Thumbs up @ moriador.

But be careful and steer away from the politico stuffs. cause that's a no-no 'roun these parts.

Yea, anxiety sucks. been there way too many times myself. not so much these days tho. 

Nope, you can't eat your dreams. We have so many other things that can do that for us tho.

Ok back to original topic.

Or art.

Or how to cure a hangover. Omfg my head... told them i didn't wanna drink cause i got work to do and they made me do it anyway, lol.... uuggghh....

Thumbs up @ moriador.

But be careful and steer away from the politico stuffs. cause that's a no-no 'roun these parts.

Yea, anxiety sucks. been there way too many times myself. not so much these days tho. 

Nope, you can't eat your dreams. We have so many other things that can do that for us tho.

Ok back to original topic.

Or art.

Or how to cure a hangover. Omfg my head... told them i didn't wanna drink cause i got work to do and they made me do it anyway, lol.... uuggghh....

Not going to discuss politics here, Shane. Economics and philosophy, however.... ;) Seriously, though. No one brings up Marx unless they want to end a political discussion. It's a sort of... Godwin's law unto itself.  At least, that was my hope. No cures for hangovers. I've only ever had a few. I'm one of those people who can drink entire quart of whiskey and feel no pain the next day, which is dangerous territory to be in. It's way too easy to pick up a habit. So I don't bother drinking any more.

Good news is that if you suffer nasty hangovers, you're less likely to become an alcoholic. Yea! So that should make you feel instantly better. Heh. Sorry.

Just don't take any Tylenol or anything with acetaminophen in it. Both alcohol and Tylenol are metabolized by the liver, and it's actually possible (and not even that unlikely) to suffer liver failure by taking it after a night of drinking. Stick with Advil/Motrin/ibuprofen or good old Aspirin. :) And eat some eggs, if you crave them.

A thumbs up to Moriador as well, just landed in Houston on my way to the port in Galveston for work, and I pretty much saw a little of what was mentioned... Lots of wide open brown plots if you want them away from everything. Won't be photoshopping for a few days but I did get zbrush loaded to make correctives for this project.

I had some pita and humus - and a monster coffee and some aspirin. I never take tylenol for anything. just aspirin and the occasional ibuprofen when aspirin isn't cuttin it but even that's rare. I think i'm mostly good now. still a bit swim-headed but good enough to be able to look at my screen for more than 5 minutes now. I didn't even drink that much. used to be able to handle a lot more than that. getting old sucks. lol. i go months without a drop of anything these days.

I've never been to TX. Well, drove thru the pan handle once on my way back here from CA. 

Have a safe trip M_M.

Well I haven't got a headache right now but I think I soon will have, stupid forum, I can't even upload a new avatar!

It lets me select it for upload but it doesn't actually upload it or display it on the settings screen after I select it.  And if I delete the old one first and then select a new one, it just puts the old one back as if I never deleted it.  Nothing to do with the caching, either.

And I know it's not Roxie messing around this time because she likes the new avatar as well!

Nevermind, it just showed up!
How do I get rid of that ugly white edge?

I have CC subscription (I get an education discount which still allows for full use nowadays) and I mainly use photoshop, muse and adobe bridge.    Muse is a very easy software for building websites. you can drag and drop. Other website building utilities tend to only let you place pictures in a similar way to text ie at the beginning middle or end, but with muse you can just drag and drop files wherever you want.

I'm finding the content aware fill tool very useful when fixing poke through on my poser people renders.  And liquify filter is really good for making adjustments to the renders as well.  And of course all the other usual tools in photoshop - cartoon actions etc.  The mixer brush tool allows stroking the hair of the render (with a dotty hair brush) to make it longer and flowing etc.

Love esther

Yes, that's one thing I've always liked about Adobe's licensing - they charge less for students but it's still a full license. Most student licensed software is strictly for personal/learning use. 

One thing I've read during my search into how well the CC is working for people, is that Adobe can claim ownership on anything that's uploaded to their cloud. I don't like that, but I'm not sure where to go to verify if this actually is true or not, without subscribing and reading all the fine print that comes along with it or just calling them directly. I haven't found their terms of service on the main adobe site yet (not fond of how they have their site laid out, have to dig for a lot of things). I know some other art sites do this also, which is not cool. But some don't actually claim ownership, only fair usage rights - such as for advertising purposes and such, which I don't have a problem with, but some do. Maybe that's actually the case here. Would like to find out for sure however.

ETA - found the terms of service, lol. Guess I'm blind. And it's as I suspected, their use is only for advertising and such. You keep your rights. 

  666

vinyl or digital ,ah what ever she wants ;)

In section 3.2 they lay out what they can do with your work, which is scary if you ask me.. 

They can do just about anything they want with it, and do not have to give you anything for it in return at all.

