Vorlath posted at 12:04PM Wed, 10 February 2016 - #4254173

RHaseltine posted at 8:26PM Tue, 09 February 2016 - #4254040

Vorlath posted at 9:39AM Tue, 09 February 2016 - #4253979

I said pretty much the same thing ssgbryan says up above. DAZ will ride this to the end. To me, it looks like they are hurting bad. The only reason they would add encryption is if they're looking for additional sources of revenue. Otherwise, there is no reason to do this. Anyhow, my post at DAZ forums got deleted right away for saying this. Some have said that DAZ will drop DRM if there is no cost-benifit. Incorrect. Other companies have used DRM and they've gone under. In fact, the more they lost revenue, the more they strengthened DRM. And as another user said, DAZ never has a plan B. They will stick to DRM to the end.

Speculation without foundation, however firmly stated, is not fact.

I wish it was speculation, but it isn't. I've said 2 things.

1. That a business has invested money into something they hope will become a source of income.
2. That said company will continue to use said "something" to the end.

Neither one is contestable. For the first point to be false, it would mean that business invested in something that provides them zero revenue and causes zero advantage to their users. That's just nonsense. The second point would normally be challenged on the premise that if said company were to lose money, they would re-evaluate their decision. The problem is that what they implemented is something they believe will generate revenue, or worst case, stop free access to their products. So exactly how will they come to the realization that this "something" is actually the culprit or harmful in any way?

So go ahead. Challenge the points I've made. It simply cannot be done in a fashion that makes any logical sense. Now, people making decisions that don't make sense is possible, but that's not something I want to entertain for the time being.

No problem,

1. That a business has invested money into something they hope will become a source of income.

There are numerous reasons a company or business will outlay funds other than just in the interest of direct financial return. Such as safety, compliance, philanthropy, staff morale, security. For example employing lifesavers to patrol a public pool is an expense that is unlikely to see a direct increase in revenue. You could always rely on other pool users to perform any necessary rescues, resuscitations or just generally pose about. This example falls into safety and compliance which will drive many expenses for a business that will not see a direct increase in income in many cases but may help to avoid costly lawsuits. There are many many examples of where a business will invest resources and finances other than just direct financial return. And I think you will find that in this case it relates more to asset security than an expectation of direct revenue increase. Increased security may have follow on revenue effects but not really direct.

2. That said company will continue to use said "something" to the end.

I actually find this statement to be quite a strange one and not sure what the point of it is, it's a little like saying - it will continue to keep raining, until it stops raining. And its issue mainly seems to lay in your acceptance of the first point as an undeniable truth.

History is full of amazing backflips from large companies who have altered or discontinued product lines. In fact there is a concept in marketing known as the product cycle which basically says that every product has a cycle which is Introduction, Growth, maturity and decline. What this means is that a product's viability is measurable by its sales and there is an acceptance that any vibrant business will constantly innovate and change to adapt to market demand or financial pressures.

You have asked : So exactly how will they come to the realization that this "something" is actually the culprit or harmful in any way? The same as any conclusive analysis would reveal the facts necessary for decision making, assessment of data leads to conclusions.

Conclusion in the absence of data is pure speculation...

You made a number of assertions in your first post. For them to be any more than opinion or speculation you would need to back them up with relevant data. The question is do you have any? There is no issue with having an opinion, but suggesting that opinion is fact simply because you believe to be unfortunately doesn't make it so.