What's your opinion about Macwarez?!

well, i guess you can see how often i use my excel:D

While i would be ok if the dock was mulitiple and came out of each side and the bottom, i do have a better soluntion to the dock. It is called Launcher!! I miss it. it held as many apps as you could ever want to use. and organized them. and and and...

and no i wasn't sleeping when you wrote that. i just had a slightly different set of priorities today. and i'll probably being doing more yardwork tomorrow if weather allows.:)
 
Applewatcher - where does my location under my avatar say I live?:p

SF = San Francisco, Calif. USA

to be precise, i live about 25 miles south of SF on the coast, about one mile inland from the beach (7-8 mins to walk), about an hour's drive from apple HQ although i have never been there

:D
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
about an hour's drive from apple HQ although i have never been there

:D
Click to expand...

OMG, I live about an 8 hours drive from the nearest Apple retailer where it's possible to try the macs, and I am there almost every summer :p
 
to be precise, i live about 25 miles south of SF on the coast, about one mile inland from the beach (7-8 mins to walk), about an hour's drive from apple HQ although i have never been there
Click to expand...

That's what I wanna hear guys :D:D:D

AppleWatcher :p
 
I have an odd sort of affinity with warez. I mean, I know there are many many reasons why it's not the right thing to do and all, but honestly, there are just as many reasons why, in my mind, it makes sense.

See, there are many companies that I hate far too much to buy software from. For instance, I cannot STAND Microsoft, but because Word is a standard and I really need to use it, I have copies of Microsoft's Office v.X. I would never buy it, so to me it really doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Either way they're not making any money from me. However, I can also say that this same pirating of Microsoft software is really not right because I'm using a program that I should have to pay for in order to use.

This is where it gets a bit sticky.

As far as Microsoft goes, they have far too much money as it is. At least to me, of all the companies in the world, Microsoft is the last one I'd care about stealing from. But this isn't always the case, and so this argument doesn't always work. For example, I respect Adobe tremendously and feel that their products are utterly amazing. I try to support them if I can. I bought LiveMotion for $300 when it came out. But I'm 15 years old and there's no way I'm going to pay again to get an OS X-ready version of LiveMotion. I've spent a HUGE chunk of my money once, and I'm not doing it again. I know this is less of an arguable point, but it's how I feel.

I feel that I would never have been able to create the things that I've been able to create without the programs I've used to create them. I've done amazing work with my collection of programs, work that would have been impossible any other way. I could never have paid for this stuff. I just wouldn't have been able to do much of anything. I wouldn't be able to embrace my creative side, and learn these amazing programs in the process.

See, by being able to switch my program suite as easily as I can download a program or two, I can decide exactly what I want to do with my life. I'm trying to decide what it is that I want to accomplish in life. If I bought the $600 Photoshop 6, I'd be stuck with that and locked into one "mode", if you will, of creativity. But I'm learning After Effects at the same time, and discovering lots of great things in digital video. It is because of this that I feel that the people who pirate warez are the people most excited about the unique opportunities the software offers. We're the ones fumbling in the dark without a manual, staying up late at night trying to understand these complex beasts--and having a hell of a good time in the process.

I will pay for what I use, having learned the entire program's feature set. But in the meantime, I'm learning what I'm learning. I couldn't possibly have paid $500 for Cubase VST and discovered I don't like it... I have yet to even find a multitrack music editing program I actually like using, and if I had to pay for them all I'd never be able to get anywhere.

I feel that warez are a good way to learn programs, and a good way to discover what works best for you. I do not support outright stealing, (except from Microsoft), but I do feel that there ISN'T anything inherently wrong with the way that I'm using warez.

What do you guys think?
 
hmmm, i 'm not sure any new arguments have really been presented here, but they have certainly been presented more articulately and with more thought behind them than i can ever remember seeing. especially from a 15 year old.

you've almost got me saying you're right. and i can't really think of any new arguments to give you. It sounds like you see both sides, which is more than most pirates are willing to do. I've already made my point about why not to steal from m$ and you still don't get that, but hey, you're young - there's still time.

so maybe it is time that software developers took a different approach and just made software free ot really dirt cheap for high school ages and below. Maybe the day will come when you enter your birthdate on a website and they give you a download version that is set to expire on your 18th bday. the age at which we are generally expected to beccome responsible. I personally think something like that would be more than fair. I really think it is the only way that small companies that want to really compete could ever sway enough people to create new industry standards.

while your arguments may not be new, i think you have put enough of a new wrinkle into them to deserve a pause to think about them.:)
 
This is what I meant...
Maybe you don't want to believe me but I'm also 15 years old and I totally agree with Bluefusion.

