Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

[RichA]

Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
now cloud-based.

[PeterN]

That decision has not be finalized.

As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
movies, laughable.

this is more likely the future of movies:
<http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-House-Shows-Great-Promise-Onion-News-Empire-So-Much-54857.html>

--
PeterN

[Bowser]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
suffices, I'll move to another product. Fuck Adobe.

[RichA]

> <http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-Hous...>
>
> --
> PeterN

I'm not some Chinese guy earning $3000/year, living in the outskirts
of Beijing, where going to the movies costs the equivalent of $110 a
person. I don't want to watch illegally-copied "campots" of movies in
a theatre done with a video camera, if that is what you are referring
to. Ownership of a physical medium is KEY to preserving the freedom
to watch or do with a product what you want.

[PeterN]

Whoosh!

You don't even seem to know who Garry Trudeau is, Nor do you understand
what he is seeking to accomplish, artistically.

BTW, Before videotape, how many movies did you "own?" Why do you think
we had movie theaters. I have a reasonable collection of tapes and CDs,
but we still go to live concerts, and have willingly purchased tickets
for shows for far more than $110, each.


--
PeterN

[George Kerby]

On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article g24lo8hl0n4b2qse7...@4ax.com,

Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
seven years or so. Fuck em', indeed!

[PeterN]

I would not get too excited about a rumor posted as "fact," by Rich. As
I said earlier, while Adobe is exploring the idea, it's far from a done
deal. While I do not defend avarice by any entity, I think that PS is
one of the most pirated software, and Adobe has a right to protect
itself from theft.

--
PeterN

[Martin Brown]

Unfortunately their competitors are also into ever increasing version
numbers bloatware adding features and bugs without customer benefits.

I don't often defend Adobe, but at least their JPEG encoder actually
does what it says on the tin.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Tony Cooper]

I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
include more than the lower priced comparable programs. The only area
where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.

The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".

I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?

The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[nospam]

In article <fvglo8pl7qlajrq1e...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
> >> suffices, I'll move to another product. Fuck Adobe.
> >
> >Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
> >seven years or so. Fuck em', indeed!
>
> I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
> the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
> include more than the lower priced comparable programs.

their prices are competitive with similar products.

if you consider macs to have high prices, then similar pcs also have
high prices.

the reason a $200 computer costs $200 is because it has lesser specs
than a $500 computer, which has lesser specs than a $1000 computer.

this should be obvious but apparently not.

> The only area
> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.

elements doesn't do as much, that's why it costs less.

that doesn't make the full photoshop overpriced. pros can *easily*
justify its price.

if someone doesn't need the functionality of the full photoshop, then
they should buy elements instead. that's why there are two products.

> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".

more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.

> I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
> have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?
>
> The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.

that part is true.

[Mayayana]

| I would not get too excited about a rumor posted as "fact," by Rich. As
| I said earlier, while Adobe is exploring the idea, it's far from a done
| deal.

It sounds like a definitive done deal in the news I've seen:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57582735-92/adobe-kills-creative-suite-goes-subscription-only/

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:08:55 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <fvglo8pl7qlajrq1e...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
>> >> suffices, I'll move to another product. Fuck Adobe.
>> >
>> >Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
>> >seven years or so. Fuck em', indeed!
>>
>> I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
>> the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
>> include more than the lower priced comparable programs.
>
>their prices are competitive with similar products.
>
>if you consider macs to have high prices, then similar pcs also have
>high prices.
>
>the reason a $200 computer costs $200 is because it has lesser specs
>than a $500 computer, which has lesser specs than a $1000 computer.
>
>this should be obvious but apparently not.

Ah, you started your argument before you read the text. Lips get
tired? You didn't read the "the 'specs' include more than the lower
priced comparable programs".

>> The only area
>> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
>> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.
>
>elements doesn't do as much, that's why it costs less.

That doesn't wash. I've got CS6 and Elements 9. There is damn little
that Elements won't do that CS6 does. CS versions are very overpriced
when you consider a comparison of features delivered.

I use CS6 99% of the time, but only because I'm comfortable with
program having started out in earlier PS versions. (I bought E9 only
to share it with my daughter and teach her.)

>that doesn't make the full photoshop overpriced. pros can *easily*
>justify its price.
>
>if someone doesn't need the functionality of the full photoshop, then
>they should buy elements instead. that's why there are two products.

You do realize how stupid that sounds? First you say you can easily
justify the price, then you say you should buy Elements if you don't
need the full functionality of PS. The need of the full functionality
is the *only* justification.

Very few people need the full functionality unless they are using it
for business applications and need something like working in CMYK
color. Certain features, like Layers, have been available only in the
full version but later added to Elements. Content Aware Fill will
probably go over to Elements eventually.

>> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
>> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
>> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
>> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
>> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
>
>more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.

How is that bashing? It's simple fact. If you don't need the specs
that Macs include, the price is too high to buy one.

>> I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
>> have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?
>>
>> The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.
>
>that part is true.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:08:55 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <fvglo8pl7qlajrq1e...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
>> >> suffices, I'll move to another product. Fuck Adobe.
>> >
>> >Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
>> >seven years or so. Fuck em', indeed!
>>
>> I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
>> the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
>> include more than the lower priced comparable programs.
>
>their prices are competitive with similar products.
>
>if you consider macs to have high prices, then similar pcs also have
>high prices.
>
>the reason a $200 computer costs $200 is because it has lesser specs
>than a $500 computer, which has lesser specs than a $1000 computer.
>
>this should be obvious but apparently not.

That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
commercial margin for its products.

>
>> The only area
>> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
>> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.
>
>elements doesn't do as much, that's why it costs less.
>
>that doesn't make the full photoshop overpriced. pros can *easily*
>justify its price.
>
>if someone doesn't need the functionality of the full photoshop, then
>they should buy elements instead. that's why there are two products.
>
>> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
>> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
>> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
>> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
>> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
>
>more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.

"Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.

>
>> I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
>> have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?
>>
>> The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.
>
>that part is true.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <egplo8tunvgsk0eu0...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> The only area
> >> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
> >> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.
> >
> >elements doesn't do as much, that's why it costs less.
>
> That doesn't wash. I've got CS6 and Elements 9. There is damn little
> that Elements won't do that CS6 does. CS versions are very overpriced
> when you consider a comparison of features delivered.

there's actually quite a bit, but what matters is that one does more
than the other.

> I use CS6 99% of the time, but only because I'm comfortable with
> program having started out in earlier PS versions. (I bought E9 only
> to share it with my daughter and teach her.)
>
> >that doesn't make the full photoshop overpriced. pros can *easily*
> >justify its price.
> >
> >if someone doesn't need the functionality of the full photoshop, then
> >they should buy elements instead. that's why there are two products.
>
> You do realize how stupid that sounds?

nothing stupid about it.

why pay for features you don't need?

if elements does all you need then buy elements. if it doesn't, then
buy cs or another product that better matches your needs.

> First you say you can easily
> justify the price, then you say you should buy Elements if you don't
> need the full functionality of PS. The need of the full functionality
> is the *only* justification.

you need to learn how to read.

i said *pros* can justify the price because it has features they need
or want. it will probably pay for itself fairly quickly.

non-pros don't generally need the additional features, so why should
they pay for features they won't use? in the event they do, they can
get cs or maybe something else entirely.

> Very few people need the full functionality unless they are using it
> for business applications and need something like working in CMYK
> color. Certain features, like Layers, have been available only in the
> full version but later added to Elements. Content Aware Fill will
> probably go over to Elements eventually.

exactly.

> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
> >
> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
>
> How is that bashing? It's simple fact. If you don't need the specs
> that Macs include, the price is too high to buy one.

if you are going to say the price of a $1000 mac is too high, then a
$1000 pc is also too high.

but you didn't.

it's always macs are too expensive but similar pcs which cost the same
are not. in fact, they're never mentioned. that's why it's bashing.

[nospam]

In article <jmrlo8lgtuesqel9q...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
> >> >> suffices, I'll move to another product. Fuck Adobe.
> >> >
> >> >Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last
> >> >seven years or so. Fuck em', indeed!
> >>
> >> I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
> >> the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
> >> include more than the lower priced comparable programs.
> >
> >their prices are competitive with similar products.
> >
> >if you consider macs to have high prices, then similar pcs also have
> >high prices.
> >
> >the reason a $200 computer costs $200 is because it has lesser specs
> >than a $500 computer, which has lesser specs than a $1000 computer.
> >
> >this should be obvious but apparently not.
>
> That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
> cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
> commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
> just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
> Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
> leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
> it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
> to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
> commercial margin for its products.

apple does not charge more. macs and pcs with similar specs cost about
the same. if there's a price difference, it's because of different
specs, not the logo.

also, apple is ahead by far more than a few months. it took google
about 3 years to switch gears and catch up with the iphone (it was
originally targeting blackberry). microsoft ditched windows mobile,
which was very popular at the time, and began working on their iphone
competitor, aka windows phone. it still hasn't quite caught up but it's
getting there. it was only last year that a viable competitor to the
ipad appeared, some two years after the original ipad came out.

> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
> >
> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
>
> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.

he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
expensive but he neglects to mention that.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:28:25 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

You quote Google. What about (for example) Samsung?

>
>> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
>> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
>> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
>> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
>> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
>> >
>> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
>>
>> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
>
>he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
>expensive but he neglects to mention that.

He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:

The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too
high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That,
as nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".

He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too

high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as

nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?

You seem to have been so entrenched in argument mode that you don't
even notice when he is in agreement with you.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Whisky-dave]

The same old question is just how much such piracy affects the company.

> and Adobe has a right to protect
>
> itself from theft.

Of course, but the interesting thing is that are those thefts actually loses in the long term for the company. Companies always say yes but is it really true.

[nospam]

In article <6tpmo89sl24nscvtk...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
> >> cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
> >> commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
> >> just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
> >> Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
> >> leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
> >> it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
> >> to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
> >> commercial margin for its products.
> >
> >apple does not charge more. macs and pcs with similar specs cost about
> >the same. if there's a price difference, it's because of different
> >specs, not the logo.
> >
> >also, apple is ahead by far more than a few months. it took google
> >about 3 years to switch gears and catch up with the iphone (it was
> >originally targeting blackberry). microsoft ditched windows mobile,
> >which was very popular at the time, and began working on their iphone
> >competitor, aka windows phone. it still hasn't quite caught up but it's
> >getting there. it was only last year that a viable competitor to the
> >ipad appeared, some two years after the original ipad came out.
>
> You quote Google.

i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
google again (nexus 7).

> What about (for example) Samsung?

what about them?

> >> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> >> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> >> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
> >> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> >> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
> >> >
> >> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
> >>
> >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
> >
> >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
> >expensive but he neglects to mention that.
>
> He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
>
> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too
> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That,
> as nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
>
> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?

he calls it "the mac argument".

it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.

if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

[Bowser]

Two issues here:

1. It is a done deal. There are lots of news stories on this one, very
few positive.

2. Moving their SW to the cloud won't prevent piracy. Hardly. Thieves
will still steal, and crackers will still find a way.

This is naked greed by Adobe, nothing more.

[George Kerby]

On 5/8/13 4:39 PM, in article fvglo8pl7qlajrq1e...@4ax.com,

"Underperforming" as in nothing new with a newer update. Sorta like the
Shorts do with Apple. For instance, dropping the TWAIN engine, which I use
in scanning - CS5 and later have dropped it. Comprende?

[George Kerby]

Hitler hears about Adobe's Cloud Computing...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU&feature=youtu.be>




On 5/9/13 12:10 PM, in article k1mno8d09hiuu492d...@4ax.com,

[PeterN]

About two weeks ago I received a market survey from Adobe, on whether I
would be interested in moving to the Cloud. The survey was after the
announcement that development on CS 7 had stopped. Adobe would like you
to think its a done deal, but I suspect it's a market test. MS tried
this a few years ago, and go slammed back by user protest. I have signed
a petition against the movement to the Cloud. My signature will be
worthless unless several hundred thousand others join in. Also, if we
give strong indicators of market resistance, instead of just bitching
and monaing, Adobe will come around. Meanwhile, wht an opportunity for
Corel to get back in the game.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <518be8bc$0$10838$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

> About two weeks ago I received a market survey from Adobe, on whether I
> would be interested in moving to the Cloud. The survey was after the
> announcement that development on CS 7 had stopped.

the announcement that it will be cloud only and there will be no cs7
was a couple of days ago.

any survey you got two weeks ago predates that announcement.

> Adobe would like you
> to think its a done deal, but I suspect it's a market test.

creative cloud came out last year and the market test was this past
year.

presumably, it met their expectations for them do creative cloud only.
it's a done deal.

there's always a possibility they might reintroduce a non-cloud
version, but this would have to fail miserably for them to do that.
it's not very likely.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:26:13 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Yes, it's the "mac argument" that you use.

> it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
>exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
>
>if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
>those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs. There are
people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
high. They aren't interested in the "do more".

The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
entry level machine at a low price. There's no need to mention PCs
with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
in them, either.

That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
market works for just about every type of product. Automobiles are a
prime example of this.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:26:13 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I dunno.

What about them in the context of iPhone?

>
>> >> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
>> >> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
>> >> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
>> >> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
>> >> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
>> >> >
>> >> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
>> >>
>> >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
>> >
>> >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
>> >expensive but he neglects to mention that.
>>
>> He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
>>
>> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
>> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
>> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too
>> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That,
>> as nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
>>
>> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
>> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
>> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
>> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
>> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
>> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
>> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?
>
>he calls it "the mac argument".

And what's wrong with that? Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual

non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"

for what it delivers"?

>
>it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
>exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.

Do you really mean that Apple and Mac supporters have never claimed

"The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it

delivers"? I would be surprised if they haven't as that statement is
perfectly true. Why are you objecting to it?

>
>if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
>those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

Because you and Tony Cooper were not discussing high-end PCs in
general but the position of Macs in the current hardware market. He
was quoting Mac's argument to explain Adobe's attitude to the pricing
of the high end image processing software. Somehow you have got so
bound up that you are arguing against your usual position.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:19:49 -0400, PeterN

Fifteen years ago Corel's stuff was as good as Adobe's. Now its about
ten years behind. I doubt that it's got the money to bridge that gap
in a hurry.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <a44oo89f532l141tc...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
> >
> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
>
> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.

only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.

a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
talking about.

> There are
> people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
> of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
> high. They aren't interested in the "do more".

and they're not interested in the higher priced pcs either.

but you don't mention that, do you?

there are also people who don't have any interest in the cheapest thing
available. they want a quality product and willing to pay for it.

you don't mention that either.

> The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
> entry level machine at a low price.

some do, others do not.

and what they're really interested in is solutions, not specs.

> There's no need to mention PCs
> with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
> in them, either.

then there's no need to mention either one, so why single out macs?

this is about bottom-tier versus mid-tier products, not mac versus pc.

> That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
> market works for just about every type of product.

it's a slam against macs if you only mention macs.

if you *also* mention similar priced pcs, then it's about price tiers.

but you don't.

> Automobiles are a
> prime example of this.

cars and computers are marketed very differently.

[nospam]

In article <opcoo85sri16qo7da...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> You quote Google.
> >
> >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
> >google again (nexus 7).
> >
> >> What about (for example) Samsung?
> >
> >what about them?
>
> I dunno.
>
> What about them in the context of iPhone?

they copied it so well that even samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the
difference in court. that's one way to catch up.

> >> >> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> >> >> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> >> >> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
> >> >> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> >> >> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
> >> >
> >> >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
> >> >expensive but he neglects to mention that.
> >>
> >> He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
> >>
> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too
> >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That,
> >> as nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
> >>
> >> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
> >> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
> >> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
> >> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
> >> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
> >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?
> >
> >he calls it "the mac argument".
>
> And what's wrong with that?

it has nothing to do with macs. that's what.

it's different price tiers. that's all.

> Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
> on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual
> non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"
> for what it delivers"?

if someone only mentions macs, yes. why single them out, when there are
other products with similar specs that cost about the same?

> >it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
>
> Do you really mean that Apple and Mac supporters have never claimed
> "The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> delivers"? I would be surprised if they haven't as that statement is
> perfectly true. Why are you objecting to it?

i'm objecting to tying it to macs when ignoring that similar pcs cost
about the same. it's furthers the longstanding myth that macs are more
expensive. they are not.

> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
>
> Because you and Tony Cooper were not discussing high-end PCs in
> general but the position of Macs in the current hardware market.

nope, it was about adobe's new cloud strategy and the two tiers of
photoshop.

it had nothing whatsoever to do with macs until he brought it up.

> He
> was quoting Mac's argument to explain Adobe's attitude to the pricing
> of the high end image processing software. Somehow you have got so
> bound up that you are arguing against your usual position.

i'm not bound up at all. i'm just calling him on his usual bashing.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:55:44 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <a44oo89f532l141tc...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
>> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
>> >
>> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
>> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
>>
>> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.
>
>only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.

Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
features/specs a model will have?

>
>a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
>talking about.

Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
true.

>
>> There are
>> people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
>> of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
>> high. They aren't interested in the "do more".
>
>and they're not interested in the higher priced pcs either.
>
>but you don't mention that, do you?

Of course I did. The higher priced PCs have additional features
compared to the lower priced PCs. It's right there above this.

Are you really this thick?

>there are also people who don't have any interest in the cheapest thing
>available. they want a quality product and willing to pay for it.
>
>you don't mention that either.

No, I didn't. There are also people who have no interest in any
computer of any kind, and I didn't mention that. What I said was that
some people want the least expensive product.

>
>> The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
>> entry level machine at a low price.
>
>some do, others do not.

So who's arguing with that?

>and what they're really interested in is solutions, not specs.

Yes, and the least expensive can be the solution for some people.

>> There's no need to mention PCs
>> with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
>> in them, either.
>
>then there's no need to mention either one, so why single out macs?
>
>this is about bottom-tier versus mid-tier products, not mac versus pc.
>
>> That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
>> market works for just about every type of product.
>
>it's a slam against macs if you only mention macs.

PCs are mentioned, and have been since the beginning.

