Adobe Grrr

[PeterN]

ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?

TIA

[John A.]

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

No help; just a kvetch.

I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
the "cloud". Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only
makes sense to put things online if you need to access them elsewhere.

Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
but not interrupt use during a network outage.)

JA

[nospam]

Post by John A.

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

No help; just a kvetch.
I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
the "cloud". Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only
makes sense to put things online if you need to access them elsewhere.

that's exactly what happens.

Post by John A.
Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
but not interrupt use during a network outage.)

that's also exactly what happens.

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:52:06 -0400, John A. <***@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:27:44 -0400, PeterN <***@verizon.net> wrote:
:
: >ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
: >brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: >available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
: >a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
: >the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
: >Has anyone else had that experience?
: >
: >TIA
:
: No help; just a kvetch.
:
: I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
: the "cloud".

You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the
United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less.

: Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put
: things online if you need to access them elsewhere.

Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to
remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent
EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the
Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at
breathtaking speed.

: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)

Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.

Bob

[nospam]

Post by Robert Coe
: >ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
: >brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: >available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
: >a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
: >the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
: >Has anyone else had that experience?
: >
: >TIA
: No help; just a kvetch.
: I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
: the "cloud".
You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the
United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less.

that's right! everything should be free!

Post by Robert Coe
: Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put
: things online if you need to access them elsewhere.
Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to
remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent
EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the
Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at
breathtaking speed.

nobody is renting hard drives.

putting stuff in the cloud offers a service for which the provider is
entitled to compensation.

many cloud services offer a free tier with paid additional capacity. if
you don't need cloud access, don't subscribe. very simple.

and that's just storage. there's more to the cloud than storage.

Post by Robert Coe
: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)
Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.

nonsense, but even if that were true, so what?

is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a
problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars?

[PeterN]

Post by nospam

Post by Robert Coe
: >ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
: >brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: >available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
: >a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
: >the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
: >Has anyone else had that experience?
: >
: >TIA
: No help; just a kvetch.
: I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
: the "cloud".
You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the
United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less.

that's right! everything should be free!

Post by Robert Coe
: Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put
: things online if you need to access them elsewhere.
Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to
remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent
EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the
Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at
breathtaking speed.

nobody is renting hard drives.
putting stuff in the cloud offers a service for which the provider is
entitled to compensation.
many cloud services offer a free tier with paid additional capacity. if
you don't need cloud access, don't subscribe. very simple.
and that's just storage. there's more to the cloud than storage.

Post by Robert Coe
: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)
Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.

nonsense, but even if that were true, so what?

Agreed.

Post by nospam
is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a
problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars?

That is not the point. The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for. When the
vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the
product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's
called false and misleading advertixing.

[nospam]

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam

Post by Robert Coe
: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)
Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.

nonsense, but even if that were true, so what?

Agreed.

Post by nospam
is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a
problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars?

That is not the point.

it is the point.

if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

Post by PeterN
When the
vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the
product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's
called false and misleading advertixing.

who is doing that? nobody. why even bring that up?

[PeterN]

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam

Post by Robert Coe
: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)
Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.

nonsense, but even if that were true, so what?

Agreed.

Post by nospam
is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a
problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars?

That is not the point.

it is the point.

Nope see below.

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN
When the
vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the
product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's
called false and misleading advertixing.

who is doing that? nobody. why even bring that up?

Wrong. See above. Look further in this thread for citations.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing for you to argue about here.

If a tird party publishes an alternative that wuld work for me, I
certainly will revisit The subscription issue. I am the type of person
who has given, and pissed away thousands, accepted significant business
losses, but does not like being screwed for even one cent.

[nospam]

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.

did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?

if so, cite it.

[PeterN]

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.
did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?
if so, cite it.

Do read what this is about. NObody is talking about anything like that.
Do stop your strawman tactics.
For me EOD.

[nospam]

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.
did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?
if so, cite it.

Do read what this is about. NObody is talking about anything like that.
Do stop your strawman tactics.
For me EOD.

you brought it up, and as i expected. no cite.

[PeterN]

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.
did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?
if so, cite it.

Do read what this is about. NObody is talking about anything like that.
Do stop your strawman tactics.
For me EOD.

you brought it up, and as i expected. no cite.

You did read. Your response time was not enough for you to see my cites,
and read them.

[nospam]

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.
did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?
if so, cite it.

Do read what this is about. NObody is talking about anything like that.
Do stop your strawman tactics.
For me EOD.

you brought it up, and as i expected. no cite.

You did read. Your response time was not enough for you to see my cites,
and read them.

so much for eod.

