A clash of old-think and new-think is about to bite switchers and mixed-platform Flash buyers on the bum.
You've heard that all new Macromedia products (including Flash) will be protected by Product Activation. This means that for the first time, Macromedia's accounting system will actually have some control over when and how the comany's software gets installed. In the past, serial numbers were assigned to every physical copy, and in theory would only ever be used to unlock that one copy, since in theory customers are supposed to guard their serials like ATM pins and tax file numbers.
The theory was wrong, and has been for 10 years or more. Vendors simply put up with fuzzy accounting for over a decade, knowing that a serial wasn't really a single quantity... more like a probability wave extending from zero upwards. They sat back and hoped that their company's serial numbers had a low enough installation rate that they could still generate profit.
A strange quirk from all of this is the way that two different trends have collided: the trend towards giving a product one name across all supported platforms, and the trend toward downloadable software. Microsoft has always been very consistent about keeping products on different platforms unique. "Word for Windows" was obviously not a Mac product. Office v.X has a distinct look and a different enough feature set from Office xp to be mentally recognized as a separate version.
Now consider Macromedia's product line, particularly Flash. Flash has always been sold under the same name, with the exact same feature set on both Windows and Mac (with Flash Players on many other platforms). Flash is a decidedly platform agnostic piece of software, both in authoring and playback. All the features of the Mac binary and Windows binary of Flash are exactly the same, barring minor UI differences. Not even the installer says "for Windows" or "for Macintosh." It just says "Flash."
Sure, your Windows serial won't work on a Mac now, but you're supposed to pay for every copy anyway under the current EULA, right? It's not like they're two different products.
Oops.
Flash forward to today. Macromedia is about to make Flash available under a new end user licensing agreement. Regular (as in, not volume licensed) customers will be given the new freedom to "to install the software on one portable computer or home computer for his or her exclusive use." This is explicitly meant as in addition to your other computer. You are also given the option to deactivate any installations you might make, so in effect you're really buying two floating installation credits, brokered over the Internet.
But another clause of the EULA says that you can only use your secondary install with the same version and edition as the primary. It's not obvious at first, but this means that you're encouraged to use two Macs or two PCs, but not one of each.
In effect, if you choose to try Flash for PC first, buy a serial, and then try to use Flash for Mac, you'll be blocked from doing so. Why? Because, according to Macromedia's accounting computer, one platform = one product. So, although the original FAQ and press releases implied that you could install Flash MX 2004 on two computers, in many cases you can only actually use it on one. How many designers, having purchased a serial number (note that the installers are freely available, it's the serial number you have to buy), with a mixed shop, will expect to use their two install credits on their Mac and their PC? I'm betting a lot. But maybe that's just because I'm one of them.
So, because we're free to choose between two different types of computer, some of us will be getting two installs for our money, and some of us will only get one. If you switch over to the other platform, you get NONE, even if you deactivate both your installations. Fair?
If the products were actually different, then this would make sense. If the two versions weren't mainly compiled from the same codebase, this would make more sense. And finally, if both installer binaries weren't freely available, with a built-in Try/Buy/Activate mechanism, this would make even more sense. But right now, it doesn't really make much sense at all.
The solution to all of this madness of course is to grab some friends and buy 10+ copies of Flash under the bulk-licensing scheme. That way, oh the irony, you'll never have to activate any of them.
To register your ire, please contact Macromedia. Online comments have about zero effect, so you really need to get on the phone or at least send an official email.
Product Activation is the only thing enforcing this EULA, so I'd say it's clearly a Product Activation issue and an EULA issue. The situation arises between the two of them.
The question is, is Macromedia still licensing Flash Mac and Flash Windows as separate products for any present reason? Surely that was a distinction originally made for accounting purposes, now suddenly moot.
I mean think about it, the two were originally made separately licensable products so the company could manage the distribution and accounting of each installer (to account for costs and profitability, etc). Now a software agent on the customer's computer gathers platform data in real-time, at every install. The need for separate serial ranges and client-side platform checking is no longer a present reality.
The response "that's the way it has always been" is dodgy, for the very reasons I laid out in my article. Platform-specific licensing is OUTDATED, and no longer represents even a neutral value for the customer. Now it represents a *negative* value. And when things in your product carry a negative value, they ought to be re-engineered or eliminated.
Replies: 40 comments
1) Hi David, does this boil down to "I'd like to use that new two-machine license across platforms?"
If so, then we haven't done that before -- the previous license was for one machine only and we only just expanded to two, and Mac and Win versions are two separate downloads so there are significant complications anyway -- but this request is already on the radar, if that context is helpful.
For readers, if this is a meaningful issue for you, then could you drop a note to the feedback point, please? If you include a real contact point in return then that would help in measuring the true importance, thanks.
Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support
posted by John Dowdell (), 08/29/2003 11:28 PM CST
2) The point is IMHO that this activation thing is just bad bad crap for legal regular end user. I'll follow David's advice and I'll grab some friends to buy a volume license so we won't be bothered by this stupid activation. That's a good idea for sure.
Feedback point ? do you only rely on this ? aren't you supposed, you all macromedia community observers, to understand your customers opinions ?
(nothing personnal John, I really appreciate your work - except this sometimes too subjective corporate way of analyzing things).
Maybe someone will set up an online shop, where he'll sell products bought as volume license from Macromedia ?
posted by anonymous coward (), 08/29/2003 11:55 PM CST
3) Ok, I'll agree that from a consumer's point of view, not being able to use one license on each of 2 platforms (mac & win) is stupid. Likewise, to a minor extent I agree that regular rule/law abiding users will be the ones most inconvenienced (versus the hackers who don’t plan on following the rules anyway)... however...
When you buy a house, you buy it outright. When you buy a Big Mac, you own it. However, in the software world, music, video, patent, and pretty much any intellectual property based 'purchase', you aren't buying the product outright. You are renting it, with terms and conditions applied. And almost NEVER does this include anonymity. You sign agreements to follow terms that you agree to. Should you break those terms, the bank, copyright holder, seller, etc. gets to come after you. Heck, Intel, Microsoft, even Adobe does this (remember when Adobe sued Macromedia?).
The software industry differs slightly. For consumers, for years you have been able to anonymously ‘purchase’ software at a store. You pay your rental fee and you get the software and are supposed to follow the attached rules. Yup, that’s right, you are being TRUSTED to follow the rules. The software maker doesn’t know who you are, and hopes that you are trustworthy enough to follow the agreed upon rules. No where else does the vendor put so much faith and trust in the consumer to play nice, follow the rules, and not cheat. They deliver a quality product to the consumer, the consumer pays a minimal amount (relative to the true R&D costs) to rent the product, gets anonymity, and all they have to do is agree to not steal the product by sharing their license with others, and a few other minor things (like not reverse engineering it)…common sense when you think about it.
Only one problem….the lowly consumer is irresponsible, dishonest, and doesn’t play fair. Yup, that’s right! For every one of you holier than thou, god fearing, I follow all the rules (or so I claim) users that buys the product and follows the reasonably simple rules of not sharing, there are others who steal the software, copy it, share it with friends, puts it out on the web, or, just downloads it from someone else who does. All while expecting anonymity. The RIAA is fighting this same type of problem.
So…a solution. The software maker offers the user a fairly minor obstacle (product activation) to jump over. In exchange, they give you the rights to have 2 copies running (albeit on the same platform, but that is the decision of the software maker, not the customer). You still get anonymity. You still get pretty much the same terms of use (though expanded onto 2 copies) with the same expectation that you will follow the rules and not share your copy with friends and the internet. The only difference, the software maker gets to use a software based method (encryption, activation, copy protection, etc.) to make it a bit harder for you to inadvertently or purposely break the terms of the agreement…the same one you agreed you would follow when you ‘purchased’ the software.
So why are people complaining so much about activation? All sorts of lame reasons that are important to a very very small percentage of the user base. I could name a half dozen reasons that have been cited in recent weeks. Yes, many of them are not so lame in a worst case scenario. However, you the consumer AGREE(d) to the terms of the license when you purchased/upgraded the product.
