Adobe: Photoshop Pirates Aren't Bad People Who Like to Steal Things

[nsane.forums]

This week Adobe announced a change in the way it does business, shifting away from boxed products and towards a cloud-based subscription model. The company hopes that those currently pirating its products will find the changes more affordable and find themselves encouraged to jump aboard the paid-train.

The days of obtaining new Adobe products such as Photoshop or its full Creative Suite in traditional boxes will soon be over. The company will focus on its Creative Cloud service which will require users to pay a monthly subscription.

Adobe’s products have been widely pirated over the years and already there are discussions on how the company’s new offering might be obtained for free. However, Adobe thinks that its new product will be more accessible and provide better value, leading to those currently using unauthorized copies to shift to a paid model.

“We believe in fighting piracy of software by making the right software for the right people at the right price,” said Adobe’s David Wadhwani.

“One of the things we noticed when we switched to the new model is that people who never bought software from Adobe – such as those using pirated software – now know that they can afford it.”

An analysis by CNet suggests that prices aren’t going to be dramatically different than in the past, but paying month by month might ease the burden for those who don’t have the money up front.

“I do not think people who pirate our software do it because they are bad people, or because they like to steal things,” Wadhwani said.

“I just think that they decided that they can not afford it. And now, with the switch to subscriptions and with the ability to offer software at a cheaper price, we see that the situation is beginning to change and we’re excited.”

View: Original Article

[DKT27]

I was thinking about this from a long time now. How could Adobe reduce piracy?

Simple, take Photoshop for example, release two versions of it, both entirely same in function, but different in licensing: One, Home version, and two, Commercial version. Release the commercial version at the current pricing $700-800 for standard and $1000 for Extended. And release the Home version for just $70 to $100. This way, you will see a lot of people who can actually buy this, to be able to purchase it. Cause right now, even the rich people can't think about buying this.

Cloud is simply not the right answer, infact, it's the most wrongful answer out there. -_-

[Snowdrop]

I was thinking about this from a long time now. How could Adobe reduce piracy?

Simple, take Photoshop for example, release two versions of it, both entirely same in function, but different in licensing: One, Home version, and two, Commercial version. Release the commercial version at the current pricing $700-800 for standard and $1000 for Extended. And release the Home version for just $70 to $100. This way, you will see a lot of people who can actually buy this, to be able to purchase it. Cause right now, even the rich people can't think about buying this.

Cloud is simply not the right answer, infact, it's the most wrongful answer out there. -_-

Having two separate versions will increase maintenance cost (updates, patches, etc.), as well, it wouldn't keep their customers locked in to upgrading to the latest version unless if there was some feature they really want. The subscription approach will definitely allow those who can't afford to shell out $2000 on the spot to be able to use Photoshop without pirating it.

I think Adobe's choice in moving to the cloud won't have as many problems as M$ Office moving into the cloud. This is mainly because I doubt many people would be editing graphics on the go, whereas word documents are a completely different story. That said, it would definitely inconvenience artists living in places that have intermittent internet connectivity.

[vissha]

I was thinking about this from a long time now. How could Adobe reduce piracy?

Simple, take Photoshop for example, release two versions of it, both entirely same in function, but different in licensing: One, Home version, and two, Commercial version. Release the commercial version at the current pricing $700-800 for standard and $1000 for Extended. And release the Home version for just $70 to $100. This way, you will see a lot of people who can actually buy this, to be able to purchase it. Cause right now, even the rich people can't think about buying this.

Cloud is simply not the right answer, infact, it's the most wrongful answer out there. -_-

Having two separate versions will increase maintenance cost (updates, patches, etc.), as well, it wouldn't keep their customers locked in to upgrading to the latest version unless if there was some feature they really want. The subscription approach will definitely allow those who can't afford to shell out $2000 on the spot to be able to use Photoshop without pirating it.

I think Adobe's choice in moving to the cloud won't have as many problems as M$ Office moving into the cloud. This is mainly because I doubt many people would be editing graphics on the go, whereas word documents are a completely different story. That said, it would definitely inconvenience artists living in places that have intermittent internet connectivity.

What DKT27 said is right! Like Ashampoo, Acronis, Paragon,.. There can be different editions of the same.

Think this way: In the old licensing, people can use it offline. But with cloud licensing, they've to go for internet frequently. And also Adobe may think of increasing the cost per month compared to current total cost. When compared annually, it'll be double. Similar to Office 365.

[irefay]

I was thinking about this from a long time now. How could Adobe reduce piracy?

Simple, take Photoshop for example, release two versions of it, both entirely same in function, but different in licensing: One, Home version, and two, Commercial version. Release the commercial version at the current pricing $700-800 for standard and $1000 for Extended. And release the Home version for just $70 to $100. This way, you will see a lot of people who can actually buy this, to be able to purchase it. Cause right now, even the rich people can't think about buying this.

