Member Offer
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Illegal Adobe Software

Discussion in 'Adobe Forum:' started by Jamo, Jan 1, 2009.

?

Do you use illegal software?

  1. Yes I do

    23 vote(s)
    37.7%
  2. No I don't

    11 vote(s)
    18.0%
  3. I have in the past

    27 vote(s)
    44.3%
  1. Paul Murray

    Paul Murray Moderator Staff Member

    I understand the need to keep start-up costs down, but paying monthly is much easier on the wallet than having to fork out for everything in one go. Plus, £45 a month is really not a great expenditure for a business. I like the incentive of a flat reduced rate for start-ups/freelancers in their first year, but the declaring of profits made through the packages is hard to calculate or enforce. But, don't forget that a company with 10 designers will need to purchase 10 licenses (though they can get a reduced cost through buying in volume), where as a sole-trader can get by with just one.

    The point I'm making is Adobe produce a set of powerful, high-end tools intended for businesses and their pricing reflects that. It's the same with 3D modelling an animation packages – they are intended to be used by professionals who make a lot of money through the software. Consumers and sole-traders aren't really their target market, hence the price-tag.
     
  2. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    That's exactly the problem here.

    I would prefer a one off charge for the software rather than a monthly subscription. If you pay this and run your business for a year that's £540! Over three years it's £1,620. Compared to before when say you bought CS6 and used it for three years on average, they just upped their price by about a thousand pounds.

    I agree that declaring of profits by companies and honesty is an issue though, but it's just an option that most companies would probably not want and it could be limited to the first year of business. I think it could work, they'd probably lose money from businesses fraudulently declaring earnings, but seeking compensation or even knowing about it is probably about as hard as knowing who is using illegal versions. What they lose in some businesses not declaring they would gain from people choosing to use their software legitimately.
     
  3. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    If you already have CS3 or later you can get the CC for £30 per month

    If you don't then it's £50 a month.

    If you're not making £50 a month doing design then you're in the wrong business.

    In reality - 1 hours work should cover it.

    Or you can pay a whole year up front for £600

    If you can't make £600 a year then you're in the wrong business.
     
  4. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    So are you saying that if I can make a minimum £30 per month then that justifies Adobe charging me £30 per month.

    It's seriously that easy to make money in graphic design? I don't think so. Tell me your secrets Richard Branson.
     
  5. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    I'm saying

    If you can't afford £30 a month then you're in the wrong business.

    Adobe employ staff who deserved to be paid.

    They charge you to use their products.

    This enables them to pay the staff for the products you use to make a living with.


    Why should you get to use the software for free and all the staff that make the products get nothing in return?
     
  6. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    Are you having difficulty grasping the details of the point I'm making here?

    How much do the latest state of the art video games cost? Are you saying they are easier to design than the adobe creative suite?

    They can charge what they like, if folk can afford to pay for it they'll pay for it, if they can't they wont. Drop the price of your eggs and you'll sell more eggs. Then everyone will have eggs and everyone will be happy.
     
  7. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    I don't think you grasp the concept. If you can't make enough money to buy eggs, then you need to make more money or you won't be able to do the rest of your shopping.

    This is ridiculous.

    It's very cheap on a monthly basis. My gym membership is more than the CC suite per month.


    Pure and simple - you won't accomplish anything here - Adobe employees don't read random forums.

    You can contact them here https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform


    There's no cheaper subscription model.

    Adobe have a very capable team of working out the best selling price for their products.

    I'm sure they've thought about what you're proposing.


    Your only choice is to become a student and get it cheaper - but the EU version of CC in the EULA prohibits you using the software for commercial or for profit purposes.



    You don't have a choice - either pay the money for the software, or you don't get the software.


    Nobody can do anything about your proposal here.


    But it still stands - if you can't make the money in a month to pay for the software then there's something wrong with your business.


    If you liked - and didn't have a lot of money - you could get another job earning the cash for the software and do work on the side.


    A lot of people start that way.
     
  8. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    This is like saying

    I want to start professional photography and do weddings.

    I have no clients though.

    The camera is a £1,500 for a really good professional camera.

    I should get the camera for cheaper because I am only starting out ... that's fairer!