[Savageduck]

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.
did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?
if so, cite it.

The problem is the Adobe Market & Typekit are touted as a feature of
CC. However, when the subscriber to the Photograph Plan try to access
either one, they are told they need to upgrade. They are not told this
in any of the marketing information for CC. They have to dig and
research, and bitch to discover why there subscription isn't good
enough to have the doors to the stores opened for them. That seems to
be short sightedness on the part of Adobe marketing.
Why on earth would I, currently paying $9.99/month for PS CC 2014 +
LR5, upgrade to the single app plan for PS CC 2014 only at 19.99/month
just to get my foot in the door of the store?

Adobe has a lesson to learn from Apple and the iTunes store here. Buy
access to any part of the CC and you should have access to developers &
vendors selling their wares for whatever apps you are subscribing to.
Fortunately it works that way for Add-Ons where Pay & Free items are
available. Like in the iTunes store some are useful and superb and add
to productivity and others are crap, some are free-bees setting the
bait for pay stuff, but that you can deal with.

We should have been told up front that when we subscribed and got all
that was actually touted, PC, LR5, Behance, 20GB CC storage that we
weren't getting access to the Market & Typekit.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.
did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?
if so, cite it.

The problem is the Adobe Market & Typekit are touted as a feature of CC.
However, when the subscriber to the Photograph Plan try to access either
one, they are told they need to upgrade. They are not told this in any of
the marketing information for CC. They have to dig and research, and bitch
to discover why there subscription isn't good enough to have the doors to
the stores opened for them. That seems to be short sightedness on the part
of Adobe marketing.
Why on earth would I, currently paying $9.99/month for PS CC 2014 + LR5,
upgrade to the single app plan for PS CC 2014 only at 19.99/month just to
get my foot in the door of the store?
Adobe has a lesson to learn from Apple and the iTunes store here. Buy
access to any part of the CC and you should have access to developers &
vendors selling their wares for whatever apps you are subscribing to.
Fortunately it works that way for Add-Ons where Pay & Free items are
available. Like in the iTunes store some are useful and superb and add to
productivity and others are crap, some are free-bees setting the bait for
pay stuff, but that you can deal with.
We should have been told up front that when we subscribed and got all that
was actually touted, PC, LR5, Behance, 20GB CC storage that we weren't
getting access to the Market & Typekit.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Indeed and a discussion like this tells me that Adobe are a software
supplier to avoid if possible.

[Savageduck]

On 2014-08-17 16:44:58 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

not a matter of "said." The point is that Adobe failed to properly
disclose its policy about the photography subscription. I have a right
to feel taken.

how did they do that? you got what you paid for.
did they say that all future plug-ins will be available to all users?
if so, cite it.

The problem is the Adobe Market & Typekit are touted as a feature of CC.
However, when the subscriber to the Photograph Plan try to access either
one, they are told they need to upgrade. They are not told this in any of
the marketing information for CC. They have to dig and research, and bitch
to discover why there subscription isn't good enough to have the doors to
the stores opened for them. That seems to be short sightedness on the part
of Adobe marketing.
Why on earth would I, currently paying $9.99/month for PS CC 2014 + LR5,
upgrade to the single app plan for PS CC 2014 only at 19.99/month just to
get my foot in the door of the store?
Adobe has a lesson to learn from Apple and the iTunes store here. Buy
access to any part of the CC and you should have access to developers &
vendors selling their wares for whatever apps you are subscribing to.
Fortunately it works that way for Add-Ons where Pay & Free items are
available. Like in the iTunes store some are useful and superb and add to
productivity and others are crap, some are free-bees setting the bait for
pay stuff, but that you can deal with.
We should have been told up front that when we subscribed and got all that
was actually touted, PC, LR5, Behance, 20GB CC storage that we weren't
getting access to the Market & Typekit.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Indeed and a discussion like this tells me that Adobe are a software
supplier to avoid if possible.

All griping aside, Photoshop + Lightroom gives me a workflow I am
comfortable and productive with. It remains the standard against which
all others of the genre are measured. It is far more balance in price
at $9.99/month than working out on the Adobe upgrade treadmill.
The disappointment is finding this one failing in their marketing plan.
However, that is not going to stop me from using PS + LR, but it
effectively blocks me from spending anything in their Market, and that
is dumb.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN

Post by nospam

Post by Robert Coe
: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent
lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)
Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's
where
we're
headed.

nonsense, but even if that were true, so what?

Agreed.

Post by nospam
is there something wrong with targeting the top tier? do you have a
problem with rolls royce and ferrari making very expensive cars?

