19 ms·

Sure, but you then end up with two entirely divergent software ecosystems. As it stands two people, one of whom uses Linux/LibreOffice/GIMP and another who use

by jiggy2011 12y ago

Sure, but you then end up with two entirely divergent software ecosystems. As it stands two people, one of whom uses Linux/LibreOffice/GIMP and another who uses Windows/MS Office/Photoshop are able (bar some possible formatting issues) to share data and collaborate together because they can share files via dropbox or USB dongles. Once Photoshop and Office move entirely to the cloud there will no longer necessarily be "files" to share.

nailer 12y ago
Web intents would allow new competitors to open existing docs.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  In a way controlled by yet someone else. Contrast with files, which I own, can open in anything I want and that I can reverse-engineer in order to write a custom app for them.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I realize that I'm going to be a bit pedantic here, and it is not an argument I would support, but your statement *"Contrast with files, which I own ..." which is only true in a limited sense. If you have a book, in a file, which is stored on your device for your Kindle app, Amazon will tell you that you don't own it, what you "own" is a right to view it in the Kindle app for as long as your maintain your side of the agreement and Amazon doesn't feel like using one of their escape clauses. Now I completely get how crazy that makes people, who argue "I paid money, I got this thing, I own it." but the only reason that it is in a "file" today is because Amazon hasn't figured out how to give you access to it without giving you a file. Nothing in the Adobe announcement changes anything, except that it provides for them, what they consider to be a better implementation of their rights management paradigm. Again, I don't condone or support it, but it's important to note that their thinking hasn't changed, only their implementation has. This also helps them to avoid you reverse engineering their files which they don't like because it allows you to circumvent their rights management tools. Again, I don't condone or support, just report. So what may happen here is that something which has some value to a person, will be put outside their reach behind a price they are unwilling to pay. I understand that this situation sucks, but on the positive side it adds energy to the 'free' side of the equation because if there really is value there, it is only extractable if stealing is less easy than paying, and paying is at a market price that can support the energy of making it available. That price may be in programmer hours, not necessarily in dollars.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > the only reason that it is in a "file" today is because Amazon hasn't figured out how to give you access to it without giving you a file. (...) but it's important to note that their thinking hasn't changed, only their implementation has Yes, I understand that and I agree with you here. I'm not complaining that they changed their thinking; I'm saying that their thinking sucks (for the user), and that the more they improve their implementation details, the worse-off we (users) are. > So what may happen here is that something which has some value to a person, will be put outside their reach behind a price they are unwilling to pay. I understand that this situation sucks (...) This suckiness is what I'm complaining about. I need to think about it more to come up with a coherent view of that problem. However, let me share my current perspective. I grew up in a world where software was owned by me and effectively free. What I needed but couldn't afford I could crack if I cared. Most of the time I didn't care, or there were better free tools. But sometimes it mattered. I learned my graphics skills as a kid on cracked Corel Draw and Photoshop (in the end I switched to Paint.NET + GIMP + Inkscape combo, as I don't want to publish - even for free - things done on "stolen" software, but all those tools are inferior compared to paid ones). I learned my Office skills as a kid on pirated MS Office. I started programming around 13 years ago. Programming tools were already mostly free at that time (thank you Microsoft for MSVC++2003 Toolkit, though I loved my pirated Visual C++ 6.0). But it's not about piracy, it's about access. I learned how to code because I wanted to make games, and my primary inspiration and motivation throughout the teenage years was the ability to dig in and tweak various games. I knew my way around StarCraft binaries. Hell, my first serious application of Assembly was patching SC using StarGraft. I read UnrealScript files extracted from Unreal Tournament games. I hex-edited saves, tweaked data files, poked and twisted many games. All of this was possible because I owned the data. That is, the files were there, on my hard drive, unprotected. I built my whole career and half of my life on top of that. To quote pg[0], "It is by poking about inside current technology that hackers get ideas for the next generation. No thanks, intellectual homeowners may say, we don't need any outside help. But they're wrong. The next generation of computer technology has often—perhaps more often than not—been developed by outsiders.". What I'm really afraid of is that the next generation, the generation of my children, will not be able to poke inside anything, because everything will be accessed remotely. In order to learn and grow I didn't need a credit card when I was 13, but I fear the next generation will not have that luxury. TL; DR: think of the children. [0] - http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
  - nailer 12y ago
    You control what you open stuff in with web intents. The site the document is stored on doesn't. Say Google Drive supports web intents: If you have a doc on Google Drive, and you install an intent for a Google competitor word processor in your Google drive, you can open it, edit it on that service, and save it back to Google drive.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
That is true, and to the extent that those cloud applications don't use an open interchange standard you won't be able to share documents with them. Having lived through this from before[1], it isn't as dire as you might imagine. What happened last time is that it forced a lot of interchange formats. Will be interesting to see if it does that again. All of the market forces are still there, person A wants to send a document to person B, etc. Of course everyone can send HTML or RTF documents like they do today. [1] Intel used MultiMate for its documents (as did a bunch of lawyers) while nearly everybody in the tech space was using Interleaf. Xerox was trying to be the paperless glue for the middle. We got PostScript out of it, which was an interesting compromise.
- pyre 12y ago
  The difference here is that you actually had a copy of the data. If the vendor (e.g. Microsoft) decides to lock you in, they will keep the data in the cloud, with their app being the only access point. Then, locally you will only have a copy of "application state" at any point in time.
foxylad 12y ago
Not totally divergent - those of us who are able to maintain our own PCs will have the best of both worlds. We'll be able to use either our own local apps, or the cloud ones. Most people will prefer the managed computing experience provided by the cloud, and that's a good thing. I've had to ask "so did you keep backups?" with a sinking heart; and heard "My computers running really slow - can you have a quick look?" too many times.
- anon1385 12y ago
  >We'll be able to use either our own local apps, or the cloud ones. Not necessarily. Chromebooks are already locked down so that any modification of the software on them means DRM video support is disabled. Its only a small leap from video DRM to software DRM. This will probably be sold to users on the basis of security - we won't let your machine log into your photoshop account to steal/delete your photos if it has been compromised.