>
>if you *also* mention similar priced pcs, then it's about price tiers.
>
>but you don't.

And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
determines what they will offer?

>> Automobiles are a
>> prime example of this.
>
>cars and computers are marketed very differently.

You really are dense if you can't connect these dots.

Honestly, nospam, the more you say the more bullishly stupid you come
across.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:55:47 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <opcoo85sri16qo7da...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> You quote Google.
>> >
>> >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
>> >google again (nexus 7).
>> >
>> >> What about (for example) Samsung?
>> >
>> >what about them?
>>
>> I dunno.
>>
>> What about them in the context of iPhone?
>
>they copied it so well that even samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the
>difference in court. that's one way to catch up.

So all you need to make an iPhone is a case?

No wonder Samsung is selling more than Apple.

That's just another way to talk about price groups. Of course a more
highly spec'd machine will fall into a different price group/tier.

>
>> Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
>> on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual
>> non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"
>> for what it delivers"?
>
>if someone only mentions macs, yes. why single them out, when there are
>other products with similar specs that cost about the same?

The situation of Macs is well known to many, making the argument easy
to understand. What other brand/model would you suggest?

>
>> >it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
>> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
>>
>> Do you really mean that Apple and Mac supporters have never claimed
>> "The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
>> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
>> delivers"? I would be surprised if they haven't as that statement is
>> perfectly true. Why are you objecting to it?
>
>i'm objecting to tying it to macs when ignoring that similar pcs cost
>about the same. it's furthers the longstanding myth that macs are more
>expensive. they are not.

You are overly sensitive. Does mentioning the name Mac bring you out
in hives?

>
>> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
>> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
>>
>> Because you and Tony Cooper were not discussing high-end PCs in
>> general but the position of Macs in the current hardware market.
>
>nope, it was about adobe's new cloud strategy and the two tiers of
>photoshop.
>
>it had nothing whatsoever to do with macs until he brought it up.

He brought it up as an example which he thought you might understand.
It seems he was wrong.

>> He
>> was quoting Mac's argument to explain Adobe's attitude to the pricing
>> of the high end image processing software. Somehow you have got so
>> bound up that you are arguing against your usual position.
>
>i'm not bound up at all. i'm just calling him on his usual bashing.

... but he wasn't bashing!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Whisky-dave]

On Friday, May 10, 2013 12:49:10 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:26:13 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>

<snip>

>
> >> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
>
> >> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
>
> >> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
>
> >> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
>
> >> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
>
> >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
>
> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?
>
> >
>
> >he calls it "the mac argument".
>
>
>
> And what's wrong with that?

I don't think that is the "Mac argument" the Mac arguments that I've seen are from those PC users that don't actually understand that the Mac uses more expensive parts and 'better' parts that the PC he see's as having the same or near identical tech specs.


> and that is one of the reasons Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur

>
> on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual
>
> non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"
>
> for what it delivers"?
>

That's one good way of putting it, but why bring the ability of teh user into it. ?

i.e the casual non-professional user

[PeterN]

Maybe not 10 years, but Corel certainly is not on a par with Adobe, The
major isssue I have, is that on a subscription model, how much incentive
is there for innovation. If that gap is not filled by Corel, somebody
will step into the void.


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <qbnoo8djqq38k6sd9...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
> >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
> >> >
> >> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
> >> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
> >>
> >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.
> >
> >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.
>
> Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
> features/specs a model will have?

no, not because it's a mac.

the price is higher because it has better specs, just as a similar spec
lenovo or acer or sony would be priced higher than the 'many pcs'

you're talking about.

> >a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
> >talking about.
>
> Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
> priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
> true.

it's a misleading statement and you aren't going to get away with 'but
it's true' excuse.

the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.

> >> There are
> >> people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
> >> of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
> >> high. They aren't interested in the "do more".
> >
> >and they're not interested in the higher priced pcs either.
> >
> >but you don't mention that, do you?
>
> Of course I did. The higher priced PCs have additional features
> compared to the lower priced PCs. It's right there above this.

*now* you do, after i called you on it. you did not mention pcs in your
earlier post.

here's your post:

In article <fvglo8pl7qlajrq1e...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
> the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"

> include more than the lower priced comparable programs. The only area

> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.
>

> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
>

> I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
> have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?
>
> The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.

you mention apple in the very first sentence. you mention macs twice in
the second paragraph. nowhere do you mention pcs anywhere in that post.

you do mention ps cs, which i guess if you have vision problems, could
look like pcs. maybe that's it.

> Are you really this thick?

not as thick as you.

> >there are also people who don't have any interest in the cheapest thing
> >available. they want a quality product and willing to pay for it.
> >
> >you don't mention that either.
>
> No, I didn't. There are also people who have no interest in any
> computer of any kind, and I didn't mention that. What I said was that
> some people want the least expensive product.

some do. not all.

however, that doesn't have anything to do with macs.

> >> The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
> >> entry level machine at a low price.
> >
> >some do, others do not.
>
> So who's arguing with that?
>
> >and what they're really interested in is solutions, not specs.
>
> Yes, and the least expensive can be the solution for some people.

it can be, but it isn't always.

many times, the least expensive choice is a bad user experience and
people are willing to pay for something that doesn't suck. this is what
companies are starting to realize.

other times, people realize the cheapest isn't always as much of a
bargain as they thought, especially when they have to buy all sorts of
additional stuff to do what they set out to do. or, they realize the
cheap product just won't cut it no matter what they do and they need
something more capable, so they end up getting that instead.

> >> There's no need to mention PCs
> >> with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
> >> in them, either.
> >
> >then there's no need to mention either one, so why single out macs?
> >
> >this is about bottom-tier versus mid-tier products, not mac versus pc.
> >
> >> That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
> >> market works for just about every type of product.
> >
> >it's a slam against macs if you only mention macs.
>
> PCs are mentioned, and have been since the beginning.

you're a liar. see above.

> >if you *also* mention similar priced pcs, then it's about price tiers.
> >
> >but you don't.
>
> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
> determines what they will offer?

features do, not the logo on the box.

[nospam]

In article <piuoo8p6ugphbq614...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> You quote Google.
> >> >
> >> >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
> >> >google again (nexus 7).
> >> >
> >> >> What about (for example) Samsung?
> >> >
> >> >what about them?
> >>
> >> I dunno.
> >>
> >> What about them in the context of iPhone?
> >
> >they copied it so well that even samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the
> >difference in court. that's one way to catch up.
>
> So all you need to make an iPhone is a case?

you need more than just a case, but the point is they copied it.

> No wonder Samsung is selling more than Apple.

overall they do, because samsung has zillions of models and apple has
only one model plus the two previous year's models.

if you compare the galaxy s3 (the model that directly competes with the
iphone 5), samsung sells less than apple, about half as many.

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57570235-37/iphone-5-beats-galaxy-s3-
as-top-seller-says-report/>
The iPhone 5 surpassed Samsung's Galaxy S3 last quarter as the
hottest-selling smartphone worldwide, according to a Strategy
Analytics report out today.

> >> >he calls it "the mac argument".
> >>
> >> And what's wrong with that?
> >
> >it has nothing to do with macs. that's what.
> >
> >it's different price tiers. that's all.
>
> That's just another way to talk about price groups. Of course a more
> highly spec'd machine will fall into a different price group/tier.

exactly.

might be a mac, might be a pc. it's about the specs, not the logo.

> >> Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
> >> on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual
> >> non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"
> >> for what it delivers"?
> >
> >if someone only mentions macs, yes. why single them out, when there are
> >other products with similar specs that cost about the same?
>
> The situation of Macs is well known to many, making the argument easy
> to understand. What other brand/model would you suggest?

why single out one brand?

> >> >it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
> >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
> >>
> >> Do you really mean that Apple and Mac supporters have never claimed
> >> "The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
> >> delivers"? I would be surprised if they haven't as that statement is
> >> perfectly true. Why are you objecting to it?
> >
> >i'm objecting to tying it to macs when ignoring that similar pcs cost
> >about the same. it's furthers the longstanding myth that macs are more
> >expensive. they are not.
>
> You are overly sensitive. Does mentioning the name Mac bring you out
> in hives?

misinformation does.

it doesn't matter what the misinformation is about. it could be apple
or nikon or google or anyone else. if it's wrong, it needs to be
corrected.

there just happens to be a *lot* of misinformation about apple.

[Robert Coe]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 14:58:11 -0500, George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
:
:
:
: On 5/8/13 12:50 PM, in article g24lo8hl0n4b2qse7...@4ax.com,

: "Bowser" <id...@think.so> wrote:
:
: > On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:14:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >> Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
: >> fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
: >> in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
: >> the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
: >> companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
: >> decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
: >> to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
: >> institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
: >> your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
: >> provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
: >> now cloud-based.
: >
: > This move is insulting, and I won't go along. When CS6 no longer
: > suffices, I'll move to another product. Fuck Adobe.

:
: Agreed. Their stuff has become overpriced and underperforming for the last

: seven years or so. Fuck em', indeed!