That is not the point.

it is the point.
if someone doesn't want to pay the asking price, they can seek an
alternate solution. don't deny those who do want to pay the asking
price for the product or service.

Post by PeterN
The vendor ensures itself that the money received
is the agreed upon price.
The purchaser should receive exactly what he is paying for.

nobody said otherwise.

I think the point it that OP [thinks he] has already paid and does NOT want
to pay again.

One has this problem with BT.

Post by nospam

Post by PeterN
When the
vendor fails to disclose that a promotional price withholds part of the
product, is, IMHO unethical, if possiby illegal in some places. It's
called false and misleading advertixing.

who is doing that? nobody. why even bring that up?

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Robert Coe
: >ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
: >brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: >available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
: >a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
: >the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
: >Has anyone else had that experience?
: >
: >TIA
: No help; just a kvetch.
: I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
: the "cloud".
You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the
United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less.
: Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put
: things online if you need to access them elsewhere.
Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to
remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent
EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the
Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at
breathtaking speed.

No the judiciary eventually [s]quashed that. In the days you are talking
about computer equipment generally required regular routine maintenance, so
outright sale was unusual. The UK government bought some that were taken to
an unknown final destination, but had guys trained up to maintain them them.

Post by Robert Coe
: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)
Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.
Bob

[J. Clarke]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Robert Coe
: >ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
: >brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: >available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
: >a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
: >the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
: >Has anyone else had that experience?
: >
: >TIA
: No help; just a kvetch.
: I just don't get why so much that shouldn't be is being shoved into
: the "cloud".
You don't? Seriously? You must be either blind, deaf, or not a resident of the
United States. The answer is Capitalist GREED. Nothing more, nothing less.
: Hard drives are dirt cheap per MB, and it really only makes sense to put
: things online if you need to access them elsewhere.
Wait until you have to rent HDs instead of buying them. I'm old enough to
remember when IBM had a hammer lock on computer equipment, and you had to rent
EVERYTHING. The Government eventually quashed that, but that was before the
Era of the Republican Party. Back we're going to go, and probably at
breathtaking speed.

No the judiciary eventually [s]quashed that. In the days you are talking
about computer equipment generally required regular routine maintenance, so
outright sale was unusual. The UK government bought some that were taken to
an unknown final destination, but had guys trained up to maintain them them.

Just an aside but at the time that the lawsuit was resolved the
Republicans controlled the Senate and Ronald Reagan was President, so it
was far more the "era of the Republican Party" then than it is now.

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Robert Coe
: Okay, I get that there's a romanticization of it this early on, and a
: business (profiteering) case for making software subscription-based,
: but I think things will eventually settle into place, and that
: software vendors will find better ways to enforce subscriptions, like
: say having it "phone home" periodically (not every use) to make sure
: the subscription is still good and assume it is good unless the
: connection fails X times in a row (to prevent lock-in-by-user-firewall
: but not interrupt use during a network outage.)
Of course they'll get better at it, but the problem is that the subscription
model favors the 1%. (Actually, make that the .01%, because that's where we're
headed.
Bob

[Savageduck]

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade.
Isn't a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the
question on the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a
technical problem. Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

Hmmm, I just tried to download a brush from the market to test, and had
the same experience.
I tried the upgrade button and was taken to a CC purchase page with no
option to log in as a subscriber, as I was already logged in. I am not
bothering with live chat, but I will be calling Adobe later this
morning to bitch.

I have had no issue downloading and installing stuff from "Add-Ons".
Menu->Help->Browse Add-Ons..

[PeterN]

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my subscription,
I would have complete access.

I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

[Savageduck]

Post by PeterN

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my
subscription, I would have complete access.

That doesn't make sense. If you click on that upgrade now it takes you
to the subscribe page where the first option is the $9.99/month
Photography Program.
I didn't call Adobe today, I will tomorrow.

Post by PeterN
I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

In the "Add Ons" page there are pay & free extensions and stuff and I
have got a few things there.

[PeterN]

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my
subscription, I would have complete access.

That doesn't make sense. If you click on that upgrade now it takes you
to the subscribe page where the first option is the $9.99/month
Photography Program.
I didn't call Adobe today, I will tomorrow.

Post by PeterN
I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

In the "Add Ons" page there are pay & free extensions and stuff and I
have got a few things there.

I saw one brush I wanted to try.

From the Adobe FAQ website on the subject.

"Why don't photography plan customers get access to Creative Cloud Market?