I dislike the 2 platform difficulty with the license MM is offering. Luckily, I use the horribly unstable Windows platform (versus Win & Mac) and don’t have to worry cross platform licensing issues. Sure, I am a bit concerned that my frequent reinstallation on Windows will cause me to go over the arbitrary limit imposed on me for installs by MM. But unlike a lot of the complainers, I have read up on how you can relinquish your authorization before you reinstall, and then reauthorize on the new install. Likewise, for most people, using the same hard drive will not cause a problem. So the problems cited with track 0 exist for multi-boot, virtual machines, new hardware, and overwritten track 0’s still exist, but only for a very very minor percentage of the users. Life’s a bitch.
You as a consumer would never turn around, write a book (software), and expect it to be freely distributed to millions. You would never agree to having your diary read (think of the source code/intellectual property in the software). Especially if you didn’t have full knowledge of whom you were selling the material to, letting them read, etc. You wouldn’t allow anonymity. You wouldn’t sell it cheap. And you wouldn’t trust some Joe on the street to play nice and follow the rules you stipulated and they agreed to.
But as consumers, we expect software manufactures to roll over and play dead. To ‘trust’ the consumer.
Well, the consumer as a whole has proven themselves to be untrustworthy. And now the software vendors are trying to protect their rights. Understandable.
Face up to activation. We (and I am guilty to) brought this unto ourselves. For 20+ years we have stolen software, games, etc. for our Apple computers, Macs, Windows, Playstations, etc. We have ripped off the vendors who put sweat equity into making their products. Yes, for years they have tried copy protection, dongles, keys, license servers, phone home systems, etc. to encourage us to keep our word. We have bitched and moaned, complained until we couldn’t complain any more…and each time the vendors change tactics to try and keep their customers happy. But the customers never are, they always want more more more, cheaper cheaper cheaper.
Activation is but the next technological method vendors have come up with to try and keep us honest. Sure, there are going to be minor problems with it. There are tradeoffs to everything. But we deserve it. They gave and gave, and we stole and stole.
If you don’t like activation, don’t buy the damn product. Use the old version that you SHOULD have bought. Yea, you can buy a volume license to keep from activating, but be prepared to give up your anonymity when purchasing said license. KNOW that you now are creating a paper trail for the vendor to hunt you down and take you to court IF you don’t follow the rules that you agreed to. If you intend to follow the rules, then your only complaint should be the minor inconvenience of activation, and the minor risks or likelihood that you will be one of the unfortunate few who have outlying scenarios in which activation causes problems on your system, now or in the future. Your choice.
What it boils down to is, you buy a product and agree to the rules as terms of the purchase. If you don’t like the rules, don’t buy. If you buy, be honest, follow the rules. There shouldn’t be a problem here.
Caveat: I say this from an intellectual point of view, why, because my own track record of following said rules is spotty…and having quality, effective activation may in fact hinder my ability to break the rules and use the product without purchasing it or in such a way that I break the rules that I agree to when purchasing it. So, I understand that activation may make life harder for me, primarily because it forces me to keep my word and follow the rules. Ouch.
This response is copyright Ryan Hartwich, hartwichr@hotmail.com All rights reserved. This response may not be duplicated outside of this web log without express written permission of the copyright holder.
Posted at http://www.actionscript.com/archives/00000562.html on August 30, 2003.
posted by Ryan (), 08/30/2003 03:25 AM CST
4) I used to have a beef with activation. Thought it would be a hassle. Six months ago I bought Office XP Pro, installed it to my desktop and my portable - activated on both. My laptop took a dooky and I was forced to buy another one. What a dilemma... Shtuff happens. I called Microsoft, got through after five minutes, activated over the phone for the new activation with minimal hassle after explaining my situation. It's a hoop, but it's not all that bad. We'll get used to it:)
posted by Steve (), 08/30/2003 09:08 AM CST
5) Hmm.. Is that two licenses per purchase for use (My desktop, My coworker's desktop) or two licenses for single user convenience (My laptop, My desktop)?
If it's the former, this presents an interesting situation... Though I would use the latter, must have desktop, must have laptop...
posted by Steve (), 08/30/2003 09:11 AM CST
6) It is the latter, for single user, non-concurrent use.
mike chambers
mesh@macromedia.com
posted by mike chambers (), 08/30/2003 10:06 AM CST
7) fyi, we will be updating our FAQ to make this clearer.
Also, as John pointed out, this is not a change from the past, and is really a EULA issue and not a product activation issue.
mike chambers
mesh@macromedia.com
posted by mike chambers (), 08/30/2003 10:07 AM CST
8) Anybody just checking in for new comments, please see my addendum at the end of the main article. Cheers.
posted by emberton (), 08/30/2003 10:36 AM CST
9) in the initial product activation posts i was pretty much against it. and though i'd love to see a distribution of a dual platform install for flash, at this point i'd rather see a linux version. why? because i switched away from macs because the hardware is too expensive and i don't like os x. it's better than 9, i'll give them that, but my beef boils down to what they've changed from standard bsd and linux stuff to make the machine a pain for someone that lives at the command line.
the only hesitation i have now with product activation is possible problems with a dual boot with lilo or grub boot loaders. however, i am going to go with some faith into it because scott, mike, and others have, in my opinion, gone above and beyond the call of duty in stating that there should not be a problem. if i have a problem, then i'll at least be able to state specifically where the problem occurs and hopefully macromedia will fix it.
as for windows not being stable, i just moved to a new machine at work and the old machine was a 3 years running install of win2k with heavy use every day. it got bad in terms of boot time and a the drive was heavily fragmented, but it WAS stable. xp on the other hand i had a problem with recently at home and even trying to recover it via booting of the cd failed. so in a product activation environment i would have had no chance to deactivate that install.
besides, flash behaves better, faster, and there are more tools available (well specifically SciTEFlash) for use with windows. i wouldn't switch back to a mac even if given one. however i would pay twice the cost of a G5 to be able to ditch windows for linux and have flash run natively in linux.
i've already submitted requests for it, as well as at the very least a commandline .as compiler for linux, but it's going to take a lot more than just me it even remotely viable for MM.
posted by mosquito (), 08/30/2003 12:28 PM CST
10) Ryan-Oh please! Cry me a river. The poor defenseless software vendors have been so mistreated by the evil consumers. What a load of crap!
First of all, I believe the whole software piracy problem is WAY overblown. 99% of those who get their hacked copy of Flash are not potential Customers anyway.
Second, product activation only affects honest Customers. The hackers will have a clean version that does not write to track 0, hassle me when I need to do a reinstall and consume resources to keep me honest.
Third, product activation does not prevent piracy and probably does not even reduce it. There are plenty of cracked copies of software like XP readily available.
Fourth, I don't know of any companies like Macromedia or Adobe who are going out of business due to this "problem".
Finally, you make this sound like we caused this and now we should just suck it up and take our medicine. Well, I for one think your assessment is wrong and your advice faulty! Instead, we consumers have 3 viable options,
1) buy your copy of Flash with the product activation and then get it cracked so you can use it without the hassle and risks
2) do the group purchase as described above
3) send a message that consumers do have a say in this by NOT UPGRADING OR BUYING FOR NOW
You see Ryan, as much as you would like to see us just fall in line like good little sheep, there are other options! And who knows, if enough people go with option #3 above, the software companies might decide that a lot of sales with a little bit of piracy is better than lower sales wit less piracy!
posted by John (), 08/30/2003 03:55 PM CST
11) Oh and one more thing, my comments are NOT copyrighted so anyone who likes can feel free to use them anywhere they like!
posted by John (), 08/30/2003 03:56 PM CST
12) what kind of tool copyrights his blog statments?
posted by Rich (), 08/30/2003 06:12 PM CST
13) Um...
What's up with 2 different versions of Flash 7 with some ridiculous upgrade price for what looks to be a complete version?
Macromedia has 97% or whatever of the market now and little bobby making ugly Flash sites with a pirate copy helped them establish the market while honest paying design companies added Flash to the main stream sites...
