Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #60047 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-06-03 19:48 +0000 |
| Last post | 2014-06-05 04:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 46 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-03 19:48 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-06-03 15:24 -0500
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-06-03 19:07 -0500
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-04 03:10 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-06-03 22:13 -0500
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-06-03 21:23 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-05 03:58 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-03 21:37 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lloyd E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-06-04 07:25 -0500
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-05 09:47 +1200
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-06-03 21:55 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-04 16:01 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-06-04 19:54 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-06-04 20:03 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-05 16:44 +1200
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-05 16:47 +1200
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-05 02:49 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-05 14:21 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-05 15:42 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-05 19:56 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-05 21:27 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-05 17:35 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-05 21:50 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-11 18:42 +1200
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-06-11 10:53 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-11 15:35 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-06-12 16:50 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-12 09:12 +1200
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-11 21:23 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-06-12 03:55 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-12 10:06 -0500
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-12 18:33 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-12 18:52 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-13 10:57 -0500
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-13 18:08 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-13 18:15 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-06-12 22:31 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-13 18:15 +1200
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-06-15 12:54 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-11 15:40 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2014-06-05 19:11 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-06-05 17:14 -0700
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2014-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-06-06 20:54 -0400
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-05 05:15 +0000
Re: A day later on Yosemite and iOS8 Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-06-05 04:00 +0000
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-05 19:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <CKOdnZhEL4uxZA3OnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #60213 |
On 6/5/14, 12:47 AM, Your Name wrote: > The monthly / annual fee structure that companies like Aodbe are moving > to are indeed designed to try to rake in more money from the casual > updater (those who continue to use the same version for many years), > but it actually loses them money from those who update frequently ... > whether that new structure pays off in the long term remains to be > seen. It also loses them revenue from people like me, who will never pay money to them on that basis. Unless it's something I use day in and day out, I refuse to rent it. Even then, I prefer a perpetual license.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-05 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2014060517140775297-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #60297 |
On 2014-06-05 23:11:40 +0000, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> said: > On 6/5/14, 12:47 AM, Your Name wrote: >> The monthly / annual fee structure that companies like Aodbe are moving >> to are indeed designed to try to rake in more money from the casual >> updater (those who continue to use the same version for many years), >> but it actually loses them money from those who update frequently ... >> whether that new structure pays off in the long term remains to be >> seen. > It also loses them revenue from people like me, who will never pay > money to them on that basis. Unless it's something I use day in and day > out, I refuse to rent it. Even then, I prefer a perpetual license. That makes sense to you, and it is your option not to use subscription services. However, in the case of Adobe I have been a Photoshop user since PS7. With the advent of the Creative Suite I bought PS CS, and then due to added features I found compelling I was on the upgrade treadmill at $199 a time for PS CS2, CS3, CS5, & CS6. I swore that was going to be the end of the line for PS upgrades for me as I was not enamored of the subscription model. I also bought Lightroom and upgraded at $99 each time to LR2, & LR4. Then in September last year Adobe introduced their Photoshop Photographers Program which gave you PS CC, and Lightroom 5, 20GB of cloud storage, and perpetual updates for $9.99/month. That is an incredible value for those of us who use that software. I recognized that value and climbed on board and have never looked back. It was always my intention to upgrade LR4 to LR5, that would have cost me $99. Now for $120/year I have updated & current Photoshop CC, Lightroom, and 20GB of cloud storage for a third of the cost of being on the upgrade treadmill. I have no issues with the service and I have state of the art photo editing and asset management software to work with. -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-05 22:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hOudnWAMv_OQtgzOnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #60302 |