Creative Cloud Market is a new benefit that has been added to certain
paid Creative Cloud plans, and is not included in the entitlements for
photography plan customers. Some Creative Cloud services, such a
Creative Cloud Market, TypeKit, and ProSite are only available to Single
App or Complete Creative Cloud plans. To download and use Creative Cloud
Market content, upgrade to either Creative Cloud Single App or Complete
plans."

<https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/market.html>

[PeterN]

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my
subscription, I would have complete access.

That doesn't make sense. If you click on that upgrade now it takes you
to the subscribe page where the first option is the $9.99/month
Photography Program.
I didn't call Adobe today, I will tomorrow.

Post by PeterN
I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

In the "Add Ons" page there are pay & free extensions and stuff and I
have got a few things there.

I saw one brush I wanted to try.
From the Adobe FAQ website on the subject.
"Why don't photography plan customers get access to Creative Cloud Market?
Creative Cloud Market is a new benefit that has been added to certain
paid Creative Cloud plans, and is not included in the entitlements for
photography plan customers. Some Creative Cloud services, such a
Creative Cloud Market, TypeKit, and ProSite are only available to Single
App or Complete Creative Cloud plans. To download and use Creative Cloud
Market content, upgrade to either Creative Cloud Single App or Complete
plans."
<https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/market.html>

From the same page:


"Do I need a Creative Cloud membership?


Creative Cloud Market is available to all paid Creative Cloud members.
Single app and complete members with any plan—single user, Team,
Education, or Enterprise—are eligible. Users can access Creative Cloud
Market through Creative Cloud for desktop app.

Creative Cloud Photography plan members are not eligible to access
Market through Creative Cloud for desktop. Free members can browse
Market assets through Creative Cloud for desktop but cannot download
content."

Cheap is cheap.

The answer is clear. The only possibility is if enough people raise a
fuss, but I doubt if that will happen. Things are what they are.

[Savageduck]

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my
subscription, I would have complete access.

That doesn't make sense. If you click on that upgrade now it takes you
to the subscribe page where the first option is the $9.99/month
Photography Program.
I didn't call Adobe today, I will tomorrow.

Post by PeterN
I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

In the "Add Ons" page there are pay & free extensions and stuff and I
have got a few things there.

I saw one brush I wanted to try.
From the Adobe FAQ website on the subject.
"Why don't photography plan customers get access to Creative Cloud Market?
Creative Cloud Market is a new benefit that has been added to certain
paid Creative Cloud plans, and is not included in the entitlements for
photography plan customers. Some Creative Cloud services, such a
Creative Cloud Market, TypeKit, and ProSite are only available to
Single App or Complete Creative Cloud plans. To download and use
Creative Cloud Market content, upgrade to either Creative Cloud Single
App or Complete plans."
<https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/market.html>

Well there is the answer. The problem is, if you click on that upgrade
button the first choice they give you is the Photography plan with no
disclaimer that it isn;t eligible.

For now I will just browse through what is available via Add-Ons.

[PeterN]

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my
subscription, I would have complete access.

That doesn't make sense. If you click on that upgrade now it takes you
to the subscribe page where the first option is the $9.99/month
Photography Program.
I didn't call Adobe today, I will tomorrow.

Post by PeterN
I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

In the "Add Ons" page there are pay & free extensions and stuff and I
have got a few things there.

I saw one brush I wanted to try.
From the Adobe FAQ website on the subject.
"Why don't photography plan customers get access to Creative Cloud Market?
Creative Cloud Market is a new benefit that has been added to certain
paid Creative Cloud plans, and is not included in the entitlements for
photography plan customers. Some Creative Cloud services, such a
Creative Cloud Market, TypeKit, and ProSite are only available to
Single App or Complete Creative Cloud plans. To download and use
Creative Cloud Market content, upgrade to either Creative Cloud Single
App or Complete plans."
<https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/market.html>

Well there is the answer. The problem is, if you click on that upgrade
button the first choice they give you is the Photography plan with no
disclaimer that it isn;t eligible.
For now I will just browse through what is available via Add-Ons.

Me too, but only if it's something I think I will use.
I have a problem though, with the lack of disclosure and just emailed
Adobe telling them about my displeasure.

[Savageduck]

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my
subscription, I would have complete access.

That doesn't make sense. If you click on that upgrade now it takes you
to the subscribe page where the first option is the $9.99/month
Photography Program.
I didn't call Adobe today, I will tomorrow.

Post by PeterN
I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

In the "Add Ons" page there are pay & free extensions and stuff and I
have got a few things there.

I saw one brush I wanted to try.
From the Adobe FAQ website on the subject.
"Why don't photography plan customers get access to Creative Cloud Market?
Creative Cloud Market is a new benefit that has been added to certain
paid Creative Cloud plans, and is not included in the entitlements for
photography plan customers. Some Creative Cloud services, such a
Creative Cloud Market, TypeKit, and ProSite are only available to
Single App or Complete Creative Cloud plans. To download and use
Creative Cloud Market content, upgrade to either Creative Cloud Single
App or Complete plans."
<https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/market.html>

Well there is the answer. The problem is, if you click on that upgrade
button the first choice they give you is the Photography plan with no
disclaimer that it isn;t eligible.
For now I will just browse through what is available via Add-Ons.

Me too, but only if it's something I think I will use.
I have a problem though, with the lack of disclosure and just emailed
Adobe telling them about my displeasure.

I agree, they kept that part of the package vague, and one is left
wondering why.

I have picked up some stuff such as some free textures just so i can
make this sort of fix to Jonas's blown highlight photo. ;-)
https://db.tt/FT3Yns5j

[PeterN]

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by Savageduck

Post by PeterN

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

I found the answer to my question.
The brushes in Adobe Market are not available to photography
subscribers. If I paid more money and actually upgraded my
subscription, I would have complete access.

That doesn't make sense. If you click on that upgrade now it takes you
to the subscribe page where the first option is the $9.99/month
Photography Program.
I didn't call Adobe today, I will tomorrow.

Post by PeterN
I browsed through the assets and found nothing there to make it woth
purchasing an upgrade.
Others may find it worth it, but I do not.

In the "Add Ons" page there are pay & free extensions and stuff and I
have got a few things there.

I saw one brush I wanted to try.
From the Adobe FAQ website on the subject.
"Why don't photography plan customers get access to Creative Cloud Market?
Creative Cloud Market is a new benefit that has been added to certain
paid Creative Cloud plans, and is not included in the entitlements for
photography plan customers. Some Creative Cloud services, such a
Creative Cloud Market, TypeKit, and ProSite are only available to
Single App or Complete Creative Cloud plans. To download and use
Creative Cloud Market content, upgrade to either Creative Cloud Single
App or Complete plans."
<https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/market.html>

Well there is the answer. The problem is, if you click on that upgrade
button the first choice they give you is the Photography plan with no
disclaimer that it isn;t eligible.
For now I will just browse through what is available via Add-Ons.

Me too, but only if it's something I think I will use.
I have a problem though, with the lack of disclosure and just emailed
Adobe telling them about my displeasure.

I agree, they kept that part of the package vague, and one is left
wondering why.
I have picked up some stuff such as some free textures just so i can
make this sort of fix to Jonas's blown highlight photo. ;-)
https://db.tt/FT3Yns5j

Nice adjustment. I would have toned down the foreground highlights. To
me, they detract from a neat image.

[Ron C]

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

PeterN:

You screwed up your cross post list, so responses
to this thread show up twice in "rec.photo.digital"

==
Later...
Ron C
--

[PeterN]

Post by Ron C

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

You screwed up your cross post list, so responses
to this thread show up twice in "rec.photo.digital"
==
Later...
Ron C
--

I never noticed two postings in rec.photo.digital. I guess thunderbird
took care of my mistake.

[Savageduck]

Post by Ron C

Post by PeterN
ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download a
brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade. Isn't
a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the question on
the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a technical problem.
Has anyone else had that experience?
TIA

You screwed up your cross post list, so responses
to this thread show up twice in "rec.photo.digital"

That is odd, as no duplicates have appeared in my Usenet client,
Unison. That is regardless of the additional rec.photo.digital.
Loading Image...

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 02:27:44 -0400, PeterN <***@verizon.net> wrote:
: ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download
: a brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade.
: Isn't a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the
: question on the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a
: technical problem. Has anyone else had that experience?
:
: TIA


And the surprise is ????? Surely we all knew that this was the
intended/inevitable consequence of the PS move to the "cloud".

Bob

[PeterN]

Post by Robert Coe
: ccI have a photography subscription to CC. When I tried to download
: a brush from the CC market I was told that market items are only
: available to paid subscribers, and was asked if I want to upgrade.
: Isn't a photography subscription a paid subscription. I posed the
: question on the contact Adobe live chat, but was told it was a
: technical problem. Has anyone else had that experience?
: TIA
And the surprise is ????? Surely we all knew that this was the
intended/inevitable consequence of the PS move to the "cloud".
Bob

The only surprise is the failure to disclose up front.