or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sflocal

A brand-new user license (not upgrade, or student edition) was going to run me $1,500.00.  I gave up trying to find someone that could get it for me at some discount, or buying some outdated version off of craigslist.  So it was going to cost a penny.  $50/mo is for the entire suite.  $10/mo is for PS and LR which is what most people will use.  It's a deal.Even if LR could be had for for $200... that's still a couple years, and most folks will rinse-and-repeat and buy the...
Oh please.. get off your milk carton Mr. Preacher.They do not hold your work or data hostage.  That's flat-out nonsense propaganda you're making up.  I should know.  My data and files all reside on my workstation.  I don't have to save my work to their cloud service.  Nice of you to "conveniently" leave that part out.Even if I stop paying for the subscription, Photoshop continues to work, it just reverts to read-only so my files still work.So get off your "Slavery"...
Photoshop was too expensive for me to buy outright a couple years back.  I don't recall the amount but $1,500+ was what I was looking at.  At $10/mo it would take 13-14 years to pay that.  Lightroom is just a scaled-back version of PS that's geared mainly to photography.  I use both packages constantly.  That area changes a lot over time so yeah, I still think it's a deal.  I don't want to be "stuck" with an old version of PS or LR that doesn't have support for a new lens...
 I had your exact same mentality six months ago.  Then I tried it after Apple discontinued Aperture and I became a believer of the concept.  When it comes to very expensive software like Photoshop, having both PS and LR together for $9/mo was a no brainer in the long term.  It would take 10+ years for me to pay the amount for one license of Photoshop, if not longer.  This way, I'm always current.  The math just worked better for me.  For heavy-duty applications like PS,...
Ya know... I can always count on you to pretty much say anything and everything in a thread.  Most of the time, I find your direct and blunt posts as entertaining.  This is one time... and I think the first from me... where I/we kindly ask for you to take a chill-pill buddy.  I think you're the only person that is getting bent out of shape that Apple is doing this with A-1 celebrities and for some reason, you're getting your tighty-whities in a wedgie.  This isn't any...
"Trust you"?  I wouldn't trust some anonymous Internet person any more than I would trust a Fandroid to speak the truth.Post a substantiated proof that they are being paid, or take a hike.
No... because then Apple would count them as "Sold". :)
I doubt he's doing it to make money.  He's got enough money for several lifetimes.  If he wants to blow it - "tax write-off" or not - good for him.  He probably can't spend all that money fast enough so if it enriches society, good for him.I make very good money in tech, yet I freelance as an assistant SCUBA-diving instructor often.   I'm lucky to get paid, but it's such a 180 compared to my regular life that it provides balance and contribution.  People should do this...
What difference is this compared to when Steve Jobs showcased the Mac to Andy Warhol?  If anything, the most anti-technology people are this 1% that wouldn't know how to turn on a Macbook in sleep mode.  If Apple can make these tech-illiterate folks be excited about tech, it's great for everyone in my book.However, I do agree with what I think you're implying.  Would Steve Jobs be catering and hobnobbing with that elite crowd?  Probably not.  Then again, I wouldn't put it...
New Posts  All Forums: