9 ms·

The Great Adobe Purge of ’19

77 points by arthurfm 7y ago

oldjokes 7y ago
I remember people expressing concerns about this exact scenario back when Oracle bought Sun. Reminds me of a James Gosling quote: "during the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle, where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle"
- jorvi 7y ago
  Hearing about the antics of Oracle always makes me think of a certain comic[1] [1]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYqlwLYCeP4/TyAIYd3-VLI/AAAAAAAACbM/bzx_xixZznc/s1600/amazon-google-facebook-microsoft-apple-oracle-organisational-chart.png http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYqlwLYCeP4/TyAIYd3-VLI/AAAAAAAACb...
bluejay2387 7y ago
I am holding on to my copy of Adobe Creative Suite 6 until I die.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I'm expecting my Mac copy to stop working in 10.15 and I'm quite concerned about it.
  - Someone 7y ago
    It isn’t a perfect solution, but the license agreement for Mojave (https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf) allows you to: ”install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.”
    - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      I may go that route, but none of the virtualization solutions are particularly performant for macOS guests. I think I'd rather reboot into a Mojave partition, if it comes to that.
bsenftner 7y ago
I know a large number of people who maintain older Macs and PC specifically to run older versions of Adobe Photoshop and Premiere. This is going to hurt the freelance video editors very hard.
- detritus 7y ago
  By ‘older’ do you mean pre-Creative Cloud? If so, I can't imagine what Adobe could actually do to stop them? I figure the idle legal threats seen so far (I know of two people who claim to have received emails from Adobe - I'm awaiting one myself, as I still run 2014 Photoshop on this machine) is simply so they have a platform from which to deny access to older versions as provided through CC. Anything installed from disc is beyond their practical reach. I'm really curious to know what's underlying this - if it is a third party reason, I'm kind of flumoxed at Adobe's stance towards its presumably quite loyal userbase!
  - ntucker 7y ago
    I want photoshop about once a year and I am literally still using photoshop 6 on windows. It's over 20 years old. Works fine, installs in about 5 seconds.
    - detritus 7y ago
      I'd happily use my disc versions of CS2 Illy and PS as they have all the tools I need, but unfortunately I need to maintain compatability with client files so I have a CC subscription. Frankly, I hated paying as much as I did for Illy and PS here in the UK, which compared to about the same cost as the full suite in the States, but I complained sometime in the last year and now have the full suite for a mere 30p more than I was previously paying. I still dislike their subscription model, but it now leaves a bit less of a sour taste.
dev_dull 7y ago
Does anybody know the oldest version of Photoshop you can buy and not license? Can you still buy the software second hand?
- rkeene2 7y ago
  What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does) have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for product trials, but not limited to such). One could ALSO, assuming the owners wanted to sell it, buy PhotoShop but it would likely be millions of dollars and there would probably be a more economical solution to whatever problem you are trying to solve.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    You're conflating buying a copy with buying a license. The two are not the same - e.g. you can buy a copy of a book, without buying the copyright itself. The book is then yours, not 'licensed'. That you don't have the right to make further copies is a different matter.
    - rkeene2 7y ago
      Books and software differ. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1854-cop...
      - deogeo 7y ago
        According to that very same link, they do not. You probably mean this passage: > Most computer software is distributed through the use of licensing agreements. Under this distribution system, the copyright holder remains the "owner" of all distributed copies. But this is not a difference in how copyright works for software - it's just the description of the practice of contracts of adhesion. One could 'license' a book the same way, or not include these agreements with software.
blackoil 7y ago
I understand the desire to not support older versions, but why just marking/advertising them as `not supported`, insecure isn't enough. Is this Adobe being unnecessarily aggressive or is there some other reason?
- scrumper 7y ago
  Looks like a 3rd party licensing reason. Meaning, older versions of those apps may include some component for which Adobe no longer has a license.
  - tinus_hn 7y ago
    Or it has turned out to infringe a patent, or turned out the party they licensed it from wasn’t the real owner.

77 points by arthurfm 7y ago

I remember people expressing concerns about this exact scenario back when Oracle bought Sun. Reminds me of a James Gosling quote: "during the integration meetings between Sun and Oracle, where we were being grilled about the patent situation between Sun and Google, we could see the Oracle lawyer's eyes sparkle"

jorvi 7y ago
Hearing about the antics of Oracle always makes me think of a certain comic[1] [1]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYqlwLYCeP4/TyAIYd3-VLI/AAAAAAAACbM/bzx_xixZznc/s1600/amazon-google-facebook-microsoft-apple-oracle-organisational-chart.png http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TYqlwLYCeP4/TyAIYd3-VLI/AAAAAAAACb...

bluejay2387 7y ago

I am holding on to my copy of Adobe Creative Suite 6 until I die.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I'm expecting my Mac copy to stop working in 10.15 and I'm quite concerned about it.
- Someone 7y ago
  It isn’t a perfect solution, but the license agreement for Mojave (https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1014.pdf) allows you to: ”install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using macOS Server; or (d) personal, non-commercial use.”
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I may go that route, but none of the virtualization solutions are particularly performant for macOS guests. I think I'd rather reboot into a Mojave partition, if it comes to that.

bsenftner 7y ago

I know a large number of people who maintain older Macs and PC specifically to run older versions of Adobe Photoshop and Premiere. This is going to hurt the freelance video editors very hard.

detritus 7y ago
By ‘older’ do you mean pre-Creative Cloud? If so, I can't imagine what Adobe could actually do to stop them? I figure the idle legal threats seen so far (I know of two people who claim to have received emails from Adobe - I'm awaiting one myself, as I still run 2014 Photoshop on this machine) is simply so they have a platform from which to deny access to older versions as provided through CC. Anything installed from disc is beyond their practical reach. I'm really curious to know what's underlying this - if it is a third party reason, I'm kind of flumoxed at Adobe's stance towards its presumably quite loyal userbase!
- ntucker 7y ago
  I want photoshop about once a year and I am literally still using photoshop 6 on windows. It's over 20 years old. Works fine, installs in about 5 seconds.
  - detritus 7y ago
    I'd happily use my disc versions of CS2 Illy and PS as they have all the tools I need, but unfortunately I need to maintain compatability with client files so I have a CC subscription. Frankly, I hated paying as much as I did for Illy and PS here in the UK, which compared to about the same cost as the full suite in the States, but I complained sometime in the last year and now have the full suite for a mere 30p more than I was previously paying. I still dislike their subscription model, but it now leaves a bit less of a sour taste.

dev_dull 7y ago

Does anybody know the oldest version of Photoshop you can buy and not license? Can you still buy the software second hand?

rkeene2 7y ago
What you are purchasing is a license, which may (and almost certainly does) have limitations. One such limitation could be time (commonly done for product trials, but not limited to such). One could ALSO, assuming the owners wanted to sell it, buy PhotoShop but it would likely be millions of dollars and there would probably be a more economical solution to whatever problem you are trying to solve.
- deogeo 7y ago
  You're conflating buying a copy with buying a license. The two are not the same - e.g. you can buy a copy of a book, without buying the copyright itself. The book is then yours, not 'licensed'. That you don't have the right to make further copies is a different matter.
  - rkeene2 7y ago
    Books and software differ. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1854-copyright-infringement-first-sale-doctrine https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1854-cop...
    - deogeo 7y ago
      According to that very same link, they do not. You probably mean this passage: > Most computer software is distributed through the use of licensing agreements. Under this distribution system, the copyright holder remains the "owner" of all distributed copies. But this is not a difference in how copyright works for software - it's just the description of the practice of contracts of adhesion. One could 'license' a book the same way, or not include these agreements with software.

blackoil 7y ago

I understand the desire to not support older versions, but why just marking/advertising them as `not supported`, insecure isn't enough. Is this Adobe being unnecessarily aggressive or is there some other reason?

scrumper 7y ago
Looks like a 3rd party licensing reason. Meaning, older versions of those apps may include some component for which Adobe no longer has a license.
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  Or it has turned out to infringe a patent, or turned out the party they licensed it from wasn’t the real owner.