21–30 of 74 posts
How likely is it that they will be able to collect the money, legally? After all, using programs like haXe, people can bypass all adobe software used in the creation of the software. Can Adobe monetize the use of said software by taxing the original creators? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, unless they implement some DRM wrapped around the "premium" apis.
Is the title of this post fud filled interpretation, or are there some facts?
I'm trying to imagine the discussion that happened at Adobe that resolved this decision, and it's got to have been either: a) We are self-aware enough to acknowledge that the end of flash being relevant is nigh, so let's monetize this thing while we can b) We think flash is a growing platform, and we're in a position of strength (like Apple's App Store), so the percent of revenue is something people will hate but tol…
I'm guessing it's like "Zynga's making $1.4B a year on the back of our technology, dammit, and we're giving it to them for free! We must do something about this problem of uncaptured revenue."
> In this case, even if you created the SWF yourself (using tools like haxe), you'd still have to pay the tax. Can that actually be legally enforced? I assume this tax would be part of the TOS for using an authoring tool. A consumer has to agree to the TOS for using/downloading the Flash client. But if I want to put up an SWF file I built without Adobe tools... who can legally stop me? Unless there's some kind of enc…
When you buy your computer/phone/tablet you are not purchasing hardware and software to use as you please, you are purchasing access to a "platform" that can reach into your computer and make decisions based on not-your self interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much. My understanding is that it's specifically targeted at monetizing businesses that use tools like Unity or Unreal's UDK to build 3D flash games.
In other words, all the Facebook game developers.
1) I've been in a company with a large established user base on a development environment. This is a very tempting option for such companies. (Look at the comment elsewhere referencing CA.)
2) Such a tax is not regressive. The $50k minimum is actually very friendly to the little guys.
Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. Is this an accurate assessment?
Adobe is targeting operations that are 1) making allot of money of their platform and 2) could benefit from the new features.
And for exchange to access the new features that will make their games port easier, run faster, and allow for more play, they want a small fee back.
Still, the $50K limit and 3D/memory-specific technology seems like there is only a handful of companies that will ever fulfill these conditions... and Adobe surely has a list of exactly who they are. So this is a very targeted policy that will never apply to 99.99% of us. Is this an accurate assessment?
> Is this an accurate assessment?
No.
If you want to create a 3D game using Unity and deploy to Flash, for example, you will need to pay the 9%. That's a lot of people, Flash support for Unity was a much-requested feature. So that's a lot of people right there.
And this isn't just Unity users. Any fast 3D game will require the premium features.
Since when has the SWF format had "fundamental openness"? It's the exact opposite.
I gave Adobe a significant chunk of my money, a while back, to be "legitimate" and to keep up with "the industry" at that time. I'm seriously regretting that decision. Legally, it was "the right" thing to do. But personally, I feel I paid the people that are screwing me -- as one person recently commented about the content industry, he was ceasing to pay those people so that they could use the money to force their ev…
Agreed: Personal Anecdote I made a $15,000 software purchase a few years ago (A bunch of copies of CS5 Master) and the same day I called for support because it was not running well on our brand new machines. I was told "Sorry sir you have to pay $79 to talk to a technician because you use a server (Level two Escalation)" Me: I just purchased $15,000 of software and I have to pay to talk to someone who may or may not…