The sub license worries me. That basically means that they can make money from it and not give you any of it. Even sell the rights to someone else, and keep all the the proceeds for themselves.

Section 3.3 sort of goes against section 3.2, and is more a CYA step in countering fraud and passing the buck if it does happen..If they are not going to look, then look, then go "Wow, we can use that". You loose all rights to it accept that you created it. Retaining ownership and not being able to control what is done with it, is no longer exactly ownership. Don't plan on them giving you credit for it, or it would specifically say that in the agreement.

Store your stuff somewhere else.

Hmm, yeah that completely contradicts 3.1

Kind of sounds like deviantart's policies. Or what their policy used to be at least. not sure if that's still the case. Doesn't daz have a similar policy? Not sure on that, i thought they did.

So, one way to combat that would be to 1 - watermark everything, and 2, not upload any print-quality work. Keeping it around 72dpi with a max size of say 600 to 800, or whatever is reasonable to show it well on the web but would be pretty useless as a print. And similar measures for audio/video, so that it's about as good as you might get from a youtube vid. I pretty much do this with most everything that I upload anyway, anywhere, to include here. 

The agreement says they can modify it, so watermarking it may not help either.

I use ASUS web storage, and what is there is encrypted so it wouldn't do anyone any good.

If you want somewhere to display a portfolio, creating a website of your own is the safest way to retain your rights to it.

That doesn't mean that someone wont steal it, because someone inevitably will.

A few of the ones I have in the gallery here have shown up all over the place.

This one has ended up all over the place and I gave on filing take downs on it.

I I found it on the same poster site a few times, lol...

true, on the modifying. But can't add resolution that isn't there to begin with, without it becoming pixelated, or without spending a whole lot of time on it by hand. Same with watermarks, if they're placed in the right areas on the image then trying to remove them makes it pretty obvious. I kind of doubt a company like Adobe would be making it a habit of doing too much of that - their customers would start dropping like flies if they went too far overboard with it. A lesser-known company might be a bit more prone to taking advantage like that.

Of course not uploading anything at all is the safest bet, (kind of like abstinence is the only true protection from std's - lol), but then how does a digital artist advertise their work? One of the pitfalls to being an artist on the web really. Anyone that comes across it can steal it, and for every one you find, there's likely 10 or even a hundred others you haven't found yet. And how much commercial Poser/3D work is out there being traded freely on torrent sites? good luck finding it all. 

Regards to hosting your own site, sure but then you have to advertise it yourself too and that can be pretty time consuming and expensive. Hosting on a site of collective works gets a lot more exposure in a much shorter timeframe, without a lot of leg work. So I guess there's pros and cons for both options. Comes down to which is more important. 

I get the microsmith emails .
they sell a enlarge photo app.
can't say how good it works but with topazlabs .
I'm sure there's a lot of app's n plugs for .jpg's manipulation.

When I post any of my Art to forums ,sites ,etc ,etc.
I know the forums ,sites ,etc ,etc. will have something about they can use it
&
Ya know it's now there for the taking buy anyone that wants it.
to do what ever they want with it legal or not ,permission or not.

they could plaster my Art all over the would Russia ,China ,NorthPole ,Texas etc etc.how would I ever know ,anyways ?

I dang sure wouldn't go to Russia and fight with them about it anyways & they know it .so there's nothing to stop them.

in 1980 Kiss,Ozzy etc etc concert tickets was $10.00 . And they sold records.
Now there making there music for free on YouTube more or less .So concert ticket's are up in the $100.00's

But we can't tore ,so. I bet all the venders lose a lot of $$$ with there stuff being given away for free.
App's and games also.

A lot of big online games are free .I know there making $$$ some how just don't know how ?

Any thing I post isn't that great anyways but if I posted killer Art really worth stealing.
Think I might have something like a tomestone ,rock,billboard in ever peace of Art.

with my logo on it in side the Art or all threw it in the back ground .
So when they steal it ,Everybody would still know it's mine. 

quote How do I get rid of that ugly white edge?

have the background black 

Most agreements for upload contain the boilerplate stuff about right to distribute, alter, blah, blah, blah, which is essential for services like DeviantArt if they are going to display the uploads.

If they are just storing your work, however, there's no need for language like that, so I'd be mightily suspicious of anything like that in say, DropBox.

Not sure what Adobe's cloud service does in that respect. Do they offer portfolio services, for instance? To showcase your uploads? If that's the case, then they need to include that boilerplate text in their agreement.

That said, some boilerplate text isn't quite so boilerplate. E.G. Facebook's agreements, which have been widely denounced as overly aggressive when it comes to rights of usage. So you do have to be very, very careful.

