Cloud Central?

I just realized that I haven't posted anything about Adobe's recent decision to discontinue Photoshop as a boxed product, and move it (and most of Adobe's other products) purely to a subscription model.

This is a terrible decision, that I think will hurt Adobe pretty badly.

While I think that it will work for some people (purely on a dollars-paid basis), I can't see it working for very many people.

But first, let's get my biases out of the way.  I don't use photoshop.  I've played around with Elements a few times (in a couple different versions), but have never really stuck with it.  I've thought about going to Lightroom (especially with my recent problems with importing in Aperture), but have never actually used it.

My main problem with Photoshop has always been the cost involved.  I've seriously considered it a few times when I was eligible for student pricing (and even thought about taking a community college course just to get that student pricing), but never did get it.  And I've never really contemplated paying full price for it (though I might if the learning curve was less steep).

Right now, I'm fairly happy with Aperture, DxO, and lots of plugins (nik, onOne, and topaz suites, along with photomatix hdr, ptlens, and ptgui pro (not a plugin, so more of a pain)).  Photoshop would add a few more capabilities (smart removal and color correction would be the big ones, although it wouldn't surprise me if one of the plugins I have does color correction.  But also layers and masking would occasionally be useful) that would be nice to have.

So, with that out of the way, why do I think this is a terrible decision?

Well, the short of it is that I think the subscription model is fundamentally flawed.  I've never bought software on subscription; it just doesn't make sense to me.  Why would this ever be an improvement for the customer?

And for the business, it actually reduces the incentive to innovate.  They're getting their money whether they add new features or not, so there's no real push there.  It likely also screws up testing cycles, as it means new versions will probably have less testing.

And the big problem, of course, is what you do when you don't have the money anymore.  Can you get to your pictures at all?  Everything I see so far is a no.  You won't be able to open up the PSD files, layered or flattened.  So you'll have to export the TIFFs.  Which works fine, but it's a slow process (as far as I know, you can't select several hundred PSDs, and mass convert them into TIFFs).

And what if you have the money at one point, but then don't have the money?  You get screwed, plain and simple.  In the desktop model, you buy it when you have money, and then you can still use it when you don't.  No muss, no fuss.

And if you don't have a stable (and fast) internet connection?  Multiple problems here.  Potentially it could cause issues with the software's periodic phoning home.  More likely, it makes multi-gigabyte downloads problematic.

And students?  Where do they fit in?  There isn't a student pricing, but the bigger issue is that students are generally not good at things like subscriptions.  Nor do they have lots of money.  Will schools pay the requisite number of subscriptions for their students?  I have my doubts.  Will professors want to teach their aspiring artists software that comes with lock-in?  Again, I have my doubts.

And if the students aren't learning Photoshop, who's going to come along to pay that absurd subscription price in five or ten years?  This is actually the big reason why it's a very short-sighted decision.

I've heard a lot of people saying that this is Adobe's way of dealing with piracy.  And I think there's some appeal to that argument, but the real question is, how is that piracy hurting Adobe?  Every study I've seen (that wasn't paid for by the BSA, MPAA, or RIAA) says that piracy helps companies, by broadening their exposure and mind share (to people with little money now, or in parts of the world where it's difficult or impossible to pay for the software).

And to deal with the last argument, that it makes sense for some people (particularly people overseas or who are using many of the other programs in the CS suite).  Financially, in the short term, it probably does.  But it locks in those customers in a way that CS didn't.  First, there's the issue I already mentioned above, about what happens if you can't keep paying for it.  And secondly, you're at Adobe's mercy on pricing, at that point.  If you go to the subscription, and Adobe raises the price (and they will, I guarantee), you're completely stuck with paying the higher price or losing access to your files.  Either way, you're screwed.

So I really don't see this being of benefit to any of Adobe's customers, even the ones who might think it is.  We'll see; there's quite a bit of time for Adobe to try to address some of those issues (especially the end-of-subscription-access one).  But so far, they haven't (other than to say that they're thinking about it).

I think Thom Hogan has it right, from Adobe's perspective, when he says that they won't even think about whether this is the right thing to do for another year or two.  But I also think he's right that this is making a lot of people question their commitment to Adobe software, and that's never a good thing.