<chuckle!> And to think it was just last month, when I was looking for a way
to add ICC metadata to some JPEG images, that several of the Usual Suspects
gave me to understand what a lazy, ignorant Luddite I am for never having used
Photoshop. :^)

Bob

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:31:49 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <qbnoo8djqq38k6sd9...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
>> >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
>> >> >
>> >> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
>> >> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
>> >>
>> >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.
>> >
>> >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.
>>
>> Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
>> features/specs a model will have?
>
>no, not because it's a mac.
>

We are getting to the point here where I can't believe that you are
serious about what you say. You are denying, apparently, that Apple
isn't making the decision to offer laptops that are priced higher -but
offer more features- than many PC laptops. If the manufacturer of the
product does not make the decision of what to offer, who does?

>the price is higher because it has better specs, just as a similar spec
>lenovo or acer or sony would be priced higher than the 'many pcs'
>you're talking about.

Do you deny, though, that many PCs are priced lower than the minimum
offerings by Mac? The question isn't about "why", but about whether
or not the statement is true. You are arguing a point not made.

>
>> >a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
>> >talking about.
>>
>> Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
>> priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
>> true.
>
>it's a misleading statement and you aren't going to get away with 'but
>it's true' excuse.

No, it's not misleading at all. It's absolutely and obviously true
and misleads no one.

>the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
>why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.

Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true. All
laptops, essentially, do the same thing. The OS may allow one to do
something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
"do".

>> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
>> determines what they will offer?
>
>features do, not the logo on the box.

Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people
in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.
They are the result of decisions.

[J. Clarke]

In article <8l2to851i08gh7ti1...@4ax.com>, tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

And where is the Macbook tablet? My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
on a Macbook.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bf932a63...@news.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke

<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> And where is the Macbook tablet?

ipad.

> My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
> had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
> on a Macbook.

because that would be stupid. mac os is designed for mouse/keyboard,
not a stylus and certainly not touch.

there were windows tablets with styluses but they never sold
particularly well. it's a bad idea.

the ipad was designed for touch from the ground up, not something that
was added to the existing mac os. that's why it's so successful, far
more than any previous tablet had been.

[George Kerby]

On 5/12/13 5:02 AM, in article MPG.2bf932a63...@news.newsguy.com,

It didn't work for PC, why should Apple try such nonsense? Particularly when
they have such a commanding success with the iPad line?

[George Kerby]

On 5/12/13 6:49 AM, in article av9du7...@mid.individual.net, "android"

<he...@there.was> wrote:

> In article <MPG.2bf932a63...@news.newsguy.com>,
> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>

>>>> the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
>>>> why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.
>>>
>>> Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true. All
>>> laptops, essentially, do the same thing. The OS may allow one to do
>>> something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
>>> mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
>>> all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
>>> camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
>>> "do".
>>
>> And where is the Macbook tablet? My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
>> had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
>> on a Macbook.
>

> http://www.modbook.com/

Sure they are selling like free hotcakes! LOL!

And Tony C thought Macs were expensive...

[nospam]

In article <av9ooq...@mid.individual.net>, android <he...@there.was>

wrote:

> > > And where is the Macbook tablet?
> >
> > ipad.
> >
> > > My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
> > > had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
> > > on a Macbook.
> >
> > because that would be stupid. mac os is designed for mouse/keyboard,
> > not a stylus and certainly not touch.
> >
> > there were windows tablets with styluses but they never sold
> > particularly well. it's a bad idea.
> >
> > the ipad was designed for touch from the ground up, not something that
> > was added to the existing mac os. that's why it's so successful, far
> > more than any previous tablet had been.
>

> Try to load some proper software on them pads for pro work on the go!

nearly 1 million apps from which to choose, many of which can be used
for 'pro work' whatever that means.

> With a proper os on a pad you can do that, and ad keyboard/mouse.

ios is a 'proper os'. there's nothing improper about it and for tasks
that require a lot of typing, use a bluetooth keyboard. a mouse makes
no sense on a touch device. your finger *is* the mouse.

meanwhile, the windows tablets that ran what you call a 'proper os',
failed in the marketplace.

[nospam]

In article <CDB51792.9B7B7%ghost_...@hotmail.com>, George Kerby

<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > And where is the Macbook tablet? My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
> > had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
> > on a Macbook.
>
> It didn't work for PC, why should Apple try such nonsense? Particularly when
> they have such a commanding success with the iPad line?

exactly.

[nospam]

In article <av9q85...@mid.individual.net>, android <he...@there.was>
wrote:

> > > With a proper os on a pad you can do that, and ad keyboard/mouse.
> >
> > ios is a 'proper os'. there's nothing improper about it and for tasks
> > that require a lot of typing, use a bluetooth keyboard. a mouse makes
> > no sense on a touch device. your finger *is* the mouse.
> >
> > meanwhile, the windows tablets that ran what you call a 'proper os',
> > failed in the marketplace.
>

> I'm typing on a Mac right now, as you see in the headers. I don't think
> that Indesign or Photoshop loads well on pads, in their full versions.

so what? those aren't the only two programs in the world and certainly
not what defines 'pro'.

anyway, photoshop touch runs on the ipad. also, iphoto on the ipad is
more capable than iphoto on the mac. there are hundreds of other photo
manipulation apps.

there are apps to work with microsoft office files and microsoft is
working on office for the ipad.

there are also a lot of apps that only exist on an ipad and do not
exist on a mac/pc.

pick the best tool for the job.

[PeterN]

On 5/12/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:

>
> pick the best tool for the job.
>

Yup!
Last November I was looking for a new lightweight computer.
At the Apple store they advised me that their was no Apple product that
would meet my needs.
I wound up with my Lenovo.

--
PeterN

[J. Clarke]

In article <av9du7...@mid.individual.net>, he...@there.was says...

>
> In article <MPG.2bf932a63...@news.newsguy.com>,
> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>

> > > >the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
> > > >why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.
> > >
> > > Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true. All
> > > laptops, essentially, do the same thing. The OS may allow one to do
> > > something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
> > > mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
> > > all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
> > > camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
> > > "do".
> >
> > And where is the Macbook tablet? My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
> > had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
> > on a Macbook.
>

> http://www.modbook.com/

Which is not made by Apple.

[nospam]

In article <av9r6a...@mid.individual.net>, android <he...@there.was>
wrote:

> > anyway, photoshop touch runs on the ipad. also, iphoto on the ipad is
> > more capable than iphoto on the mac. there are hundreds of other photo
> > manipulation apps.
>

> PS touch won't handle more than 12 mp or so...

so what?

[J. Clarke]

In article <CDB51792.9B7B7%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
ghost_...@hotmail.com says...

That's odd, the one in my lap at the moment is working fine. In what
sense did "it" "not work"? Lenovo just brought out another generation
of such machines. So did Fujitsu. They all seem to work fine.

> why should Apple try such nonsense?

And that in a nutshell is the problem with Apple fans. The only
"features" that count are the ones that Apple includes, and features
that are more difficult to provide but are not available from Apple are
dismissed as "nonsense".

> Particularly when
> they have such a commanding success with the iPad line?

My Thinkpad was working fine four years before the first ipad shipped.
It is the second generation of the Thinkpad to have that feature.

[George Kerby]

On 5/12/13 11:22 AM, in article MPG.2bf98ba25...@news.newsguy.com,

So did the Edsel.

>> why should Apple try such nonsense?
>
> And that in a nutshell is the problem with Apple fans. The only
> "features" that count are the ones that Apple includes, and features
> that are more difficult to provide but are not available from Apple are
> dismissed as "nonsense".
>

Because basically NO ONE cares. If there is no market, why waste production
and advertising expense trying to sell ice cubes to Eskimos? Obviously, by
the numbers, the iPad SELLS. If there was a need for a stylus for Apple
tablets, there are a number of stylus manufacturers, but the numbers show
that most don't give a hoot.

>> Particularly when
>> they have such a commanding success with the iPad line?
>
> My Thinkpad was working fine four years before the first ipad shipped.
> It is the second generation of the Thinkpad to have that feature.
>

So? Glad that you are happy, you and all of a few hundred others out
there...

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bf98ba25...@news.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke

<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > And where is the Macbook tablet? My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
> > > had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
> > > on a Macbook.
> >
> > It didn't work for PC,
>
> That's odd, the one in my lap at the moment is working fine. In what
> sense did "it" "not work"? Lenovo just brought out another generation
> of such machines. So did Fujitsu. They all seem to work fine.

it didn't work in the marketplace.

pc tablets were a market failure.

<http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/01/24/word_is_a
pples_getting_ready_to_launch_its_first_tablet_computer/>
IDC found that only 121,000 �pure�� tablet-based machines were sold
last year, along with about a million hybrids, which combine a
touchscreen and a keyboard. That�s a fraction of the 165 million
standard laptop computers sold during the same period.

> > why should Apple try such nonsense?
>
> And that in a nutshell is the problem with Apple fans. The only
> "features" that count are the ones that Apple includes, and features
> that are more difficult to provide but are not available from Apple are
> dismissed as "nonsense".

it has nothing to do with apple fans.

apple makes mass market products. why should apple make a product that
didn't sell particularly well?

instead, apple created a touch based tablet designed to be used with
touch and it's hugely successful, so much so that everyone is copying
it, including microsoft.

> > Particularly when
> > they have such a commanding success with the iPad line?
>
> My Thinkpad was working fine four years before the first ipad shipped.
> It is the second generation of the Thinkpad to have that feature.

so what?

not enough people bought it. it's a niche product.

[notbob]

On 2013-05-12, android <he...@there.was> wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

>> In article <av9du7...@mid.individual.net>, he...@there.was says...

>> > http://www.modbook.com/

>> Which is not made by Apple.

> Nooo... It''s a third party modification of an Apple product...

....and it's a damn sight far away from being affordable!

<http://www.powerbookmedic.com/Modbook-Pro-23GHZ-Core-i5-120GB-SSD-4GB-RAM-p-25898.html>

I'll jes buy a used intuos 3 fer $150 and run it on my linux desktop,
thank you very much.

nb

[nospam]

In article <8l2to851i08gh7ti1...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.
> >> >
> >> >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.
> >>
> >> Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
> >> features/specs a model will have?
> >
> >no, not because it's a mac.
>
> We are getting to the point here where I can't believe that you are
> serious about what you say. You are denying, apparently, that Apple
> isn't making the decision to offer laptops that are priced higher -but
> offer more features- than many PC laptops. If the manufacturer of the
> product does not make the decision of what to offer, who does?

obviously apple decides what features to put apple products, just as
lenovo, acer, sony, etc. decide what features to put in their products.

you're making my point, that it's *specs* that determines price.

when the specs are similar, the prices are similar. when the specs are
different, the prices are different.

this is so obvious that i don't understand why you keep arguing against
it.

it's not like designer clothes where the product is basically the same
and you're paying for the label, or like house-brand items versus
nationally advertised items in the grocery store, where it *is* the
same product, but with a different price.

> >the price is higher because it has better specs, just as a similar spec
> >lenovo or acer or sony would be priced higher than the 'many pcs'
> >you're talking about.
>
> Do you deny, though, that many PCs are priced lower than the minimum
> offerings by Mac?

only because those pcs have lower specs.

it's not because one is a pc and the other is a mac.

> The question isn't about "why", but about whether
> or not the statement is true. You are arguing a point not made.

it furthers a myth.

> >> >a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
> >> >talking about.
> >>
> >> Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
> >> priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
> >> true.
> >
> >it's a misleading statement and you aren't going to get away with 'but
> >it's true' excuse.
>
> No, it's not misleading at all. It's absolutely and obviously true
> and misleads no one.

saying macs cost more *is* misleading. they do not cost more.

you are intentionally picking *different* specs to try to prove it.

the least expensive car costs more than many bicycles. that is
absolutely and obviously true too. it's also not a particularly useful
bit of information.

it's like saying flying on delta costs more than on american airlines,
but then when you look at the price of the ticket, you see that one
ticket is an unrestricted refundable first class while the other is in
the lowest economy fare bucket, non-refundable and with a saturday
stayover. saying delta costs more might be true, but only because it's
an f/c ticket versus restricted economy, not because it's delta.

> >the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
> >why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.
>
> Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true.

it is true.

> All laptops, essentially, do the same thing.

that explains why you don't get it.

> The OS may allow one to do
> something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
> mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
> all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
> camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
> "do".

no that's not about it, and all those cost money anyway, which is why
one costs more than another.

sometimes certain hardware is required for a particular app, such as a
gpu or a certain amount of memory or a certain size display. if you
don't have a machine that meets the necessary specs, the app won't
work, which means one laptop *will* do more than another.

faster processors means you get more work done in less time. that might
not matter for email but it *will* matter for things like video
encoding. nobody wants to wait overnight or even longer to process a
single video file.

> >> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
> >> determines what they will offer?
> >
> >features do, not the logo on the box.
>
> Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people
> in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.
> They are the result of decisions.

what's bizarre?

if two different companies make the same decisions about what specs to
include and make two products that are very similar if not the same,
the products will cost about the same.

computers are not like designer clothing where you *do* pay for the
logo.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkovjsg...@nbleet.hcc.net>, notbob

<not...@nothome.com> wrote:

> >> > http://www.modbook.com/
>
> >> Which is not made by Apple.
>
> > Nooo... It''s a third party modification of an Apple product...
>
> ....and it's a damn sight far away from being affordable!

that's mainly because they buy a macbook at retail and then modify it.
it will *always* cost more than a stock macbook.

it's also because it's a low volume niche product. they don't sell very
many.

> I'll jes buy a used intuos 3 fer $150 and run it on my linux desktop,
> thank you very much.

how well does your desktop fold up and fit into a briefcase?

[notbob]

On 2013-05-12, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> how well does your desktop fold up and fit into a briefcase?

About as well as the larger modbook. Besides, I don't do digital
graphics while riding my bicycle or whatever a tablet is supposed to
provide me.

nb

[nospam]

In article <slrnkovll5...@nbleet.hcc.net>, notbob

<not...@nothome.com> wrote:

> > how well does your desktop fold up and fit into a briefcase?
>
> About as well as the larger modbook.

your desktop is an inch thick and weighs 5 pounds?

> Besides, I don't do digital
> graphics while riding my bicycle or whatever a tablet is supposed to
> provide me.

that's good. the last thing anyone needs is someone causing a crash.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:31:07 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
>> >the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
>> >why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.
>>
>> Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true.
>
>it is true.
>
>> All laptops, essentially, do the same thing.
>
>that explains why you don't get it.
>
>> The OS may allow one to do
>> something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
>> mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
>> all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
>> camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
>> "do".
>
>no that's not about it, and all those cost money anyway, which is why
>one costs more than another.
>
>sometimes certain hardware is required for a particular app, such as a
>gpu or a certain amount of memory or a certain size display. if you
>don't have a machine that meets the necessary specs, the app won't
>work, which means one laptop *will* do more than another.

All laptops do basically the same thing until you alter them in such a
way that they are unable to do something. Adding an app that requires
more memory than the laptop came with is altering the requirements for
the laptop.

You are the one that came up with automobile comparisons (so much for
"this discussion is about..."). If you buy an automobile without a
towing package, and then decide that you need to pull a heavy trailer,
you have altered the requirements. You have to add components or buy
a different vehicle just as you have to add memory or buy a different
laptop if you try to add an app that won't work with the device as
purchased.

[nospam]

In article <ubnvo81h8ffh0h98a...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> The OS may allow one to do
> >> something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
> >> mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
> >> all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
> >> camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
> >> "do".
> >
> >no that's not about it, and all those cost money anyway, which is why
> >one costs more than another.
> >
> >sometimes certain hardware is required for a particular app, such as a
> >gpu or a certain amount of memory or a certain size display. if you
> >don't have a machine that meets the necessary specs, the app won't
> >work, which means one laptop *will* do more than another.
>
> All laptops do basically the same thing until you alter them in such a
> way that they are unable to do something. Adding an app that requires
> more memory than the laptop came with is altering the requirements for
> the laptop.

no need to alter them. some laptops do more than others. that you don't
understand this basic fact explains a lot.

> You are the one that came up with automobile comparisons (so much for
> "this discussion is about..."). If you buy an automobile without a
> towing package, and then decide that you need to pull a heavy trailer,
> you have altered the requirements. You have to add components or buy
> a different vehicle just as you have to add memory or buy a different
> laptop if you try to add an app that won't work with the device as
> purchased.

in other words, not all cars do the same thing. some are capable of
towing and others are not.

[PeterN]

Here are the specs for my Lenovo laptop. Tell us the cost of an
equivalent Mac.
14" screen
quad IV processor
500 gig HD
16 gig SSD
8hr battery
built in card reader
3 USB ports
WiFi card
Blutooth capable.
3 year onsite service.

I included only the essential features, for me. All else is fluff.

my cost was about $1,200
Tell us what an equivalent Mac notebook would cost.




--
PeterN

[J. Clarke]

In article <slrnkovjsg...@nbleet.hcc.net>, not...@nothome.com
says...

Not really the same. I have an Intuos 3 and while it does tricks that a
Wacom tablet won't, the feedback is different. The tablet is more like
a baby Cintiq.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bfa18e56...@news.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > <http://www.powerbookmedic.com/Modbook-Pro-23GHZ-Core-i5-120GB-SSD-4GB-RAM-p-

> > 25898.html>
> >
> > I'll jes buy a used intuos 3 fer $150 and run it on my linux desktop,
> > thank you very much.
>
> Not really the same. I have an Intuos 3 and while it does tricks that a
> Wacom tablet won't, the feedback is different.

intuos *is* a wacom tablet.

> The tablet is more like
> a baby Cintiq.

right, the modbook is basically a cintiq+macbook.

[J. Clarke]

In article <CDB53020.9B7DC%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,

Except that the Edsel did not go through multiple generations, inspire
imitators, or get produced by multiple manufacturers.

> >> why should Apple try such nonsense?
> >
> > And that in a nutshell is the problem with Apple fans. The only
> > "features" that count are the ones that Apple includes, and features
> > that are more difficult to provide but are not available from Apple are
> > dismissed as "nonsense".
> >
> Because basically NO ONE cares.

Now you understand. NO ONE CARES about the fancy unnecessary extra
"features" on your precious little electronic god.