Making your own site to showcase your work, I think, is the best way. Control the sizes, as suggested. Include a watermark, and also add the embedded copyright and contact info. Then use social media sites like DeviantArt and whatnot to provide a sample of your work and link to your website.

If you hand code your website, you can make it extremely friendly to search engines, and all your images can be tagged with keywords (including your name) that will benefit you (so if someone googles you, they will get your portfolio images come up in a search, if you want). If you put a bit of effort into it, you can rise to the top in certain common keyword searches, but it does take some work. 

In the best scenario, I think, if someone posts a small res copy of your work and someone else like it, they can use TinEye or Google image search to find other copies of that picture. If you've done it right, your name should pop-up among the first listings, and should be peppered all over the place. That way, even if stolen, someone can find the original creator pretty easily.

Adobe offers a free portfolio site on their behance network, and as I understand it, everything you upload to your cloud storage box automatically gets displayed on your behance page. There may be a way to turn that feature off. It's basically a facebook for adobe users, i think, but you can set it up with your own unique domain. 

Adobe offers a free portfolio site on their behance network, and as I understand it, everything you upload to your cloud storage box automatically gets displayed on your behance page. There may be a way to turn that feature off. It's basically a facebook for adobe users, i think, but you can set it up with your own unique domain. 

Then they do need some rights to alter, distribute, etc in their agreements. But without seeing them, as you point out, it's hard to judge if they're reasonable. Also, neither of us is a lawyer... I'd tend to think that they probably are reasonable, if a large number of other professionals are using the service. But I wouldn't rely on that assumption to protect me. Social media seems, as an industry, to be attempting to redefine what belongs to whom, and not in favor of the user. There should be a way to turn off the service, or else you might never want to upload a seriously-needs-improvement WIP for storage. LOL.

Also, I'd want to keep in mind that Adobe's servers do not have a history of being the most secure. I still have the email notifying me that my account details were stolen when they were hacked, and unlike Sony, they didn't helpfully notifying the banks so that the credit card numbers could be invalidated. So I'd be a bit wary of storing my most precious work on their servers, even though few hackers would be interested in anything other than my credit card numbers. :D

Yes you are correct. 

If I do sub to the service I will be putting the funds on a prepaid card, so if something like that happens, all I'm out is the $20 for the prepaid. No way I'd put my actual bank account info on there, there are very few sites I trust with that info. I think I can count them on 2 fingers. lol.

And yeah, right again on the just building my own site. Thing is I did that once already - paid 2 or 3 years consecutively for an unlimited hosting plan, at about $150 a year, and never used it. Cause I know basic html, maybe a bit more, but I'm not a web designer and even tho I have dreamweaver CS4, and flash CS4, I could never get the site to actually look the way I wanted. And its difficult to find a hosting plan that is generous enough with what kind of content they allow and what they don't. I wound up having to go with an adult hosting company, which tends to cost a bit more, because none of the others I found that were reasonable would allow nudity in anything you post, even if it's art, and there's nudity in a lot of my work. 

If I was working in this industry I think I would use the Adobe CC service but I would make sure I never use the cloud part of the deal.  Adobe are not alone in having agreements where your work essentially becomes theirs.

At home I regularly back up my data, particularly the data that I could never recreate such as photographs of my parents who are no longer alive or music and art work I have created over the years.  Even the stories I have written I would miss, even though they were only ever written for family and close friends.  Not only do I back up locally I also ensure that the real important stuff has a copy stored with a family member at another location.

OK so maybe I am a little paranoid but having worked in the computer industry I have had too many occasions were I have had to explain that pictures cannot be recovered from a hard drive that failed, or if it can at massive financial cost.  It made me feel helpless and would upset me particularly if it was a wedding, or special holiday on some occasions it was a students university work built up over months.  If I felt that bad because I could not recover it so just how bad was it for those that had lost it?  The thought that I would trust any of my data to any service where I only have the owners word that the data is stored safely, I will always have access to it and no-one else will have access is a alien concept to me.  Rightly or wrongly that is why I can never see me being a fan of the cloud, the lack of control scares me.

@All
So the more you read, the more you realise you're being used, and worse still, you're actually paying them to use you!
Remember the words from that "I'm a Marionette?" track?

This crap exists purely for their benefit, not yours!

@RorrKonn
Yup, looks like I'll have to do that, shouldn't have to though because I knew that would happen and already clipped it twice now, I've eaten well into the leader on the rim already, it really shouldn't be doing that now.  Regards the hottie, well, I'd say she's defininitely a Vinyl girl, you can tell from her hat cause It looks suspiciously like she's carrying her favourite Vinyl in it - she's a good girl for being badass - what a fine specimen she is :woot:

@David
Well, you will go around posting naked women, so what do you expect?  They are going to get stolen!  To be honest though, having work stolen can feel flattering because it means someone liked what you did.  The only time I'd have issue with it is if someone was trying to sell it, make money off' my work, unless I discovered they were desperately trying to survive.