Oh my, now look what we have here... Honest paying customers get rear ended with (2) versions of Flash which we know will opt for the over priced full(er) version and also get a key shoved up their kazoo...
The next little bobby is still going to get a copy and keep helping Macromedia keep their installed numbers high (which I'm sure they like very much regardless of this key crap they are pulling to prevent theft - riiigggghht)
Come on. Let's be honest here. This activation crap is about pulling funds from the pockets of legit Flash developers.
It is all about making sure we pay for each copy we use in house. The only priates they wish to stop is the Flash developers who use one license more than they should according to the EULA.
Little Bobby is not the target - period.
So please tell it like it is...
If Mr. Macromedia (whom ever that is) were to come clean - He would simply say:
"I sat down with the staff and asked them how can we make sure we get every paying customer to pay for every copy they should be paying for. And they said sir, we need product activation and a good EULA. So I said boyz go to it."
And that my friends is the bottom line.
Note all words used in this post are copyright of Websters dictionary - each word may not be duplicated outside of this web log without express written er... make that verbal permission of the Mr. Webster.
posted by Jay Nicholson (), 08/31/2003 04:23 AM CST
14) No name calling please! Everyone has opinion even crap opinions in our opinion. Now it is 12 o'clock and time for Master Pain ... I mean, Betty, to take his nap ...
posted by urbian (), 08/31/2003 05:57 AM CST
15) my 2 cents....
i like the activation idea... if it works. FLash was OS specific and still is.... i dont like it but i knew that before i used flash 5... so i dont see a reason why anyone should focus on that only at this time.... its an ongoing issue...
next hey..if the activation reduces piracy im all for it... but honestly i dont think it will.
the crackers manage to crack nearly every piece of software not using a dongle .. even those get cracked ... so pirated copies of flash are still going to float around on the internet and ppl who want it will find it.... its a bigger issue obviously but if activation deters some im game for it...
besides i think ppl using pirated copies have made bad flash sites in the past that affected flash's reputation. theyre not serious about what they do cause they didnt pay for it... so we get crappy sites.. (this does not apply to all..but most) that would affect me more than the $$$ amount cause if u lose ure reputation of having a good usable product... flash isnt 99% bad..the designers who dont know wat to do with it are...
2 versions of flash...not nice...well i havent seen both in detail to know how diff they are but going by wats on the website its like some tad more features and components.... like buying a DRK and regular version of flash... anyway im sure every flash guy will get pro cause forms based apps will be the new in thing...
anyway... i like the product activation idea... as long as it doesnt get in my way of work... i hope it reduces soem piracy... dont mind the OS specific license cause i got used to it for the last few years... and i think MM has been doing a pretty good job so i dont think ill be cribbing much...
nik
posted by Nik Khilnani (), 08/31/2003 11:17 AM CST
16) The two version strategy (regular and pro) was undoubtedly designed to increase the upgrade price since they know most Flashers will want the pro upgrade.
The EULA that won't allow a Mac and Win install was probably for incremental revenue; they figured there aren't enough of you Mac/Win hybrids out there to make any noise about it so you might as well pay!
posted by John (), 08/31/2003 01:31 PM CST
17) JD said, "For readers, if this is a meaningful issue for you, then could you drop a note to the feedback point, please? If you include a real contact point in return then that would help in measuring the true importance, thanks."
Wouldn't it be nice (for MM) if we would all play the way JD wants? Don't post anonymously and don't waste your time at Actionscript.com; better that you post at Macromedia.com so MM can take your concerns seriously.
Well, sometimes your Customers don't always do what you ask them to. And sometimes your Customers expect you to dig a little to find out what's up. And sometimes, your Customers decide they don't want to be your Customers anymore (without telling a soul or filling out a single online survey!)
I'd advise MM to seriously consider the comments made here at Actionscript.com as well as other places rather than base everything on their own internal survey!
posted by John (), 08/31/2003 01:36 PM CST
18) John, hasn't our regular presence hinted that we might take the comments here seriously? Let's not blow this out of proportion.
