PC or Mac

View testimonialsView Artwork
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: PC or Mac

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    852
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 27 Times in 15 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    PC or Mac

    im planning on buying a new computer for my artworks, iv allways used my dads comp when painting digital paintings, but now im finaly buying one for myself, but i cant deside if im gonna choose a mac or pc, so i ask u pro's, what does photoshop work best on, pc or mac?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,678 Times in 5,021 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Photoshop works fine on either. The question is which do you work better on.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    699
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 173 Times in 120 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Art programs work on either, and the abilities of both are pretty much the same. Mainly it depends on how you like the operating system. PCs are cheaper, more customizeable, and in my opinion easier to fix. They also seem to run just a little faster. Macs are more expensive but have a sleeker design, and...well, they're Macs. Kind of a category all their own.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mac's are faster but more expensive. Also you should know that there is a lot of illegal softwere for pc's but not very much for mac's so if you want to use illegal stuff..
    I am working at a PC but when I have the money I would go for a Mac

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    767
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I prefer pc's because they give you more options with both the software and hardware. As far as I am aware you cannot upgrade macs but you can with pc's. Considering the higher costs of buying a mac I would go with a pc.

    Also Apple seem to make every file format unique to thier programs. Which makes life difficult when working with different people and programs.

    Macs seem alot of style over substance but that is just my thoughts.

    Have faith, these things should never be easy.

    www.ianjlee.co.uk

    New Artists Seeking Help Come Here - A mutual learning thread for learning the basics of drawing. Everyone's welcome.

    The Sketchlings

    Vigostar
    Bumskee
    Loomer
    Infinitum
    Sve
    Diego
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    852
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 27 Times in 15 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    yeah, but the thing is that my dad has a mac, cuz he sais thats for "proffesionals", so if i buy a mac i get photoshop free from my dad ( gonna copy it ), but if i buy a pc i have to buy photoshop itself, wich is expensive

    Thnx for the quick response guys, apreciate it

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,678 Times in 5,021 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Then buy a Mac. I don't see any downside, and you won't be sorry.
    All professional programs you would be using are completely cross-platform in terms of file format.
    As for ugradability, low end Macs (iMacs & minis) aren't particularly ugradable (except for RAM, of course), but the towers certainly are.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Man, this could get ugly quick if the zealots of both parties get involved.

    I use a PC at work, and a Mac at home. I know them both inside and out. OSX is by far the more stable operating system. You get much more free software with the mac that can make up for the seemingly 'premium' price they command. They are, in general, better designed hardware than the 'typical' PC. They are undeniably 'cooler'.

    On the other hand, PCs ARE more upgradable (albeit that's somewhat overrated), cheaper to initially purchase, and they do run Photoshop and Painter as well as non-mac software (rarely the other way around). In certain respects, I prefer Windows XP, but only in certain, minor respects.

    Finally, your Dad's copy of Photoshop has likely been 'activated' and might not be able to be installed on your Mac. Also, I believe that's called stealing. Others slam me all you like, but it's piracy on a large scale, NOT comparable to giving someone a mix CD or sending an MP3. Think twice before you do it. My 2 cents.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    753
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 62 Times in 58 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    It's all personal preference. As several people have stated, Photoshop is pretty much identical on both systems as far as functionality goes. It's up to you to decide which OS you work more quickly on and which system better fits your lifestyle. I personally prefer the Windows OS, but I know plenty of people who prefer Macs. It's all up to you, and the decision probably won't affect what you do too much.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    767
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Datameister is right. Its personnal preference really. But if you intend to do art professionally you should buy your own version of photoshop. My thinking is if you intend to make money from something then you should pay for it.

    You don't need to have the full version though. From a digital painting point of view photoshop elements has all you need. The only thing it dosn't have is channels and the path tool as far as I can tell.

    Have faith, these things should never be easy.

    www.ianjlee.co.uk

    New Artists Seeking Help Come Here - A mutual learning thread for learning the basics of drawing. Everyone's welcome.

    The Sketchlings

    Vigostar
    Bumskee
    Loomer
    Infinitum
    Sve
    Diego
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Posts
    852
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 27 Times in 15 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by thraktor
    I believe that's called stealing. Others slam me all you like, but it's piracy on a large scale, NOT comparable to giving someone a mix CD or sending an MP3. Think twice before you do it. My 2 cents.
    i think its redicoulus for a 14 year old like me to use so much money only for a hobby. Im not a professional artist that would make money on using this software. But yes, think it would be stealing, of MY money.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    147
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    As a former software developer who knows all about piracy and the real costs it inflicts on the industry (tiny in reality, pirated copies != lost sales, you can't assume that every pirate would buy a copy of your program if they had to), I can say one thing... Use your dad's version of Photoshop at first, then buy your own license later if you decide to pursue this.

    1. Software activation is a Windows only thing. The Mac version doesn't require it (mine didn't). Honestly, the whole activation thing is a bad idea and I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe drops it altogether since it doesn't prevent piracy at all and it greatly inconveniences legitimate users.

    2. It sounds like you're still kind of starting out. You might not even know for sure yet if this whole "making pictures for a living" thing is really for you. Don't drop $500-600 on something that could end up collecting dust.

    I've changed careers once already, and before I chose the first career, I must've changed my mind about my life a dozen or more times. It happens.

    I'm going to be dead honest with people right now. I used Photoshop for a couple years before I bought my own copy. It's important to note that I did, in fact, buy my own copy (and I buy all of my graphics software nowadays), but I was not going to do that before I actually knew I was going to need it. If Photoshop only cost a hundred bucks (or heck, even a couple of hundred), I'd say buy it. But the price of this stuff is truly prohibitive for somebody just starting out, for somebody who is still exploring all of their possibilities and for somebody who doesn't have all of their equipment and supplies yet.

    You shouldn't have to go into debt just to start tinkering with the tools of the trade, and the developers of this software shouldn't demand that of you, it's unethical to expect every potential illustrator and designer to pony up thousands of dollars just to get started, but people seem to accept it as the way of the world anyway. If paintbrushes cost as much as Photoshop does, there'd be no Picasso, Monet or Van Gogh.

    I don't approve of software piracy in general, and I do wholeheartedly believe that once someone starts to take their work seriously, they need to invest in the tools of their trade. But when you're just starting out, get what you can however you can. Buy, borrow or copy. Once you've learned the skills of the trade and you feel comfortable making the decision to do this for the rest of your life, then you start buying things, and then you start feeling bad about the things you haven't bought yet.

    Software developers already understand this to a certain extent. Academic pricing is a conceit to this reality, but Adobe's academic prices are still way out of whack. They used to be lower, but then Adobe's marketing division realized they could make more money selling large scale licenses to universities than they could selling academic copies to students (and profit was never the point of selling academic copies, it was about building brand loyalty and ensuring that there was a community of professional users available to market to -- ie, they didn't all drop out of design school for lack of funds). Now that Adobe has conquered the graphics software market, brand loyalty is a moot point. In order to maximize the profit potential of university licenses, Adobe had to accomplish two goals.

    1. Encourage students to use university computers rather than their own, which in turn encourages universities to increase their facility spending.

    2. Make as much money off of each university licensed copy as possible.

    Raising the academic price of Photoshop from $100 (which is about what it was when I was in college the first time around) to $250 (which is about what it is now) accomplishes both of those goals.

    Adobe's hard working programmers aren't going to get laid off and their kids aren't going to starve if every new designer and student uses a pirated copy of Photoshop for a year or so before buying their own legal copy. They make most of their money on typefaces anyway.

    Honestly, I think piracy of Adobe software would plummet if they acknowledged this reality and gave us a legal means of using Photoshop for a while, like a temporary lease. Pay us a hundred bucks now and you can use a full version of the latest Photoshop release for a full year. Pay us the rest of the amount at the end of the year and we'll give you any updated vesions if they were released and remove the timer from your software. Don't pay us and your software deletes itself (or whatever).

    Sure the system could be hacked to give someone a hundred dollar version of Photoshop, but someone who does that would hack the full version anyway without paying anything at all. At least this would get some revenue from the tens of thousands of "honest" users who don't want to pirate Photoshop but feel they have to. Most software pirates aren't dishonest people. They're just people trying to get something done with limited resources. The industry's current attempts to demonize piracy just end up alienating them from a huge population of their existing user base, a group of people they should be trying to find ways to make money off of rather than trying to put them all in jail.

    If you can't change the world (and in this case, they can't), you should try to make the best of it, however it is. The first software company that figures this out and puts this philosophy into action is going to bury their competition.

