Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#751

Post by WalterBright »

gs17 wrote: post #746
WalterBright wrote: post #609

> there would be no respite if I paid annually, nor could I receive one of those special invitations for a 35% discount Offering a discount to new customers while no discounts for existing, loyal customers always seemed backwards to me. Back in the Zortech days, we'd offer upgrades to existing customers at a steep discount.

> we'd offer upgrades That's part of the difference. With a subscription model, you don't need customers to want to buy your upgrades (they're forced to pay for them), you benefit the most from locking them into your ecosystem as best you can. Adobe doesn't want to make existing customers happy, they want to make it difficult for unhappy ones to stop paying every month. At that point, discounts to new customers makes…

Trapping people into paying is never going to be a successful long-term strategy.

I tried to unsubscribe from Disney+. Their website says all over the place "cancel at any time", but I could not find any place where I could cancel it.

I wound up canceling it by getting my credit card company to block their charges.

It left a pretty sour taste, and I'd be very reluctant to ever sign up for it again.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#752

Post by smileybarry »

mk89 wrote: post #629
55555 wrote: post #363

Adobe runs what must be one of the largest deceptive rebills. The vast majority of users signing up for a monthly plan do not realize that it is actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately. I honestly don't know how they haven't faced FTC action for this, as it's been their primary model for 5-10 years now.

Out of curiosity I went to their website to understand how they sell it, because it wasn't clear... https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/plans.html I am not sure why this should face FTC or any similar mechanism to prevent "deception". It's written right there: US$22.99/mo Annual, billed monthly And if you slightly scroll down the very first question is how much it costs: > There are several Creative Cloud plans…

IIRC it used to just say “annual” in some words, then the actual terms included the obligation to pay 12 months or pay a cancellation fee. I remember (a while ago when this made headlines) seeing a screenshot of the plans without it being clearly underscored as “annual, paid monthly”.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#753

Post by MrDrMcCoy »

lukan wrote: post #594
pizzaplatinum wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck finding Zyyzzyzx Balleyhew whose address on the temporary card is registered at PO Box 42069, Utqiagvik, AK

And you can just get a card with a fake adress?

No need. You can use services like privacy.com, whose generated cards will accept any address. Just pick a random valid one that you aren't connected to. Picking the address of a public park or library in another city can appease address verification checks.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#754

Post by luckylion »

Juliate wrote: post #631
luckylion wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reducing this to "orientation of the camera" is such a dismissive take What's more important: the person behind the camera or the camera? Show me the photos taken without the camera and then look at all the great photos taken by amateurs. > They require training sets to be anywhere near useful. And the camera needs assembly and R&D. But when either arrives at your door, it's "ready to go". > Cameras _do not_ feed o…

You’re confusing the tools (which are their own marvels) and the practice (which is art, using the tools). However good or not is the camera, it’s not the camera that dictates the inner qualities of a photograph, there is _something else_ that evades the technicalities of the tools and comes from the context and the choice of the photograph (and of accident, too, because it’s the nature of photography: capturing an a…

> Generative AI on the contrary of tools that stay in their specific place, steals the insight from previous artists (from the training set) and strips the prompter from their own insights and personality and imprint (because it is not employed, but only through a limited text prompt at an interface).

Because every piece of generative AI looks identical, right? I mean, if the prompt had an impact, and two people using some ML-model would create different results based on what they choose to input, it sounds suspiciously like your "the same camera in two different hands", doesn't it?

> the fundamental difference there is between _doing art_ and asking a computer to produce art.

You mean doing art by asking a computer do produce a dump of sensor-data by pressing a button?

You appear to be completely blind to the similarities and just retreat towards "I draw the lines around art, and this is inside, and that's outside of it" without being able to explain how the AI-tool is fundamentally different from the camera-tool, but obviously one negates all possibility to create art, while the other totally is art, because that's what people say!

Needless to say that the people making those distinctions can't even tell apart a photo from an AI-generated picture.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#755

Post by Juliate »

squigz wrote: post #747
Juliate wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only objection, but it's one of the major and blocking ones, because how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set? The other objections, in the economic range (replacing/displacing artists work for financial gain, from the producers point of view) are totally valid too, but don't rely on the same argument. And my point above is not really an objection, it'…

> how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set? And this is why I've stopped arguing with people from this crowd. Beyond the classic gatekeeping of what art is, I'm sick of the constant moving of the goalposts. Even if a company provides proof, I'm sure you'd find another issue with them Underlying all of it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI tools are used fo…

You’re sure? How?

And what crowd? I am stating my viewpoint, from an education in humanities AND tech, and from 25 years of career in software tech, and 30 years of musician and painter practice.