    Or - it's ok for me to steal the camera because I don't have many clients and I can't afford the camera.
     
  9. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    Nice that you can afford a gym membership too. You're obviously a business guru so I'll bow to your superior knowledge and yield. I was just trying to explore the debate a bit deeper, but obviously it merely requires your limited, simplistic way of looking at it.
     
  10. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    Well - I'm not going to converse with someone who is being rude to me.

    Good luck.
     
  11. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    The whole idea of their inflated prices is based on the idea that companies are making a lot of money out of using their software to design things and this not only prices smaller business out of the market but it also gives businesses that make a lot of money an unfair advantage.

    Do Jewson put up the prices of it's tools because companies make a lot of money building houses with them, or do they sell them at the cheapest competitive market rate?

    I think my idea of a commission based cloud rental scheme is a workable solution to this, but then I'm guessing adobe don't care so long as they are making lots of money.
     
  12. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    Adobe don't care because they don't read this forum...

    Inflated prices? Again - get it through - if you can't afford £30 a month then you probably shouldn't be in business!

    Comparing to a completely different product is pointless... the same economics don't apply.


    Commission based cloud rental might work? Who knows? But it opens up piracy again - which is important.


    I don't know if you were around the whole Internet Piracy thing.

    But basically companies that made millions refused to pay software or even hardware.

    Companies even refused to license fonts - back in the day you'd send a job to a printers and send them all the files, including the font... and font vendors were not getting their fair share - as 1,000,000's of design houses received fonts - they didn't purchase the fonts. That meant font purchasers were out of pocket and out of business.


    Then software started to be pirated. It was awful - as a result the price of the software rose considerably.


    Now they have pulled back on the things causing chaos to the industry. Make it safer for businesses to be in business.


    Again if you can't afford £30 a month then you're doing something wrong.


    I wish it was £300 a month - but that wouldn't be fair.
     
  13. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    So it's so expensive now because people weren't getting paid for owning fonts then. Who cares about the fonts. Get rid of them all but one. I only want to use two or maybe three of the suite as well, but apparently if you want more than 2 you might as well buy the whole package. Tailored to your needs while their filling their pockets.
     
  14. @GCarlD

    @GCarlD Well-Known Member

    My view on this is that if you can afford to pay for it you should. There is absolutely no need to get illegal software if you can afford to buy the real deal. If you can't afford it, then it's up to the individual to do what they have to, to shape their future. I wouldn't expect a student to be able to fork out hundreds or thousands of pounds, on software they may or may not end up having any use for in their future careers. If they don't try it for themselves and learn as much as they can, they will never know what could of been or what they could be 'destined' to become. I am neither for nor against it, but I would like to think that people that do use illegal software generally can't afford it and has a real need for them. Yes, there are free alternatives, but they are nothing in comparison to Adobe. Again, it would be far more beneficial for a student to have a copy and learn to use Adobe products rather than the alternatives, as if their future careers lead them down the design path, they are going to need to be efficient in the industry standard Adobe software.

    I personally dislike the new CC subscription payment scheme, I prefer it the way it was, as with all things I like to save up and pay for my products outright. I will happily stick with my CS6 for as long as it will remain up to date enough for me to be able to do my job efficiently. I predict it has a few more years lifespan, I'm sure I won't be missing out on too much with CC7 ,8 or even 9!

    I have seen you post these similar type of comments before, while I completely understand your views and where you are coming from, I do find saying to someone "If you're not making x-amount of pounds a month doing design then you're in the wrong business" slightly agitating. Years ago if I had listened to advice like this, I would of given up and I don't know what would of happened to me, as design is all I know, it's the only thing I consider myself to be good at and most importantly, enjoy. To this day I don't charge £50 per hour, (not that I work via an hourly rate).

    I'd like to think that most people aren't ignorant enough to choose not to pay for the software, because they can get it illegally for free. They choose not to pay for it because they generally can't afford it, e.g. Most students.
    I'm not saying if you can't afford it then ok to use illegal software. I'm basically stating, each to their owns conscience but people who do use these products illegally shouldn't be looked down on or judged, as they are hopefully more then likely going to be able to afford them in the future and will be more than happy to pay whatever it costs for its use.
     
  15. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    Fonts are software too - you pay for fonts because people spend time developing them.