nailer 12y ago

Web intents would allow new competitors to open existing docs.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
In a way controlled by yet someone else. Contrast with files, which I own, can open in anything I want and that I can reverse-engineer in order to write a custom app for them.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  I realize that I'm going to be a bit pedantic here, and it is not an argument I would support, but your statement *"Contrast with files, which I own ..." which is only true in a limited sense. If you have a book, in a file, which is stored on your device for your Kindle app, Amazon will tell you that you don't own it, what you "own" is a right to view it in the Kindle app for as long as your maintain your side of the agreement and Amazon doesn't feel like using one of their escape clauses. Now I completely get how crazy that makes people, who argue "I paid money, I got this thing, I own it." but the only reason that it is in a "file" today is because Amazon hasn't figured out how to give you access to it without giving you a file. Nothing in the Adobe announcement changes anything, except that it provides for them, what they consider to be a better implementation of their rights management paradigm. Again, I don't condone or support it, but it's important to note that their thinking hasn't changed, only their implementation has. This also helps them to avoid you reverse engineering their files which they don't like because it allows you to circumvent their rights management tools. Again, I don't condone or support, just report. So what may happen here is that something which has some value to a person, will be put outside their reach behind a price they are unwilling to pay. I understand that this situation sucks, but on the positive side it adds energy to the 'free' side of the equation because if there really is value there, it is only extractable if stealing is less easy than paying, and paying is at a market price that can support the energy of making it available. That price may be in programmer hours, not necessarily in dollars.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > the only reason that it is in a "file" today is because Amazon hasn't figured out how to give you access to it without giving you a file. (...) but it's important to note that their thinking hasn't changed, only their implementation has Yes, I understand that and I agree with you here. I'm not complaining that they changed their thinking; I'm saying that their thinking sucks (for the user), and that the more they improve their implementation details, the worse-off we (users) are. > So what may happen here is that something which has some value to a person, will be put outside their reach behind a price they are unwilling to pay. I understand that this situation sucks (...) This suckiness is what I'm complaining about. I need to think about it more to come up with a coherent view of that problem. However, let me share my current perspective. I grew up in a world where software was owned by me and effectively free. What I needed but couldn't afford I could crack if I cared. Most of the time I didn't care, or there were better free tools. But sometimes it mattered. I learned my graphics skills as a kid on cracked Corel Draw and Photoshop (in the end I switched to Paint.NET + GIMP + Inkscape combo, as I don't want to publish - even for free - things done on "stolen" software, but all those tools are inferior compared to paid ones). I learned my Office skills as a kid on pirated MS Office. I started programming around 13 years ago. Programming tools were already mostly free at that time (thank you Microsoft for MSVC++2003 Toolkit, though I loved my pirated Visual C++ 6.0). But it's not about piracy, it's about access. I learned how to code because I wanted to make games, and my primary inspiration and motivation throughout the teenage years was the ability to dig in and tweak various games. I knew my way around StarCraft binaries. Hell, my first serious application of Assembly was patching SC using StarGraft. I read UnrealScript files extracted from Unreal Tournament games. I hex-edited saves, tweaked data files, poked and twisted many games. All of this was possible because I owned the data. That is, the files were there, on my hard drive, unprotected. I built my whole career and half of my life on top of that. To quote pg[0], "It is by poking about inside current technology that hackers get ideas for the next generation. No thanks, intellectual homeowners may say, we don't need any outside help. But they're wrong. The next generation of computer technology has often—perhaps more often than not—been developed by outsiders.". What I'm really afraid of is that the next generation, the generation of my children, will not be able to poke inside anything, because everything will be accessed remotely. In order to learn and grow I didn't need a credit card when I was 13, but I fear the next generation will not have that luxury. TL; DR: think of the children. [0] - http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html
- nailer 12y ago
  You control what you open stuff in with web intents. The site the document is stored on doesn't. Say Google Drive supports web intents: If you have a doc on Google Drive, and you install an intent for a Google competitor word processor in your Google drive, you can open it, edit it on that service, and save it back to Google drive.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

That is true, and to the extent that those cloud applications don't use an open interchange standard you won't be able to share documents with them. Having lived through this from before[1], it isn't as dire as you might imagine. What happened last time is that it forced a lot of interchange formats. Will be interesting to see if it does that again. All of the market forces are still there, person A wants to send a document to person B, etc. Of course everyone can send HTML or RTF documents like they do today. [1] Intel used MultiMate for its documents (as did a bunch of lawyers) while nearly everybody in the tech space was using Interleaf. Xerox was trying to be the paperless glue for the middle. We got PostScript out of it, which was an interesting compromise.

pyre 12y ago
The difference here is that you actually had a copy of the data. If the vendor (e.g. Microsoft) decides to lock you in, they will keep the data in the cloud, with their app being the only access point. Then, locally you will only have a copy of "application state" at any point in time.

foxylad 12y ago

Not totally divergent - those of us who are able to maintain our own PCs will have the best of both worlds. We'll be able to use either our own local apps, or the cloud ones. Most people will prefer the managed computing experience provided by the cloud, and that's a good thing. I've had to ask "so did you keep backups?" with a sinking heart; and heard "My computers running really slow - can you have a quick look?" too many times.

anon1385 12y ago
>We'll be able to use either our own local apps, or the cloud ones. Not necessarily. Chromebooks are already locked down so that any modification of the software on them means DRM video support is disabled. Its only a small leap from video DRM to software DRM. This will probably be sold to users on the basis of security - we won't let your machine log into your photoshop account to steal/delete your photos if it has been compromised.