The Adobe subscription model didn't stop piracy. Actually, it only took one day after the release of Photoshop CC for a pirate version to be available.
Oh, forgive me for not being up on the activities of the piracy underworld.
Creative Cloud is still a move in the right direction for honest people, at least. When Steve Jobs was talking about iTunes in the early days, he mentioned that, "Stealing corrodes the soul." or some such words. The strategy was for iTunes to provide a convenient way for honest people to purchase music online. It didn't stop the criminals.
In a similar way Creative Cloud enables us honest customers to pay for the use of Adobe's products more conveniently and in bite-size payments. And we have access to the entire software suite and to other benefits and services.
I have no issue with the content of this article. However, this is basically a near-verbatim rehash of some past articles from here at AppleInsider, with some minor mentions of the upcoming WWDC tacked on to make it seem like a new article. The content in reality has very little connection to this year's WWDC in particular, the products/services/ventures/etc that may or may not be announced, etc. So, while the content of the article is all well and good, the whole thing feels a bit click-bait-ish to be honest.
I agree. I like most of DED articles, but is it neccesary to read the whole story of mankind at each editorial?
Whilst I understand the drum roll for Apple/IOS, this article is completely US centric. It ignores the larger global picture which suggests that many more people are enjoying smartphone access/choices than would have otherwise been possible with the introduction of Android.
It is also hard to ignore some of the design changes that have been foisted upon the apple community/ecosystem eg. ipad mini, iphone 6./6 which by the words of the founder would either never happen, or would never be wanted. In terms of software, you only have to look towards the jailbreak community to understand the often myopic stance taken by apple.
Competition is healthy, no matter which camp you are in.
Wow, so, are you not aware that Android, prior to the iPhone introduction, looked and worked NOTHING LIKE iOS? So all that crap about people around the world enjoying a modern smartphone experience due to Android is false. They are enjoying a modern smartphone experience because Apple, with the iPhone and iOS, led the way, and Google and Samsung and other Android smartphone vendors slavishly copied iOS and the multitouch interface of the iPhone. The iOS jailbreak community is a very tiny fraction of iPhone owners, by the way.
Wow, so, are you not aware that Android, prior to the iPhone introduction, looked and worked NOTHING LIKE iOS? So all that crap about people around the world enjoying a modern smartphone experience due to Android is false. They are enjoying a modern smartphone experience because Apple, with the iPhone and iOS, led the way, and Google and Samsung and other Android smartphone vendors slavishly copied iOS and the multitouch interface of the iPhone. The iOS jailbreak community is a very tiny fraction of iPhone owners, by the way.
Bah. I suspect he does know that. Sure, Apple led the way. They've been doing it for decades now. Leading the way means having followers; always has done, always will do. Tell me again why this matters.
Apple has never (and I hope WILL never) had an obligation to pander to the unwashed masses. Apple makes the best products in the world, which, therefore, cost more. The unwashed are implicitly always welcome to come clean and aspire to Apple product ownership.
Ugh can we please not perpetuate the image of Apple users as pretentious. Servicing the underprivileged and accelerating access to smartphones for billions of users is a good thing, regardless of Google's aim to lock them into their services. Having the next billion have more options is only a good thing.
Perhaps you don't really mean to make the connotations that "unwashed masses" make, but that hopefully doesn't have a place here. Maybe a better term would be "lowest common denominator" or budget market.
Also DED - you don't get paid by the word, so maybe link to a past article on the history lesson, and focus on the "new"? I'm not sure when it felt like it got too long, but it wasn't near the end
Bah. I suspect he does know that. Sure, Apple led the way. They've been doing it for decades now. Leading the way means having followers; always has done, always will do. Tell me again why this matters.
Whilst I understand the drum roll for Apple/IOS, this article is completely US centric. It ignores the larger global picture which suggests that many more people are enjoying smartphone access/choices than would have otherwise been possible with the introduction of Android.
It is also hard to ignore some of the design changes that have been foisted upon the apple community/ecosystem eg. ipad mini, iphone 6./6 which by the words of the founder would either never happen, or would never be wanted. In terms of software, you only have to look towards the jailbreak community to understand the often myopic stance taken by apple.
Competition is healthy, no matter which camp you are in.
To paraphrase what I said above: thievery is neither healthy nor competitive
There's really nothing to tell you. I totally get it.
Insane.
IOW, you can't explain your position, but you expect me to accept it anyway. Like that's supposed to happen.