    -------------------------
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    delaware
    Posts
    602
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Amen MEP.
    I am about to buy the entire academic adobe suite as soon as i raise the money. I honeslty own two desktops. One is a Mac and the other is a PC. I will be honest to you, my dual 2 gigahertz G5 whups my friends 3.06 Gigahertz Xenon Dual processors ass with graphic design stuff. He has the edge over me with gaming but i dont care about that. And i recently upgraded my videocard and put another 2 gigs of ram into the Mac. You can upgrade a mac it just costs more and youll need to do it less.

    If I were you I honestly would find the nearest Apple store and play around with one. If you like it you like it if you dont you dont.

    "Is Japan in the future?" Rob ( Co-worker)
    "Wait.. What?" Me
    " They are almost done tommorow and I haven't even started tommorow" Rob
    " They are called timezones Rob.."
    " Oh Yeah" Rob

    - SSGXXXVI - The Dirty Thirty Six -
    Unknown Epiphany EKU_11 Jska Frumious_Me
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    MEP
    I have to agree with you. I also use a non legal version of Adobe software. Not because I don't want to pay but just because I can't. I am only 17 years so $500 - $600 is a lot of money for me. I could get my drivenlicince from that.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Not to hijack this thread (but here goes), but that's why they have Adobe Elements. So non-professionals and students can purchase 80% of the functionality at about 20% of the price - that's a damn good deal. Oh, that's also why there are usually 'academic licenses' of the full versions of popular software. If you don't figure out if you're going to stick with it while using Elements, then you don't need to be stealing the full version. I agree, however, that the activation routine is silly.

    Adobe owes people nothing other than a good product at a fair price ("fair and good" meaning setting a price that people are willing to pay; and evidentally plenty people are). They've done that with both the full and Elements versions. Buy the one you can afford, save up for the one you want. But stop pushing the "I can't afford it so I'm going to steal it" stuff. You think that works with cars? How about with power tools? There is NO DIFFERENCE.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Oh, also - this "Photoshop costs too much money!" argument would be more toothy if everybody wasn't holding a $300 iPod, and two other previous generation iPods gathering dust.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    767
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I agree with you totally you thraktor. With photoshop elements on the market there is no need to steal a copy. Elements does all that is needed from a digital painting point of view. The missing tools are mainly for photo manipulation anyway.

    I can not afford the full version but that doesn't mean I would steel it. Even if I Elements wasn't around there are still free programs like the gimp.

    Have faith, these things should never be easy.

    www.ianjlee.co.uk

    New Artists Seeking Help Come Here - A mutual learning thread for learning the basics of drawing. Everyone's welcome.