    If you want only 1 font then you pay for it - why should you get it for free?


    If you want just 1 app - then on an annual payment it's £250 per year, including applicable tax/VAT


    If I remember correctly - it was far more expensive to buy the software outright - and it was far more expensive to get the upgrade.


    With a yearly subscription for 1 app it's quite low compared to the older model.



    For the entire suite of Apps it's £360 a year - if you already had a Creative Suite previously.
     
  16. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member


    I understand that it's agitating. But does an artist go out and steal their canvas and art supplies? Or ask to pay for less simply because they are only starting out?


    Yeh if you enjoy working with Adobe apps you pay for them. It wasn't a good business model to allow people to buy the software outright. This really opened the door to piracy.


    Now the business model has made it cheaper for the individual on a yearly basis. And it's reduced piracy.

    Yeh - you have to pay per App or for a yearly subscription.


    But I don't go to a gym for free - I go either on pay as you go scheme or a yearly membership.

    I pay for public transport, on a pay as you go scheme or as a weekly/monthly/yearly ticket.



    I really don't understand why people are opposed to paying for a service.

    If you really love it - then you have to come up with the cash to pay for it.


    It's a really simple model - and there's different payment options.
     
  17. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    I reckon you must work for adobe or something.

    Got any evidence that it's reduced piracy significantly? You can't pirate CC, but anyone who can't afford the extortionate new rates will likely be using an earlier version.
     
  18. STU9000

    STU9000 Member

    I don't go to a gym either because the rates they charge are so extortionate. Instead I use a free local outdoor gym from the great outdoor gym company, a set of dumbells that cost me £30, a bike that cost me £200 and my legs for hillwalking. Gym's are luxuries, and you don't really need them to keep fit anyway.

    I also rarely use public transport because it's so expensive, but the money I save on bus fares I also save on gym memberships because of the exercise I gain from the extra walking and cycling.

    People are willing to pay a fair rate for anything, and if they can't afford it they'll find a way that's cheaper. Not everything of value can be measured in abstract monetary terms.

    Adobe's suite is good, but for the general photoshop/illustrator user I don't believe that it can't be developed and sold for a fraction of what they are charging now. Strip them down to their bare bones and they are not really that advanced pieces of software that require much development to keep them up to date.
     
  19. hankscorpio

    hankscorpio Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't realise you were software developer?


    There is a stripped down versions of Photoshop - it's called Photoshop Elements

    There's an open source called "Gimp" but it doesn't have CMYK support or Pantone.

    Same with Inkscape - but it's pretty decent.


    For InDesign you can use Scribus - but the last time I checked this out it didn't support a lot of print ready things, like CMYK, transparencies, native PDF export etc.

    There's always Quark - but in my experience it's way behind InDesign.


    There are other "cheaper" alternatives to any software. Is it as good as the full payload of Adobe CC? No it's not - but you get what you pay for.


    For everything your arguing there are already solutions out there.


    I have a complete list of all Open Source programmes that can be installed for free that you would get with Adobe CC.

    Are they great? They work and do the job but they're not as good.


    The real downside to using Open Source programmes is that a lot of professional businesses wouldn't take the File Format if you sent it to them. They could charge extra, and they probably won't be very happy that you've done so.

    But that's another story.


    Back to the matter - nobody is forcing you to buy Adobe! You can go buy Corel, or buy Xara, or

    Raster - Comparison of raster graphics editors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Vector - Comparison of vector graphics editors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    CAD - Comparison of computer-aided design editors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Infographics - List of information graphics software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    MindMpas - List of concept- and mind-mapping software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    3D software - List of 3D computer graphics software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Presentations - Presentation program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    DTP - Desktop publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    There is nobody forcing you to buy and use Adobe.

    There is no reason to Pirate the software - or any software! In fact it's illegal!

    And there's certainly no need to worry about not being able to afford Adobe's software.

    They put into place a way to cut down on Piracy - and it's working very well.

    It's relatively cheap to buy the software and use it.
     
  20. bigdave

    bigdave Moderator Staff Member

    So what you're saying is that people who don't want to pay for creative suite should find a free, legal alternative rather than downloading an illegal copy?
     

Share This Page