Very thought-provoking. Arguably, there may be a case for cloud-driven application services that do not impinge upon user freedoms, in particular the kind of freedoms that seem impossible to guarantee unless a local (national) or regional (international) legal framework is in place.
It points towards a certain grey area of dysfunctionality in the intersection between private individuals and the nation-state system we seem to be encouraging, but that is a wider subject and I don't want to digress to explore it. Still, its effects and impacts are seen in this example, where the 'elephant in the room', ie corporatised bodies that function fairly effectively across borders, transcending the limitations of national (and by extension, enforceable democratic, individual-respecting systems of governance) legal strictures. Imho, it is not that some kind of theoretical cloud could not be constructed, whereby such peculiarities would not be possible. But that does not exist today. The article points out that most users probably do not know about freedom solutions like gimp. It does not say it, but probably that is equally true for future potential users. Just last evening, some of us were discussing about this lack of awareness and ways to get over it. Much of our efforts as seen on this list seem to be around the future potential users, students and so on. It seems to me that this isn't enough, there is a need to pull in the mindshare of the sort of people who think that freedom is not their problem, at least not as far as this urgent job is concerned, which has to get out the door by closing time this evening. How can we stake a claim to this moment of thought? The education approach is critical, undeniably, but it is not mainstream, imho, for the simple reason that it is a 'push', rather than 'pull' way of creating awareness about freedom. This has to change. We need discussions threaded towards possible solutions to this problem. -- Vickram Fool On The Hill communicall.wordpress.com "The cameras were all around. We've got you taped; you're in the play. Here's your I.D. (Ideal for identifying one and all.) Invest your life in the memory bank; ours the interest and we thank you." Jethro Tull: A Passion Play (1973) On May 7, 2013 10:20 AM, "parminder" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Since there was recently a discussion on this list on cloud computing and > its impact on lock-ins or not..... parminder > > > > > > Adobe Gives the Little Guys the Finger > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001026.html > > > You may have heard by now that Adobe, long-time manufacturer of > Photoshop and related software products, has finally brought out the > big hammer, and smashed it down firmly on the heads of individuals and > small businesses. > > What? You haven't heard this? > > Perhaps you heard that Adobe is switching to an "Internet always > required, subscription only" model for their "Creative Suite" > products. If you've seen those articles today, you probably saw > business writers waxing poetic over what a wonderful move this is by > (and for) Adobe. These same authors are generally implying that it's > a great deal for users, too. > > And it is -- if you're willing to let Adobe weld a ring and chain to > your nose (and wallet). > > The clue to this seeming paradox is revealed if you look at the reader > comments on most of these articles, which (at least so far) seem to be > overwhelmingly negative. > > How could this be? After all, these have always been premium software > products, why should anyone get bent out of shape by their move to a > subscription model and requiring the Net for use? > > The devil, as always, is in the details. > > There are some applications that naturally benefit greatly from a move > to "the cloud" in various contexts, especially when staying up to the > minute with security fixes is involved. > > Email and document collaboration are two obvious examples, with > Microsoft trying to play catch-up with Google in this context. > > And even then, pricing matters -- a lot. > > Basic Google services are free. The business version of Google Apps > is $5/user/month (a bit less on an annual basis). > > But Adobe is aiming for much bigger bucks -- their pricing schedule > shows monthly fees up to an order of magnitude higher than that $5, or > even much more. > > Now, obviously Photoshop has a very different feature set than Google > Docs. > > And Adobe's prices have always been of the premium variety, even as > increasingly powerful Open Source tools (like GIMP, for example) have > become very widely available. > > For larger businesses for whom cost isn't much of an object, it's (as > the old saying goes) six of one or half a dozen of the other whether > they're on a subscription model with Adobe or not. They're likely > pretty much locked-in anyway for logistical and workflow reasons if > nothing else. > > But if you're like an awful lot of people and smaller businesses I > know, you've justified the premium price of Adobe Creative software > products on the basis that you simply didn't need to upgrade them all > that often for the features you need. > > Perhaps you skipped every other upgrade cycle, or upgraded even less > frequently, and have been quite happy anyway. > > Well, Adobe isn't happy with you. They want you to be upgraded at all > times at those premium prices, no ifs, ands, or buts. And not only > are you forced to pay premium prices, if you ever stop paying, you're > left with ... nothing. You don't even have an older version that > suited you just fine to run any more. Poof! > > Adobe claims their pricing offers an "inexpensive" way into their > Creative world (hey, even pay without an annual commitment if you're > willing to hand over a lot more cash -- not a small increment, mind > you). > > But this is the oldest game in the book, evolved to a fine art by > generations of used car salesmen. Hook in the suckers by > concentrating only on the monthly fee, and by all means don't let them > think about how those will be adding up over the months and years. > > Again, we're not talking $5 a month here. We're talking much higher > amounts. > > It seems obvious that part of Adobe's plan (in addition to the added > anti-piracy, forced connectivity aspects) is to cull the herd of those > "unproductive ingrates" -- the customers who simply refused to upgrade > every cycle to get the latest fancy doodads that they didn't require > or use. And in the process, Adobe wants to sucker in folks who don't > bother calculating the cumulative costs on those monthly charges, even > though most of these users would likely do just fine with some of the > great Open Source alternatives (if they even know about them, which > they probably don't). > > I've actually been a long-time supporter of Adobe products like > Photoshop and Premiere. But yes -- I'll admit it -- I'm one of those > "bottom-feeders" by Adobe's definition, who somehow has managed to be > satisfied with older versions of their products without frequently > funneling more cash in Adobe's direction. > > I'm also a big supporter of cloud-based services -- they can bring > great benefits in an array of contexts -- where they're appropriate, > make sense, and above all are appropriately priced. > > But as we see with Adobe, it's also possible to use this model and an > aggressive pricing structure to fleece the sheep, and frankly, I > believe that is what Adobe is doing here as far as individuals and > many small businesses are concerned. > > Of course, this is only my opinion. Perhaps you disagree with me > totally regarding Adobe's new philosophy. > > In that case, you might wish to wander over to the many articles about > Adobe's changes that are filling up with negative comments from upset > Adobe users. > > I'm sure that Adobe would appreciate your posted thoughts in support > of their brave new world. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info > Founder: > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com > > ________ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