    The Sketchlings

    Vigostar
    Bumskee
    Loomer
    Infinitum
    Sve
    Diego
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hi MEP. You're written a very long, passionate dissertation... but you're just plain wrong. Nothing personal; it makes for an entertaining debate who's core resides in basic right vs wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    It sounds like you're still kind of starting out. You might not even know for sure yet if this whole "making pictures for a living" thing is really for you. Don't drop $500-600 on something that could end up collecting dust.
    Agree with you there. And stealing photoshop is not the only way to try to 'make pictures'. Not even close to the only way. So go buy Elements or download Gimp.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    I'm going to be dead honest with people right now. I used Photoshop for a couple years before I bought my own copy. It's important to note that I did, in fact, buy my own copy (and I buy all of my graphics software nowadays), but I was not going to do that before I actually knew I was going to need it. If Photoshop only cost a hundred bucks (or heck, even a couple of hundred), I'd say buy it. But the price of this stuff is truly prohibitive for somebody just starting out, for somebody who is still exploring all of their possibilities and for somebody who doesn't have all of their equipment and supplies yet.
    There's a great parallel here to the musical instrument industry - beginners usually buy lesser quality instruments to learn on, and move up when they are ready. That's how I learned guitar, and millions of others. The only difference here is that you can't download a guitar. And because you CAN download software, people seem to think it's ok to 'hack' it in the name of 'necessity'. No one 'needs' Photoshop. If you can't afford it, you don't need it - especially when there are a number of other options that are perfectly viable and much less expensive.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    You shouldn't have to go into debt just to start tinkering with the tools of the trade
    You're right, but you're not talking about tinkering and there is not one set of tools of the trade here. Buy Elements, download Gimp, etc. You don't need to steal a table saw to learn how to do woodworking.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    and the developers of this software shouldn't demand that of you, it's unethical to expect every potential illustrator and designer to pony up thousands of dollars just to get started
    Not only is it perfectly ethical to charge people for a product, ethics have nothing to do with this except on the user's side. It's unethical to steal a full featured product when a lesser-featured product is cheaper and available.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    but people seem to accept it as the way of the world anyway. If paintbrushes cost as much as Photoshop does, there'd be no Picasso, Monet or Van Gogh.
    Yes, paying a price for a product you use IS the way of the world. Again, your argument relies upon the full version of Photoshop being the only way to digitally paint. Another parallel here is Student vs Artist quality art materials (paint, brushes, paper, etc.) You use what you can afford. Should someone steal artist's quality paint because they can't afford it? No. They should buy the student quality and learn learn learn. And save your money for the day you can buy better.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    But when you're just starting out, get what you can however you can. Buy, borrow or copy. Once you've learned the skills of the trade and you feel comfortable making the decision to do this for the rest of your life, then you start buying things, and then you start feeling bad about the things you haven't bought yet.
    That's an apologist's view on the guilt of stealing the 'big' product when the 'small' suffices. You're finding ways to justify an unethical and truly uneccessary act. So you're saying should you steal anything you want if it's only a hobby? That's what you're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    Now that Adobe has conquered the graphics software market, brand loyalty is a moot point. In order to maximize the profit potential of university licenses, Adobe had to accomplish two goals.
    1. Encourage students to use university computers rather than their own, which in turn encourages universities to increase their facility spending.
    2. Make as much money off of each university licensed copy as possible.
    Not only is that a gross over-simplification of a business as to be irrelevant, you're in part even missing the point. Of course Adobe wants to make as much money as they can. If you have ever taken an Economics course, you'd know that any successful product is only successful as long as its price is in line with the demand. And brand loyalty only exists as long as the price is good and the quality is good. If Apple were to tip over the edge into too-expensive products that suck, their loyal fans would bolt (well, first they'd bitch and bitch and bitch) but they'd quickly hate and blame and stop buying. Same with Adobe.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    Adobe's hard working programmers aren't going to get laid off and their kids aren't going to starve if every new designer and student uses a pirated copy of Photoshop for a year or so before buying their own legal copy. They make most of their money on typefaces anyway.
    Really? You're a programmer, and you think that? You must be kidding. Programmers get laid off all the time, just after marketers and human resources. If Adobe's profits were to tumble, you bet their staff would be reduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    Honestly, I think piracy of Adobe software would plummet if they acknowledged this reality and gave us a legal means of using Photoshop for a while, like a temporary lease. Pay us a hundred bucks now and you can use a full version of the latest Photoshop release for a full year. Pay us the rest of the amount at the end of the year and we'll give you any updated vesions if they were released and remove the timer from your software. Don't pay us and your software deletes itself (or whatever).
    Not a half bad idea. Just figure out how to make that self destruct happen!

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    Most software pirates aren't dishonest people. They're just people trying to get something done with limited resources.
    I buy that argument when we're talking about people looting Wal Mart in New Orleans because their babies were starving, but not about software. This is NOT a necessity we're talking about. You making excuses for unethical behavior for a 'nice to have' product. Not water. Not food. Not freedom. Software. For making pictures, as you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by MEP
    If you can't change the world (and in this case, they can't), you should try to make the best of it, however it is. The first software company that figures this out and puts this philosophy into action is going to bury their competition.
    Hmmm. Hasn't Adobe already done that? They're the industry standard. Who exactly do they need to bury?


    Again, nothing personal against you MEP, but this makes for good debate and I think you're just plain wrong.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    147
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by thraktor
    You're right, but you're not talking about tinkering and there is not one set of tools of the trade here. Buy Elements, download Gimp, etc. You don't need to steal a table saw to learn how to do woodworking.
    But there is one set of tools of the trade here. I've never met any professional anywhere who uses the Gimp (or can even stand the bloody thing). The Elements argument is fair. Adobe is offering a low end solution to those who don't need all of the print tools and are willing to sacrifice some of Photoshop's more advanced functionality, and for a lot of people I think Elements is a fine product. But students and new designers still need to know Photoshop to get hired (let's face reality) and they need money to buy it to learn it. This presents a problem for Adobe. How to get their software into the hands of potential buyers who might not be able to afford it. Their current market strategy is not well-suited to this task. It's short-sighted and profitable right now, but in the long run, it will hurt them as products like Painter continue to gain a larger following in the industry starting with better academic prices (have you noticed that Painter gets more expensive, but the academic version doesn't? Have you also noticed that people talk about and use Painter a lot more now than they did five years ago?).