This two alineas are very, very true I think:
As far as Microsoft goes, they have far too much money as it is. At least to me, of all the companies in the world, Microsoft is the last one I'd care about stealing from. But this isn't always the case, and so this argument doesn't always work. For example, I respect Adobe tremendously and feel that their products are utterly amazing. I try to support them if I can. I bought LiveMotion for $300 when it came out. But I'm 15 years old and there's no way I'm going to pay again to get an OS X-ready version of LiveMotion. I've spent a HUGE chunk of my money once, and I'm not doing it again. I know this is less of an arguable point, but it's how I feel.
Click to expand...

Maybe you understand this, Ed! Everybody works with Word, Excel, etc... And if you want to make some nice pictures, Photoshop would be nice because MacPaint doesn't deliver the options Photoshop does....

And then, if you are a student and you've bought some legal software (take Photoshop 6), it's exactly as Bluefusion says:
There's no way I'm gonna pay for Photoshop 7 for Mac OS X.
But you don't wanna start Classic all the time...

Great point, Bluefusion ;)

AppleWatcher
 
This is my belief. I don't care what policy a company has about its software, it's shareware to me. I'll use it first and then decide if I want to pay for it, and sometimes I decide how much I want to pay for it. I keep writing to M$ and begging for them to write a free .doc viewer app so that I can stop pirating their software just to read incoming messages, but they don't really care. And so, neither do I.
 
and then decide if I want to pay for it, and sometimes I decide how much I want to pay for it.
Click to expand...

But... what if you don't want to pay for a program you DO like...
Or if you don't wanna pay the price is asked for a program... :rolleyes:

AppleWatcher
 
Originally posted by AppleWatcher
And then, if you are a student and you've bought some legal software (take Photoshop 6), it's exactly as Bluefusion says:
There's no way I'm gonna pay for Photoshop 7 for Mac OS X.
But you don't wanna start Classic all the time...

Great point, Bluefusion ;)

AppleWatcher
Click to expand...

Hmmm... going back to my "Porche" comment -- In my opinion, this is like saying you bought a Porche 911, but when they came out with the Boxster, you didn't want to pay to "upgrade," so you feel Porche should just GIVE you a Boxster AND let you keep the 911! Your point (or his, rather) would be taken better by me if he was willing to give up ALL copies of Photoshop 6 in order to obtain 7.

Nope, I don't agree. Software progresses just like technology progresses. Does ANYONE here feel that Intel is obligated to GIVE you a 1.8GHz processor when you purchased a 1.6GHz processor just because the 1.8 didn't exists when you bought the 1.6?

I keep hearing the same comments over and over here -- it's like some people expect the software companies to "give" stuff to them. I steadfastily (is that a word? I hope so -- sounds cool!) disagree with these kinds of arguments. Adobe made PhotoShop 6. It's killer. You buy it. That's it. End of story. They're already giving you a discount on 7 if you own 6 -- and that's nice of them. No other industry does this to the magnitude that software companies do. Try trading in your 2 year old car for a brand-new model and tell the salesperson you'd like to just trade the old car in (except KEEP it) and get the new, updated model for just 25% of the sticker price. HA! Tell him you're "upgrading." Double-HA! Try that with a computer. Go to Dell and say, "Hey, I bought your Optiplex 2 years ago, and I want the NEW Optiplex, but I wanna keep my 'copy' of this Optiplex and I want a new one for a fraction of the price." See how long that phone conversation lasts.

Software companies produce some amazing products that take some amazing talent and amazing amounts of time. Sure, they may be $50 overpriced, but c'mon! This is America! When you were a kid selling lemonade on the street, did you feel justified to cut EVERYONE that came by an amazing deal? What about the people who wanted refills (read: upgrades)? Full-price, right? Or at least HALF-price? What about the people who just came by and TOOK the lemonade without paying for it? Did you even want to do business with them?