Cloud is simply not the right answer, infact, it's the most wrongful answer out there. -_-

So much for the plan to save up for a legit copy of CC. There is no way that as someone who only uses CC four or five times a month, I could spend that kind of money every month. I dont even make money on the stuff that I create with photoshop.

I like the home version idea. I would pay that every 2 years, and it is $100 more than they will ever get from me now.

[DKT27]

Having two separate versions will increase maintenance cost (updates, patches, etc.), as well, it wouldn't keep their customers locked in to upgrading to the latest version unless if there was some feature they really want. The subscription approach will definitely allow those who can't afford to shell out $2000 on the spot to be able to use Photoshop without pirating it.

I think Adobe's choice in moving to the cloud won't have as many problems as M$ Office moving into the cloud. This is mainly because I doubt many people would be editing graphics on the go, whereas word documents are a completely different story. That said, it would definitely inconvenience artists living in places that have intermittent internet connectivity.

But how? I'm suggesting exactly the same package, same updates, everything the same, but two different licensing. You can't expect home users to pay for professional user pricing - hence, my suggestion, release a licensing for the non-professional users - so a lot of pirates can buy it.

Yup, Office on cloud is another problem, but I'll blame Google for giving Microsoft this idea.

[irefay]

So how long do you think it will take to crack this protection? I am guessing the fix will come in the form of a local adobe server emulator. Any other ideas?

[DKT27]

So how long do you think it will take to crack this protection? I am guessing the fix will come in the form of a local adobe server emulator. Any other ideas?

Depends on the interest and Adobe's intention. The good news is, Adobe has a big number of downloaders and crackers' following, meaning, should not take a lot of time to crack.

[speedpedal]

Make only one version. Price it at $200.00. Upgrades at $50.00. Cut the Commercial/Home user nonsense. Make it simple. Henry Ford Did. He made Millions. I think it's inevitable that in a few years there will be some bright upstart that will make a competitive product that is fairly priced without draining your wallet every 16 months. There are a lot of bright young minds out there today that are creative and with some real business savvy. Look out for the new kids on the block. They're coming . . . Your way.

[DKT27]

Make only one version. Price it at $200.00. Upgrades at $50.00. Cut the Commercial/Home user nonsense. Make it simple. Henry Ford Did. He made Millions. I think it's inevitable that in a few years there will be some bright upstart that will make a competitive product that is fairly priced without draining your wallet every 16 months. There are a lot of bright young minds out there today that are creative and with some real business savvy. Look out for the new kids on the block. They're coming . . . Your way.

The idea is great, but if Adobe had any sense, they would have done it already and this Creative Cloud never had existed. While new gen coming up and doing better things is correct, but being greedy is mainstream these days.

[stylemessiah]

Adobe has been gouging people for decades. Now they just want to gouge people in a new way.

Those who have pirate copies probably only use the software sparingly, i only use Paint.Net on rare occasions, so given that scenario, youre still paying all the time to use it once in a while.

It doesnt do anything to reduce the attractiveness to pirates, who pirate it because of the overall ridiculous price, the only way to reduce piracy is to put the price at a sane and moral level.

As suggested a separate low (overall, one off) price tier for home and infrequent users is the only way that will work.

[speedpedal]

I agree with DKT27 and stylemessiah you both make very good points. I'm not defending either side of the issue, however I think these so-called pirates are the ones that really made this software popular by showing what it could accomplish, and virtually none of them ever made a Penny from it. Let's face it most professional users don't have time to experiment and alter photos just for the fun of it. I believe the real talent out there comes from non-professional users. If it wasn't for this group it the product probably wouldn't exist in it's current form today. Additionally most professional users were probably taught by this group as well. In the future there will be a greater demand for the likes of Gimp in the coming months and it's development will skyrocket. My only interest is in how markets rise and fall. I'm also impressed by the logic of the commentary's here as well. The most successful company's are the ones who listened to there customers.

[Cypher3927]

I think technology has gone crazy with cloud services. Everywhere you go it's cloud this and cloud that. Companies make people believe that this is the next logical step but really it's not. Just like Apple's ridiculous commentary about how the age of the PC is dead. Yeah okay, try composing, mixing and mastering on your iPad and see how far you get. When it comes to personal data we already put way too much information about ourselves out there and in this age of network break-ins the last place I want my files is in the hands of a company that may not be secure or trustworthy. Don't get me wrong there are some great uses for this technology but I don't think that Adobe should stop releasing a boxed version of their products. Personally I like the old way of doing things at least in terms of software. I would have to agree with DKT27 concerning releasing two different licenses one for home and one for pro users. In terms of reducing piracy I think that price is only one part of the equation. The movie, music, publishing and software industries have just grown accustomed to selling us crap at inordinate prices for so long so it's in their best interests to continue this practice. Instead of whining about it the aforementioned industries must find ways of adding value to their products that piracy can't compete with. It's called evolving in a changing landscape and we all know that the only constant in life is change.