3 ms·
>> You'd have to use the standalone version for 2 years and 4 months before it became more cost effective. You'd have to use it continuously for that time. If
by runako 15y ago
>> You'd have to use the standalone version for 2 years and 4 months before it became more cost effective.
You'd have to use it continuously for that time. If you use Photoshop less frequently, ownership makes even less sense. For example, I use Photoshop maybe every few months. It would take me a lot of years of $30/mo to get to $578. And I'd be happier with Adobe when I got there, because I'd be on a current version of the software.
I hope they don't mess this up with crappy DRM, like in their standalone CS editions.
- kylelibra 15y ago"I hope they don't mess this up with crappy DRM, like in their standalone CS editions." No kidding. Adobe is a prime example of a company that doesn't understand DRM. I don't need your application to constantly hog my bandwidth after I already gave you several hundred dollars.
- daeken 15y agoAs of CS5, don't they do effectively nothing DRM-wise? IIRC, there wasn't even a crack necessary, just a modification to the hosts file during install (to point it to a fake licensing server, presumably). It makes a lot of sense to not invest heavily in DRM once you're where Adobe is.
- runako 15y agoCrack? I wasn't talking about how they made it hard for people to circumvent their DRM. I was talking about how hard they made CS to use after you give them over $1,000 for it. I decided to delay any further spending with Adobe for as long as possible after how sorry their install/DRM process was for legally-licensed CS4.
- daeken 15y agoWhat I'm saying is that with CS5 they stripped the DRM down to basics, as far as I'm aware. Outside of a check to the licensing server on install, I don't believe there was anything more to it.