On 6/5/14, 8:14 PM, Savageduck wrote: > On 2014-06-05 23:11:40 +0000, Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> said: > >> On 6/5/14, 12:47 AM, Your Name wrote: >>> The monthly / annual fee structure that companies like Aodbe are moving >>> to are indeed designed to try to rake in more money from the casual >>> updater (those who continue to use the same version for many years), >>> but it actually loses them money from those who update frequently ... >>> whether that new structure pays off in the long term remains to be >>> seen. >> It also loses them revenue from people like me, who will never pay >> money to them on that basis. Unless it's something I use day in and >> day out, I refuse to rent it. Even then, I prefer a perpetual license. > > That makes sense to you, and it is your option not to use subscription > services. However, in the case of Adobe I have been a Photoshop user > since PS7. With the advent of the Creative Suite I bought PS CS, and > then due to added features I found compelling I was on the upgrade > treadmill at $199 a time for PS CS2, CS3, CS5, & CS6. I swore that was > going to be the end of the line for PS upgrades for me as I was not > enamored of the subscription model. > > I also bought Lightroom and upgraded at $99 each time to LR2, & LR4. > > Then in September last year Adobe introduced their Photoshop > Photographers Program which gave you PS CC, and Lightroom 5, 20GB of > cloud storage, and perpetual updates for $9.99/month. That is an > incredible value for those of us who use that software. I recognized > that value and climbed on board and have never looked back. > It was always my intention to upgrade LR4 to LR5, that would have cost > me $99. Now for $120/year I have updated & current Photoshop CC, > Lightroom, and 20GB of cloud storage for a third of the cost of being on > the upgrade treadmill. I have no issues with the service and I have > state of the art photo editing and asset management software to work with. > It is clearly a good value for you, given your use. Since my use is different, it's a terrible value for me. Too bad the choice seems to be going away -- at least for some products I might otherwise buy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-06 20:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D66dnR9qZYFa_w_OnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #60213 |
On 2014.06.05, 00:47 , Your Name wrote: > The monthly / annual fee structure that companies like Aodbe are moving > to are indeed designed to try to rake in more money from the casual > updater (those who continue to use the same version for many years), > but it actually loses them money from those who update frequently ... > whether that new structure pays off in the long term remains to be > seen. Some photographers I know are still using CS3 and see no need for CS6, never mind the rental model. My big issue with the rental model is that I would not get much value for the rent paid. If they charged $1 per petaflop (or some such rational measure) of actual work done by their s/w rather than a bunch of bits spinning on my HD while I'm doing something else - that would be different. So I'll stick with CS5 for quite a while - then my costs per day keep going down... -- I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-05 05:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bvacnoFfphmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60195 |
On 2014-06-05, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote: > In article <bv8u71F6emdU11@mid.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote: > >> On 2014-06-04, Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote: >> > >> > Being that Apple's gadgets have a two year lifespan, a maintenance >> > mode can't last long. >> >> LOL!!! > > Apple's revenue model requires a steady stream of new hardware upgrades > and Apple Store software purchases. Sure, the hardware keeps working > but it stops generating Apple significant money after about 2 years. Apple devices have no supposed two-year life span, and Apple continues to make money from existing customers in numerous ways long after they have owned their Apple devices for two years. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-06-05 04:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlovqra.pgi.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #60102 |
In message <mcmurtrie-FBCFDE.21554903062014@news.sonic.net> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote: > In article <slrnlos9jt.am0.g.kreme@amelia.local>, > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> After a day and some time to go back over some parts of the Keynote I >> think the most important announcements are >> >> 1) A file browser for iCloud Drive for OS X and iOS >> 2) The Ability of an app to open another Apps documents (from iCloud), >> and edit them *in place* without having to make new copies. >> 3) Extensions that allow apps to provide services to other apps. >> >> The more I think about it, the more I am sure these are not just huge >> massive changes to the entire philosophy of iOS, but also fundamental >> changes that are going to change *everything* for iOS and Mac users. >> >> A year from now, when we're looking at the coming changes in iOS 9, they >> will be refinements and polish on iOS 8. This makes every single >> previous iOS update look like a 0.1 update. > So it's almost a modern operating system. My Android phone has always > supported that and it doesn't care who the 'cloud' is. It's even happy > with my 1st generation Mac Mini Server running 10.6.8. That's nice, but your android is also the world's number 1 malware magnet, so there's that. -- Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web