Drop it pumeco. If you don't like it don't use it but quit harpin on it. 

What do you mean, drop it?

It's a conversation, isn't it?  People are discussing the manipulative terms of using their greed-machine, so I pointed out that all this crap is for Adobe's benefit (which it is) in case others aren't aware of it.  The amount of people sucked into this crap is indication enough of how many people either aren't aware of it, or simply have no morals whatsoever.  Making excuses for why you use it is an epic fail if you have any morals whatsoever.

Thanks to that comment, I will drop it and let it go only in the direction you want it to.  Fact is they've not just trapped every CC sucker into tolerating cloud subscriptions, they're sucking them further still by forcing CC agreements upon them which, like I said, is the sort of thing only companies as big as they are, can get away with.

So suck on it, literally, cause that's what you'd be doing!

FFS

I'm out of this thread, grow-up, peeps, FFS!

Wasn't going to post this until after he'd subscribed, just to teach him a small but friendly lesson about getting caught-up in false beliefs.

Here's what's really happening to the Adobe greed-machine, it's thanks to people like myself and others who know when something needs to be avoided.
CLICK HERE - Check out the title and you might learn something useful today :-D

Thanks but that link doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know from my own research and talking to other people. A drop in revenue is to be expected when a company switches to an entirely new mode of delivering its product. That drop is only temporary, their subscribers have continued to increase. And Adobe isn't hurting from it that much, not in the larger scope of things - considering they rank #166 of largest companies according to Forbes. If they do start to suffer they'll figure out a way to solve it. 

Here's a better article for you to read:

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/management/why-a-subscription-model-could-be-the-future-for-all-businesses-1249302

Now if I had $3-$4K sitting around to drop on CS5 or 6 master collection then I would, but I don't, so that's not an option. Same for a lot of people. Subscription service is much more attainable and affordable for a lot of people, especially in today's economy. 

And using shareware or some other "cheaper" software also isn't an option, cause you get what you pay for, and they don't do what Adobe software does, not even close. If they did then I would use that instead. They're fine as additional tools for various things, but they are no substitute. When those others step up their game and actually put the development money and resources into being real competitors, then maybe the story will be different, but they'll also have to charge more for what they offer, or have their own cloud-based subscription service, because like I said previously, like it or not that is where most software is moving. At least the software that intends on staying relevant. 20 to 25 years ago most people were afraid of the internet too. The cloud is just the next stage of that. And desktop PCs and laptops are being replaced by tablets and smart phones, and everyone wants to run all this software on their tablets and smart phones, making the cloud that much more a permanent fixture of the future. Those who don't adapt get left behind. Sure, call me a sell-out if you want, I don't care. I'm going to use the software that works. 

If you want to complain about tech, complain about TVs that record everything you do and say, all under the guise of "tailored marketing". To me, that's a valid complaint and something to really be against. 

SmartTV's ... hmmm ... would that happen to be those devices with a built-in camera and microphone?

Sort of like a SmartPhone and a LapTop and a Tablet has?
The sort of thing that would never get in my house in a million years?

Man, I knew that lot before the first manufacturer had even thought about it, I can read 'em like an open book.  I personally own no such device, and the built-in webcam and microphone on my sisters laptop was physically disconnected, by yours truly, years ago.  But yeah, that's nothing, there's still a heck of a lot to come for the gullible ones yet, a heck of a lot :-D

pumeco

• Always One Step Ahead

Just to throw this out there,

Houdini Indie is now available on a yearly subscription basis. It has some restrictions and its own file save format. Limited to a max of HD renders (1920x1080) and only with the Mantra Engine (Which does awesome renders) It appears to be able to do everything that Houdini FX does, other than the restrictions listed. For what they are asking for it, you get an awesome program. Be forewarned, the learning curve is rather steep if you are just familiar with Poser/Studio. Houdini excels at reusing content, just like Poser and Studio do. You can build massive libraries of ready to use drag and drop content. Note I said build, although you can buy content at their store as well. The store is similar to what we are used to. User content for sale.

It appears that yet another company has allowed people to get high end software at a budget price. (seems to be a fad now, which is a welcome surprise)

Houdini engine is also available on a yearly basis as well. (Houdini Engine is a bridge to other software. Maya, C4D, and Unity. Has an api to write custom ones as well.)

This seems to be a trend. Companies realize that not every one can drop a few grand for a program. One of the best 3D programs in the world that no one can afford, is no longer the case.

You can get Houdini Indie for 22 years before you hit the price of buying one year of Houdini FX outright (at the present prices) 

I'm not so blind to see that all of this is a way for companies to make bigger bank than they already make. The difference is I don't care. If it's software I want and need to use, and they make it affordable to me, then I'll pay for it. If it's software that I have no use for or don't enjoy using, then I won't use it even if it's free. 