    Not only is it perfectly ethical to charge people for a product, ethics have nothing to do with this except on the user's side. It's unethical to steal a full featured product when a lesser-featured product is cheaper and available.
    This is based on the argument that Photoshop is not necessary for a designer. I don't buy that. The industry doesn't buy that. You need Photoshop. Even if you prefer to use Painter or something else. That's the reality. It is ethical to charge for a product and everyone does. But charging an inaccessible price for a tool that students need to start learning right away is not the same thing as offering different lines of paint at different price points.

    The crux of our disagreement here is whether or not Photoshop is necessary when alternatives are available. You say it isn't. I say it is. That may not be a permanent situation, but that's the reality I see in my experience.

    Not only is that a gross over-simplification of a business as to be irrelevant, you're in part even missing the point. Of course Adobe wants to make as much money as they can. If you have ever taken an Economics course, you'd know that any successful product is only successful as long as its price is in line with the demand. And brand loyalty only exists as long as the price is good and the quality is good.
    I've taken economics courses and I've run two companies. Supply/Demand dynamics are an oversimplification of reality, and few markets have ever been governed by those factors alone. Those rules you just outlined only apply in markets where competitors produce equivalent products on a level playing field. The software industry has never been an environment like that. Just look at Microsoft and Apple for proof. Apple should've gone out of business in the 90s when they were producing the worst crap to ever hit the market, but they didn't. MS has one of the worst quality assurance records in the industry, and yet they dominate with unreasonably high prices on their OS licenses and draconian registration policies that do nothing to prevent piracy but frequently make everyday use inconvenient for honest users. Amazon.com simply should not be, their debt load is astronomical and every other business (and I do mean every) that tried to do thing the Jeff Bezos way is now gone and forgotten. Flukes typify this industry, always have. The old rules of economics are all dependent on the concept of scarcity. Scarcity does not exist in the software industry, so the rules have to change.

    The whole industry right now is making it easier to pirate than it is to be honest. It's faster, cheaper and there are fewer hoops to jump through. And they blame P2P networks for the spread of pirated software. These managers and economists must've graduated from clown college.

    Really? You're a programmer, and you think that? You must be kidding. Programmers get laid off all the time, just after marketers and human resources. If Adobe's profits were to tumble, you bet their staff would be reduced.
    Programmers frequently get laid off. Piracy has never been the reason why. Stockholder appeasement is the number one reason for layoffs. Those fourth quarter numbers would look a lot better if Adobe could figure out a way to make some money off of the free distribution of their product and then layoffs wouldn't be necessary.

    Not a half bad idea. Just figure out how to make that self destruct happen!
    It doesn't matter how it happens. It doesn't really even matter if it's easy to bypass. Anyone who would hack the "easy" $100 version of PS would gladly download a pirated full version from Kazaa, which would probably be even easier since they wouldn't have to go through the trouble of finding a copy and it would definitely be cheaper. And even if they did pirate the leased version, selling a copy for $100 is still more profitable than the thousands of copies that are being pirated now for nothing. There will always be some pirates and getting a pirated copy will always be easier than getting an honest one. That's reality. Adobe can't change that.

    But how many users would choose to use the cheaper version of Photoshop under the lease license if it were available? How many illegal downloads would be replaced by legal copies? Most people who "pirate" software wouldn't do so if alternatives were offered. Adobe is missing the opportunity to make a profit here.


    Hmmm. Hasn't Adobe already done that? They're the industry standard. Who exactly do they need to bury?
    My closing comment was aimed at the software industry as a whole, not just Adobe. The first company that decides to profit from piracy rather than try to fight the obviously losing battle to jail every pirate will profit greatly from doing so.

    The final economic model for the software industry isn't going to even remotely resemble what we have today. It can't. The current economic models are based on the twin concepts of scarcity and the ability of producers to control how their products are distributed. Neither of these two concepts applies in the real world of software consumption and they never will. Companies have to adapt to this reality or they will be usurped by the first competitor who does. I'm not justifying piracy. I'm simply telling the truth.

    Most of my fellow software designers are terribly conservative and haven't got the vision to see beyond their next stock option buyout. In the early 90s, everybody -- economists, managers, CEOs and even software developers -- said that the shareware model of software development was doomed to failure. "You can't give people a copy of your software before they pay for it. They'll steal it from you." Now, nearly every major company uses some component of the shareware philosophy in their business model (even Adobe let's you download demos).

