|
|
|
|
|
by lucb1e
3369 days ago
|
|
I think it's an excellent excuse to try to get people to stop making implicit product recommendations and reinforcing a de facto standard (monpoly?) when they are really just trying to say "photo editing". Adobe's Creative Suite is a little pet peeve of mine. Many people I know have it illegally (I'm a student, so that says something about the financial capabilities of my peers), and even if they can afford it they say they don't use it professionally or not enough to warrant buying it. Many are even software developers themselves. Some subjects in the study I do even require using Adobe Photoshop specifically, but kindly ask people to buy it rather than supplying a license "because it's too expensive to provide for everyone". (So they think the students can afford it then? I'm quite certain they're just covertly asking us to violate copyright laws here.) If it's all so terribly expensive and apparently we can't negotiate with this overlord, why don't we try to get rid of this industry standard? |
|
I'm not sure what you mean by "apparently we can't negotiate." There are bulk licensing deals and student discounts. If you're a student, you can get Photoshop and Lightroom for $10/mo. If someone needs it for one course, that's seems pretty affordable.