I probably won't be using Adobe's cloud storage tho. There's too many question marks and security holes in it right now, so I'll wait to see what they do about all of that. But I can use their software without having to use their storage. 

Yes they will probably make more money, but the yearly rate will also add to the user base. If you want to be on top, you have to have the most users.

Using the software for the price they are asking is a good deal. You really can't argue that at all. I do agree that the Adobe EULA for the cloud storage is a tad odd, but as we all know you don't have to use that. Hard drives are cheap, and you can use any computer you happen to have as a local back up as well. I do that on 4 machines. Anything that is added to certain directories on any of my machines is copied to all the other ones automatically. The chances of 4 machines dying at the same time are fairly slim, and I also send it to encrypted cloud storage a few times a week.

Shane, if using Adobe subscription is what you want to do, no one else's opinion on it is more relevant or valid than your own. You know what you want and need software wise, and what you can spend on it. So, only you can decide the best way to go about it. All of us already know that buying it outright is very expensive and at the same time doesn't make a lot of sense since the subscription route has far more benefits.

@David
Houdini sounds interesting from what you say, I'd take a look if it weren't for being a subscription thing.  That said, 1920x1080 is bit ridiculous anyway considering even consumer format Blu-ray is four times that amount when running in 4K mode.  Does sound interesting though, mainly because other than Vue I don't know of any other  reasonably capable package that is heavily content orientated.  The new iClone looks cool as usual, but I've no interest in that seperate Indigo thing and they've not really showed much regards the new built-in renderer improvements.  Won't be ordering this time unless they quit the secrecy about the main renderer and start giving some real details and demos of it.  I know people have (understandably) been asking for motion blur for years now, and still, no mention of it.

No mention of audio-driven animation, either.

@Shane
As it looks like you've chosen to be sucked upon, be sure to check how they structure that licence agreement, and by that I mean make sure that the terms for 'CC Storage' and 'Product Usage' are seperate otherwise you might be agreeing one for all.  Not being witty or anything, just serious, so be careful and look out for underhanded, devious ways of wording things.

Um, Blu ray is max 1920x1080... Yes it can be upscaled to 4k but it is still 1920x1080. The only 4k players out are the Red Ray from Sony and the Brightsign

They can't force me to store my files on their servers I don't care what the license says. It's not a contract, I can cancel it any time. I can pay month by month or a full year at once. So far I haven't paid anything. 

@David - yes, I'd only created this thread to see what other people's experiences with it were before I signed up. So far, other than the complaining by those who don't like change and prefer to stay stuck in the past, I haven't seen anything that makes me think it isn't a good idea. Aside from the cloud usage issues, which I won't be using until they patch some holes and get clearer on exactly what they do with user content. 

Shane: Price wise, I don't see how you can go wrong. It is like getting the full version for pennies on the dollar and upgraded yearly for free.

 @Shane: my subscription doesn't include cloud storage, so I'm guessing all my files are saved locally. Once I get back I can try it without internet access when saving to see what happens.. but I'm guessing they'd quickly run out of space from all the odd saving I'd been doing if they required a copy in the cloud ;).

@David
Houdini sounds interesting from what you say, I'd take a look if it weren't for being a subscription thing.

By all means spend 5 grand to get the full blow version then discover you don't have a clue. That would be a wise choice..... At least you would have a really expensive coaster....

Or you could spend 200 bucks and get it for a year with all the tutorials, content, etc....

Do you get a newspaper? That is a subscription. Do you have a phone? that is a subscription. Electricity? Yep, that is basically a subscription as well.

Lease a car? Rent an apartment? We know you have internet, and that too is a subscription...

Your fear of subscriptions is just odd. 

BTW Houdini Learning Edition is free, but very limited in what you can do render wise.

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=245&Itemid=400

I don't even know if I have space on the cloud included. I use S3 for Backup, but files are encrypted here so they are useless for anyone but me.

I pay for Photoshop, not for the cloud. 

As shvrdavid has already said the only person that can make the correct decision for AmbientShade  is AmbientShade. 

I worked for many years as a volunteer on a telephone crisis line and one rule that was always applied was never give advice which I found strange initially.  It was explained to me that giving advice was essentially saying 'this is what I would do if I were you' and there is no way you can be them or fully understand their situation and so there was a very good chance that any such advice would be wrong for that person.  We gave them facts, and discussed the options with the people that called but the decisions were always theirs.  OK this thread is not about any sort of crisis but the same holds true and telling someone they are wrong to do or not do something seems a step too far, for me at least.