This is not one of the moments that make me feel any pride at being an Apple fan. In fact it makes me feel like I wandered into something like a comic book convention surround by people living in a geeky fantasy world where none of the usual rules apply.
So much of this is reasoning is questionable, it's difficult to know where to begin taking it apart.
Start with the false "winners" and "losers" dichotomy. Normal markets are full of winners, each in competition and serving different segments. This is the definition of a healthy market. Most markets are healthy. The domination of the PC market by DOS/Windows in the 1980s and '90s was not healthy. In fact it was a freak of nature. The writer here doesn't seem to have any appreciation for how it came to be that way, and so looks for how history will repeat itself. Nobody who knows what happened back then expects that history to be repeated. They don't expect a winner, they expect multiple winners. Markets are not normally zero-sum games where someone has to wipe out everybody else.
But even more importantly, Apple and Google were never alike, not from the start. So that begs the question: how they can somehow become less alike?
To borrow from the bard: all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
So much of your reading comprehension is questionable, it's hard to know where to begin taking it apart. Seems like you didn't even read the article.
Start with the false "winners" and "losers" dichotomy. This, that you attribute to the author, was addressed by him as assumptions that pundits have long held in regards to Apple being in a "losing battle" for years, and in every market it may attempt to enter. Nevertheless, it is entirely reasonable to once in a while think in terms of Apple's being at least a winner, when it is so often proclaimed that it "lost" (the "PC wars") and that it will inevitably lose Mobile in the same way (to who other than Google?); it is generally the anti-Apple crowd that can't conceive of their being more than one "winner".
The assumption among pundits (not Daniel's) is that Apple is going about business entirely the wrong way (by, for example, eschewing marketshare and attempting to sell quality, premium hardware products instead of licensing software or platforms). Daniel looking for history to repeat itself? Did you read the article? He is criticizing those who would have Google's Android repeat, and for many of the same reasons, the heyday of MS' Windows -- the dominance of which, by the way, only those who appreciate Apple's products or business model have ever consistently realized was a freak of nature and not the natural order of the universe. And yes, the prevailing attitude has long been that Apple's iOS would be long dead and buried by now, and that Apple is only one inevitable misstep from complete and utter failure; after all, Gate's paltry 150M saved Apple back in the day, didn't it? (or did it?).
Of course there is plenty of room for numerous platforms and players. But it isn't easy to stay alive or relevant for any length of time. Let's give 150B (not Million) to Dell, RIMM, Nokia, Motorola or Sony and see where they are in 20 years. The "war" is entirely of the pundits making. They don't appreciate that Apple aimed at 1% of the mobile market, and that the iOS platform and developer interest can sustain itself indefinitely with a fast-approaching billion active users, having grown itself to that point, were Apple to never produce a new product category ever again.
Pundits constantly proclaim that Apple "loses" marketshare in mobile, though the addressable market appears to be growing, and though Android became the overnight, de-facto OS on mobile devices in 2010 because Google gave away to OEMs the only viable OS that could fill the vacuums left by MS, Palm, RIMM, Nokia, etc., as noted by Daniel, when it became evident they weren't up to the task of maintaining a modern mobile OS and platform. As users and OEM's alike become increasingly dissatisfied with and disenfranchised by Android, we can all yet hope that more players will indeed raise themselves up.
Daniel thinks that the markets are zero sum games? When he repeatedly writes about how Apple has brought whole new levels of value to Mobile and related industries (such as the whole "App Economy", mobile payments, micro enterprises, publishing, health & fitness, transit, etc.)? The only ones who think markets are zero-sum games are the pundits who laud the next new "iPhone Killer" every other week, with no appreciation of platform strength or what goes into the development of a great product -- only the vague notion that the "sale" of a few more give-away Android phones must result in the sale of fewer iPhones, yay.
Unfortunately, the business models of MS and Google have so far shown that they only really cannibalize their partners in the long run. Particularly in that Google and MS have indeed tried to emulate Apple in more ways than one (such as in producing profitable hardware, trying to regain control over their own platforms, professing that security and privacy may not be such bad ideas, etc.); but they have not been successful.
All the while, Apple is indeed differentiating itself from them in ways they either don't seem to care about or don't understand. Of course the companies were never alike. But you'd never know that from the pundity that proclaims, ho-hum, Apple is nothing special -- an Android device does more than an iOS device, and does it better (as though all the most wildly prognosticated potential benefits of Android and the myriad hardware choices out there somehow all manage to accrue within the single Android device that a customer may choose and have to live with).