I think this is another example of a decision with very wide impact being taken by a bean counter unable to recognize externalities.  That is, long-term effects that don't directly show up on a balance sheet.  And I think it'll be recognized (eventually) as a huge mistake for the company.

Ruminating on twitter

I recently got a twitter account.  I've only sent out a few tweets; I really wasn't planning on even getting an account.  I only got it because work wanted me to do some research on using Twitter's APIs to continuously process tweets to one or more accounts, and it turns out that you need an account even if you only want to write an app (even if the app doesn't require a user to login to their account).

So I'm not the best person to ask using twitter.  In fact, most of the info I get that comes from twitter (for instance, that Tortorella was booted as coach of the Rangers today) comes to me second-hand.  And I'm ok with that, honestly.

But I thought that Paul Graham's take on it was interesting.  It leads me to believe that twitter probably would be better being merely an internet RFC-based spec that wasn't owned by anyone.

And I think it also gets at why so many people were upset when Twitter decided to limit developers of 3rd party apps to 100k tokens (ie: market reach limit) a few months ago.  Everyone felt like it was an open party, and that was Twitter flexing their muscles as the provider, asserting that it is, in fact, closed.

I really don't have any big feelings on the token limit; I think it's a bad decision, and a terrible precedent, but it's unlikely to have any effect on me, since I don't use any 3rd party interface (even if I likely should).

In any event, I think it's an interesting way of looking at twitter, and I'll have to do more thinking about it.

Double-retina?

I trawl some of the apple rumor sites fairly regularly, leading to some interesting things. For instance, I remember reading, several years ago, about Apple supposedly working on a 50" monitor. What's interesting about that is that it's probably tied into the same rumors we're hearing, these days, about an Apple TV with a screen.

But that's not the main reason I'm writing this. The reason I'm writing this is that you'll sometimes see really stupid things going across these sites. Witness: double-retina resolution.

Ignoring system-level problems with this (reduced battery life, need for much better GPU, increased heat from that GPU, possibly need for more memory), it just doesn't make any sense to begin with. Retina resolution is already at the limit of what your eye can see. What would be gained?

Are taxes paid?

I haven't heard the whole testimony (and won't) that Apple CEO Tim Cook gave before Congress today, but I've definitely heard some interesting excerpts.

Apple isn't pushing tax shelters as far as they could, no doubt. The fact that Apple accounts for 2.5% of all corporate taxes collected in the US is a pretty good indicator of that.  And a pretty good indicator that a lot more

But the idea that they aren't doing anything to shelter money from US taxes is pretty absurd on its face, as well.

One thing I wonder about: Apple's R&D spending supposedly went up 40% last year. I wonder if that was actually an increase in activity, or, as I suspect, was reclassifying some activity that was already going on to be R&D for tax purposes. I don't know, but it would shock me if a significant amount of that wasn't just reclassification.

Oh, and further proof that Apple is playing games to avoid taxes: their recent bond offering to repurchase shares. This was done purely to keep from repatriating overseas profits (and thereby having to pay taxes on that money).

So yes, Tim, I believe that Apple is using far less than all of the available tricks to avoid paying taxes, but claiming that it isn't using any just doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny.

And that overseas money? Trapped is not the word for it. You can pay the taxes on it (remember, it's only a tax holiday, which is to say deferment, that's keeping you from paying taxes today. Those taxes should need to be paid eventually (though it is likely that you'll be able to convince Congress to overlook it)) and bring it back today. The only thing preventing that is an unwillingness to pay the piper.

Where am I?

Just ran across this new GPS device for cameras (how new? Amazon's page doesn't list it as available yet).

Anyway, price unknown (although the HK price converts to $150-ish), it sounds fantasic. Sturdy, small, weather-sealed, and out of the way (ie: not on the hot shoe). It also has an extra port for using an external trigger and uses little power. As long as the GPS function actually works, this looks to be everything I want in a camera-mounted GPS device.

