wait a second: you can only READ .pdf files if someone has MADE them first,
and to MAKE them you need to buy the full fledged product. the logic is that
by spreading the reader around for free you create demand. else it would be
a completely closed circuit. note, Microsoft offers a Word reader for .doc
files, and Real.Com offers a viewer for .rm files, all free.
i would say that, more than being cost effective, it is absolutely necessary
for Adobe to pass on its reader in order to stimulate use of the system.
etb
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 4:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Adobe and pdf files
>
>
> I just read the series of correspondence considering the Xerox
> machine and
> the usage of the term "Xerox" to refer to photocopying. Now the problem I
> have does not have to do with the term but with the use of advertising by
> providing a free product. Adobe acrobat and its free reader for
> pdf files
> was the first thing that came to mind. Is it really cost
> effective for Adobe
> to provide a free pdf reader when they could possibly sell it on the open
> market. I know they sell other products related to pdf files, but is the
> advertising of the free reader really encouraging people to take
> advantage of
> their other products or is it causing people to abuse the reader and its
> benefits. Seon
>
