-
Did Adobe buy GM?
-
And why is this in a Final Cut Pro X forum, did Apple buy Adobe?
-
Used to be kids just vegged out channel surfing and talking on the phone. Now they spend all day reading and writing. SOUNDS like progress.
-
Well then, I think some smart lawyer should point out to GM that if it’s all about the software, which doesn’t wear out or change, that any problem must be a bug. A defect in the software PART of the car and subject to recall and / or free replacement or repair.
-
[Thomas Frank] ” And why is this in a Final Cut Pro X forum, did Apple buy Adobe?”
Welcome to the FCPX or Not: The Debate forum. Have a look at four years worth of debate threads and you will answer your own question.
Please don’t ask us to change the forum name.
-
I have to admit this was a little dig at Adobe, but I can understand why they would like a subscription model, and from their POV it’s eminently reasonable. Also, the Adobe people that post here always are polite and entirely reasonable.
I’m hardly especially resistant to change – I jumped right into FCPX and many other changes since I started in this business, shooting and editing film – but I really do like the feeling of ownership. Even If I get stuck at a certain point, at least I can continue on in that state. Having someone else wanting my money monthly is just annoying. It’s the same reason I don’t lease cars, essentially, I save up and then buy them outright.
It’s good to have options. Owning what I’ve paid for is the best option for me. So far.
Best,
JohnBest,
John -
After a touch more reading I see that GM isn’t saying it owns your car (though that does make for a better headline). GM is saying it owns the software that runs your car which is no different than the ownership claims that Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Autodesk, Google, RIM, etc., make. Users license the software, they don’t own it.
-
That is an interesting differentiation – but one cannot buy a car now that does not have the software or be able to run without it so in the end, different wording, same end user result. NPR had a similar story on this as seen in this article with John Deere: https://www.agweb.com/blog/janzen-ag-law-blog/does-john-deere-really-own-your-tractor/
Michael
-
[Michael Phillips] “That is an interesting differentiation – but one cannot buy a car now that does not have the software or be able to run without it so in the end, different wording, same end user result.”
It’s not the same end result though. Me owning my car is different than GM owning my car, and GM licensing its software to end users doesn’t make GM own my car anymore than Apple owns the iPhone sitting on my desk or Sony the under-used NEX-5 in my closet. I can do anything I want with these devices (or to these devices) though some things might violate the ToS and/or copyright law.
Really no different than any other device that is a combination of hardware and non-open source software.
What’s interesting is GM, John Deere, etc., aren’t arguing for a *change* in the law they are arguing for the law to remain *the same* which means for decades we haven’t owned our cars and we didn’t even realize it! OMG!!! 😉
On one hand I understand people wanting the ‘freedom’ to hack their cars, on the other hand I understand the car companies not wanting to make it easy and legal to reverse engineer, modify, copy, and/or bypass their IP which controls critical functions to make the vehicles work safely and properly.
On a basic level, is this any different than media distribution? I mean, when I buy or rent media (either as a file or on a physical medium) I am paying for a limited use license for that piece of media.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up