On that note, "wouldn't it be nice" if we (meaning Mike, JD and myself) could perfectly summarize and convey every person's point and comment in every 'watercooler discussion' across the web? I'd sure like that too, but until then dropping a note in the feedback survey is a more guaranteed, quantifiable way to make sure that your opinion is seen verbatim by the right people. That's all.
posted by Scott Fegette (), 08/31/2003 05:25 PM CST
19) Buried 30 feet under
I sware if ActionScript.com didn't talk about this activation issue, there wouldn't be any news for them to talk about. Point - if you don't like it, don't get it. Nobody is twisting your arm. The best way to show your dissatisfaction is to not buy the product. If enough people do this, the company (regardless what they are selling) will respond.
Personally, I don't care if you like it or get the software. If you don't that means people like myself who see the benefits of purchasing the software will have the advantage in the end. I am not a Linux-luving, open-source hugging fanatic that says no to anything that does provide the code attached. I am a programmer who wants the software to make my life easier, my clients happy, and gets the job done more quickly.
It really comes down to...do you need it enough to meet the requirements of the company that made the software. Nobody is forcing you to use Flash, or Dreamweaver. So this could be your chance for alternative solutions to these development tools. Perhaps Visual Studio...but of course seeing how people complain about the prices and Activation procedures with MM, there is no way in hell any real programmers exist in this community, or at least the one's that come to this board. You couldn't afford to use Visual Studio.
The only thing I have read that I do agree on is the upgrade price being too high for MM. MS Visual Studio is only $100 for the upgrade. But will I pay MM the $500+ to upgrade. Yeah, because I want the ease of use the new features provide. When I don't feel the upgrade price is worth the $ or don't agree with the way they are handling the software...then I wont buy it. I offer you the same advice.
Anyway, I am sure I will get slammed by the masses for these comments, because it doesn't fit what I have read so far. The MM representatives have to be cordial with there statements, but I don't.
Put the Activation to rest. Let's bury this thing once and for all and let consumers respond with money or a lack thereof.
Sincerely,
Tired Reader
posted by Tired Reader (), 08/31/2003 06:49 PM CST
20) This product activation business is not coming at a good time. MM's still should be very concerned about Flash's market share. I think Flash was in better shape a couple years ago then it is today. A year ago MM featured sites like Ted Baker and Land Rover as models of Flash usability - today there is no Flash tech being used in those sites. Flash needs to move into application development and they need more bodies in that area right now. MS/IE DHTML is a huge threat to Flash adoption on Desktop Web Apps and on Devices and small Screen apps JME is the early leader.
MM should pull product activation for the time being -- cultivate Developers -- win the wars first -- and then lock up the candles.
posted by Christian (), 08/31/2003 07:22 PM CST
21) Scott-JD has stated several times how little he thinks of annonymous comments so I don't think I misspoke with that. (I admit your posts seem to indicate a true interest in what people are thinking/feeling about this.)
My point was simply to remind you that a lot of your orders come from anonymous small businesses and their comments matter too.
posted by John (), 08/31/2003 10:33 PM CST
22) Yeah, David --- with MAC OS's 3% market share I am sure MM will get right on this!
I always get a kick out of the Mac community. I am sure Macromedia would just love to dump you guys all together.
Ok .. Ok .. just kidding about most of that ... please don't hunt me down and kill me o' crazy zealot Mac Users .. after all I used to be one of you!
posted by Zarski (), 09/01/2003 02:10 AM CST
23) I know that is a difficoult issue.
but
will still be possible to crack it?
I hope so. Who has every year all that money to keep up with consumistic technology these days?
Graphic designers and developers should get a free copy!!!
but what about if I get a licence I install it and then I buy a new computer? Will I be able to reinstall it?
shirley65
posted by shirley65 (), 09/01/2003 06:38 AM CST
24) I would agree with the statements that this product activation crap targets us, the honest users of their software. Enough. I was led into upgrading into a suite under one serial number (as opposed to 4 like before) so now I have to upgrade all (even though I just want flash upgraded) and now this. Keep squeezing the lemons Macromedia. Keep squeezing the lemons. I get the impression that Macromedia really couldn't give a rats arse what any of us think about this.
posted by John (), 09/01/2003 10:57 AM CST
25) John- re:
>> I was led into upgrading into a suite under one serial number (as opposed to 4 like before) so now I have to upgrade all (even though I just want flash upgraded) and now this. <<
Not sure I follow completely, so let's make sure we're all clear.