And about Office -- Office v.X is really quite nice. If it was branded under the Adobe name instead of Microsoft, people would never stop singing praises about it. It is an amazing collection of software that is CENTRAL to people's computer work -- as said by Bluefusion -- "...because Word is a standard and I really need to use it..." Lemme tell ya, it's a standard because there isn't a better, more robust word processor out there. Sure, people like using alternatives, but only because Word is produced under the Microsoft name -- and I'll stick firmly to that. $500 with discounted upgrades is a damn good deal when you really think about it and put it in perspective.

Software just doesn't seem to be that big of a deal when it's pirated, because it's SO EASY to do it! And software really isn't a "tangible" object -- it's difficult to place any kind of value on the software itself because it's sold and prices solely on how robust the application is. You can't "touch" software -- it's just magnetic blips on some form of media. It just doesn't seem like "stealing" in the traditional sense. But it is, and it's probably the most EXPENSIVE form of theft in existance. It's just all too easy to do it and not look back once you've done it.
 
Nope, I don't agree. Software progresses just like technology progresses. Does ANYONE here feel that Intel is obligated to GIVE you a 1.8GHz processor when you purchased a 1.6GHz processor just because the 1.8 didn't exists when you bought the 1.6?
Click to expand...

You're forgetting one little thing: It's not just an upgrade.
It's an upgrade you're forced to make it (don't watch my english).

It should be that Intel would give you an upgrade to 1.8 (overclocking or something) so that your processor is ready for future upgrades, because the 1.6 wasn't right for the future upgrades... You get my idea?

The thing is, the 'to-Mac-OS-X-upgrades' are very, very necessary when you're using Mac OS X.

And yes, Office v. X is quite nice! Tell Ed!

AppleWatcher :D
 
How do you figure it's an upgrade you're FORCED to make? Last time I checked, just about ANY piece of software you buy will run on an 800MHz processor. Probably even a slower one.

I'm still using the FIRST G4 that came out -- a G4/400 PCI machine. Got it even before the whole 50MHz speed-bump fiasco. It's fine. They sell a machine that runs more than twice as fast, and to top it off, there's TWO processors in it. In no way at all do I feel that I am FORCED to upgrade yet.

When PhotoShop 7 comes out, you will not be FORCED to upgrade. You can use PS 6 in Classic mode, which runs quite well on my computer, so I'm not gonna believe that it's a mandatory upgrade. That's like saying I'm forced to "upgrade" from a Geo to a Lamborghini just because the Geo won't get me from A to B in 6 seconds. You bought the Geo, you deal with it.

It's almost as if people expect software companies to enable all people to use their software -- which is an unrealistic expectation. You can't expect people to provide you with stuff. I'm a college student. I don't have much money. I can't afford PhotoShop 7 or a new PowerMac or stuff like that. There are people my age with infinitely more money than I have, and they have the ability to buy stuff that I can't. That's how it goes -- you want something that's expensive? Go get a better job. That's what everyone has to do. Can't get a better job? Get a better education. Can't get a better education? Well, can't help ya there -- sometimes you just gotta wait. Computers aren't for everyone. They're for people who can afford them. They're NOT a necessity, just like that cell-phone glued to everyone's ear is NOT a necessity. They're still a luxury item, but they're coming down in price to the point where more and more people can afford them. Just because you own a computer does NOT entitle you to use expensive software. Nor steal it. Just because you own a car does not entitle you to have an after-market 600W stereo system. Just because you are able to physically load the software on your machine does not entitle you to the rights to do it. Just because you can physically operate a car on the wrong side of the road does not entitle you to do it.

There are many, many things in this world that you are physically able to do with ease, but you are not entitled to do. It takes discipline and self-control sometimes to refrain from committing an illegal act, and if that means pressing "Command-Q" when you see "QuarkXPress 5.0" on a Hotline server instead of double-clicking and downloading it, so be it. If you think Quark is overpriced, don't use it and find an alternative that fits your budget. If nothing fits your budget, tough titty. That's the way it goes. Adobe/Microsoft/Apple/Quark/Macromedia/Etc. -- they're not obligated to provide you software if you can't afford it, but they try -- in the form of educational discounts and discounted upgrades. But people still feel justified in "stealing" from these companies, just because they think that the software is overpriced -- who are they to set a fair market value on a piece of software? Where's their masters in Business? What credentials do they have to make a judgement call like that?

You're 15, right? Still in high-school? You are NOT qualified to make the judgement that Office is overpriced. The only judgement you can make is that it is too expensive for YOU -- NOT EVERYONE. I'm 25 and have a degree in computer science and a minor in business, and I'm not qualified to even open my mouth to start a sentence about the pricing of software.