AmbientShade is the only one that has all the facts on his side and, with good research, most if not all of the facts on the other side.  This thread was part of the research and, maybe in a negative way, it looks to have been valuable.  So far in this thread, that has been running a while now, the only really dissenting voice has come from someone who does not use this system and never will.  That is a valid position for any individual to take, but the lack of other voices suggests that there is little wrong with the concept.  More than one person who is using the CC system have spoken positively about it and I am sure if others had issues they would quickly make their views known.  Human nature suggests that if you feel wronged by a person or a system you tell as many people as possible, no one has done that here.

I can't see I will ever use it but if the situation did arise I am more likely to sign up after reading this thread than before.

Thanks Hornet, good input and observation there. And btw, you can call me Shane ;). Most other regulars around here do. I'm sure they call me other things too at times but they can keep that to themselves - LOL

Like I said earlier, I was mostly just lookin for input on what experiences others have had with the service. What I should watch out for, etc. Could be good info for other who might be thinkin about using it as well. 

@Male_Media: I've seen mention that you can use it without a net connection for somewhere around 45 to 90 days. After that it requires a connection to verify you still have an active sub. But that's just what I've heard, not sure if it's really true. But I doubt you have to have a constant connection, cause sometimes net access just goes down, for weather, ISP issues, etc. 

@Bantha: According to Adobe's page, they include 20gb of cloud storage and a personal portfolio site if you have a full sub to any individual title, or to the complete suite of titles (which I'm guessing is the equivalent of the master collection). For the photography bundle, with just photoshop and lightroom, I don't think that package includes the storage, but I'm not 100% sure. 

@David
No, I mean proper 4K Blu-ray, not upscaling, though the format is irrelevant anyway, it's still 4K compared to 1080P is what I'm getting at.
CLICK-HERE for news of real 4K Blu-ray.

Like I said, I don't have issues with subscriptions on software as long as it leads to a permanent licence - does it?

• If it does, I might be intererested
• If it does not, I won't be.

@Shane
Please read the tone of my posts properly before you reply to me, a lot of times you sound like you're trying to get a stab in there.  You might not have subscribed yet but you will, and that's fine, but it's no reason to have a stab at me just because I know what sort of thing you're trying to rationalise.  It's your money, so it should be obvious it makes no difference to me what you do.  Adobe have a sudden 46% decline in profits because their other-worldy greed got the better of them and people are dropping them, simple as that.  All that other crap about the size of them etc, is irrelevant, that money came from customers that have now left them, end of.

The result is that in the not too distant future, you'll be getting either an entitlement to a permanent licence once you've covered one, or a choice of subscription or outright purchase.  That's what will happen, and time will be proof of it.

Prefering the right thing and using what is best has nothing to do with being "stuck in the past", and even if it were, I'd rather be stuck in a better place than sucked into a worse one.  The better formats are making a comeback and the free software is evolving and is unstoppable.

It's not me who's in the past.

@Hornet
Just spotted your post, and all I can say is that it's pretty scary that people can be so gullible.
I'm glad to hear you're more prepared than ever to support a failing greed-machine, I'm sort of glad for you because you sound like you deserve it.

@pumeco: Not really taking stabs. You're not the only one here who is anti-adobe, you've just been the most vocal about it lately. 

The "46% decline in revenue" is supposed to sound damning on the surface and make for good headlines on tech blogs and newspapers, when it's really not damning at all. It may be more of a slide than Adobe would have wanted, or maybe it's not even as much as what they projected it would be. Either way, a decline in revenue is to be expected, especially within the first year or two. But look at their stock - it's been climbing steadily over the last few years, and is higher now than it has been in the last decade or so, whereas before, back in the 90s and early 2000s it was pretty much stagnant. That steady climb shows that more people are buying/subscribing to their software now, not less. That same article you linked to even stated they've acquired another 500,000 subscribers in the last 6 months to a year, putting them at 2.8million as of the writing of that article, and that number continues to grow. 

Think about it - for their entire existence their sales have relied primarily on one-off purchases. Individuals and businesses paying one large sum for their software at a time. Now they've moved entirely to a subscription base for 90% of their software, where the most any one customer can pay them at a time is around $800 for one year per license seat, for their entire suite of software (aside from bulk licenses, which their site doesn't give pricing on, you'd have to contact them for a quote). Compare that to the $1200 to $4,000 one-time fees they were getting per sale, and you'll see that even if every single previous customer had signed up for the CC service, they still would have had an initial loss in revenue.  I know that's a really simplistic way of putting it and there's a lot of other factors involved - i'm not a stock broker or a banker, but the point is, a drop in revenue is to be expected in this situation. It has nothing to do with how well the company is performing on the whole. They're not getting $1200 to $4,000 per sale anymore, they're getting $600 - $800 at most, on top of losing some customers who aren't happy with the new system. 