Sorry but who is moving the goalpost here? Who is coming with their tech saying « hi, but we don’t care about how your laws make sense and we don’t care that we don’t know what art is because we never studied about it, neither do we have any artistic practice, we just want to have what you guys do by pressing a button. Oh and all of your stuff is free for us to forage thru, don’t care about what you say about your own work. »

Typical entitled behavior. Don’t act surprised that this is met with counter arguments and reality.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#756

Post by squigz »

Juliate wrote: post #755
squigz wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set? And this is why I've stopped arguing with people from this crowd. Beyond the classic gatekeeping of what art is, I'm sick of the constant moving of the goalposts. Even if a company provides proof, I'm sure you'd find another issue with them Underlying all of it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI tools are used fo…

You’re sure? How? And what crowd? I am stating my viewpoint, from an education in humanities AND tech, and from 25 years of career in software tech, and 30 years of musician and painter practice. Sorry but who is moving the goalpost here? Who is coming with their tech saying « hi, but we don’t care about how your laws make sense and we don’t care that we don’t know what art is because we never studied about it, neith…

Typical gatekeeping behavior. Don't act surprised when the world and artistic expression moves on without you.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#757

Post by Marsymars »

chrisldgk wrote: post #245
Marsymars wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that incentive notably different or better for consumers than the incentive provided by being required to remain better than competitors to retain subscription revenue?

Because switching to a competitors option is a much bigger task that just staying on whichever version you’re on currently, which you can’t do anymore since Adobe only offers subscriptions. Switching to a different creative software solution is a much bigger task than just buying the new license and installing the program. You have to relearn basic tasks that are second nature in the other thing, change workflows due…

Thanks, my mind was glossing over switching costs, what you’re saying there tracks to me.

> only opt-out of paying them assloads forever, which was buying a perpetual license and staying on that version.

This I struggle with though - financially there’s no real difference between a perpetual license and a subscription once you work out the time value of money, etc. For any arbitrary subscription price, you could make a perpetual license more expensive, or vice-versa. ergo, the complaints here aren’t really about the license type, at their root they’re simply pricing complaints.

“Monthly pricing for Photoshop 2024 is too high at $x” is fundamentally the same problem (with the same solutions) as “our perpetual license for Photoshop 5.5 is becoming unusable for both technical and HR reasons and the perpetual license (which hypothetically exists) for Photoshop 2024 is too high at $x*500”.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#758

Post by Juliate »

squigz wrote: post #756
Juliate wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re sure? How? And what crowd? I am stating my viewpoint, from an education in humanities AND tech, and from 25 years of career in software tech, and 30 years of musician and painter practice. Sorry but who is moving the goalpost here? Who is coming with their tech saying « hi, but we don’t care about how your laws make sense and we don’t care that we don’t know what art is because we never studied about it, neith…

Typical gatekeeping behavior. Don't act surprised when the world and artistic expression moves on without you.

Laughable.

What would be gatekeeping is if someone prevented you to pick a pencil, paper, a guitar, a brush, to make something out of your own.

You’re the only one gatekeeping yourself here.

Looks like it’s the same pattern as with blockchains, and NFTs and Web3 stuff and the move fast/break things mantra: you cannot argue for and demonstrate for what your « solutions » actually solve, so you need brute force to break things and impose them.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#759

Post by Juliate »

squigz wrote: post #756
Juliate wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re sure? How? And what crowd? I am stating my viewpoint, from an education in humanities AND tech, and from 25 years of career in software tech, and 30 years of musician and painter practice. Sorry but who is moving the goalpost here? Who is coming with their tech saying « hi, but we don’t care about how your laws make sense and we don’t care that we don’t know what art is because we never studied about it, neith…

Typical gatekeeping behavior. Don't act surprised when the world and artistic expression moves on without you.

Artistic expression does not « move on » without me, or people.

Artistic expression is people in motion, alone or in groups.

You’re talking about the economics of performances and artefacts, which are _something else_ out of artistic expression.

EDIT to clarify/reinforce:

Elvis without Elvis isn’t Elvis. Discs, movies, books are captures of Elvis. Not the same thing.

Miyazaki without Miyazaki isn’t Miyazaki. It may look like it, but it is not it.

Artistic expression is someone’s expression, practice (yours, mine, theirs). It’s the definition of the originality of it (who it comes from, who it is actually made by).

A machine, a software may produce (raw) materials for artistic expression, whatever it is, but it is not artistic expression by itself.

Bowie using the Verbasizer is using a tool for artistic expression. The Verbasizer output isn’t art by itself. Bowie made Bowie stuff.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#760

Post by fasd1412 »

lukan wrote: post #594
pizzaplatinum wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck finding Zyyzzyzx Balleyhew whose address on the temporary card is registered at PO Box 42069, Utqiagvik, AK

And you can just get a card with a fake adress?

Payment don't really check if address matches, they don't even check if account name matches with credit card name.
Post reply on HN