    The same will happen again. "You can't just let people pirate your software. How do you expect to make any money?" The person who answers that question becomes the next Bill Gates.

    And that's what Adobe should be trying to do, instead of using ineffective anti-piracy technologies that punish their honest users more than they deter theft. Right now, the honest users are paying the price for the pirates, in money and inconvenience. Nobody is winning this war, so why are companies still fighting it? It's time to try something else.

    The end result isn't going to be an anarchic free for all pirate utopia. But isn't going to be the draconian copyright and patent law and business practices we have today either. Change is coming, it's time to start shaping that change rather than fighting it, the way most people are now.

    -------------------------
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hmmm. Your argument is well-considered, but, just as mine is, it's full of opinions about core tenets that form the basis of said argument. So we could go around and around and probably circle each other for weeks. I actually think we agree more than disagree, that is, about everything except the 'what should students do if they're poor' and the whole ethics debate and analogies to physical products (which you seem to not want to address ).

    As a business owner, then, you know that no business owes anybody anything for free "just because someone wants it". The fact that students exist doesn't mean a company owes students an under-priced yet full-featured product. If it made business sense to do so, it would have already been done by Adobe. You and I are hardly the only ones thinking of this, especially given this is supposed to be a board about concept art and not revolutionary software business models. Maybe it will take a ballsy, risk-taking company to do what you claim will revolutionize the software business... so until it happens, the case remains unmade and can't be the basis for justifying stealing.

    Oh, and to the point about a student having to have it to get a job? As someone who hires designers, it's the portfolio that counts. If I saw a good portfolio, and saw 'Elements' on the resume, I'd ask the question 'why Elements?' but wouldn't hesitate to hire them because it's 80 PERCENT OF THE FUNCTIONALITY. And, if you're hung up on the tool over the work produced you don't need to be in the position to hire anyone anyhow.

    And my point about iPods might have seemed flippant, but I think it carries weight. In general, Photoshop is going to be more important to someone than their iPod. Kids are being gifted and purchase their own iPods all the time. Plus the purchasing of music for them, etc. I know; I own three. For this fact alone I don't think PS is SO far out of reach of the average student anyhow.

    So, is this a broken system needing to be fixed by a revolutionary idea? My opinion is no. Will a revolutionary idea revolutionize the system? Quite possibly. Until then, don't break the law out of a perceived 'need' when there isn't one. That's all.

    Last edited by thraktor; March 24th, 2006 at 08:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    147
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I don't have an iPod, can't afford one (or justify that much money for something so frivolous). That some people are affluent enough to buy iPods doesn't make everyone equally so. Some of us had to make sacrifices to buy our tools. I can't speak to people for whom $400 is and always has been disposable income. None of the students I know or went to school with fit that description. We all worked for a living to pay our tuition (or went heavily into debt, or both).

    When the choice for me was "buy photoshop" or "pay rent this month", the decision was pretty easy to make, and no, I didn't feel guilty. Those who can afford their tools, should buy them. Those who are trying to make something out of themselves and their lives and don't have the financial resources to buy every piece of software that they need to know (and let's face it, every wanted ad for a designer clearly says "needs to know Photoshop") sometimes have to make different choices.

    And again, if I knew some kid who was thinking about drawing, but wasn't sure if he wanted to yet, I'd loan him some materials and books and references. I really don't expect people who are still deciding what to do with their lives to invest heavily in what could ultimately be a dead end. If they attended a school were these kinds of resources were made available for them, this wouldn't be an issue, but that's becoming increasingly rare. I say let the kids play. They're not a lost sale for Adobe (because this kid doesn't have the $500 to drop on Photoshop anyway), but they could be a potential customer down the road if they get the chance to tinker now. In the long term, there's more profit potential for Adobe to let some piracy slide, and it's high time we start acknowledging that reality.

    -------------------------
    In the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "I drank what?"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    MEP, I think your heart is in the right place, I truly do. "Let the kids play" is a very appealing and generous ideal, which I also believe in. So maybe let's agree on that and agree to differ on what the kids need to play WITH.

    Oh, but before I sign off - we're not talking about disposable income if we're talking tools of the trade. It's either a student playground, or tools of the trade, but not both. That's why I'm comparing iPods (which ARE frivolous in comparison) to PS, which is 2x the cost, since PS is a tool for so many things and theoretically indispensible.

    So, peace brother!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
The Art Department
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook