Buying Adobe Elements?

[David Hare-Scott]

I am considering buying Elements 11. It seems to come in several forms.

Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering "Photoshop
Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.

I have worked out that "MP" means multiplatform, which is not important.

"Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does that mean?
Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?

David

[PeterN]

You could be buying pirated software. Aside from the legal and moral
issues, quite often pirated software contains worms that can,at best,
wreak havoc on your machine.At worst, steal all your passwords and aid
in the theft of your identity. If something is priced way below market,
there's a reason, and it may not benefit the purchaser as much as the
seller.


--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

What I find is Adobe Premiere Elements 11 Mass Merchant Attach (bundle
version). In the US, the "Premiere" program is a program for used for
video, not still photography. Here's what "Premiere Elements 11"
does:
http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere-elements.html It retails in
the US for US$79.99, but is available for less than that at other
sources.

Elements 11, without the "Premiere" designation, is the program used
for still photographs.

A bundled version is usually something less than the stand-alone
version. However, what the "usual" is in Australia is not something
I'd know about.

This page:
http://www.i-tech.com.au/items.aspx?id=138938&utm_source=myshopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Software&utm_term=ADOBE+Photoshop+Elements+11+Mulitple+Platform+Mass+Merchant+Atta
has an "Ask a question" link by Adobe. Ask them what you'd be
getting.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[nospam]

In article <1g0uo81r777mai2vo...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

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

> >I am considering buying Elements 11. It seems to come in several forms.
> >
> >Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering "Photoshop
> >Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.
> >
> >I have worked out that "MP" means multiplatform, which is not important.
> >
> >"Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does that mean?
> >Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?
>

> What I find is Adobe Premiere Elements 11 Mass Merchant Attach (bundle
> version). In the US, the "Premiere" program is a program for used for
> video, not still photography. Here's what "Premiere Elements 11"
> does:
> http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere-elements.html It retails in
> the US for US$79.99, but is available for less than that at other
> sources.
>
> Elements 11, without the "Premiere" designation, is the program used
> for still photographs.

he said he wants photoshop elements. did you not see where he said
'photoshop elements 11' in the second sentence?

you really need to work on your reading skills.

> A bundled version is usually something less than the stand-alone
> version.

no it isn't. a bundled version is the same as the retail version, but
with an not-for-resale label. it may also come with a different level
of support than the standalone copy.

the 'mass merchant attached bundled version' is probably the bundled
version sold separately that would otherwise be bundled with something
the merchant sells.

he should ask adobe for clarification.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 23:08:32 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <1g0uo81r777mai2vo...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >I am considering buying Elements 11. It seems to come in several forms.
>> >
>> >Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering "Photoshop
>> >Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.
>> >
>> >I have worked out that "MP" means multiplatform, which is not important.
>> >
>> >"Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does that mean?
>> >Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?
>>
>> What I find is Adobe Premiere Elements 11 Mass Merchant Attach (bundle
>> version). In the US, the "Premiere" program is a program for used for
>> video, not still photography. Here's what "Premiere Elements 11"
>> does:
>> http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere-elements.html It retails in
>> the US for US$79.99, but is available for less than that at other
>> sources.
>>
>> Elements 11, without the "Premiere" designation, is the program used
>> for still photographs.
>
>he said he wants photoshop elements. did you not see where he said
>'photoshop elements 11' in the second sentence?

Oh, dear. Another argument-just-for-argument from nospam, and wrong
as usual. No surprise.

I said "What I find is..." and what I found was Adobe Premiere
Elements 11 at Australian sites when I Googled (Adobe 65207557).

>you really need to work on your reading skills.

You *did* read the Adobe number, didn't you? And that he is in
Australia?

What he wants is probably Adobe Elements 11 for still photography.
That's clear. What he might me getting is the Premiere video version.
"Might", though, since Australia's product identification terms may be
different.

What I encouraged is checking with Adobe to find out what, exactly,
the product is.

>
>> A bundled version is usually something less than the stand-alone
>> version.
>
>no it isn't. a bundled version is the same as the retail version, but
>with an not-for-resale label. it may also come with a different level
>of support than the standalone copy.

Just on the face of it "a different level of support" makes it
something less. However, some bundled products are abbreviated
versions of the retail product. My Wacom table came with Nik
software, but - I found out when using it - it was a severely
abbreviated version of the Nik software. Far fewer choices, but the
Wacom advertisement did not tell me this. I now have the full Nik
package, but bought separately.

Nero bundled programs were often less than the retail program, but
gave you the ability to upgrade (at a price) to the full version.
Wacom has offered Elements as a bundle, but a not-the-current version.
I don't know what today's offering is. They just say "Elements".

You can't assume that a bundled program is the full version or the
latest version. It might be, but it might not.

Additionally, some bundled programs do not work on all OS levels. It
may not work on Windows 8, but may be advertised as the Windows
version.

And, some software that is bundled with a computer will not install on
a new computer even if you have the installation disk. That's
different from the retail version of the same product. That makes you
wonder if a bundled version bought separately - as the poster is doing
- is going to work.

They are not always "the same".

>
>the 'mass merchant attached bundled version' is probably the bundled
>version sold separately that would otherwise be bundled with something
>the merchant sells.
>
>he should ask adobe for clarification.

Which is exactly what I recommended.

Why not try and provide the poster with helpful information in direct
reply to his post? You're an expert in all fields, and should be able
to do this. Instead, you erroneously provide a bullshit argument to
what others post.

[nospam]

In article <5s1vo8h4mo33cllg6...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

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

> >> >I am considering buying Elements 11. It seems to come in several forms.
> >> >
> >> >Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering "Photoshop
> >> >Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.
> >> >
> >> >I have worked out that "MP" means multiplatform, which is not important.
> >> >
> >> >"Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does that
> >> >mean?
> >> >Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?
> >>
> >> What I find is Adobe Premiere Elements 11 Mass Merchant Attach (bundle
> >> version). In the US, the "Premiere" program is a program for used for
> >> video, not still photography. Here's what "Premiere Elements 11"
> >> does:
> >> http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere-elements.html It retails in
> >> the US for US$79.99, but is available for less than that at other
> >> sources.
> >>
> >> Elements 11, without the "Premiere" designation, is the program used
> >> for still photographs.
> >
> >he said he wants photoshop elements. did you not see where he said
> >'photoshop elements 11' in the second sentence?
>
> Oh, dear. Another argument-just-for-argument from nospam, and wrong
> as usual. No surprise.

nothing about what i said was wrong.

> I said "What I find is..." and what I found was Adobe Premiere
> Elements 11 at Australian sites when I Googled (Adobe 65207557).

then you need to learn how to google.

when i googled adobe 65207557, i got over 5000 hits. every single hit
on the first page were *all* photoshop. every. single. one.

here are a few of those links:

ADOBE 65207557 Photoshop Elements 11 MP Attach
<http://www.betterit.com.au/Scripts/prodview.asp?idproduct=1257969>

Photoshop Elements 11 Mulitple Platform Mass Merchant Attach/bundle
Part Number 65207557
<http://www.ota.com.au/SOFTWARE/Digital-Imaging-and-Signage-Software/Ado
be-65207557-Photoshop-Elements11-MP-MassMerch-Attach-1994542.html>

Adobe - 65207557 PHOTOSHOP ELEMENTS11 MP MASSMERCH ATTACH
<http://www.hboutlet.com.au/catalog/adobe-65207557-photoshop-elements11-
mp-massmerch-attach-p-444994.html>

> >you really need to work on your reading skills.
>
> You *did* read the Adobe number, didn't you? And that he is in
> Australia?

of course.

looks like it's you who didn't read the number, because the number is
for photoshop, not premiere.

> What he wants is probably Adobe Elements 11 for still photography.
> That's clear. What he might me getting is the Premiere video version.
> "Might", though, since Australia's product identification terms may be
> different.

not probably. he specifically said photoshop in his initial query and
gave the number for photoshop. see above.

> What I encouraged is checking with Adobe to find out what, exactly,
> the product is.

as did i.

> >> A bundled version is usually something less than the stand-alone
> >> version.
> >
> >no it isn't. a bundled version is the same as the retail version, but
> >with an not-for-resale label. it may also come with a different level
> >of support than the standalone copy.
>
> Just on the face of it "a different level of support" makes it
> something less.

nope. it's exactly the same software.

> However, some bundled products are abbreviated
> versions of the retail product. My Wacom table came with Nik
> software, but - I found out when using it - it was a severely
> abbreviated version of the Nik software. Far fewer choices, but the
> Wacom advertisement did not tell me this. I now have the full Nik
> package, but bought separately.
>
> Nero bundled programs were often less than the retail program, but
> gave you the ability to upgrade (at a price) to the full version.
> Wacom has offered Elements as a bundle, but a not-the-current version.
> I don't know what today's offering is. They just say "Elements".

that's nice. this isn't about nik or nero.

photoshop elements retail is *identical* to elements bundled. i worked
on a product that bundled it. you would be surprised at how much it
costs to bundle it too.

> You can't assume that a bundled program is the full version or the
> latest version. It might be, but it might not.

i don't need to assume it, i *know* it. see above.

> Additionally, some bundled programs do not work on all OS levels. It
> may not work on Windows 8, but may be advertised as the Windows
> version.

elements 11 works on windows 8.
<http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/tech-specs.html>

> And, some software that is bundled with a computer will not install on
> a new computer even if you have the installation disk. That's
> different from the retail version of the same product. That makes you
> wonder if a bundled version bought separately - as the poster is doing
> - is going to work.

not an issue with elements.

it's possible that they shouldn't be selling it separately, but that's
a different issue. that's an eula violation.

> They are not always "the same".

this is about photoshop elements, which is the same.

> >the 'mass merchant attached bundled version' is probably the bundled
> >version sold separately that would otherwise be bundled with something
> >the merchant sells.
> >
> >he should ask adobe for clarification.
>
> Which is exactly what I recommended.

as did i.

> Why not try and provide the poster with helpful information in direct
> reply to his post? You're an expert in all fields, and should be able
> to do this. Instead, you erroneously provide a bullshit argument to
> what others post.

nothing erroneous or bullshit about what i wrote.

you, on the other hand googled the wrong product, rambled about
something he wasn't asking about and erroneously claimed that bundled
elements is different.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:51 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> Oh, dear. Another argument-just-for-argument from nospam, and wrong
>> as usual. No surprise.
>
>nothing about what i said was wrong.
>
>> I said "What I find is..." and what I found was Adobe Premiere
>> Elements 11 at Australian sites when I Googled (Adobe 65207557).
>
>then you need to learn how to google.
>
>when i googled adobe 65207557, i got over 5000 hits. every single hit
>on the first page were *all* photoshop.

Photoshop?

>>
>> You *did* read the Adobe number, didn't you? And that he is in
>> Australia?
>
>of course.
>
>looks like it's you who didn't read the number, because the number is
>for photoshop, not premiere.
>
>> What he wants is probably Adobe Elements 11 for still photography.
>> That's clear. What he might me getting is the Premiere video version.
>> "Might", though, since Australia's product identification terms may be
>> different.
>
>not probably. he specifically said photoshop

Photoshop?

>in his initial query and
>gave the number for photoshop. see above.
>
>> What I encouraged is checking with Adobe to find out what, exactly,
>> the product is.
>
>as did i.
>
>> >> A bundled version is usually something less than the stand-alone
>> >> version.
>> >
>> >no it isn't. a bundled version is the same as the retail version, but
>> >with an not-for-resale label. it may also come with a different level
>> >of support than the standalone copy.
>>
>> Just on the face of it "a different level of support" makes it
>> something less.
>
>nope. it's exactly the same software.

Weasel. Big weasel. Without the same level of support, it's a
different deal.

>> However, some bundled products are abbreviated
>> versions of the retail product. My Wacom table came with Nik
>> software, but - I found out when using it - it was a severely
>> abbreviated version of the Nik software. Far fewer choices, but the
>> Wacom advertisement did not tell me this. I now have the full Nik
>> package, but bought separately.
>>
>> Nero bundled programs were often less than the retail program, but
>> gave you the ability to upgrade (at a price) to the full version.
>> Wacom has offered Elements as a bundle, but a not-the-current version.
>> I don't know what today's offering is. They just say "Elements".
>
>that's nice. this isn't about nik or nero.

It's about bundled products, and I said that a bundled product may not
be the same as the retail version and cited Nero and Nik as examples
I've encountered.

It doesn't make your case to fabricate statements. I said nothing
specific about bundled Elements other than some bundled Elements are
not-the-current version.

>
>photoshop elements retail is *identical* to elements bundled.

Previously, examples were cited where the bundled version was not the
current version.

>> Additionally, some bundled programs do not work on all OS levels. It
>> may not work on Windows 8, but may be advertised as the Windows
>> version.
>
>elements 11 works on windows 8.
><http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/tech-specs.html>

Did I say "some"?

>
>this is about photoshop elements, which is the same.

What is "photoshop elements"? I know about Adobe Elements, but
Photoshop is a different program.

>
>> >the 'mass merchant attached bundled version' is probably the bundled
>> >version sold separately that would otherwise be bundled with something
>> >the merchant sells.
>> >
>> >he should ask adobe for clarification.
>>
>> Which is exactly what I recommended.
>
>as did i.

Not to him.

>
>you, on the other hand googled the wrong product, rambled about
>something he wasn't asking about and erroneously claimed that bundled
>elements is different.

I get pages like this:
http://www.getprice.com.au/graphics-multimedia.htm
which list Premiere as well as the regular Elements 11.

Not being familiar with the Australian market, it's enough for me to
caution him.

You, on the other hand, have nothing helpful to offer.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-12 08:16:07 -0700, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> said:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:51 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:

>>> Le Snip >>>

>> this is about photoshop elements, which is the same.
>
> What is "photoshop elements"? I know about Adobe Elements, but
> Photoshop is a different program.

Actually it is "Adobe Photoshop Elements" or PSE.
< http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html >

>
>>
>>>> the 'mass merchant attached bundled version' is probably the bundled
>>>> version sold separately that would otherwise be bundled with something
>>>> the merchant sells.

I got a version of PSE9 bundled with something I bought a year or two
ago, and that appears to be as fully featured as that version of PSE,
9.0 (20100905.m.9093) got.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2013051208261138165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> this is about photoshop elements, which is the same.
> >
> > What is "photoshop elements"? I know about Adobe Elements, but
> > Photoshop is a different program.
>
> Actually it is "Adobe Photoshop Elements" or PSE.
> < http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html >

it's also 'adobe photoshop lightroom', but almost nobody calls it that.
<http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html>

[nospam]

In article <b1cvo85dqg629lp5o...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

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

> >> I said "What I find is..." and what I found was Adobe Premiere
> >> Elements 11 at Australian sites when I Googled (Adobe 65207557).
> >
> >then you need to learn how to google.
> >
> >when i googled adobe 65207557, i got over 5000 hits. every single hit
> >on the first page were *all* photoshop.
>
> Photoshop?

yes, and i pasted 3 links. i'm not going to paste all 5000.

you need to learn how to google.

> >> You *did* read the Adobe number, didn't you? And that he is in
> >> Australia?
> >
> >of course.
> >
> >looks like it's you who didn't read the number, because the number is
> >for photoshop, not premiere.
> >
> >> What he wants is probably Adobe Elements 11 for still photography.
> >> That's clear. What he might me getting is the Premiere video version.
> >> "Might", though, since Australia's product identification terms may be
> >> different.
> >
> >not probably. he specifically said photoshop
>
> Photoshop?

yes

he said:
> >Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering "Photoshop
> >Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.

he is clearly asking about photoshop, not premiere, and the part number
he gave confirms that.

> >> >> A bundled version is usually something less than the stand-alone
> >> >> version.
> >> >
> >> >no it isn't. a bundled version is the same as the retail version, but
> >> >with an not-for-resale label. it may also come with a different level
> >> >of support than the standalone copy.
> >>
> >> Just on the face of it "a different level of support" makes it
> >> something less.
> >
> >nope. it's exactly the same software.
>
> Weasel. Big weasel. Without the same level of support, it's a
> different deal.

no weasel at all. the contents of the disc is identical. that makes it
the *same*. do an md5 hash on it.

the label on the surface may say nfr or bundled or maybe have a
different art design (i'm not going to dig up mine), but that's about
it.

it's *exactly* the same software.

the support thing is a non-issue. have you ever called adobe for a
photoshop question? plus he's in australia. it's not like it's a local
call. there's also plenty of support in online forums or from books.

it is you who is weaseling.

> >> However, some bundled products are abbreviated
> >> versions of the retail product. My Wacom table came with Nik
> >> software, but - I found out when using it - it was a severely
> >> abbreviated version of the Nik software. Far fewer choices, but the
> >> Wacom advertisement did not tell me this. I now have the full Nik
> >> package, but bought separately.
> >>
> >> Nero bundled programs were often less than the retail program, but
> >> gave you the ability to upgrade (at a price) to the full version.
> >> Wacom has offered Elements as a bundle, but a not-the-current version.
> >> I don't know what today's offering is. They just say "Elements".
> >
> >that's nice. this isn't about nik or nero.
>
> It's about bundled products, and I said that a bundled product may not
> be the same as the retail version and cited Nero and Nik as examples
> I've encountered.

in general that's true. however, this isn't a general discussion.

it is specifically about photoshop elements, one version of which may
be a bundled version. it is not about nik or nero or anything else.

> It doesn't make your case to fabricate statements. I said nothing
> specific about bundled Elements other than some bundled Elements are
> not-the-current version.

i'm not fabricating a thing, and since he is considering buying the
latest version, older versions are not relevant.

he isn't buying a wacom tablet and hoping to get the latest version. he
is trying to buy it directly from a seller, where it specifically says
v.11.

> >photoshop elements retail is *identical* to elements bundled.
>
> Previously, examples were cited where the bundled version was not the
> current version.

of unrelated products.

> >> Additionally, some bundled programs do not work on all OS levels. It
> >> may not work on Windows 8, but may be advertised as the Windows
> >> version.
> >
> >elements 11 works on windows 8.
> ><http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/tech-specs.html>
>
> Did I say "some"?

the original post was about photoshop elements 11, which runs on
windows 8. period.

whether *other* software runs on windows 8 or not is irrelevant. he
wasn't asking about any of that.

your bringing it up only serves to confuse him.

> >this is about photoshop elements, which is the same.
>
> What is "photoshop elements"? I know about Adobe Elements, but
> Photoshop is a different program.

what cave have you been living in?

photoshop elements is the consumer version of photoshop. previously it
was called photoshop le.

if you don't understand that much, then you aren't in a position to be
giving advice.

> >> >the 'mass merchant attached bundled version' is probably the bundled
> >> >version sold separately that would otherwise be bundled with something
> >> >the merchant sells.
> >> >
> >> >he should ask adobe for clarification.
> >>
> >> Which is exactly what I recommended.
> >
> >as did i.
>
> Not to him.

yes it was to him, although it was in a reply to you after you rambled
about products he did not ask about.

> >you, on the other hand googled the wrong product, rambled about
> >something he wasn't asking about and erroneously claimed that bundled
> >elements is different.
>
> I get pages like this:
> http://www.getprice.com.au/graphics-multimedia.htm
> which list Premiere as well as the regular Elements 11.

if you watch the url bar, you'll see that the link on google redirects
to a more general page. that means the original hit was to a page that
no longer exists, so you get a page that is what they think you were
looking for. sometimes it's the same product category and sometimes
it's the main page of the seller.

many of those links do *not* redirect. i posted 3 such links that are
specifically for photoshop elements, *with* the given product number.
this confirms that the number he gave was for photoshop elements.

you're wrong. period.

> Not being familiar with the Australian market, it's enough for me to
> caution him.

i'm sure he realizes that premiere elements is different than photoshop
elements. just about everyone does.

> You, on the other hand, have nothing helpful to offer.

wrong again.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:17:07 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>in general that's true. however, this isn't a general discussion.

What's this? You think you control what is to be discussed? A thread
here is whatever the participants decide to post.

If we wanted a monitored group, we'd go to a monitored group.

[nospam]

In article <u3jvo81r42qt99ee7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

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

> >in general that's true. however, this isn't a general discussion.
>
> What's this? You think you control what is to be discussed? A thread
> here is whatever the participants decide to post.
>
> If we wanted a monitored group, we'd go to a monitored group.

the original poster asked specifically about photoshop elements.

he didn't ask about the general case.

[RichA]

Just wait. Once it becomes a cloud rental program, they'll be
downloading commercials to you every other day.

[nospam]

In article
<526172b2-bf4f-4b89...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just wait. Once it becomes a cloud rental program, they'll be
> downloading commercials to you every other day.

no they won't.

[David Hare-Scott]

First my newsserver seems to be playing up as I clearly don't have all the
posts in this thread (including my original) so I am replying to first I can
get hold of. This is nothing personal about Tony Cooper or his
contribution.

OK some clarification. I know the difference between full Photoshop,
Elements, Element Premiere etc. I want Adobe Photoshop Elements version 11
for still photography.

I am in Australia. The exact price is not important. I want to know why one
version is a third of the price of the other in the same market. What is
meant by 'attach' or 'mass merchant attached bundle' in this context. I
have searched the Adobe site and there nothing to clarify that I can find.
In the context of software 'bundle' usually means you get something cheaper
if you buy another product with it. None of the merchants I have checked
offering this (and there are a few) care to explain what else is in the
bundle is or if in fact it is a bundle at all. I begin to suspect that it
is a copy that was licensed to be bundled with a larger purchase (eg a
camera) that is now being offered alone. Whether Adobe would be happy with
that I don't know.

I was hoping that somebody would actually know the answer and save me
guessing. Anybody?


David

[nospam]

In article <kmpbrv$3mr$1...@news.albasani.net>, David Hare-Scott

<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

> First my newsserver seems to be playing up as I clearly don't have all the
> posts in this thread (including my original) so I am replying to first I can
> get hold of. This is nothing personal about Tony Cooper or his
> contribution.
>
> OK some clarification. I know the difference between full Photoshop,
> Elements, Element Premiere etc. I want Adobe Photoshop Elements version 11
> for still photography.

that much was clear, except to one person.

> I am in Australia. The exact price is not important. I want to know why one
> version is a third of the price of the other in the same market. What is
> meant by 'attach' or 'mass merchant attached bundle' in this context. I
> have searched the Adobe site and there nothing to clarify that I can find.
> In the context of software 'bundle' usually means you get something cheaper
> if you buy another product with it. None of the merchants I have checked
> offering this (and there are a few) care to explain what else is in the
> bundle is or if in fact it is a bundle at all. I begin to suspect that it
> is a copy that was licensed to be bundled with a larger purchase (eg a
> camera) that is now being offered alone.

i've never heard the term attach or mass merchant attached. are there
other products using either term in australia?

in any event, it's probably a bundled version being resold standalone,
as you suspect.

> Whether Adobe would be happy with
> that I don't know.

not likely, if it's a version intended to be bundled with hardware.

> I was hoping that somebody would actually know the answer and save me
> guessing. Anybody?

ask adobe directly for an authoritative answer.

[Mayayana]

| I begin to suspect that it
| is a copy that was licensed to be bundled with a larger purchase (eg a
| camera) that is now being offered alone.

That seems likely. It's common to sell things cheaper
by splitting them up. There was a court challenge to that
in the US many years ago. Buycheapsoftware.com was
challenged by someone. Maybe Microsoft, but I'm not
sure. They were splitting up program disks that were meant
to come in one package and selling them separately. For
instance, selling the Visual C++, VB, and documentation disks
separately from a Visual Studio package.

| Whether Adobe would be happy with
| that I don't know.
|

Buycheapsoftware won their case, but I don't know
how that applies to Australian law. "Mass Merchant Attach"
seems to be specific to Australia. And that still doesn't
answer whether the "bundle" version is fully functional.
In the example above, for instance, someone buying the
VC++ disk was getting a full, usable, legal product, but
without the help files that may or may not have come
with a VC++ retail product.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 10:24:27 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

>First my newsserver seems to be playing up as I clearly don't have all the
>posts in this thread (including my original) so I am replying to first I can
>get hold of. This is nothing personal about Tony Cooper or his
>contribution.
>
>OK some clarification. I know the difference between full Photoshop,
>Elements, Element Premiere etc. I want Adobe Photoshop Elements version 11
>for still photography.

I assumed that this is what you want, but pointed out that the
listings I saw did not indicate, for sure, that this is what you'd
get. I simply encouraged some caution and the need to check with
Adobe.

[nospam]

In article <kmpd7o$kkp$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

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

> | I begin to suspect that it
> | is a copy that was licensed to be bundled with a larger purchase (eg a
> | camera) that is now being offered alone.
>
> That seems likely. It's common to sell things cheaper
> by splitting them up. There was a court challenge to that
> in the US many years ago. Buycheapsoftware.com was
> challenged by someone. Maybe Microsoft, but I'm not
> sure. They were splitting up program disks that were meant
> to come in one package and selling them separately. For
> instance, selling the Visual C++, VB, and documentation disks
> separately from a Visual Studio package.

i can't find anything about a lawsuit involving buycheapsoftware.com

however, i am finding a slew of reports about how much they rip off
customers.

it looks like the lawsuit you might be thinking of is softman v. adobe:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftMan_Products_Co._v._Adobe_Systems_Inc.>

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 14:01:16 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
: In article

What's with you this week, nospam? Are you in a competition for recognition as
Adobe's No. 1 Shill?

Bob

[nospam]

In article <foj0p8pg5vom21dpn...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe

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

> : > Just wait. Once it becomes a cloud rental program, they'll be
> : > downloading commercials to you every other day.
> :
> : no they won't.
>
> What's with you this week, nospam? Are you in a competition for recognition as
> Adobe's No. 1 Shill?

i'm not shilling for anyone.

adobe is not going to force commercials on paying users. it's stupid on
its face and just more of the usual rich a. idiocy.

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:47:06 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com>
wrote:

The catch? If it's too good to be true, then....

Expect to pay around $120, there is only 1 version of Photoshop E. 11.

BUT you can buy it along with Premier Elements and get a deal on the 2 of
them... not sure of the combo price because I haven't got an ad from them
recently. I bought the combo version 9 but upgraded Premier only to 11.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-12 19:58:44 -0700, Bo...@somewhere.com said:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:47:06 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am considering buying Elements 11. It seems to come in several forms.
>>
>> Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering "Photoshop
>> Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.
>>
>> I have worked out that "MP" means multiplatform, which is not important.
>>
>> "Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does that mean?
>> Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?
>>
>> David
>>
>
> The catch? If it's too good to be true, then....
>
> Expect to pay around $120, there is only 1 version of Photoshop E. 11.

PSE11 is $99.99 from Adobe.
If you shop at Amazon you will find it at $62.47.
< http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65193986-Photoshop-Elements-11/dp/B0093FROMA >

Amazon also has the PSE11 + Premier Elements combo for $93.55,
considerably less than the price of PSE11 alone directly from Adobe.
That is if you actually need Premier.

> BUT you can buy it along with Premier Elements and get a deal on the 2 of
> them... not sure of the combo price because I haven't got an ad from them
> recently. I bought the combo version 9 but upgraded Premier only to 11.

From Adobe that combo is $149.99.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <1gl0p8p2puta5ejrq...@4ax.com>,

<Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> >"Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does that mean?
> >Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?
> >
>

> The catch? If it's too good to be true, then....
>
> Expect to pay around $120, there is only 1 version of Photoshop E. 11.

street price is closer to half that.

elements is $99 msrp. anything higher than msrp and you are being
ripped off.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 20:05:11 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2013-05-12 19:58:44 -0700, Bo...@somewhere.com said:
>
>> On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:47:06 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am considering buying Elements 11. It seems to come in several forms.
>>>
>>> Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering "Photoshop
>>> Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.
>>>
>>> I have worked out that "MP" means multiplatform, which is not important.
>>>
>>> "Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does that mean?
>>> Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> The catch? If it's too good to be true, then....
>>
>> Expect to pay around $120, there is only 1 version of Photoshop E. 11.
>
>PSE11 is $99.99 from Adobe.
>If you shop at Amazon you will find it at $62.47.
>< http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65193986-Photoshop-Elements-11/dp/B0093FROMA >
>
>Amazon also has the PSE11 + Premier Elements combo for $93.55,
>considerably less than the price of PSE11 alone directly from Adobe.
>That is if you actually need Premier.
>

The poster is from Australia, and will be paying in Australian
dollars. The currency converter says US$1 = A$1 (actually .9981), so
using the US price about $60 is a valid comparison.