Anxious to actually play with one. If worse comes to worst, I'll ask my inlaws to bring one over from Hong Kong next time they visit. But hopefully Amazon will carry them before that.

Talk Wealth Aboard?

I was very cynical and skeptical when Pope Francis was named. I figured he'd be a lot like John Paul II or, worse, Benedict XVI, since he was getting named by a college that was almost (?) entirely their appointees.

But he has impressed me, in the little I've heard from him since then. Most recently, he openly repudiated the culture of more that has reigned for at least the last thirty years.

And that's a big change. I remember when John Paul II was first flying over to the US, he was taking TWA. The joke at the time was that TWA stood for 'Talk Wealth Aboard'. And while I didn't think much of it at the time (too young), it stuck with me, and I eventually found out a lot more about the basis for the joke (my dad told me the joke, and I suspect that to him, it was just a joke, but there's a strong grounding for why that wasn't an inaccurate analysis).

So I'm pleased (and impressed) that Francis is breaking with that. I hope it continues, and that it trickles down through the church heirarchy.

Thinking long-term

I was talking with my dad the other day, and he was mentioning about the unfairness of having to pay taxes for schools even if you're sending your kids to private school (full disclosure: my parents did send me to private schools for most of my primary schooling).

I have no trouble seeing where he's coming from. And my daughter will be going to at least one year of private school; not looking forward to paying both for that year.

But this diary from kos about Michigan schools reflects a large measure of what I'm afraid will happen if that "unfairness" is eliminated. And the inevitable result of pursuit of policies along those lines will be large numbers of uneducated people.

While that situation might ensure that the rich will stay the rich (it will, because they'll be the only educated ones), it means that they'll be the bigger and bigger fish of a smaller and smaller pool. Unfortunately, it seems like they can't look up and see that. Really, in the long term, it won't work out for anyone.

I was listening to something on NPR yesterday evening, and they had one of their normal "ads". Anyway, the group in question (I forget who) said something about helping an "informed and educated electorate", which made me wonder where they're going to find such a thing.

Thanks to the internet, the tools are there to be more educated and informed than ever before, but the media has become completely useless for being informed. And education is becoming less and less available, thanks to policies like those in Michigan. And stuff like "No Child Left Behind", which is some pretty window-dressing for leaving lots of children behind. As the worst aspect of that, just look at the teacher cheating scandals to see where the teacher priorities are in NCLB (not to imply that that's the only failure, but it's certainly the biggest).

This kind of leads to what I see as the biggest failure of the modern GOP: an inability to see government spending as investment. Not to say that every kind of government spending is that, but a sizeable amount of it is, and that kind of spending has a fantastic RoI. Unfortunately, the return is not this year or next year. It might be five or ten years down the road. But if they're careful, it'll be there.

I have no problem whatsoever with cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. The problem is that the indicators on that that exist show that there isn't much of it. And the largest part of what does exist is probably in the DoD (per Donald Rumsfeld), especially in the large acquisition programs. But, of course, those are the only things that the GOP refuses to cut. That's why, I think, they are completely incapable of putting forth specific policy suggestions.

And their inability to put forth specific ideas is hurting everyone. Not just because it has led them to a scorched-earth "Just Say No" policy, but because it makes it impossible to have intelligent debates on policy.

A real opposition party would be good for everyone, as good solutions could be worked out. But when only one party actually wants to find solutions, everybody loses.

A specific example of this is the war on terror. The government has admitted that there is no foreseeable end to that. The GOP could be a constructive opposition by playing this up, and forcing policy discussions towards ending that, and towards limiting incursions on civil liberties in pursuit of terrorists.

But they have no interest in that, because it's an easy way for politicians to make money (through the stock market, even if more direct routes are cut off (and those routes might also be available; I don't know)).

So that just leaves more and more money going to the rich, and everyone else getting screwed.

IRS Scandal (?)

I really don't understand all the uproar over what's going on at the IRS.  Yes, it probably shouldn't have happened (almost certainly not, but I actually haven't heard enough details to be positive), but what is the IRS supposed to do in cases like these?