Fact is, aside from a few nay-sayers and disgruntleds, the majority of Adobe users are adapting to the service and seem to be liking it. 

ETA: I already linked to an article the other day that talked about how a large percentage of people WANT subscription-based services for everything from entertainment to software to food. DVD and CD sales are down across the board, while subscriptions to netflix and amazon and others are continuing to grow. More people are preferring to subscribe to a service than buy a license or a hard copy outright. Whether you agree with it or not, the numbers don't lie. And businesses are reading those numbers and responding to them. Sure it's the businesses that are pushing it too no question, but if most people didn't want it, then it wouldn't be growing at the rate that it currently is. And, you can thank pirate sites for a lot of this, as a big motivator behind moving software and entertainment to subscription-based, non-physical copies is due to all the theft that goes on. It's not going to stop it, their will always be some thief that figures out how to pirate, but this does put a big damper on their party, and will continue to do so. 

I realise that, but what I'm taking issue with is people taking what I said and twisting it to make greed-machines look acceptable.  I've lost count how many times I've made it clear that I do not have anything against subscriptions.  What I'm against is blatant greed, because if they could charge, say, £300 for a permanent licence before, then there's no reason that you should not be entiteld to that same permanent licence once you've paid them £300 worth of subscriptions - why can't any of you see that point of view - why does that part conveniently go right over everyones head all the time?

It was bad enough they removed the choice of a permanent licence altogether, but it was beyond disgusting that even after that, you still don't get a permanent licence after covering the cost of one through a subscription!  There's a massive difference between a fair subscription system and what Adobe are doing, and it's not my fault if people misinterpret what I said.  I wrote it in plain English, just like I have again, it still won't stop someone making out like I must be stupid if I don't like subscriptions.

Like I said, it's not subscriptions I have a problem with, it's the blatant greed and manipulation - that's the bit I don't like and won't tolelrate.

Sigh ... anyway, here's some good news (and you did say we could post art), just in case anyone believed that stuff Hornet said about there not being any new "Pro Turntables" on the market.  There's actually already quite a few, and one of the biggest in the business have just launched their offering too.  Please note, though, this is strictly for those of us wanting the best sound quality and appreciate being in control of our lives and our media.

Why not join the best?

A big thmbs-up to Pioneer for stepping-up the game, due to their influence with DJ's, this will help the format grow even stronger in a very big way.
CLICK HERE to see a short clip of what some will be getting for Christmas this year (lucky bas*ards).

It's not greed, Pumeco. It's a legal requirement that a corporation make as high a profit as it is capable of doing within the boundaries of the law. They are, as a corporation, legally REQUIRED to do that. So if they CAN charge $1000 for a widget and make more money that way than charging $1 for a widget, they are required, by law, to charge $1000. That's capitalism. Not Adobe. 

If a competing corporation makes widgets for $10, you can bet your life they aren't doing it "For the good of the customers." They're doing it solely because that's the price that they have determined will maximize their profits. And the moment they determine that they need to raise the price -- to whatever -- they will.

Arguing that this or that corporation is greedy or bad because its products are out of your personal reach is just silly and naive. On a moral level, they are all exactly the same. Except where a company aggressively engages in negligent and clearly harmful activities (such as burying research that indicates a certain drug is dangerous), there's nothing bad or immoral about what they're doing. Unless, of course, you're an anticapitalist. But if you are, be consistent at least, and recognize that it's the nature of corporations themselves and the legal requirement to maximize profits that's to blame, not certain companies with expensive widgets.

I don't campaign against Gucci because their products are priced too high for me. I just don't buy them. I may think it's silly to waste money on Gucci stuff, but if someone can make a convincing case that they can't get employed in their preferred occupation without wearing expensive accessories, then I'm not going to tell them not to do it.

And, Pumeco, I really don't think Shane is digging at you.

If anyone is digging, its me. Hell, I'm practically hurling shovels at your head. :D But, you know, it's just because we both hold certain ideas very strongly, and it's nothing personal at all. (And I am an anticapitalist, as I already said -- so we probably fundamentally agree on more things than is obvious -- but as I live in a capitalist world, I prefer to see things realistically. When in Rome swimming among sharks, as the famous mixed proverb goes....)

As shvrdavid has already said the only person that can make the correct decision for AmbientShade  is AmbientShade. 

I worked for many years as a volunteer on a telephone crisis line and one rule that was always applied was never give advice which I found strange initially.  It was explained to me that giving advice was essentially saying 'this is what I would do if I were you' and there is no way you can be them or fully understand their situation and so there was a very good chance that any such advice would be wrong for that person.  We gave them facts, and discussed the options with the people that called but the decisions were always theirs.  OK this thread is not about any sort of crisis but the same holds true and telling someone they are wrong to do or not do something seems a step too far, for me at least.