This surprises me since someone (Eric?) was saying how much higher
Adobe products are in Australia.

I don't know how much E 11 is in Australia if you purchase it from
Adobe. I am curious, though.

[David Hare-Scott]

Bo...@somewhere.com wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 11:47:06 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
> <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I am considering buying Elements 11. It seems to come in several
>> forms.
>>
>> Most vendors offer it for about $120 (AU). One is offering
>> "Photoshop Elements 11 MP Attach ( ADOBE 65207557 )" for $35.
>>
>> I have worked out that "MP" means multiplatform, which is not
>> important.
>>
>> "Attach" seems to be "Mass merchant attached bundle". What does
>> that mean? Am I getting the full product? What's the catch?
>>
>> David
>>
>
> The catch? If it's too good to be true, then....

I keep that in mind always.

But there are bargains to be had, including where retailers bend their
arrangements with manufacturers - that are of no concern to me if *they* go
war in the courts. For example, the full version of MS Office Pro is about
$600 but I bought it for $140 as a 'student'. I am a student of many things
(and I made no misrepresentations about that) but I am probably not the
buyer MS had in mind when they struck the deal with the vendor.

D

[David Hare-Scott]

If I buy it from Adobe Aust. it is $131-25 AU. This is not unusual.
Various regulatory authorities and consumer protection groups are currently
quizzing the international software and entertainment content makers as to
why Australians pay 50-100% more than the rest of the world for the same
products.

D

[Eric Stevens]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:48:48 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"

And new Zealanders have to pay up to 20% more again for the privilege
of having to buy it via Australia. :-(
>
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[J. Clarke]

In article <1163183571390102072.6...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> Those are usually software that are bundled with equipment. Ever bought a
> camera or scanner that came with Photoshop Elements? Or a PC that came with
> Microsoft Office? These are bundled together, although nowadays it seems
> like bundled software increasingly need to be redeemed inatead of being
> packed in the same shipment, which is annoying and perhaps meant to stop
> such practices where retailers detach attached software for seperate
> sale...

I can understand the need. I used to work for a Leading Edge dealer
where the owner would pull the bundled software and put it on the shelf.
Why he thought anybody would pay money for Leading Edge Word Processing
was always a mystery though.

[Mayayana]

| i can't find anything about a lawsuit involving buycheapsoftware.com
|
| however, i am finding a slew of reports about how much they rip off
| customers.

I've had good luck with them 2 or 3 times, but I
don't have enough experience to talk about the pros
and cons of different online dealers.

|
| it looks like the lawsuit you might be thinking of is softman v. adobe:
| <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftMan_Products_Co._v._Adobe_Systems_Inc.>

Could be. It was a long time ago.

[Mayayana]

| The catch? If it's too good to be true, then....
|

...One should be cautious, but it doesn't necessarily
indicate a bad deal. One can pay a vast range of
prices for a Windows disk, for instance. All of them
are legal. The OEM version doesn't come with support
or the ability to install to a second PC, but usually
those limitations are not relevant and one can save
over $100 buying OEM. Even within OEM, sometimes
one finds something like a Dell branded disk for even
less than the normal OEM. It's legal. It's functional.
Dell buys lots from Microsoft. (Probably a lot of the
claimed 100 million sales of Windows 8 are just licenses
sold in lots to OEMs at discount, so that Microsoft
doesn't have to admit failure.) Later Dell (or other
companies) may be left with a lot of leftover licenses
which they're happy to sell at bargain prices.

[Mayayana]

| I simply encouraged some caution and the need to check with
| Adobe.
|

I'm not so sure about the advice to check with Adobe,
or any other company. They don't like discount sales.
Even if the product is legitimate and legal, Adobe people
might try to warn against it and imply that it's somehow
deficient or shady.

(Apropos of that:
Today in the NYT Adobe has a fullpage ad for their
cloud services, in which they say it's a "myth" that
people don't like to be personally targetted for online
ads. They may not be lying, exactly. Surely some people
don't mind being targetted. But Adobe is certainly not
telling the truth. :)

[Mayayana]

| For example, the full version of MS Office Pro is about
| $600 but I bought it for $140 as a 'student'. I am a student of many
things
| (and I made no misrepresentations about that) but I am probably not the
| buyer MS had in mind when they struck the deal with the vendor.

No, indeed.
http://www.microsoft.com/education/en-us/buy/Pages/eligible.aspx

http://msdnaa.oit.umass.edu/Neula.asp
(See section 4.5.)

Usually you have to show an ID to buy the academic version.
It seems questionable whether such a license restriction is really
legal. What if a student friend buys it and gives it to you? But
these companies have a lot more money, lawyers and lobbyists
than you do, so what's legal has little to do with it.

So you might not want to advertise your shopping history. And
if you ever get rich selling a best-selling novel, you might want
to re-save your pages in Libre Office so that you're not shipping
them with incriminating, embedded ID numbers. :)

[nospam]

In article <kmqo12$m3v$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

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

> | I simply encouraged some caution and the need to check with
> | Adobe.
>
> I'm not so sure about the advice to check with Adobe,
> or any other company. They don't like discount sales.
> Even if the product is legitimate and legal, Adobe people
> might try to warn against it and imply that it's somehow
> deficient or shady.

asking adobe is just to find out what merchant attach means and whether
it's an bundled version being resold or something else entirely.

at that point, the person can decide for himself if that's what he
wants to do or not.

[James Silverton]

Amazon seems to have Photoshop 11 for $62.47 and that's usually a
reliable source.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-13 09:47:06 -0700, James Silverton

Note; that is "Adobe Photoshop Elements 11".
"Photoshop 11" is actually PS CS4. PS CS6 is "Photoshop 13".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <kmr55k$67g$1...@dont-email.me>, James Silverton

<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:

> Amazon seems to have Photoshop 11 for $62.47 and that's usually a
> reliable source.

it is, but he's in australia, so the price is likely very different.

[NotMe]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:120520132239293936%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Based on Adobe's recently announce business plan I would say that there is
ample evidence of 'stupidity' on the part of Adobe.

Internet based subscriptions of software and applications has long been a
wet dream of the software vendors for a long time. Been tried before and
has failed 100%.

We own a number of design studios that were 100% Adobe. When the current
software is no longer functional Adobe is out the door.

This is not only our studio but our clients as well.

[PeterN]

I suspect he is in some sort of competition to see who can be the most
argumentative.



--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/12/2013 11:35 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>

>
> I don't know how much E 11 is in Australia if you purchase it from
> Adobe. I am curious, though.
>

I thought you were Tony Cooper.


--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

There are several photo group argument vortexes into which basic
queries are spun into mind boggling, head-banging oblivion. Many of us
have been guilty of initiating that spin from time to time. However,
the most consistent agent provocateurs are "nospam", Floyd, and
Wolfgang. Once they enter the debate at any level there is little hope
of escape, no matter that they might actually be correct at times, they
never seem satisfied with that. They are never pleased with the result,
but live for the battle to the finish line which never seems to be
reached. For all others, debates with them take on a dimension Sisyphus
would be able to understand.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <kmrt7r$mic$1...@dont-email.me>, NotMe <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> >> : > Just wait. Once it becomes a cloud rental program, they'll be
> >> : > downloading commercials to you every other day.
> >> :
> >> : no they won't.
> >>
> >> What's with you this week, nospam? Are you in a competition for
> >> recognition as
> >> Adobe's No. 1 Shill?
> >
> > i'm not shilling for anyone.
> >
> > adobe is not going to force commercials on paying users. it's stupid on
> > its face and just more of the usual rich a. idiocy.
>
> Based on Adobe's recently announce business plan I would say that there is
> ample evidence of 'stupidity' on the part of Adobe.

that remains to be seen.

nobody knows what will happen, not even adobe. they obviously think
this is a good move. only time will tell.

> Internet based subscriptions of software and applications has long been a
> wet dream of the software vendors for a long time. Been tried before and
> has failed 100%.

it worked for adobe over the past year and has worked for other
companies too.

> We own a number of design studios that were 100% Adobe. When the current
> software is no longer functional Adobe is out the door.

adobe will definitely lose customers. they will also gain different
customers. they want pro customers for whom $50/mo is nothing.

if adobe makes more money with subscriptions than they did before, then
they succeeded.

one thing is certain, this was not a spur of the moment decision.

[nospam]

In article <51917da0$0$10777$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> > : > Just wait. Once it becomes a cloud rental program, they'll be
> > : > downloading commercials to you every other day.
> > :
> > : no they won't.
> >
> > What's with you this week, nospam? Are you in a competition for recognition
> > as Adobe's No. 1 Shill?
>
> I suspect he is in some sort of competition to see who can be the most
> argumentative.

you suspect wrong.

do you have any proof that adobe will be pushing commercials at paying
users? right, i didn't think so.

that makes *you* the argumentative one, not me.

[PeterN]

Wolfgang, has a subtle sense of humor & sarcasm. Floyd will at times
give valuable advice, as to nospam, well if you can't say something
nice......

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Your time allotment for me to respond is duly noted.
I also note that you are asking me to prove a statement that I never
made. Now what does that show about YOUR character.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/13/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:

<snip>

> adobe will definitely lose customers. they will also gain different
> customers. they want pro customers for whom $50/mo is nothing.
>

Your business acumen is underwhelming.

For a real business manager $1 a year would not be paid, if there was
not a proper ROI.
--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <51918aa5$0$10784$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> >>> : > Just wait. Once it becomes a cloud rental program, they'll be
> >>> : > downloading commercials to you every other day.
> >>> :
> >>> : no they won't.
> >>>
> >>> What's with you this week, nospam? Are you in a competition for
> >>> recognition as Adobe's No. 1 Shill?
> >>
> >> I suspect he is in some sort of competition to see who can be the most
> >> argumentative.
> >
> > you suspect wrong.
> >
> > do you have any proof that adobe will be pushing commercials at paying
> > users? right, i didn't think so.
> >
> > that makes *you* the argumentative one, not me.
>
> Your time allotment for me to respond is duly noted.

do you or do you not have any evidence that adobe will push ads to
paying customers? yes or no?

> I also note that you are asking me to prove a statement that I never
> made. Now what does that show about YOUR character.

you are calling me argumentative when all i am doing is refuting an
idiotic statement about adobe pushing ads. i'm not arguing nor am i
shilling. i'm stating a fact. they're not going to push ads to paying
customers. end of story.

[nospam]

In article <51918b9e$0$10775$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> > adobe will definitely lose customers. they will also gain different
> > customers. they want pro customers for whom $50/mo is nothing.
>
> Your business acumen is underwhelming.

nothing underwhelming about it.

> For a real business manager $1 a year would not be paid, if there was
> not a proper ROI.

and since there is an roi, they will pay it.

creative cloud is not new. plenty of companies have already signed up.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:05:32 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

While I admit to being one of the argumentative ones, certain
statements just blow my mind and *beg* to be argued with.

nospam is insisting on proof that Adobe will add ads while, at the
same time, insisting that Adobe will not. Without evidence, and
calling it "a fact".

His positions are supported by ghosts, he speaks to the dead, and he
considers himself infallible about predicting the future.

While this is, I suppose, a "usage" flame, the word "refuting" means
"to prove false". He is merely contradicting, not even arguing, as
any Monty Python fan knows. As the Palin character says, "an argument
is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of anything the other person says."

[Savageduck]

I have found Wolfgang totally misunderstands some very obvious humorous
remarks and uses that as a springboard into his version of the vortex.

Floyd undoubtably has a technical background and a deep
multi-discipline knowledge. However, the confrontational manner in
which he delivers his pieces of wisdom often leaves the recipient
shaking his head at the cost of the encounter.

Nospam, is often correct, and is actually quite knowledgeable. However,
the animus he has developed with many of the regulars, have let them to
engage in combat and argument. He is also quite reactionary when it
comes to misinformation with regard to Apple products, and even when I
see he is basically correct, I prefer to let him have his head and not
engage.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

How many is plenty?


--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/13/2013 9:05 PM, nospam wrote:

You are refuting something I never said. What is the word you would use
for someone who does that. Perhaps if you can show me where I made that
statement, I might be able to understand. The world awaits your prof
with bated breath. Or, since your arguments are fishy, I should say
"baited breath."

--
PeterN

[David Hare-Scott]

Savageduck wrote:
>>
>> I suspect he is in some sort of competition to see who can be the
>> most argumentative.
>
> There are several photo group argument vortexes into which basic
> queries are spun into mind boggling, head-banging oblivion. Many of us
> have been guilty of initiating that spin from time to time. However,
> the most consistent agent provocateurs are "nospam", Floyd, and
> Wolfgang. Once they enter the debate at any level there is little hope
> of escape, no matter that they might actually be correct at times,
> they never seem satisfied with that. They are never pleased with the
> result, but live for the battle to the finish line which never seems
> to be reached. For all others, debates with them take on a dimension
> Sisyphus would be able to understand.

While I am new to RPD I am not new to usenet by a long way. With the
exception of a few groups related to politics I have not found a collection
like this who can beat a horse to death and continue beating the corpse
until there isn't even a trace of hair left to show where it was.

I have a vision of a handful of very bored old men sitting at their
keyboards, screaming 'that comma is the wrong place, don't try to weasel out
of it, I caught you fair and square, be a man fess-up......'

I came here to learn something but too often I only read the first few posts
in a thread before ignoring the rest as being essentially content free or so
obscure as to be no practical use.

David

[nospam]

In article <kr33p85mcatg6bv0s...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

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

> >you are calling me argumentative when all i am doing is refuting an
> >idiotic statement about adobe pushing ads. i'm not arguing nor am i
> >shilling. i'm stating a fact. they're not going to push ads to paying
> >customers. end of story.
>
> While I admit to being one of the argumentative ones, certain
> statements just blow my mind and *beg* to be argued with.
>
> nospam is insisting on proof that Adobe will add ads while, at the
> same time, insisting that Adobe will not. Without evidence, and
> calling it "a fact".

adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
of that is beyond ludicrous.

ads in *free* apps are understandable, that's why they are free. they
make their money from ads. this is very common on iphones and android
phones. there's usually an in-app purchase option to remove ads or a
separate ad-free version of the app that can be purchased separately.
however, on occasion, some paid ios/android apps have ads. not
surprisingly, this does not go over particularly well.

adobe creative cloud is not free. it's not even cheap. if people are
going to bitch about seeing an ad in an iphone or android app that cost
a buck or two (which they do), you can damned well be sure they're
going to bitch *really* *loudly* about ads in apps that cost $50/mo.
nobody is going to tolerate that shit.

> His positions are supported by ghosts, he speaks to the dead, and he
> considers himself infallible about predicting the future.

i see you've moved on from merely twisting what i say to inventing pure
fantasy.

> While this is, I suppose, a "usage" flame, the word "refuting" means
> "to prove false". He is merely contradicting, not even arguing, as
> any Monty Python fan knows. As the Palin character says, "an argument
> is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic
> gainsaying of anything the other person says."

what's to argue? adobe pushing ads is a ludicrous claim and it's not
going to happen. end of story.

[nospam]

In article <51919551$0$10810$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> >>>>> : > Just wait. Once it becomes a cloud rental program, they'll be
> >>>>> : > downloading commercials to you every other day.
> >>>>> :
> >>>>> : no they won't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What's with you this week, nospam? Are you in a competition for
> >>>>> recognition as Adobe's No. 1 Shill?
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect he is in some sort of competition to see who can be the most
> >>>> argumentative.
> >>>
> >>> you suspect wrong.
> >>>
> >>> do you have any proof that adobe will be pushing commercials at paying
> >>> users? right, i didn't think so.
> >>>
> >>> that makes *you* the argumentative one, not me.
> >>
> >> Your time allotment for me to respond is duly noted.
> >
> > do you or do you not have any evidence that adobe will push ads to
> > paying customers? yes or no?
> >
> >> I also note that you are asking me to prove a statement that I never
> >> made. Now what does that show about YOUR character.
> >
> > you are calling me argumentative when all i am doing is refuting an
> > idiotic statement about adobe pushing ads. i'm not arguing nor am i
> > shilling. i'm stating a fact. they're not going to push ads to paying
> > customers. end of story.
>
> You are refuting something I never said.

you said i'm in a competition to be the most argumentative because i
said they won't push ads.

that's false. i am not being argumentative nor am i in any competition
to be argumentative. it's pure bullshit.

the post about ads is yet another one of rich's stupid and ignorant
statements. adobe is not going to push ads to paying customers. the
whole idea is beyond ludicrous. it's not going to happen. period.

[nospam]

In article <5191942c$0$10834$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> >> For a real business manager $1 a year would not be paid, if there was
> >> not a proper ROI.
> >
> > and since there is an roi, they will pay it.
> >
> > creative cloud is not new. plenty of companies have already signed up.
>
> How many is plenty?

500,000.

[PeterN]

Perhaps you would like to participate in our SI. More often than not,
you will get thought out comments on your images.

<http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage>

Or, you may provide links to your own work. Hopefully you will receive
constructive comments. Don't expect gushing praise for trivial work. If
you participate in a constructive manner, you will be pleasantly
surprised. Most of us here take our photography seriously, and lose
patience with the assholes.



--
PeterN

[PeterN]

Extend your bucket list of things to lear, to reading. My statement can
be easily read. Where does it use the phrasse you say it does.

--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <51919f03$0$10815$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

scroll up. it's still there.

[PeterN]

OK My exact words: "I suspect he is in some sort of competition to see

who can be the most argumentative."

Note that I used words with precision. Note the absence of reference to
reasons for my suspicion.

I have photos to work on.
EOD

--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:09:58 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>what's to argue? adobe pushing ads is a ludicrous claim and it's not
>going to happen. end of story.

Paul Harvey, a very famous radio personality at one time, used to have
a regular segment called "The Rest of the Story".

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:14:45 -0400, PeterN
<peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Perhaps you would like to participate in our SI. More often than not,
>you will get thought out comments on your images.
>
><http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage>

At one time, that was true. Lately, though, one or two people - at
most - comment on the SI images. Some will respond to comments about
their own images, but not comments on the images of others.

For this reason, after "furniture", I may drop out. If there's no
feed-back, then why bother?

>
>Or, you may provide links to your own work. Hopefully you will receive
>constructive comments. Don't expect gushing praise for trivial work. If
>you participate in a constructive manner, you will be pleasantly
>surprised. Most of us here take our photography seriously, and lose
>patience with the assholes.
--

[John Turco]

On 5/12/2013 8:29 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kmpd7o$kkp$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> David Hare-Scott <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> I begin to suspect that it is a copy that was licensed to
>>> be bundled with a larger purchase (eg a camera) that is now
>>> being offered alone.
>>
>> That seems likely. It's common to sell things cheaper
>> by splitting them up. There was a court challenge to that
>> in the US many years ago. Buycheapsoftware.com was
>> challenged by someone. Maybe Microsoft, but I'm not
>> sure. They were splitting up program disks that were meant
>> to come in one package and selling them separately. For
>> instance, selling the Visual C++, VB, and documentation disks
>> separately from a Visual Studio package.
>
> i can't find anything about a lawsuit involving buycheapsoftware.com
>
> however, i am finding a slew of reports about how much they rip off
> customers.
>
> it looks like the lawsuit you might be thinking of is softman v. adobe:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftMan_Products_Co._v._Adobe_Systems_Inc.>


"Softman Products, LLC" is the parent company of "BuyCheapSoftware.com."

John

[Savageduck]

On 2013-05-13 20:07:56 -0700, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> said:

> On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:14:45 -0400, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you would like to participate in our SI. More often than not,
>> you will get thought out comments on your images.
>>
>> <http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage>
>
> At one time, that was true. Lately, though, one or two people - at
> most - comment on the SI images. Some will respond to comments about
> their own images, but not comments on the images of others.
>
> For this reason, after "furniture", I may drop out. If there's no
> feed-back, then why bother?

I agree, feedback is important to retain interest in the SI and keep
newcomers returning. However, there are many regulars, some of them
among the strongest defenders of the SI who for whatever reason seem to
have dropped out.

For some time I felt a responsibility to comment on each entrant's
submissions, so much so I would compose those comments as soon as the
SI was published. Many times it felt as if I was the only one
commenting. As you know it takes a bit of effort and commitment to make
those comments in a way they can be useful without being hurtful.
However, when faced with whatever mood overtook me with the last "NTX"
SI, my lack of enthusiasm for the mandate extended into my lack of
enthusiasm to make the effort to comment on that particular mandate.

I will continue to participate in those SI mandates where I accept the
challenge to my comfort zone, and I will continue to comment as usual.
I was just uninspired in so many ways with that "NTX" mandate. I can
only hope "Furniture" will be better.

>> Or, you may provide links to your own work. Hopefully you will receive
>> constructive comments. Don't expect gushing praise for trivial work. If
>> you participate in a constructive manner, you will be pleasantly
>> surprised. Most of us here take our photography seriously, and lose
>> patience with the assholes.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

On 5/13/2013 11:07 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:14:45 -0400, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you would like to participate in our SI. More often than not,
>> you will get thought out comments on your images.
>>
>> <http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage>
>
> At one time, that was true. Lately, though, one or two people - at
> most - comment on the SI images. Some will respond to comments about
> their own images, but not comments on the images of others.
>
> For this reason, after "furniture", I may drop out. If there's no
> feed-back, then why bother?

Gotta go with the Duck's reasoning. I had problems getting into the last
two mandates. I hope to do better with furniture.
I have at least one in my archives that I like. But, I will make an
honest attempt to get into it.
--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

If you don't have interest in making a submission, that's no reason
not to add your comments on the submissions of others. Same for the
Duck.

[PeterN]

I did make a submission, but I simply wasn't motivated to comment.

--
PeterN

[Savageduck]

Ditto!!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 20:26:39 -0400, PeterN

Well, certainly, there's no obligation in any way. I didn't mean to
imply that. It just adds to the interest when there are comments.

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:05:09 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
wrote:
: On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:09:58 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>

I remember Paul Harvey as a pompous crackpot. Do suppose he was nospam's
great-grandfather?

Bob

[Mayayana]

| adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
| of that is beyond ludicrous.
|

Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
you're so certain?

Chain movie theaters now often show ads before movies,
even though people have paid to see the movie. I don't
put up with it, but most people do. Most people, most of
the time, will put up with whatever makes things easy for
them. They can't be bothered to refuse the ads because
they want to be entertained by Spielberg's latest special
effects extravaganza.

| nobody is going to tolerate that shit.

Those theoretical people are already tolerating having
Adobe control the software on their own computer, and
letting Adobe charge them for that intrusion monthly. Since
Adobe now claims a right to control the software as it's
used, it's likely they'll justify sending back tracking data
"to help improve the product". Having already trespassed
your property and privacy it would be a relatively small
jump from there to adding targetted ads. They can just say
that it's a way to avoid another price hike. One doesn't
expect honorable behavior from dishonorable people.

[nospam]

In article <kmuvlg$u2m$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

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

> | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
> | of that is beyond ludicrous.
>
> Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
> who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
> you're so certain?

the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.

have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?

> Chain movie theaters now often show ads before movies,
> even though people have paid to see the movie. I don't
> put up with it, but most people do. Most people, most of
> the time, will put up with whatever makes things easy for
> them. They can't be bothered to refuse the ads because
> they want to be entertained by Spielberg's latest special
> effects extravaganza.

chain movie theaters have an entirely different business model than
software companies. certainly you must realize this.

> | nobody is going to tolerate that shit.
>
> Those theoretical people are already tolerating having
> Adobe control the software on their own computer, and
> letting Adobe charge them for that intrusion monthly. Since
> Adobe now claims a right to control the software as it's
> used, it's likely they'll justify sending back tracking data
> "to help improve the product". Having already trespassed
> your property and privacy it would be a relatively small
> jump from there to adding targetted ads. They can just say
> that it's a way to avoid another price hike. One doesn't
> expect honorable behavior from dishonorable people.

nobody is controlling anything and nobody trespassed any property.

more tinfoil hat nonsense.

[PeterN]

Yes it does. Now what can we, as a group do to stimulate more interest.
Perhaps a short comment by the maker, on the image might get things
going. I am not sure about the answer. I don't even know if there is an
answer.

--
PeterN

[PeterN]

In the real world people are often held accountable for their statement
and predictions. Usenet is far from the real world, so anyone can
basically say anything, with no adverse consequences if they are wrong.
A person with multiple personality disorder could even be posting under
multiple pseudonyms, and provoke inflammatory arguments. Now that I
think of it, erhaps that is why nospam ever post images.




--
PeterN

[PeterN]

On 5/15/2013 1:27 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kmuvlg$u2m$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
>> | of that is beyond ludicrous.
>>
>> Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
>> who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
>> you're so certain?
>
> the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.
>
> have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?
>

You really have zero understanding of marketing. Read Adobe's privacy
agreement. No they don't put ads in the software, but they can use the
built in tracking information to send you targeted ads. It's common
practice in many businesses. Do you use a credit card? Do you think
credit card companies don't use tracking and sell lists to "affiliates?"



--
PeterN

[Mayayana]

| > | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
| > | of that is beyond ludicrous.
| >
| > Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
| > who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
| > you're so certain?
|
| the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.
| have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?

So you're saying you *will* reimburse people if they
see ads in paid software? That's great news. I'm tempted
to sign up for Adobe's scam myself. Would you like to set
up an escrow account or just send checks now?

And yes, I have seen ads in paid software, though I haven't
had the need to actually buy much in the way of new software
for many years now.
Many installers
have ads for other products during setup. And there's the
most infamous example: Active Desktop in Windows. For
those who don't know or don't remember, in 1998 Microsoft
was determined to kill off Netscape. At the same time, Bill
Gates took credit for being a great visionary who foresaw
the importance of the Internet. The popular history says that
Gates "brilliantly turned the Microsoft ship on a dime" to
accomodate his insights. The real story is that MS saw
power in Netscape's browser and decided to kill Netscape
by building their own browser into Windows, so that people
buying Win98 would end up being herded online without ever
choosing a browser.
Active Desktop was several things. In general it was a GUI
customization to give the impression that Windows was hip
and Webby. It was also a strategy to, as Gates famously put it,
"cut off Netscape's air supply". One aspect was that it made
folder windows into browser windows -- literally. (That fulfilled
the pretense that IE was part of Windows. Each folder window
is actually a webpage in an IE window on 98/2000/ME.)
Another aspect was active content on the Desktop. One could
paste a self-updating webpage on the Desktop to get those
famous stock quotes and sports scores that Bill Gates is always
talking about. It was the first version of the current Live Tiles.
(Microsoft has been pulling the same silly trick for 15 years.)
A further aspect was "channels". The Desktop of OEM PCs came
with a Channel Bar on the Desktop. It was basically a billboard
for ads from Disney and others. People were encouraged to
subscribe to channels -- a cable TV metaphor equivalent to "adding
more Live Tiles". In both cases it hasn't been very successful
because MS is trying to trick people into choosing to put ads
on their screens. (If you look in the /Windows/Media folder on
Win98 you'll find lots of logo files for companies like Forbes, ABC,
etc. that had partnered with MS to get their ads onto Windows.)

OEM Windows altogether is an ad-infested, paid-for product.
These days things like Norton AV and MS Office are also
often pre-installed as trial versions, trying to trick unsuspecting
customers into thinking a PC comes with those products.
But those trials are just sneaky ads.
One might rationalize that OEM companies need the extra
cash from imposed shovelware... blah, blah, blah. But however
you look at it, the PC buyer paid for the appliance and the
Windows license.... And they got stuck with a lot of ads.... And
most people put up with it. The average person never even
bothered to remove the Channel Bar billboard on the Win98
Desktop!

[nospam]

In article <519386a9$0$10757$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> >> | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
> >> | of that is beyond ludicrous.
> >>
> >> Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
> >> who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
> >> you're so certain?
> >
> > the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.
> >
> > have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?
>
> You really have zero understanding of marketing. Read Adobe's privacy
> agreement. No they don't put ads in the software,

right, they don't put ads in the software. so you agree.

> but they can use the
> built in tracking information to send you targeted ads.

where are the ads? i don't see any in photoshop.

> It's common
> practice in many businesses. Do you use a credit card? Do you think
> credit card companies don't use tracking and sell lists to "affiliates?"

credit card companies have nothing to do with software companies.

don't try and move the goalposts.

this is about pushing ads to paying customers because it's now a
subscription model. not gonna happen.

[nospam]

In article <kn03em$a2$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

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

> | > | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
> | > | of that is beyond ludicrous.
> | >
> | > Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
> | > who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
> | > you're so certain?
> |
> | the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.
> | have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?
>
> So you're saying you *will* reimburse people if they
> see ads in paid software? That's great news. I'm tempted
> to sign up for Adobe's scam myself. Would you like to set
> up an escrow account or just send checks now?
>
> And yes, I have seen ads in paid software, though I haven't
> had the need to actually buy much in the way of new software
> for many years now.

such as?

> Many installers
> have ads for other products during setup.

'many'.

anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
installers are about other products from the same company. that's
hardly an ad.

> And there's the
> most infamous example: Active Desktop in Windows. For
> those who don't know or don't remember, in 1998 Microsoft
> was determined to kill off Netscape. At the same time, Bill
> Gates took credit for being a great visionary who foresaw
> the importance of the Internet. The popular history says that
> Gates "brilliantly turned the Microsoft ship on a dime" to
> accomodate his insights. The real story is that MS saw
> power in Netscape's browser and decided to kill Netscape
> by building their own browser into Windows, so that people
> buying Win98 would end up being herded online without ever
> choosing a browser.
> Active Desktop was several things. In general it was a GUI
> customization to give the impression that Windows was hip
> and Webby. It was also a strategy to, as Gates famously put it,
> "cut off Netscape's air supply". One aspect was that it made
> folder windows into browser windows -- literally. (That fulfilled
> the pretense that IE was part of Windows. Each folder window
> is actually a webpage in an IE window on 98/2000/ME.)
> Another aspect was active content on the Desktop. One could
> paste a self-updating webpage on the Desktop to get those
> famous stock quotes and sports scores that Bill Gates is always
> talking about. It was the first version of the current Live Tiles.
> (Microsoft has been pulling the same silly trick for 15 years.)

stock updates and sports scores are not ads.

they are also user configured. otherwise how would it know what stocks
and teams to show? someone not interested in either won't set it up.

> A further aspect was "channels". The Desktop of OEM PCs came
> with a Channel Bar on the Desktop. It was basically a billboard
> for ads from Disney and others. People were encouraged to
> subscribe to channels -- a cable TV metaphor equivalent to "adding
> more Live Tiles". In both cases it hasn't been very successful
> because MS is trying to trick people into choosing to put ads
> on their screens. (If you look in the /Windows/Media folder on
> Win98 you'll find lots of logo files for companies like Forbes, ABC,
> etc. that had partnered with MS to get their ads onto Windows.)

if the user subscribed to a channel, it's their own choice.

no ads are being pushed unwittingly.

> OEM Windows altogether is an ad-infested, paid-for product.

then why don't i see ads when i use windows? where are they?

> These days things like Norton AV and MS Office are also
> often pre-installed as trial versions, trying to trick unsuspecting
> customers into thinking a PC comes with those products.
> But those trials are just sneaky ads.

there may be a lot of trialware included, but those are not ads, nor
are they pushed on paying customers. it's just a trial version bundled
with the computer.

should the user try one of the apps and then buy it, there won't be ads.

> One might rationalize that OEM companies need the extra
> cash from imposed shovelware... blah, blah, blah. But however
> you look at it, the PC buyer paid for the appliance and the
> Windows license.... And they got stuck with a lot of ads.... And
> most people put up with it. The average person never even
> bothered to remove the Channel Bar billboard on the Win98
> Desktop!

nothing you listed are ads.

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:49:42 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
> On 5/14/2013 8:43 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 May 2013 23:05:09 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > : On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:09:58 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>
> > : wrote:
>
> > :
>
> > : >what's to argue? adobe pushing ads is a ludicrous claim and it's not
>
> > : >going to happen. end of story.
>
> > :
>
> > : Paul Harvey, a very famous radio personality at one time, used to have
>
> > : a regular segment called "The Rest of the Story".
>
> >
>
> > I remember Paul Harvey as a pompous crackpot. Do suppose he was nospam's
>
> > great-grandfather?
>
> >
>
>
>
> In the real world people are often held accountable for their statement
>
> and predictions. Usenet is far from the real world,

Not that far it;s just round the corner opposite the post offuce :)

> so anyone can
>
> basically say anything, with no adverse consequences if they are wrong.

Well you can get done for libel or so I;ve been told, and there are those that have abused others on facebook that have got into trouble.

>
> A person with multiple personality disorder could even be posting under
>
> multiple pseudonyms, and provoke inflammatory arguments.

They could even do that with themselves and create whats called sock puppets.

> Now that I
>
> think of it, erhaps that is why nospam ever post images.

That's one thing I can't comment on. :-)

[Whisky-dave]

Make it esier to post and read, I hate the idea of having two+ windows open and having to type in one while viewing the other and if I want to see someone elses comments I have to go find their post too, and there's little connection if any between the comment page and the actual pictures.
I guess there's no way in teh current system where one can post comments under the actual picture. I've always found it intresting to compare comments and the actual photo at the same time. This is easy to do wityh flickr not sure about others.

>
> Perhaps a short comment by the maker, on the image might get things
>
> going. I am not sure about the answer. I don't even know if there is an
>
> answer.

well for me there is :-D

[PeterN]

On 5/15/2013 10:29 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <kn03em$a2$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> <maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | > | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
>> | > | of that is beyond ludicrous.
>> | >
>> | > Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
>> | > who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
>> | > you're so certain?
>> |
>> | the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.
>> | have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?
>>
>> So you're saying you *will* reimburse people if they
>> see ads in paid software? That's great news. I'm tempted
>> to sign up for Adobe's scam myself. Would you like to set
>> up an escrow account or just send checks now?
>>
>> And yes, I have seen ads in paid software, though I haven't
>> had the need to actually buy much in the way of new software
>> for many years now.
>
> such as?
>
>> Many installers
>> have ads for other products during setup.
>
> 'many'.
>

Yes.

> anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
> installers are about other products from the same company. that's
> hardly an ad.

Installers are not apps? I guess they are not even part of an app.
Telling people about other products the company offers is not an ad.

Sheesh The concepts one learns. I feel like a piper in the British army
at Yorktown.

Do you have even the slightest concept of what an ad is?

--
PeterN

[J. Clarke]

In article <kn03em$a2$1...@dont-email.me>, maya...@invalid.nospam says...

Ad infested? Where do these ads appear? I seem to have missed them.

[nospam]

In article <5193cd27$0$10756$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> > anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
> > installers are about other products from the same company. that's
> > hardly an ad.
>
> Installers are not apps?

they might be packaged as an app to make it easy for the user, but
they're not what people think of as apps. many times it's just a
script. they're run once and they're discarded. the actual app is the
payload of the installer.

installers install apps and any support files to the appropriate
folders on the computer. that's why they are called 'installers.' they
install stuff.

> I guess they are not even part of an app.

they are definitely not part of the app. have you ever written an
installer? it's basically just a list of what to put where. once it's
done, *then* you run the app.

> Telling people about other products the company offers is not an ad.

it's filler while you wait for the install to complete. people don't
stare at the installer which means it's not a very effective place to
put ads. plus it would only be seen once. once the install is done,
they won't be running the installer anymore.

in the actual app, there are no ads.

since you have difficulty staying on topic, this is about adobe pushing
ads to their subscribers. they've *already* installed the apps.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 08:39:49 -0400, PeterN

One thing which I do find frustrating is the comment or discussion
which doesn't contain a link to the image being discussed. The only
way to find what people are talking about is to track back up the
thread to find where a link was last mentioned. Having to do this
tends to be off-putting.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:47:42 -0400, "Mayayana"
<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>| > | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
>| > | of that is beyond ludicrous.
>| >
>| > Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
>| > who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
>| > you're so certain?
>|
>| the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.
>| have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?
>
> So you're saying you *will* reimburse people if they
>see ads in paid software? That's great news. I'm tempted
>to sign up for Adobe's scam myself. Would you like to set
>up an escrow account or just send checks now?
>
> And yes, I have seen ads in paid software, though I haven't
>had the need to actually buy much in the way of new software
>for many years now.

When you buy one module of a program like Topaz or Nik, you get
advertisements to buy additional modules.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 10:29:54 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <kn03em$a2$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
><maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | > | adobe is *not* going to push ads on paying customers. the mere thought
>> | > | of that is beyond ludicrous.
>> | >
>> | > Then maybe you'd like to commit to reimburse anyone
>> | > who rents PS if they ever get subjected to ads, since
>> | > you're so certain?
>> |
>> | the entire idea is beyond ludicrous. it's absurd.
>> | have you seen *any* ads in any paid software, ever?
>>
>> So you're saying you *will* reimburse people if they
>> see ads in paid software? That's great news. I'm tempted
>> to sign up for Adobe's scam myself. Would you like to set
>> up an escrow account or just send checks now?
>>
>> And yes, I have seen ads in paid software, though I haven't
>> had the need to actually buy much in the way of new software
>> for many years now.
>
>such as?
>
>> Many installers
>> have ads for other products during setup.
>
>'many'.
>
>anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
>installers are about other products from the same company. that's
>hardly an ad.

Why is it any different? An advertisement is an advertisement,
whether it's an advertisement for another product within the maker's
family or for an outside product.

Many installation programs include a pre-checked option to add an
anti-virus program as an "opt out". That's no different from an
advertisement; worse, even, since if we don't catch it we're adding
something we may not want.

What has to be advertised by a software provider to be considered as
an advertisement in your little mind? Toothpaste? Nair?

