Is Adobe Wrong?

[JimCavanaugh]

I just made it through the previous thread on Adobe's licensing policies. I am often surprised at the attitude on these issues from some photographers.

Adobe developed this product. We all agree that it is the industry standard. They also own the copyright to their software and therefor can license it any way they deem appropriate.

This is no different than how we choose to license our images. We excercise control over who can use them, how they use them and for how long they can use them. Some of us license very restrictively, while others give the rights away. It is the choice of the copyright holder.

Adobe has chosen to provide limited rights to their product. So be it. Does that make them wrong? I don't see it that way. Would I like an unlimited license for CS2? Sure! But my clients would like unlimited licenses to my images and they don't get that either.

I think what is right for us is right for them.

I do think that Adobe may want to consider a "site" license for independent photographers and designers. (Many of whom have more than two computers.) However, that is their call to make.

In the meantime, I will abide by and respect their licensing policies as I hope my clients respect mine.

Jim Cavanaugh
www.cavphoto.com

[Bill_Jurasz]

Fundamentally you are right on many levels, Jim.

[DavidHarpe]

I don't think they are "wrong", I just wish they provided more options. I abide by the licensing, but it is inconvenient.

[MichaelMartin]

[ QUOTE ]

Adobe developed this product. We all agree that it is the industry standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree but my gripe is just that; "industry standard" these days means "worldwide" and these people price their licenses quite differently from area to area with no specific market considerations whatsoever. Never have I sold my work at different rates depending on the nationality of the buyer.

[ QUOTE ]

They also own the copyright to their software and therefore can license it any way they deem appropriate.


[/ QUOTE ]

They certainly can but that won't prevent them from increasing revenue loss by not taking heed of the market they want to sell their wares on. I have already warned them personally that after their merger with Macromedia they're certainly going to have look a little further into how to avoid piracy than just keeping the prices high and stick anti-piracy warnings on their website.

[JimCavanaugh]

"They certainly can but that won't prevent them from increasing revenue loss by not taking heed of the market they want to sell their wares on."

I agree with you on this point. Unfortunately, they are in the drivers seat right now simply because they are the industry standard and there is no real competitive product available. I don't think there will be one for some time.

Lack of competition allows companies to set price and terms as they deem fit. Look how fast Canon came out with rebates the day the D2x hit the market.

I do have issues with Adobe's position on several issues. My biggest concern is how they look at the small software developers plug ins and associated products and then integrate similar features in upgrades rendering the small companies products obsolete. This is no different than Microsoft's behavior.

I do think the folks at Adobe need to develop a more "photographer/designer" friendly mentality and working relationship. They do need to remember who helped them grow into the huge company they are today. Because someday, someone will bring a competitive product to market.

Jim Cavanaugh

[Bill_Jurasz]

Quote:

I do have issues with Adobe's position on several issues. My biggest concern is how they look at the small software developers plug ins and associated products and then integrate similar features in upgrades rendering the small companies products obsolete. This is no different than Microsoft's behavior.

End quote.

Two ways to look at the above. One is the above, which is a negative view. The other view would be of a benefit to the Photoshop user, getting more for the same dollar as before. I see the negatives and positives as well in this process, and I don't have a strong stance either way. However, it does force innovation. Those small companies will be forced to find something new to do to replace their revenue stream.

[Pete_Myers]

Hi Jim:

Rather then saying Adobe is wrong, I would rather put forward that they do not quite have it right. What concerns me is in regard to Adobe actually listeaning to their clients needs and adjusting their product to address those needs. Unfortunitly, despite Tom Peters books, such as "In Search of Excellance", etc, it would seem that we often end up with the same problem - companies that just do what they want to do and are not interested in the needs of the customer.

In regard to the security issues with their product, I dont think any licensed user wants to see Adobe getting ripped off. But what is difficult to understand is the intense premise by Adobe that every user is going to want to rip them off, therefore get out the barbed wire and put up the fences. My registration of CS2 was not fun. I would much prefer a USB key.

Its is also difficult to understand how many versions of PS have gone by without the fundamental imaging structural changes that are needed. As I mentioned in a different post, many of the filter functions are still 8 bit, not 16 bit and the curves adjustment box is too small for any degree of accuracy for 16 bit deep data. Personally, I could do with fewer twiddle buttons and more meat in the image processing department - the fundamentals are lacking.

And I agree with another post that suggests that Adobe eclipses small companies with good plugins. It is a Microsoft trick and seems pointless.

A company of Adobe's size should have real people, on real phones, listeaning to customer suggestions. Honestly, most users would like to help and they do not expect Adobe to write a program just for their own needs. Listeaning counts a lot.

Pete Myers