Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mayayana<email@example.com> wrote:
> Personally I usually find what I need for things like
> website work at wikimedia.
in other words, you mooch off of other people's hard work.
> People need to realize that while they may love
> Adobe software, the company is out to make money
all companies want to make money.
> and they've never displayed anything like warm
> fuzzy love of artists.
nonsense. photoshop is designed by artists for artists.
> They price gouge for their products
> because they have a near monopoly.
they do not price gouge.
just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's gouging.
> Adobe have
> distributed Acrobat Reader *very* aggressively in
> an attempt to own the standard for office docs, so
> that they can sell full Acrobat for a ridiculously high
pdf is an iso standard and plenty of non-adobe apps can read and write
pdf is also a native graphics format for macos and ios, which means
there is *no* need for *any* third party software to read or write pdf
files on a mac or ios device, from adobe or anyone else.
> They've done similar with Flash: Trying their best
> to get it on every computer so that they could own
> webpage standards.
flash began life at a company named macromedia and was at the time, one
of the only ways to include multimedia on web pages.
adobe purchased macromedia in 2005, *after* flash had become popular.
> Flash has been the biggest security
> risk online for years, but that doesn't stop them.
that's one of the main reasons apple refused to include support for
flash on the iphone.
> When Flash began to lose popularity
you can thank apple for that.
> (and with it
> the overpriced software they sold to Web developers to
> work in flash) they came out with Adobe AIR. Like
> Microsoft's Silverlight, it was another brash move to
> popularize webpages in the form of compiled software
> that they owned the tools for. (That's what Flash is.)
nonsense, and flash is dead.
> And of course there's Photoshop. Charging 6 times the
> price of Paint Shop Pro for nearly the same thing, and
> now that they've got commercial artists hooked they've
> forced them into rental.
as usual, you are confusing the full photoshop with cheap consumer
software that can't do anywhere near as much or as easily.
the consumer version of photoshop, called photoshop elements, is $99
msrp and usually $50-60ish if you shop around. it's comparable both in
price and features to paint shop pro and other similar consumer
in other words, photoshop elements and paint shop pro are 'nearly the
same thing' for nearly the same price. no price gouging.
the full photoshop does *much* more than consumer software and is
priced accordingly. pros can easily justify its price because it will
pay for itself.
> Adobe is also an active member
> of the business Software Alliance (BSA). The BSA is
> a sort of swat team that raids companies looking for
> illegal licenses.
in other words, you are advocating pirating software, just as you do
with images taken from other web sites.
photoshop was one of the most pirated apps, if not *the* most pirated
app, along with other adobe software, which is why adobe moved to
activation over a decade ago and a major reason why they currently only
offer it as subscription. while not impossible, it's *much* harder to