> If there is no market, why waste production
> and advertising expense trying to sell ice cubes to Eskimos?

And yet obviously there is a market. One that Apple ignored.

> Obviously, by
> the numbers, the iPad SELLS. If there was a need for a stylus for Apple
> tablets, there are a number of stylus manufacturers, but the numbers show
> that most don't give a hoot.

We were not discussing the kinds of tablets that Apple sells.

> >> Particularly when
> >> they have such a commanding success with the iPad line?
> >
> > My Thinkpad was working fine four years before the first ipad shipped.
> > It is the second generation of the Thinkpad to have that feature.
> >
>
> So? Glad that you are happy, you and all of a few hundred others out
> there...

So let's see, "a few hundred users" are supporting Lenovo, Panasonic,
HP, and Fujitsu.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bfa1a7e7...@news.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke

<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > If there is no market, why waste production
> > and advertising expense trying to sell ice cubes to Eskimos?
>
> And yet obviously there is a market. One that Apple ignored.

not one big enough for apple to bother with.

[George Kerby]

On 5/12/13 9:43 PM, in article 120520132243388841%nos...@nospam.invalid,

Amazing how some people feel that if THEY cherish a toy, then the whole
WORLD should also worship their golden calf...

[Whisky-dave]

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:38:37 PM UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:31:49 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>

>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <qbnoo8djqq38k6sd9...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>
> ><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> >> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
>
> >> >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
>
> >> >> >
>
> >> >> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
>
> >> >> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
>
> >> >>
>
> >> >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.
>
> >> >
>
> >> >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.
>
> >>
>
> >> Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
>
> >> features/specs a model will have?
>
> >
>
> >no, not because it's a mac.
>
> >
>
> We are getting to the point here where I can't believe that you are
>
> serious about what you say. You are denying, apparently, that Apple
>
> isn't making the decision to offer laptops that are priced higher -but
>
> offer more features- than many PC laptops. If the manufacturer of the
>
> product does not make the decision of what to offer, who does?

Aple are making computers for a particualar range of person, they know that I know that so who doesn't know that ?.

I can even tell you the price of the next Apple product it will be a similar price to the previous product that it's replacing, which shows they are after a market. Apple won't be unvailing a sub 500 UKP computer. They'll stick to the mid-high range products. They won;t introcue a very high end product either such as a cray.
Most companies work within a set price range Apple are no differnt, they also know they can;t make enough profit from low spec computers as teh margins are to low.

> >the price is higher because it has better specs, just as a similar spec
>
> >lenovo or acer or sony would be priced higher than the 'many pcs'
>
> >you're talking about.
>
>
>
> Do you deny, though, that many PCs are priced lower than the minimum
>
> offerings by Mac?

I'd say that's true and I'd say they are also worth less because of that.
They're build quality will generally be lower and the specs, while they might look the same on the surface won't perform as well.

> The question isn't about "why", but about whether
>
> or not the statement is true. You are arguing a point not made.

Seems a rather silly to point out such things.

> >the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
>
> >why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.
>
>
>
> Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true. All
>
> laptops, essentially, do the same thing. The OS may allow one to do
>
> something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
>
> mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
>
> all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
>
> camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
>
> "do".

Apart from the suplied software, I can;t believe how useless and unuse friendley windows paint is compared to iPhoto and I use both, or maybe I'm using the wrong product on the windows side to do basic photo editing.
As for doing more well it's certainly easier and more encouraging on a Mac.
I'm presently attempting to use an Ardunio board, check out how to install ehm on a PC and on a Mac.

Installing drivers for the Arduino Uno with Windows7, Vista, or XP:

•Plug in your board and wait for Windows to begin it's driver installation process. Â After a few moments, the process will fail, despite its best efforts
•Click on the Start Menu, and open up the Control Panel.
•While in the Control Panel, navigate to System and Security. Next, click on System. Once the System window is up, open the Device Manager.
•Look under Ports (COM & LPT). Â You should see an open port named "Arduino UNO (COMxx)"
•Right click on the "Arduino UNO (COmxx)" port and choose the "Update Driver Software" option.
•Next, choose the "Browse my computer for Driver software" option.
•Finally, navigate to and select the Uno's driver file, named "ArduinoUNO.inf", located in the "Drivers" folder of the Arduino Software download (not the "FTDI USB Drivers" sub-directory).
•Windows will finish up the driver installation from there.

----------------------
It took 3 atempts before I got this working and every now and again maybe 1 in 5 compiles I get errors which are only resolved by unplugging it and plugging it back in again, and I'm not the first to have found this. This is what I was told by those that have used them on macs and PCs.

On the Mac there's no driver install as such, you just need to
Select the serial device of the Arduino board from the Tools > Serial Port menu. On the Mac, this should be something with /dev/tty.usbmodem


maybe not such a big deal once you know, but yet again shows how less painful a Mac computer can be, and that's before we talk about viruses.

>
> >> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
>
> >> determines what they will offer?
>
> >
>
> >features do, not the logo on the box.
>
>
>
> Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people
>
> in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.
>
> They are the result of decisions.

What features can be offered is determined by price.
You can get a 750K SSD if you wish and can afford it Apple offer the option of a fusion drive for those that can't afford such a thing and still wnat a reasonal about of overall storage, it's offer for those that can afford it or think the options is worth the extra.

[Whisky-dave]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 4:51:27 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
> On 5/12/2013 11:31 AM, nospam wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > pick the best tool for the job.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Yup!
>
> Last November I was looking for a new lightweight computer.
>
> At the Apple store they advised me that their was no Apple product that
>
> would meet my needs.

You wanted it to keep crashing and get infrected by viruses on a regular basis?, well what did you expect ;-)





Which one did you get and were they any other requirments that an Apple product couldn't meet which you required ?

I've had a quick look and you're right going by the reviews thre's no way Apple could compete.

http://shop.lenovo.com/gb/en/laptops/ideapad/u-series/u310/?sb=:000001D4:0001BEEE:#reviews

--------------------------
Disappointment
Date: Dec 30, 2012
cons (3) Wireless card,Support,poor connectivity

Considerably dissatisfied because of very poor wireless connection; wouldn't be such any issue had Lenovo been able to resolve. Unable to recommend the U310 and would discourage friends and family from purchasing.
--------------------------------

http://shop.lenovo.com/gb/en/laptops/?&cid=uk|semd|se|google|lenovoukdirect|z1D630|s#/?facet-5=2&page-index=1&facet-2=3

Tried to get a review of their top end £1,500 thinkpad X1 carbon

Cons Screen size, resolution, display performance and price
And a months delivery, buyer sent it back in the end.

I guess you're right the's no way Apple could compete with this :)

>
> I wound up with my Lenovo.

Are you sure you don;t mean you were wound up by your Lenovo.

[J. Clarke]

In article <avbeks...@mid.individual.net>, he...@there.was says...

>
> In article <slrnkovjsg...@nbleet.hcc.net>,
> notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>

> I'm not selling it. It's there if you need/want it. Some folks pay
> premium for tools that make them more productive.

The argument presented was that Macs have lots of functionality that PCs
lack. I pointed out an example where they don't. You pointed out that
a third party kluges Macs to provide a keyboardless tablet, voiding the
Apple warranty in the process. If you are willing to go with something
that is hacked up by a third party and unsupported by Apple, then I can
just put OSX on my Thinkpad and end up with a more satisfactory result.

[J. Clarke]

In article <CDB64684.9B861%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,
ghost_...@hotmail.com says...

Yep, described the MacTribesman attitude to a T.

[Mayayana]

| Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
| fee to "rent" its use.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
across it at TheRegister:

"One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
files."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/13/adobe_cloud_pricing/

As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
"in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
on all content.

The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
only Photoshop can open.

[nospam]

In article <kmqrb8$9gt$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
> | fee to "rent" its use.
>
> I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
> across it at TheRegister:
>
> "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
> your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
> files."
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/13/adobe_cloud_pricing/

with an article titled

Adobe price hike: Your money or your files, frappuccino sippers

you know it's going to be completely objective.

not surprisingly, they get a lot wrong.

the way it works is if you let your adobe creative cloud subscription
lapse, you can't use adobe creative cloud apps anymore. that's all. no
real surprise there.

your files are still on your hard drive and can be opened by *other*
apps that can read/write those formats. you just can't use the apps you
are no longer paying for.

for photoshop users, that means you can use photoshop elements, apple
preview and many others. the photoshop .psd format is documented, so
there can't ever be a lockout.

photoshop users can also save in tiff, jpg, png, pdf, etc., which can
be opened with pretty much anything.

> As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
> "in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
> Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
> process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
> as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
> a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
> their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
> on all content.

more misinformation. google and yahoo mail do not and i highly doubt
anyone else does.

> The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
> accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
> online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
> to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
> only Photoshop can open.

of course they don't say how, because it's complete bullshit.

there is no custom proprietary type or copy protection or other tinfoil
hat nonsense. the files are *yours* to do whatever the hell you want
with them.

adobe doesn't prevent anything other than not using the apps you aren't
paying for. you are more than welcome to use any other apps that
read/write the formats.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bfab128...@news.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke

<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > I'll jes buy a used intuos 3 fer $150 and run it on my linux desktop,
> > > thank you very much.
> >

> > I'm not selling it. It's there if you need/want it. Some folks pay
> > premium for tools that make them more productive.
>
> The argument presented was that Macs have lots of functionality that PCs
> lack.

no it wasn't. the issue is apple doesn't make products in every product
category. they aren't interested in making a pen-enabled laptop. it
never sold well and the market is tiny. it's a niche product that
they're happy to leave to someone else. instead, apple has the ipad
which is vastly more successful, so much so that everyone is trying to
copy it.

> I pointed out an example where they don't.

there are always niche products.

> You pointed out that
> a third party kluges Macs to provide a keyboardless tablet, voiding the
> Apple warranty in the process.

modbook provides their own warranty in place of apple's.

> If you are willing to go with something
> that is hacked up by a third party and unsupported by Apple, then I can
> just put OSX on my Thinkpad and end up with a more satisfactory result.

os x on a thinkpad isn't the same as a modbook.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-13 06:58:37 -0700, "Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> said:

> | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
> | fee to "rent" its use.
>
> I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
> across it at TheRegister:
>
> "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
> your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
> files."

That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
(preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
proprietary file formats.
I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
"Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
Suite on at least one work station. Those who will be at the mercy of
Adobe will be those new to the game and those involved in part time
design work. I would recommend those part time designers and students
sitting at "Creative Cloud" work stations, also store their work on a
portable drive, or Dropbox.

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/13/adobe_cloud_pricing/
>
> As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
> "in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
> Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
> process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
> as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
> a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
> their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
> on all content.
>
> The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
> accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
> online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
> to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
> only Photoshop can open.

I believe it means preventing access to files stored in the "cloud".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[J. Clarke]

In article <2013051308265516807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...

>
> On 2013-05-13 06:58:37 -0700, "Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> said:
>
> > | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
> > | fee to "rent" its use.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
> > across it at TheRegister:
> >
> > "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
> > your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
> > files."
>
> That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
> in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
> (preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
> plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
> proprietary file formats.
> I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
> "Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
> Suite on at least one work station.

All users will have hard installations. The software will request a
monthly check-in and will die only if three months go by without a
successful check-in. I don't think that Adobe has any desire to
maintain enough server capacity and bandwidth to let people run Premiere
over the net on servers operated by Adobe.

> Those who will be at the mercy of
> Adobe will be those new to the game and those involved in part time
> design work. I would recommend those part time designers and students
> sitting at "Creative Cloud" work stations, also store their work on a
> portable drive, or Dropbox.
>
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/13/adobe_cloud_pricing/
> >
> > As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
> > "in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
> > Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
> > process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
> > as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
> > a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
> > their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
> > on all content.
> >
> > The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
> > accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
> > online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
> > to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
> > only Photoshop can open.
>
> I believe it means preventing access to files stored in the "cloud".

Adobe has clearly stated their policies on this. Your local files will
remain local files--if you have a non-Adobe application that will open
them it will still open them. Files stored in the cloud will be
acceesible for a grace period whose duration I forget. Once that grace
period has elapsed they will still grant you something like 2 gig of
free storage in the cloud--they did not state how they would determine
which 2 gig of your cloud-stored content they would make available to
you if you had more than 2 gig stored when the grace period expired.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <518fba73$0$10768$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
says...

> Last November I was looking for a new lightweight computer.
> At the Apple store they advised me that their was no Apple product that
> would meet my needs.

> I wound up with my Lenovo.

I was looking for an upgrade for my Lenovo X200 and found the X230.
Almost ok, if it were not for the fact that it only takes HDDs with a
7mm height. These come in a maximum size of 500GB. Already now the 1TB
drive in my X200 is almost full. After I discovering that I was tempted
for a while to write Lenovo a letter full of insults. What a bunch of
clowns. They make a business notebook, but downgrade the max. HDD size.

Oh, by the way, also all those ultrabooks are out of scope. You can't
change the battery and they do not take large HDDs.

At the moment the only Lenovo unit which might be sort of suitable would
be the X200, which however Lenovo have discontinued.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-13 09:09:22 -0700, "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> said:

> In article <2013051308265516807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>>
>> On 2013-05-13 06:58:37 -0700, "Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam> said:
>>
>>> | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
>>> | fee to "rent" its use.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
>>> across it at TheRegister:
>>>
>>> "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
>>> your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
>>> files."
>>
>> That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
>> in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
>> (preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
>> plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
>> proprietary file formats.
>> I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
>> "Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
>> Suite on at least one work station.
>
> All users will have hard installations. The software will request a
> monthly check-in and will die only if three months go by without a
> successful check-in. I don't think that Adobe has any desire to
> maintain enough server capacity and bandwidth to let people run Premiere
> over the net on servers operated by Adobe.

I understand exactly how the "Creative Cloud" and the implementation of
the call home for the "rental" software works.

You have misunderstood, or misread my premise. There are going to be
many current users of the CS6 suite or individual modules of the suite
who have purchased DVD editions of the software. They are being pushed
to the "Creative Cloud" model to obtain the latest upgrades beyond CS6.
If they fail to maintain their monthly payments, more than the failure
to "call home" their ability to use the downloaded software will cease
once the "call home" confirm that the "rent" had not been paid.
The long established design businesses, individuals, schools, or
corporations who have been using the software of the Creative Suite,
almost certainly own the DVD editions of CS6 which can be installed on
their work stations as a lifeboat for the rental hard copy.

Which is one reason I maintain my own redundant archive and do not
depend on the vulnerability of cloud rental space. Regarding "cloud"
storage, I use Dropbox & Pogoplug. With Pogoplug I use a Pogoplug
device to which I have added my own 1TB HDD giving me my own reasonably
large "personal cloud".
The only reason I might use the Adobe service would be for
collaborative work within an organization. However, my personal CS use
is limited to Photoshop, and I have no intention of migrating to the
"Creative Cloud".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bfada41e...@news.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke

<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

> > > I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
> > > across it at TheRegister:
> > >
> > > "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you
> > > allow your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your
> > > old files."
> >
> > That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
> > in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
> > (preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
> > plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
> > proprietary file formats.
> > I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
> > "Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
> > Suite on at least one work station.
>
> All users will have hard installations. The software will request a
> monthly check-in and will die only if three months go by without a
> successful check-in.

creative cloud checks approximately every 3 months for annual customers
and every 1 month for monthly customers.

however, he's saying that creative cloud users might *also* maintain a
non-cloud version of cs6, just in case.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bfb45013...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred

Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Last November I was looking for a new lightweight computer.
> > At the Apple store they advised me that their was no Apple product that
> > would meet my needs. I wound up with my Lenovo.
>
> I was looking for an upgrade for my Lenovo X200 and found the X230.
> Almost ok, if it were not for the fact that it only takes HDDs with a
> 7mm height. These come in a maximum size of 500GB.

that will change. there was a time when 500g was the maximum for 9mm
drives.

> Already now the 1TB
> drive in my X200 is almost full. After I discovering that I was tempted
> for a while to write Lenovo a letter full of insults. What a bunch of
> clowns. They make a business notebook, but downgrade the max. HDD size.

people want thin and light, not huge amounts of storage.

do you really need 1 tb of stuff everywhere you go?

put some stuff on an external drive (even a flash drive) or a server.

> Oh, by the way, also all those ultrabooks are out of scope. You can't
> change the battery

the battery typically lasts 8+ hours per charge so there's almost never
a need to change it. the batteries also have an expected lifetime of
3-5 years, which is likely longer than the useful life of the laptop.

should the battery prematurely fail, replace it. it's just a few
screws. not a big deal. if it's under warranty, you won't need to do a
thing (other than take it somewhere to be fixed).

> and they do not take large HDDs.

500g is large.

> At the moment the only Lenovo unit which might be sort of suitable would
> be the X200, which however Lenovo have discontinued.

i just found a review for it, and it cost $1800?? wow.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
<whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
>> >> determines what they will offer?
>>
>> >features do, not the logo on the box.
>>
>> Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people
>>
>> in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.
>>
>> They are the result of decisions.
>
>What features can be offered is determined by price.

That's a chicken-or-the-egg question. What features can be offered is
determined by the price, or, what price can be offered is determined
by the features.

[PeterN]

On 5/12/2013 10:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:


<>snip>

>
> Not really the same. I have an Intuos 3 and while it does tricks that a
> Wacom tablet won't, the feedback is different. The tablet is more like
> a baby Cintiq.
>

I use an Intuos IV, and wouldn't be without it. Aside from the touch
screen, what advantage would there be to using a Cintiq. Wacom just came
out with a small one for about $999.


