Re: Adobe and pdf files
Isnt Microsoft word a product of Microsoft office, which is not in turn free. I know that HTML is a similar language, yet there are a great deal of programs to read and translate this info. It is the competition aspect of HTML (Netscape, Microsoft explorer, etc.) that has bred the further development of the language. I did not know that there were other pdf readers available and I am sure that a great deal of internet users are also unaware of this. What really, really bothers me is the fact that every site that uses pdf files advertises Adobe as the place to go. To me and others, I believe that the competition factor is not apparent in the case of pdf readers and that Adobe has taken over control of the production and sale of pdf writers and readers. I find it very convenient that Adobe created the file format PDF (1993) and have successfully marketed a free aspect of their business in order to capture large gains. Isn't this considered dumping. Is this true, did Adobe create and monopolize to a large extent the market by dumping?
Re: Adobe and pdf files
Alexander Guerrero wrote: > Anyoneo who uses acrobat reader to read PDF documents, in the near future will > enjoy the need to reverse the proces, that is to convert PDF to word and other > way around. On leads to the other and you for Acrobat Destiller y Exchange and > get the reader "free". > Alexander > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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 begin:vcard n:Guerrero;Alexander tel;cell:016/6352186 tel;fax:(582)9416092 tel;home:9416092 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:TecnoEconomica adr:;;;Caracas;Miranda;1080;Venezuela version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Presidente fn:Alexander Guerrero end:vcard
Re: Adobe and pdf files
It's not true that you have to buy Adobe Distiller to make .pdf files. There are all kinds of freeware programs (e.g. ps2pdf) available on the web that will turn any post-script file into .pdf format. So for example, you can use any post-script printer driver to print your Word document to a postscript file, and then apply ps2pdf to the postscript file to make the .pdf file. BTW, it's no mystery why people buy Adobe Distiller when this free technology is available--the costs of learning to use the freeware can be substantial. You have to: (1) know about ps2pdf (and similar freeware) and where to download it from (2) know how to install a postscript printer driver (3) know how to get Word (or other programs) to use that printer driver to produce a postscript file (4) know how to use the command line to invoke ps2pdf -- Jay Bhattacharya Associate Economist RAND 1700 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 phone: (310) 393-0411 x6396 fax: (310) 451-7025 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Adobe and pdf files
Anyoneo who uses acrobat reader to read PDF documents, in the near future will enjoy the need to reverse the proces, that is to convert PDF to word and other way around. On leads to the other. Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 begin:vcard n:Guerrero;Alexander tel;cell:016/6352186 tel;fax:(582)9416092 tel;home:9416092 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:TecnoEconomica adr:;;;Caracas;Miranda;1080;Venezuela version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Presidente fn:Alexander Guerrero end:vcard
Re: Adobe and pdf files
Their other products are worthless if the pdf format is not standard. Who would produce a pdf document if all the users of it had to pay not only the producer, but some thrid party, to view it. There are many free alternatives. The reader has to be free to compete with MS word and html and nsf and a host of other formats. Pat McCann GMU Undergrad On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 >
RE: Adobe and pdf files
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 >