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 08:59:08 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
<whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes it does. Now what can we, as a group do to stimulate more interest.
>
>Make it esier to post and read, I hate the idea of having two+ windows open and having to type in one while viewing the other and if I want to see someone elses comments I have to go find their post too, and there's little connection if any between the comment page and the actual pictures.
>I guess there's no way in teh current system where one can post comments under the actual picture. I've always found it intresting to compare comments and the actual photo at the same time. This is easy to do wityh flickr not sure about others.
>
>>
>> Perhaps a short comment by the maker, on the image might get things
>>
>> going. I am not sure about the answer. I don't even know if there is an
>>
>> answer.
>
>well for me there is :-D

I use two monitors, and the total cost to me was less than $75.00.
(Used secondary monitor) I wouldn't have purchased it just for the
SI, but find a two-monitor system beneficial in many ways. My primary
use is following a tutorial on one screen and doing it on the second.

[nospam]

In article <bst7p8tbs4pgg0331...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

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

> >anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
> >installers are about other products from the same company. that's
> >hardly an ad.
>
> Why is it any different? An advertisement is an advertisement,
> whether it's an advertisement for another product within the maker's
> family or for an outside product.

installers are a one time thing. it could show a boring progress bar or
it can show other products. many installers choose the latter.

the installers i've written have a nice splash page of the app that's
being installed. it looks better than just a lone progress bar.

not that it matters since the installer isn't the app. it's the
mechanism by which one get the app. it's run once and discarded.

> Many installation programs include a pre-checked option to add an
> anti-virus program as an "opt out". That's no different from an
> advertisement; worse, even, since if we don't catch it we're adding
> something we may not want.

that's very different than an ad. that's a bundled product.

> What has to be advertised by a software provider to be considered as
> an advertisement in your little mind? Toothpaste? Nair?

it can be anything.

[nospam]

In article <uot7p819ft5lt5psv...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

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

> When you buy one module of a program like Topaz or Nik, you get
> advertisements to buy additional modules.

i haven't used either one, but if so, that's just two out of millions
and millions of apps.

[PeterN]

On 5/15/2013 3:15 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <5193cd27$0$10756$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
>>> installers are about other products from the same company. that's
>>> hardly an ad.
>>
>> Installers are not apps?
>
> they might be packaged as an app to make it easy for the user, but
> they're not what people think of as apps. many times it's just a
> script. they're run once and they're discarded. the actual app is the
> payload of the installer.

Well then when you make a blanket statement you should specify, in the
interests of clarity. Oh I forgot, you have your own definitions.

>
> installers install apps and any support files to the appropriate
> folders on the computer. that's why they are called 'installers.' they
> install stuff.
>
>> I guess they are not even part of an app.
>
> they are definitely not part of the app. have you ever written an
> installer? it's basically just a list of what to put where. once it's
> done, *then* you run the app.
>

So is all programming nothing more than a set of instructions. if you
boil it down to basics. Why is an installer not an app that installs a
program.

>> Telling people about other products the company offers is not an ad.
>
> it's filler while you wait for the install to complete. people don't
> stare at the installer which means it's not a very effective place to
> put ads. plus it would only be seen once. once the install is done,
> they won't be running the installer anymore.

That my friend is advertising. A non-commercial filler would be s
soothing voice telling me, in sweet sexy tones what a good job I was doing.

>
> in the actual app, there are no ads.
>
> since you have difficulty staying on topic, this is about adobe pushing
> ads to their subscribers. they've *already* installed the apps.
>

You complaining about me not staying on topic is at best, laughable.


--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <5194066c$0$10833$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN

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

> >>> anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
> >>> installers are about other products from the same company. that's
> >>> hardly an ad.
> >>
> >> Installers are not apps?
> >
> > they might be packaged as an app to make it easy for the user, but
> > they're not what people think of as apps. many times it's just a
> > script. they're run once and they're discarded. the actual app is the
> > payload of the installer.
>
> Well then when you make a blanket statement you should specify, in the
> interests of clarity. Oh I forgot, you have your own definitions.

it's not my definition and i don't need to spell it out because it's
obvious.

people do not consider an installer an app, even if technically might
be an app in some cases (not all). it's what they use to install apps.

> > installers install apps and any support files to the appropriate
> > folders on the computer. that's why they are called 'installers.' they
> > install stuff.
> >
> >> I guess they are not even part of an app.
> >
> > they are definitely not part of the app. have you ever written an
> > installer? it's basically just a list of what to put where. once it's
> > done, *then* you run the app.
>
> So is all programming nothing more than a set of instructions. if you
> boil it down to basics. Why is an installer not an app that installs a
> program.

because it's basically just a script of what to copy and where. it's
run once to *install* the app they want.

it could be a *document* (or more accurately, a bundle) which is run by
an installer in the operating system.

this is the case on the mac, where an installer is often a .pkg that's
run by the installer built into os x. there also might not be an
installer at all, including anything from the app store. most apps are
installed just by dragging the app to wherever you want.

it could also be a makefile (a *text* file) that causes other apps to
run, such as a compiler to build the app and then put it where the user
expects. this is often done on unix.

you do understand the difference between a document and an app, right?
apparently not.

> >> Telling people about other products the company offers is not an ad.
> >
> > it's filler while you wait for the install to complete. people don't
> > stare at the installer which means it's not a very effective place to
> > put ads. plus it would only be seen once. once the install is done,
> > they won't be running the installer anymore.
>
> That my friend is advertising. A non-commercial filler would be s
> soothing voice telling me, in sweet sexy tones what a good job I was doing.

call it an ad if you want. it's still in the *installer*, not the app.
it shows up only during install and it's gone, forever.

this is very, very different than a company pushing ads to paid
customers when using their apps, which is the original topic, no matter
how much you try to change it.

adobe isn't going to do that. the outcry would make creative cloud look
like nothing.

> > in the actual app, there are no ads.
> >
> > since you have difficulty staying on topic, this is about adobe pushing
> > ads to their subscribers. they've *already* installed the apps.
> >
>
> You complaining about me not staying on topic is at best, laughable.

you're the one who is moving the goalposts and nitpicking on
meaningless details. all you like to do is argue.

[Savageduck]

I can't speak for Topaz, but I have never received an advertisement to
purchase additional NIK modules. However, that might be true if you are
referring to the neutered NIK bundle which comes with the Wacom tablets.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:41:48 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <bst7p8tbs4pgg0331...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
>> >installers are about other products from the same company. that's
>> >hardly an ad.
>>
>> Why is it any different? An advertisement is an advertisement,
>> whether it's an advertisement for another product within the maker's
>> family or for an outside product.
>
>installers are a one time thing. it could show a boring progress bar or
>it can show other products. many installers choose the latter.
>
>the installers i've written have a nice splash page of the app that's
>being installed. it looks better than just a lone progress bar.
>
>not that it matters since the installer isn't the app. it's the
>mechanism by which one get the app. it's run once and discarded.
>

If the mechanism is there to add an advertisement in the installer,
the mechanism can be in the installer to add something to the
computer. Even if that one thing is a "call home" to identify who
should be sent advertisements.

As far as one time and discarded, I invite you to look up the term
"virgin". One time is enough to change the status.

>> Many installation programs include a pre-checked option to add an
>> anti-virus program as an "opt out". That's no different from an
>> advertisement; worse, even, since if we don't catch it we're adding
>> something we may not want.
>
>that's very different than an ad. that's a bundled product.

Oh, I see. So attempting to get us to use something we don't have is
not the same as an advertisement attempting to get us to use something
we don't have.

>> What has to be advertised by a software provider to be considered as
>> an advertisement in your little mind? Toothpaste? Nair?
>
>it can be anything.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:41:49 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

No, it's *examples* of just two. Others can supply examples of many
more. Many programs come back at you with solicitation to upgrade to
a "better" version. Avast! Anti-Virus, for example.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:40:20 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>you're the one who is moving the goalposts and nitpicking on
>meaningless details. all you like to do is argue.

Haw!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:40:20 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <5194066c$0$10833$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
><peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> >>> anyway, installers are not apps, and the only thing i've seen in
>> >>> installers are about other products from the same company. that's
>> >>> hardly an ad.
>> >>
>> >> Installers are not apps?
>> >
>> > they might be packaged as an app to make it easy for the user, but
>> > they're not what people think of as apps. many times it's just a
>> > script. they're run once and they're discarded. the actual app is the
>> > payload of the installer.
>>
>> Well then when you make a blanket statement you should specify, in the
>> interests of clarity. Oh I forgot, you have your own definitions.
>
>it's not my definition and i don't need to spell it out because it's
>obvious.
>
>people do not consider an installer an app, even if technically might
>be an app in some cases (not all). it's what they use to install apps.

Who are these "people"? The ghosts that support your market research
theories? The dead who tell you they'd be using digital instead of
darkroom?

I do like this theory, though. It's not an app even if it is
technically an app.

[Tony Cooper]

I did with the version that came with my Wacom tablet. I don't now,
because I have the full set. What they will do when they come out
with a new module I can't say.

[Savageduck]

With my comments I will place the SI mandate page URL at the start/top
of my comments.
When writing my comments I use a Word template with the SI page open
alongside. When I am done, I just copy and paste the final bit into my
Usenet client post.
< https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_216w.jpg >

As for making it simple for the reader of the comments, I tried the
idea of placing a URL for each image above each comment, and that is a
royal PIA, and much more work than the commentator needs to do.
Since these are not binary groups, placing image inline in the
commentary is out of the question.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

I had already bought the NIK Suite by the time I got my current Wacom.
Just remember, Google now owns NIK and when I did the latest update, I
now have a "Google" brand in the top of the NIK app panel.
...and that was the only change with the update??

--
Regards,

Savageduck