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

My prior laptop was a Lenovo. for me the important features were a matte
display screen, longer battery life and reasonably priced home service.
I was able to customize my order to get only the features I wanted. I
did have some issues with WiFi connectivity, which were solved through a
software re-configuration.
BTW I had previously reported that my machine shipped without one of the
features I ordered. IBM service has agreed to correct the problem and is
sending a service person to my home to do the install. for me this is a
better solution than sending me a new machine.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/13/2013 1:44 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <518fba73$0$10768$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> says...
>> Last November I was looking for a new lightweight computer.
>> At the Apple store they advised me that their was no Apple product that
>> would meet my needs.
>> I wound up with my Lenovo.
>
> I was looking for an upgrade for my Lenovo X200 and found the X230.
> Almost ok, if it were not for the fact that it only takes HDDs with a
> 7mm height. These come in a maximum size of 500GB. Already now the 1TB
> drive in my X200 is almost full. After I discovering that I was tempted
> for a while to write Lenovo a letter full of insults. What a bunch of
> clowns. They make a business notebook, but downgrade the max. HDD size.
>
> Oh, by the way, also all those ultrabooks are out of scope. You can't
> change the battery and they do not take large HDDs.
>
> At the moment the only Lenovo unit which might be sort of suitable would
> be the X200, which however Lenovo have discontinued.
>

I agree with you about the Ultrabook. i have a T430. This internal drive
is large enough, since it is not my main machine. For travelling a carry
two portable iT drives, with USB3. That configuration is fast enough to
allow be to do rough editing on the road, and get a pretty good idea
which images are not keepers.

--
PeterN

[J. Clarke]

In article <avcriq...@mid.individual.net>, he...@there.was says...
>
> In article <MPG.2bfab128...@news.newsguy.com>,

> Well, OSX on a Thinkpad tablet wouldn't be very hardware optimized at
> all, would it.

Why not, it's the same processor and chipest that Apple uses.

> Whatever... I'm sure some Hackintosh site would be happy
> happy to post your howto...

Don't need to post a howto. My machine is one of the ideal Hackintosh
targets and the howto has been there for years.

[Whisky-dave]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 10:04:44 PM UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
>
> <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
>
> >> >> determines what they will offer?
>
> >>
>
> >> >features do, not the logo on the box.
>
> >>
>
> >> Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people
>
> >>
>
> >> in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.
>
> >>
>
> >> They are the result of decisions.
>
> >
>
> >What features can be offered is determined by price.
>
>
>
> That's a chicken-or-the-egg question.

And we all know the egg came first because it's breakfast.

> What features can be offered is
>
> determined by the price, or, what price can be offered is determined
>
> by the features.

But Apple know what features they can provide at a particular price point, as the costs come down the features increase and the price stays pretty much the same. Hard drive and memeory capacitys increase as their prices drop for both Mac and PC shifters.

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:58:37 -0400, "Mayayana" <maya...@invalid.nospam>
wrote:
: | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user

At least that's one question I'll never have to answer. The probability that
I'll ever use any piece of Adobe photo editing software is now as near zero as
real-world probabilities ever get.

Sorry if I offend you, nospam, but that's how it is.

Bob

[Tony Cooper]

I have no intention to subscribe, but I would still recommend Elements
to anyone interested in a powerful but inexpensive photo editing
program. For all but a few amateur photographers, it is as powerful a
program as the CS versions. The features in CS, but not in Elements,
are features that almost all amateurs can forego without loss.

Unlike nospam, I can't infallibly predict the future offerings of
Adobe, but I think that Adobe will continue to add features to
Elements. In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.

[nospam]

In article <ku98p8t756e2osuum...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

<b...@1776.COM> wrote:

> At least that's one question I'll never have to answer. The probability that
> I'll ever use any piece of Adobe photo editing software is now as near zero as
> real-world probabilities ever get.
>
> Sorry if I offend you, nospam, but that's how it is.

it doesn't offend me in the least.

use whatever you want.

[nospam]

In article <77e8p8latbmr8ecvq...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have no intention to subscribe, but I would still recommend Elements
> to anyone interested in a powerful but inexpensive photo editing
> program. For all but a few amateur photographers, it is as powerful a
> program as the CS versions. The features in CS, but not in Elements,
> are features that almost all amateurs can forego without loss.

that's adobe's strategy. creative cloud for pros and elements for the
enthusiasts/hobbyist market.

> Unlike nospam, I can't infallibly predict the future offerings of
> Adobe,

more twisting from you.

i'm not predicting what they'll do nor am i infallible.

i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
again, the idea is ludicrous.

not surprisingly you twist this into something else.

> but I think that Adobe will continue to add features to
> Elements.

of course they will add new features to elements, just as they will add
new features to the rest of their apps.

the only one that won't be getting new features is cs6. it is at the
end of the road. the only changes will be bugfixes and security fixes.

> In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
> version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
> Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.

what for, when lightroom already exists?

a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
minimizing the need for a second app.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:40:41 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <77e8p8latbmr8ecvq...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no intention to subscribe, but I would still recommend Elements
>> to anyone interested in a powerful but inexpensive photo editing
>> program. For all but a few amateur photographers, it is as powerful a
>> program as the CS versions. The features in CS, but not in Elements,
>> are features that almost all amateurs can forego without loss.
>
>that's adobe's strategy. creative cloud for pros and elements for the
>enthusiasts/hobbyist market.
>
>> Unlike nospam, I can't infallibly predict the future offerings of
>> Adobe,
>
>more twisting from you.
>
>i'm not predicting what they'll do nor am i infallible.

N.S.,S.

>
>i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
>again, the idea is ludicrous.

You don't predict, but you state that they will not - in the future -
add ads.

>
>not surprisingly you twist this into something else.

You would make more sense if I *would* twist your words. It's
repeating what you say, as you said it, that makes you look foolish.

>
>> but I think that Adobe will continue to add features to
>> Elements.
>
>of course they will add new features to elements, just as they will add
>new features to the rest of their apps.
>
>the only one that won't be getting new features is cs6. it is at the
>end of the road. the only changes will be bugfixes and security fixes.
>
>> In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
>> version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
>> Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.
>
>what for, when lightroom already exists?

Because there are people who like the method of editing offered by
Elements who would like a better image cataloging/keywording system
than Organizer provides without using, and buying, two separate
programs.

>a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
>minimizing the need for a second app.

That would, essentially, accomplish the same thing: combining the
Elements style of editing with the Lightroom cataloging/keywording
system. Whether they put layers and layer masking, for example, in
Lightroom or Library in Elements, it's same thing.

But, who am I to predict? Obviously, you should be the one to tell us
what Adobe will and will not do.

[nospam]

In article <gtl8p851o9enf3c4t...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
> >again, the idea is ludicrous.
>
> You don't predict, but you state that they will not - in the future -
> add ads.

they're not going to put ads in paid software. the idea is ludicrous.
the backlash would be huge. this is common sense, which you seem to
lack.

> >not surprisingly you twist this into something else.
>
> You would make more sense if I *would* twist your words. It's
> repeating what you say, as you said it, that makes you look foolish.

you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

> >> In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
> >> version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
> >> Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.
> >
> >what for, when lightroom already exists?
>
> Because there are people who like the method of editing offered by
> Elements who would like a better image cataloging/keywording system
> than Organizer provides without using, and buying, two separate
> programs.
>
> >a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
> >minimizing the need for a second app.
>
> That would, essentially, accomplish the same thing: combining the
> Elements style of editing with the Lightroom cataloging/keywording
> system. Whether they put layers and layer masking, for example, in
> Lightroom or Library in Elements, it's same thing.
>
> But, who am I to predict? Obviously, you should be the one to tell us
> what Adobe will and will not do.

there you go twisting things again, which you said you don't do. that
means you lied.

[Sandman]

In article <160520130145457541%nos...@nospam.invalid>,

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > >i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
> > >again, the idea is ludicrous.
> >
> > You don't predict, but you state that they will not - in the future -
> > add ads.
>
> they're not going to put ads in paid software.

Prediction one.

> the idea is ludicrous.

Subjective opinion.

> the backlash would be huge.

Prediction two.

> this is common sense, which you seem to lack.

Personal attack.

> > But, who am I to predict? Obviously, you should be the one to tell us
> > what Adobe will and will not do.
>
> there you go twisting things again, which you said you don't do. that
> means you lied.

Only, you *are* predicting what they are doing - regardless of whether
you think the options to your predictions are "ludicrous" or not.
Explicitly stating what will happen is by definition a prediction. Even
if that prediction is something your personally feel is obvious and
logical.



--
Sandman[.net]

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:45:45 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>
>you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
>so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
>dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.

You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
it.

Next s�ance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
the SD card.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-16 15:28:52 -0700, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> said:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 01:45:45 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
>> so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy shit like talking to
>> dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.
>
> You have informed us that if Ansel Adams was using a camera today it
> would be a digital camera. The only way to know this is if you have
> spoken to Adams at some time since the advent of digital cameras.

In the last 20 years of his life, Adams worked hand in hand with
Hasselblad. They pretty much sponsored him, supplying him with stock
and custom built 'blads.
Given what Hasselblad is producing today in MF digital cameras, I
believe that it would be fair to guess that he would indeed be using
one of their fine digital products. Perhaps one of their fine H4D-60's.

> You stated this as a flat declaration of what you know for sure, not
> as an opinion. Therefore, you must have spoken to the dead to know
> it.
>
> Next s�ance, check with Niepce and Daguerre. Find out why Eastman
> wasted his time dicking around with film when he could have invented
> the SD card.


--

Regards,

Savageduck