The people at Adobe and the rest of the companies fairly price their software based upon what it does and the demand for it, and they do it at a fair price where the company makes a profit, which is what the company is there to do -- they're not a non-profic organization. They're out to make money, and they won't make money if all their software is overpriced -- they'd go out of business because people wouldn't buy their software! But they do make a profit off of people who buy their software, and if those customers feel "violated" or "ripped-off" because someone made a profit off of their dollars spent, then they're in the wrong damn country. Or the wrong planet.
 
First: Thankx Admiral :D;)
Second:
How do you figure it's an upgrade you're FORCED to make? Last time I checked, just about ANY piece of software you buy will run on an 800MHz processor. Probably even a slower one.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the upgrades for programs to Mac OS X...

Third:
You're 15, right? Still in high-school? You are NOT qualified to make the judgement that Office is overpriced. The only judgement you can make is that it is too expensive for YOU -- NOT EVERYONE. I'm 25 and have a degree in computer science and a minor in business, and I'm not qualified to even open my mouth to start a sentence about the pricing of software.
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right on this one... But you think that everyone has to pay full prices for software? Even if it's (let's say) 5000$ for Photoshop 9 (for example)?
You say software can't be too expensive because the companies make prices based on demand blabla.... :p
If you find anything too expensive: Go get a better job. Or else get a better education.

Yes I'm still 15 and in The Netherlands we have a degree that's called VWO and I think it's higher than highschool in America.
But that's aside, I think :D:p

Applewatcher
 
No, I didn't say that I think everyone should pay ridiculous prices for software. I said that companies price their software according to how robust the software is and how much demand there is for it -- I think that Adobe would probably see their PhotoShop user base drop off dramatically if it raised its prices to $5000 per license. That's what I'm saying -- they're getting their fair share of profit for the software they sell at $500, and you're getting your money's worth in terms of a robust, user-friendly, money-making piece of software -- I am assuming that you agree that people buy PhotoShop to make money, right? I don't know anyone who would spend $500 on PhotoShop just to dabble in manipulating digital images -- there are much cheaper, equally-good alternatives to PhotoShop for that kind of novice work. PhotoShop is a fully-featured image-editing and production tool. It is not a piece of software aimed at people who want to make "cool-looking desktop pictures." It is aimed at graphic professionals who are graphic professionals for trade, i.e.: they get paid for what they do. $500 on a piece of software that enables you to make thousands is fair. I don't care who says it isn't. It is.

I'm not trying to come down on you for being 15 -- that's not what my remark was aimed to do. It was simply made to say that there are people much older, much more experienced and much more educated than you or I who have no basis to talk about the complex science of product pricing because they lack the knowledge and experience in the marketplace to make such a decision. Just because you or I think that something is overpriced doesn't make it so. We've never toiled for years to duplicate the effect of an airbrush digitally. We've never toiled for years to bring MANY different useful tools together in a software package that is cross-platform in nature. We didn't pay royalties or licensing fees to enable our software to read and write just about every kind of digital image file format (ie, TIFF, JPG, PNG, RAW, BMP, EPS.... etc.... etc....) that exists.

I personally think that the people who toiled and worked long and hard at delivering one hell of a digital-image manipulation and production tool like PhotoShop would agree that $500 is a fair price to pay to use their software. Being a computer-science major, I can appreciate the work that goes into coding software and making sure that customers get what they want at a fair price.

PS -- PhotoShop Elements does a hell of a lot for, what, $100 now? That's fair.
 
there are much cheaper, equally-good alternatives to PhotoShop for that kind of novice work.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. Write some of these alternatives down for me, please :p

It is aimed at graphic professionals who are graphic professionals for trade, i.e.: they get paid for what they do.
Click to expand...

That's right, and a very good point. But now the alternatives!

Just because you or I think that something is overpriced doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between an opinion and a fact :D

I personally think that the people who toiled and worked long and hard at delivering one hell of a digital-image manipulation and production tool like PhotoShop would agree that $500 is a fair price to pay to use their software.
Click to expand...

But... Photoshop isn't $500, is it?!

PS -- PhotoShop Elements does a hell of a lot for, what, $100 now? That's fair.
Click to expand...

:D:D:D Yes, but it isn't ready for Mac OS X. And I don't want to go back to Classic because we have to go to Mac OS X this year!

AppleWatcher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top