Well, here's a good run-down from tax policy expert David Cay Johnston:

Congress requires the IRS to review every application for tax-exempt status to weed out organizations that are partisan, political, or that generate private gain. Congress has imposed this requirement on the IRS, and its predecessor agencies, since 1913.

So, it is likely that something that shouldn't have happened, did.  But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the IRS shouldn't be giving blanket approvals for tax filing status (and, perhaps more importantly, for purposes of hiding donations and donors).

There's quite a few other important points made in Johnston's article.  Check it out, and wish that most of those breathlessly talking about Watergate-level scandal had done so (because they obviously haven't).

Depressing end

My wife surprised me this afternoon by letting me know she'd found me a ticket to the Caps game this evening.  Despite my earlier misgivings, I was still quite excited about the prospect.

I had never been to a Game Seven before, and that was fairly exciting.  And the last time I saw a Caps-Rangers playoff game, live, it was Game Four in 1994, when the Caps won 4-2 to stave off elimination.

I was certainly hoping for a similar result tonight, and the Caps came out on fire.  They were putting together a fantastic game (despite some nearly-criminal no-calls) when a Caps attack was stopped by Lundqvist and a jail-break went the other way, ending up as a 4-on-2.  Kreider dropped to Asham just inside the blue line, and his shot went to the top corner.

That was the only goal of the first period, but the Caps had solidly dominated.  Not only were shots 13-9, but blocks were 13-1.  The only thing that kept me from feeling confident that they were get back into it was the officiating (not only was Holtby run twice, but Callahan leveled Chimmer with a hit well after the whistle and Perreault was tripped right in front of the net.  And those are the ones I remember.  I remember yelling more than that, but I forget the details).

The second period actually did start with the tail end of the one power play the Caps got before the game was decided, but they didn't get anything out of it.  The Caps actually kept playing well for a while, but three minutes in, Erskine ended up as the only one back against a 2-on-1.  That didn't end in immediate disaster, as the shot went off the post, but the defense never got set up, and Pyatt was left alone on the edge of the crease to clean up a rebound of a Dorsett shot.

Two minutes later, at the end of some significant zone time, a Del Zotto shot from the point went off of Brouwer's skate, off of Holtby's stick, and off the top of his shin pad, then into the net.  The hole the puck slipped through, there, wasn't even big enough to see.  Really bad luck.

The Caps actually looked pretty good for the rest of the period (except Holtby, who had a couple of other very near misses that he normally just gobbles up), but were unable to put the puck past Hank, despite some fantastic chances.

They were up  26-17 on shots, even better when factoring in blocks, but were losing three-nil anyway.

The only bit of encouragement was that we saw that Boston had come back from 4-1 down to tie Toronto in regulation.

But then, almost right off the opening face-off, Erskine decides to try to beat Callahan one-on-one and loses, giving up a clean breakaway.  Why did he get a two-year extension with a 30% raise, again?

In any event, Callahan, excellent shootout man that is, converted the breakaway to basically put the game away.  Thirteen seconds in.  Fastest goal I've ever seen that wasn't scored by the team winning the opening faceoff.

Six and a half minutes later, Zuccarello put the final nail in the coffin when Green went over to the other side to make a nice poke check on Brassard, but then never got back to that side.  Brassard retrieved the puck and threw it over to that side, leaving Zuccarello alone against Holtby.  Zucky deked Holtby nicely and put it into the net.

From that point, it was basically just a shit-show that I stuck around for, for no real reason.  Hoping they could at least break the shutout, I suppose.  A ton of people left after the fifth goal.  I did text my wife 'Game over', but stayed anyway.

Easily the most depressing playoff game I've ever gone to.  Maybe most depressing game, actually, although I'm less certain about that.  I'd like to say that Lundqvist stole this game for New York, but the defense was thoroughly craptastic.  And I haven't even mentioned the odd-man break from the first period that resulted from the defenseman pinching, and no forward went back to cover the point.

Well, let the offseason begin, I suppose.  The team will certainly have plenty to think about, starting with answering the question of what to do with Ribeiro.  I must admit to having very mixed feelings about him, and I'm honestly not even sure what to hope for.

Update:  I forgot to mention that the officiating did seem fine after the first period, for what that's worth.