AmbientShade is the only one that has all the facts on his side and, with good research, most if not all of the facts on the other side.  This thread was part of the research and, maybe in a negative way, it looks to have been valuable.  So far in this thread, that has been running a while now, the only really dissenting voice has come from someone who does not use this system and never will.  That is a valid position for any individual to take, but the lack of other voices suggests that there is little wrong with the concept.  More than one person who is using the CC system have spoken positively about it and I am sure if others had issues they would quickly make their views known.  Human nature suggests that if you feel wronged by a person or a system you tell as many people as possible, no one has done that here.

I can't see I will ever use it but if the situation did arise I am more likely to sign up after reading this thread than before.

   

Having used such a crisis line in the past, I can see why you'd be very good at it. I would think myself very lucky to have got you on the other end. And I don't say that lightly. It must be one hell of a hard job at times -- but rewarding too. The point about advice giving is spot on. Spot on. (I need to remember this, because it's useful to consider, as you point out, in all areas of life.) On behalf of everyone who ever called you on that line -- Thank you. Edit: Your assessment of this thread is very balanced, and generous where it needs to be. Why aren't you running a newsroom? :D (Had to inject some humor into an otherwise uncharacteristically serious comment of mine, but do I think you'd be a great news anchor.)

How on earth do you think this crap is "out of my personal reach" ?

How can it be, I could subcribe to this crap right now if I wanted because like you all keep pointing out, it's dead easy to get (sucked-in) due to the subscription.  I would never buy an Adobe product now that I've seen the way they treat customers, but even if I was prepared to, surely buying outright would be even more expensive for me?

I don't get how you come to such a weird conclusion :-D

No, like I said before, not one of you can answer >>> why you should not be allowed a permanent licence once you've covered the cost of one <<<.  They're a greed-machine that ought to be boycotted even more than they already have been.  The more people that boycott them, the more their profits will slide, and the quicker permanent licences will become an "option" again.

How on earth do you think this crap is "out of my personal reach" ?

How can it be, I could subcribe to this crap right now if I wanted because like you all keep pointing out, it's dead easy to get (sucked-in) due to the subscription.  I would never buy an Adobe product now that I've seen the way they treat customers, but even if I was prepared to, surely buying outright would be even more expensive for me?

I don't get how you come to such a weird conclusion :-D

No, like I said before, not one of you can answer >>> why you should not be allowed a permanent licence once you've covered the cost of one <<<.  They're a greed-machine that ought to be boycotted even more than they already have been.  The more people that boycott them, the more their profits will slide, and the quicker permanent licences will become an "option" again.

I came to this conclusion because 1. You offer free or cheap alternatives, not expensive ones by different companies. So the price -- as you experience it -- is clearly an issue. 2. You don't campaign against other companies that behave in a similar manner which offer products cheaply by your standards, but which are nevertheless unavailable to most of the rest of the world (So, again, it's the price, from your viewpoint, not the behavior of the corporation or how it treats its potential customers) 3. You believe greed has something to do with how easy it is for YOU to use a product, not for ANYONE to use it. 4. I believe that if Adobe offered a subscription service for $1 a month, you'd have one -- or at least you wouldn't be so vehement in your objections. So again, it comes down to how much you think the service is worth paying for. Clearly, the price is too high for you personally. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't actually possess the funds, though I can see that it certainly sounds that way. I was just thinking in terms such as: I could buy a Porsche today with cash if I wanted, but I don't consider it a vehicle that is "within my personal reach" as it's not priced at the level I believe someone with my income would be wise to pay for a car.

Edit; I don't own permanent copies of the movies I watch on Netflix, or on Cable TV (though, I suppose I could for the latter). Yet I'm happy to watch Netflix. Now, if Netflix cost $500 a month, I might think I deserved to own those copies. But that would just be my opinion -- based again on what I personally expected to get for the PRICE -- and not some thing inherently evil about the subscription model.

 @moriador

Thank you for the kind comments, and you are correct that while there are some difficult times there is a great deal of satisfaction.  It is also change that, along with the theme of this thread in many ways, you are working to a different goal than the 'bottom line'.  Spending donated money in the right way is very important but there was never any pressure to make profits.

I hope I did help, you never truly know of course, but if the truth be known I probably gained as much if not more than the callers as you learn to treasure what I have so much.  I also learnt the skill, thanks to some excellent training and support from other volunteers, to listen.  Strange as it may seem listening is a skill and one I still try to improve on everyday.

I will take the detail of every conversation I had at the time with me to the grave but almost all continue to live with me and I still try and learn a lesson from each and everyone.  Which I why when I read threads like this I am interested in other people's views but there is nothing here that will upset me, the fact we are here and able to discuss matters like this shows we are a great deal better off than many.