But kudos to you for putting the shoe on entirely the wrong foot and grasping the stick at entirely the wrong end in every possible way. It's like you saw "Daniel Dilger" and thought it said, "Daniel Lyons".
So much of your reading comprehension is questionable, it's hard to know where to begin taking it apart. Seems like you didn't even read the article.
Leading with "reading comprehension" gambit? Nice. Got any more tired, old canards you want to lay on me?
This article, and your support of it, is loaded with the much the same form of "some say" logic. Who are these "some" exactly, and what do they "say," precisely? Lacking some minimum of disclosure of the persons and the arguments that you are attempting to refute, the result is simply vague and generalized straw man bashing. Easy, but not very sporting. Straw man bashing doesn't get any more convincing by adding length. Pesky but true.
My point is any argument that depends on the winning/losing dichotomy is bound to be wrong. The article doesn't take the position that the dichotomy is invalid, but instead tries to twist it to fit a different set of circumstances. Apple was supposed to "lose" (according to nameless "pundits" but they actually "won" according to AI). The premise is flawed, and it's awfully difficult to proceed from a false premise to an accurate conclusion, except by accident. The article doesn't get so lucky.
It doesn't take an appreciation of Apple's products to recognize that Microsoft's years of dominance were the result of a very specific set of circumstances that are highly unlikely to be repeated. All it takes is an appreciation of the history of the industry. That appreciation is not widely shared, in my experience. The article is unhelpful in that it perpetuates the myth of total market dominance being a norm, and to make matters worse, attributes that argument to nobody in particular strictly for the purpose making a counterargument. It's a cheap rhetorical trick. Sorry, I won't fall for it.
FWIW, Microsoft's $150M investment did not save Apple. This is essentially an urban legend.
The other point I made is that Apple has always differentiated itself. Apple has never been anything like either Microsoft or Google, so it's pure sophistry to argue that they are now becoming even less alike. Again an argument that does not benefit from abstraction or length.
Comments
The Adobe subscription model didn't stop piracy. Actually, it only took one day after the release of Photoshop CC for a pirate version to be available.
http://gizmodo.com/adobes-creative-cloud-has-already-been-pirated-514563307
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/20/4447916/adobe-photoshop-cc-pirated-in-one-day
Oh, forgive me for not being up on the activities of the piracy underworld.
Creative Cloud is still a move in the right direction for honest people, at least. When Steve Jobs was talking about iTunes in the early days, he mentioned that, "Stealing corrodes the soul." or some such words. The strategy was for iTunes to provide a convenient way for honest people to purchase music online. It didn't stop the criminals.
In a similar way Creative Cloud enables us honest customers to pay for the use of Adobe's products more conveniently and in bite-size payments. And we have access to the entire software suite and to other benefits and services.
I have no issue with the content of this article. However, this is basically a near-verbatim rehash of some past articles from here at AppleInsider, with some minor mentions of the upcoming WWDC tacked on to make it seem like a new article. The content in reality has very little connection to this year's WWDC in particular, the products/services/ventures/etc that may or may not be announced, etc. So, while the content of the article is all well and good, the whole thing feels a bit click-bait-ish to be honest.
I agree. I like most of DED articles, but is it neccesary to read the whole story of mankind at each editorial?
Edit: Hmmm...
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UnwashedMasses
Or hipsters, which btw purchase plenty of iOS devices.
Thank you for further validating apple and DED with your criticisms
Thank you thank you thank you
That's the great thing about these boards. They give people with nothing to say a place to say it.
Wow, so, are you not aware that Android, prior to the iPhone introduction, looked and worked NOTHING LIKE iOS? So all that crap about people around the world enjoying a modern smartphone experience due to Android is false. They are enjoying a modern smartphone experience because Apple, with the iPhone and iOS, led the way, and Google and Samsung and other Android smartphone vendors slavishly copied iOS and the multitouch interface of the iPhone. The iOS jailbreak community is a very tiny fraction of iPhone owners, by the way.
Touché
Wow, so, are you not aware that Android, prior to the iPhone introduction, looked and worked NOTHING LIKE iOS? So all that crap about people around the world enjoying a modern smartphone experience due to Android is false. They are enjoying a modern smartphone experience because Apple, with the iPhone and iOS, led the way, and Google and Samsung and other Android smartphone vendors slavishly copied iOS and the multitouch interface of the iPhone. The iOS jailbreak community is a very tiny fraction of iPhone owners, by the way.
Bah. I suspect he does know that. Sure, Apple led the way. They've been doing it for decades now. Leading the way means having followers; always has done, always will do. Tell me again why this matters.
No I don't feel profoundly shocked after all, sorry. Maybe I am callous dastard.
Apple has never (and I hope WILL never) had an obligation to pander to the unwashed masses. Apple makes the best products in the world, which, therefore, cost more. The unwashed are implicitly always welcome to come clean and aspire to Apple product ownership.
Ugh can we please not perpetuate the image of Apple users as pretentious. Servicing the underprivileged and accelerating access to smartphones for billions of users is a good thing, regardless of Google's aim to lock them into their services. Having the next billion have more options is only a good thing.
Perhaps you don't really mean to make the connotations that "unwashed masses" make, but that hopefully doesn't have a place here. Maybe a better term would be "lowest common denominator" or budget market.
Also DED - you don't get paid by the word, so maybe link to a past article on the history lesson, and focus on the "new"? I'm not sure when it felt like it got too long, but it wasn't near the end
Bah. I suspect he does know that. Sure, Apple led the way. They've been doing it for decades now. Leading the way means having followers; always has done, always will do. Tell me again why this matters.
Thievery always matters.
Whilst I understand the drum roll for Apple/IOS, this article is completely US centric. It ignores the larger global picture which suggests that many more people are enjoying smartphone access/choices than would have otherwise been possible with the introduction of Android.
It is also hard to ignore some of the design changes that have been foisted upon the apple community/ecosystem eg. ipad mini, iphone 6./6 which by the words of the founder would either never happen, or would never be wanted. In terms of software, you only have to look towards the jailbreak community to understand the often myopic stance taken by apple.
Competition is healthy, no matter which camp you are in.
To paraphrase what I said above: thievery is neither healthy nor competitive
Thievery always matters.
I see, it's a moral issue.
Feet back and spread 'em punks!
I see, it's a moral issue.
Feet back and spread 'em punks!
What is that word (m-o-r-a-l) meant to imply? That it does't matter, or matters less?
I am not getting your point.
What is that word (m-o-r-a-l) meant to imply? That it does't matter, or matters less?
I am not getting your point.
Why don't you start by telling me why it does matter.
Why don't you start by telling me why it does matter.
There's really nothing to tell you. I totally get it.
Insane.
There's really nothing to tell you. I totally get it.
Insane.
IOW, you can't explain your position, but you expect me to accept it anyway. Like that's supposed to happen.
This is not one of the moments that make me feel any pride at being an Apple fan. In fact it makes me feel like I wandered into something like a comic book convention surround by people living in a geeky fantasy world where none of the usual rules apply.
So much of this is reasoning is questionable, it's difficult to know where to begin taking it apart.
Start with the false "winners" and "losers" dichotomy. Normal markets are full of winners, each in competition and serving different segments. This is the definition of a healthy market. Most markets are healthy. The domination of the PC market by DOS/Windows in the 1980s and '90s was not healthy. In fact it was a freak of nature. The writer here doesn't seem to have any appreciation for how it came to be that way, and so looks for how history will repeat itself. Nobody who knows what happened back then expects that history to be repeated. They don't expect a winner, they expect multiple winners. Markets are not normally zero-sum games where someone has to wipe out everybody else.
But even more importantly, Apple and Google were never alike, not from the start. So that begs the question: how they can somehow become less alike?
To borrow from the bard: all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
So much of your reading comprehension is questionable, it's hard to know where to begin taking it apart. Seems like you didn't even read the article.
Start with the false "winners" and "losers" dichotomy. This, that you attribute to the author, was addressed by him as assumptions that pundits have long held in regards to Apple being in a "losing battle" for years, and in every market it may attempt to enter. Nevertheless, it is entirely reasonable to once in a while think in terms of Apple's being at least a winner, when it is so often proclaimed that it "lost" (the "PC wars") and that it will inevitably lose Mobile in the same way (to who other than Google?); it is generally the anti-Apple crowd that can't conceive of their being more than one "winner".
The assumption among pundits (not Daniel's) is that Apple is going about business entirely the wrong way (by, for example, eschewing marketshare and attempting to sell quality, premium hardware products instead of licensing software or platforms). Daniel looking for history to repeat itself? Did you read the article? He is criticizing those who would have Google's Android repeat, and for many of the same reasons, the heyday of MS' Windows -- the dominance of which, by the way, only those who appreciate Apple's products or business model have ever consistently realized was a freak of nature and not the natural order of the universe. And yes, the prevailing attitude has long been that Apple's iOS would be long dead and buried by now, and that Apple is only one inevitable misstep from complete and utter failure; after all, Gate's paltry 150M saved Apple back in the day, didn't it? (or did it?).
Of course there is plenty of room for numerous platforms and players. But it isn't easy to stay alive or relevant for any length of time. Let's give 150B (not Million) to Dell, RIMM, Nokia, Motorola or Sony and see where they are in 20 years. The "war" is entirely of the pundits making. They don't appreciate that Apple aimed at 1% of the mobile market, and that the iOS platform and developer interest can sustain itself indefinitely with a fast-approaching billion active users, having grown itself to that point, were Apple to never produce a new product category ever again.
Pundits constantly proclaim that Apple "loses" marketshare in mobile, though the addressable market appears to be growing, and though Android became the overnight, de-facto OS on mobile devices in 2010 because Google gave away to OEMs the only viable OS that could fill the vacuums left by MS, Palm, RIMM, Nokia, etc., as noted by Daniel, when it became evident they weren't up to the task of maintaining a modern mobile OS and platform. As users and OEM's alike become increasingly dissatisfied with and disenfranchised by Android, we can all yet hope that more players will indeed raise themselves up.
Daniel thinks that the markets are zero sum games? When he repeatedly writes about how Apple has brought whole new levels of value to Mobile and related industries (such as the whole "App Economy", mobile payments, micro enterprises, publishing, health & fitness, transit, etc.)? The only ones who think markets are zero-sum games are the pundits who laud the next new "iPhone Killer" every other week, with no appreciation of platform strength or what goes into the development of a great product -- only the vague notion that the "sale" of a few more give-away Android phones must result in the sale of fewer iPhones, yay.
Unfortunately, the business models of MS and Google have so far shown that they only really cannibalize their partners in the long run. Particularly in that Google and MS have indeed tried to emulate Apple in more ways than one (such as in producing profitable hardware, trying to regain control over their own platforms, professing that security and privacy may not be such bad ideas, etc.); but they have not been successful.
All the while, Apple is indeed differentiating itself from them in ways they either don't seem to care about or don't understand. Of course the companies were never alike. But you'd never know that from the pundity that proclaims, ho-hum, Apple is nothing special -- an Android device does more than an iOS device, and does it better (as though all the most wildly prognosticated potential benefits of Android and the myriad hardware choices out there somehow all manage to accrue within the single Android device that a customer may choose and have to live with).
But kudos to you for putting the shoe on entirely the wrong foot and grasping the stick at entirely the wrong end in every possible way. It's like you saw "Daniel Dilger" and thought it said, "Daniel Lyons".
So much of your reading comprehension is questionable, it's hard to know where to begin taking it apart. Seems like you didn't even read the article.
Leading with "reading comprehension" gambit? Nice. Got any more tired, old canards you want to lay on me?
This article, and your support of it, is loaded with the much the same form of "some say" logic. Who are these "some" exactly, and what do they "say," precisely? Lacking some minimum of disclosure of the persons and the arguments that you are attempting to refute, the result is simply vague and generalized straw man bashing. Easy, but not very sporting. Straw man bashing doesn't get any more convincing by adding length. Pesky but true.
My point is any argument that depends on the winning/losing dichotomy is bound to be wrong. The article doesn't take the position that the dichotomy is invalid, but instead tries to twist it to fit a different set of circumstances. Apple was supposed to "lose" (according to nameless "pundits" but they actually "won" according to AI). The premise is flawed, and it's awfully difficult to proceed from a false premise to an accurate conclusion, except by accident. The article doesn't get so lucky.
It doesn't take an appreciation of Apple's products to recognize that Microsoft's years of dominance were the result of a very specific set of circumstances that are highly unlikely to be repeated. All it takes is an appreciation of the history of the industry. That appreciation is not widely shared, in my experience. The article is unhelpful in that it perpetuates the myth of total market dominance being a norm, and to make matters worse, attributes that argument to nobody in particular strictly for the purpose making a counterargument. It's a cheap rhetorical trick. Sorry, I won't fall for it.
FWIW, Microsoft's $150M investment did not save Apple. This is essentially an urban legend.
The other point I made is that Apple has always differentiated itself. Apple has never been anything like either Microsoft or Google, so it's pure sophistry to argue that they are now becoming even less alike. Again an argument that does not benefit from abstraction or length.