First, how exactly were you 'led' into purchasing one serial number as opposed to four? I assume you originally had 4 individual licenses for a combination of Flash, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, etc. and you upgraded to Studio, as any other scenario seems implausible (4 Studio serial numbers couldn't be logically replaced by one, even given the EULA two-installation changes). Given your general opinions, I find it hard to believe that you allowed anyone here to strong-arm your MX Studio upgrade decision if it wasn't also fiscally-beneficial to you at the time.
Secondly, *none* of our current products (including Studio) are sold as a cross-platform license, so your single MX Studio license wouldn't have covered multi-platform installs then either, OR multiple machine installs. The MX 2004 EULA changes increase the amount of installations to two, but not the platform-specificity; the serial numbers have always been either Mac or Windows, plain and simple. This is nothing new. So when you end your note with 'and now this' (which given the context I'd guess is regarding the platform-specific isssue), how exactly were you using one MX studio serial number to install on both platforms beforehand? And if you weren't, how does 'this' really affect you? Even if you were installing Studio MX on 4 machines (never a EULA-supported scenario) you'd still only have been doing it on one platform based on your serial number.
Details would be handy, at least for those of us who do give 'a rats arse'. ;-)
posted by Scott Fegette (), 09/01/2003 12:55 PM CST
26) Shirley- re:
>> I get a licence I install it and then I buy a new computer? Will I be able to reinstall it? <<
Absolutely. Check out the FAQ, in particular this section:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/faq/#itemE-6
posted by Scott Fegette (), 09/01/2003 01:00 PM CST
27) Simple. I had a 4 serial number product bundle. When I bought the upgrade to studio MX, it became a 1 serial number product. Something I and it seems some others didn't realize til several months later. Perhaps I'm slow ;) Before, I had the ability to upgrade one at a time, eve though it was a "studio bundle", and now, I will need to buy the whole studio upgrade. So now, flash MX 2004 professional is what I'm interested in most, but I must buy all of it. Not a big deal for some, but some smaller shops, and multiple machines like me, it can be a drag. So, a little OT I know, but now the product activation thing, another form of aggravation, pure and simple. And I did realize that licences were not cross-platform, in the past.
posted by John (), 09/01/2003 03:15 PM CST
28) Ah- got it, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!
posted by Scott Fegette (), 09/01/2003 03:36 PM CST
29) Response to: Ryan Hartwich, hartwichr@hotmail.com
Gee...I hope I get do business with you and your lovely attitude to your customers. With attitudes like that is it any wonder Linux is growing. Get a life dude, and understand there are MANY customers who do keep their word, and do obey the license agreements, and try their best to respect the programmers of the programs, and the copyright holders of the programs they use. What we don't like...is to have people consider us guilty just for buying their products. And if it doesn't bother you...to have stuff written to zero sector of your hard drive...that's nice, but it does bother some of us.
posted by Jansen, Jo (), 09/02/2003 07:13 PM CST
30) A cross-platform EULA would be huge. Or even a hybrid Studio package where for each program offered in the Studio bundle you get the option of platforms. I prefer using some of the programs on a PC and some on a Mac but currently you have to go one way or another if you want the Studio package.
I'd put my vote in for a cross-platform EULA.
posted by bugbee (), 09/03/2003 11:02 AM CST
31) i didnt read everything here only about half, but seems there is some overly defensive players at MM. I think it is fair to question a big move like this. why come onto a site of prominent and legal users to spout
posted by xxx (), 09/04/2003 10:30 AM CST
32) Re - John's 4 serial number and Scott's response
I don't understand, I also own the Studio MX and have been waiting to upgrade to Flash MX 2004 Pro. Do you mean I cannot? I need to upgrade the whole suite? Ok, I did get a nasty surprise when I bought the Studio, that there was only one serial and one book and one cd, but I could accept that. But if you tell me now I cannot upgrade to Flash MX 2004 Pro, MM that is a BIG CON JOB. It was not stated when we bought the Studio MX.
posted by Alan (), 09/05/2003 12:59 AM CST
33) Yes, that's how it is. Macromedia did in fact change that, and nary a word on that when the studio upgrade came out. I thought the idea was that if you buy all 4 you would get a discount, similar to what Adobe does when you buy their bundles. Except when you buy an Adobe bundle, you can upgrade each on separatly if you wish. Macromedia changed that with the studio upgrade. I went from a four product bundle, to 1 product. Macromedia's response to me was, both "we don't know what you're talking about, to, "if you don't like it, don't buy it."
posted by John (), 09/05/2003 03:47 PM CST
34) It's simple.
The type of feedback MM WILL LISTEN TO.
Don't Purchase, Don't Upgrade.
posted by OPEN (), 09/06/2003 11:54 PM CST
35) .
And the Macromedia Management just keeps selling the MM stock.
Insider Purchases - Last 6 Months
Purchases -
Net Shares (Sold) 162,000
posted by OPEN (), 09/07/2003 12:04 AM CST
36) Well. I honestly didn't mean for it to get ugly. It just seemed to me that what appeared to me a deliberate attempt to get people to be locked into having to upgrade the whole package each and everytime, and making sure the bundle can't be split across two machines, and perhaps get people who use illustrator etc. to use say freehand or fireworks, may backfire a bit. It certainly will in my case. I love flash, and that's mostly what I do. I'm a little peeved at Macromedia that this was changed, but I know why. ($$) Move over Microsoft, here comes another one ;)
Give us a few more options Macromedia. Don't act stupid when these questions are asked, it's insulting. I like your products, and this is a good customer speaking. This "don't buy it if you don't like it "is childish.
posted by John (), 09/07/2003 09:51 PM CST
37) “So, because we're free to choose between two different types of computer, some of us will be getting two installs for our money, and some of us will only get one”
In actuality we both get the same deal, PC users can install on two PC computers, while Mac users can install on two Mac’s. Back in the days, if you bought a movie for your VHS VCR, this did not give you the rights to a free video for your BETA VCR. Assuming there were a couple people that actually bought BETA VCR’s. =)
If you buy a music CD, this does not give you the rights to a free tape of the same music. If you buy a DVD this does not give you the rights to a VHS tape of the same movie. The point being each different format costs extra even though the “product” is the same. With software development, even if the resulting application is almost identical it is timely and costly to create the same software for different systems.
Perhaps they just need to change the name to differentiate the two products:
Macromedia Flash Professional 2004 PC
Macromedia Flash Professional 2004 MAC
posted by Jer (), 09/08/2003 07:39 AM CST
38) MM always trumpets the cross-platform ability of the flash player yet their own software building is far from being cross-platform. Makes you wonder about the importance of "cross-platform".
posted by Christian (), 09/08/2003 10:08 AM CST
39) Hooray, so Macromedia did this what many companies already have done in the past. Allowing you to use your product at home/on the road with a second installation. This is nothing spectactular new. Adobe has this kind of policy, Microsoft (afaik) with some of their products to some extent, and many smaller companies. I think this is just fair play for customers that pay alot to get buggy software that gets fixed with the next expensive update (or not).
posted by TW (), 09/08/2003 02:07 PM CST
40) Already breaked flash mx 2004 professional i wont publish it coz i love flash Hint Again....(problem with root reg)...try to solve it my dear macromedia friends ....all the best...
Sugg:why u people cant reduce the price so no one will publish this kind of stuffs in the net.
You wanna know who am i hmmmmmm same one who cracked flash mx .Hope u people remember me.dont worry macromedia friends am using it for personnal purpose and wont publish it in the net
posted by what's there in a name!!!!!!!!! (), 09/13/2003 06:42 AM CST
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.actionscript.com/archives/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
