Photoshop's newest terms of service has users agree to allow Adobe access to their active projects for the purposes of "content moderation" and other various reasons. This has caused concern among…
I’m convinced Adobe’s acquisition activity is driven primarily by elimination of alternatives to the SaaS subscription model, as opposed to revenue growth. Adobe is okay with viable competition, but they are not okay with viable competition that offers an alternate payment and delivery model that doesn’t view the customer as an open wallet. That’s when the polonium tea comes out, because letting that run spells industry exodus.
It makes me wonder what the US DOJ/FTC/relevant regulator thinks. Perhaps they don’t care at all because (unlike Adobe’s userbase) we realize this sector is as un-vital as it gets. The Stockholm syndrome on display is sad nevertheless.
I’m convinced Adobe’s acquisition activity is driven primarily by elimination of alternatives to the SaaS subscription model, as opposed to revenue growth. Adobe is okay with viable competition, but they are not okay with viable competition that offers an alternate payment and delivery model that doesn’t view the customer as an open wallet. That’s when the polonium tea comes out, because letting that run spells industry exodus.
It makes me wonder what the US DOJ/FTC/relevant regulator thinks. Perhaps they don’t care at all because (unlike Adobe’s userbase) we realize this sector is as un-vital as it gets. The Stockholm syndrome on display is sad nevertheless.