Ken, interesting.

While none of the bullet points are something to applaud, most don't seem too surprising. Certainly not #1 or #3, I'd kind of expect that from most companies. #5 seems weird to me but not a deal breaker. #6 is standard stuff and understandable. #2 of all seems a bit out there. I might not fully understand the fine points.

I don't see anything from your fine paraphrase that is outrageous and odious. I was expecting something akin to "we own your images" or something really over the top.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #117 on: May 10, 2013, 08:04:45 PM »

The reality is that Adobe's counsel KNOWS that the Warranty Waiver terms are not enforcible in most jurisdictions.  They put the language in there to actively discourage someone from taking justified action.  There is a terse acknowledgement that the  waiver of "Warranty of Merchantability and Fitness for a Particular Purpose may not be applicable in 'some' states.  See post #46 and the link there.  

Here is the point:  You, as a well know photographer and having excellent blog on color management obviously work for clients.  Would you
give your client a purchase agreement with Adobe's terms?

I really want to know?

Thanks,

Ken Richmond
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11910
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #118 on: May 10, 2013, 08:12:30 PM »

Here is the point:  You, as a well know photographer and having excellent blog on color management obviously work for clients.  Would you
give your client a purchase agreement with Adobe's terms?

Don't know, really. Probably not.

I have two kinds of clients. One group (other photographers and such) no contracts (I've yet to be screwed but don't tell anyone).

The other client is pretty big companies who send me their contracts and I'm back in the camp of "little guy photographer who wants the job <g>. Again, I've yet to be screwed by them ether. Like I said, I don't play a lawyer on TV.

I've clicked YES to a lot of EULA over the years. I've read a few as best I can.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

johnvr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
Re: Michael's take on Adobe CC
« Reply #119 on: May 10, 2013, 08:35:15 PM »

As much as I'm upset about Adobe's CC move, or at least the lack of choice given to us, I don't think the terms are much different from the terms of most services we use. That's a dead end to me.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up