What planet do Adobe live on?

OK, I thought I'd at least give AA4 (or whatever you want to call it) a whirl, so I downloaded the trial version.

As I always do with new software, I installed it on my general purpose machine and it seemed to perform without any dangerous quirks.  SO, I then tried to install it on the DAW.  Total failure, kept asking for the Adobe Audition Disk - which, being a download, I don't have.

Anyway, to cut a long story thin, I had a chat with Support and this is part of the conversation;

Graeme: My main concern is can I install a new download on the machine with no 'net connection?
Arun P: Graeme, Internet connection is mandatory to activate any product.
Graeme: That's no good to anyone who doesn't have 'net connectivity on a DAW - which is quite a few people!!
Arun P: I'm sorry for the inconvenience caused to you.
Graeme: I never had these problems with previous versions - why has it changed?
Arun P: Now all the latest version requires a Internet connection.
Graeme: I understand it's not your fault, but this is not 'inconvenient' it's plain ridiculous. Many users deliberately don't have the 'net on a DAW - that way they don't have to run AV software which can cause a lot of problems
Graeme: Anyway, thank you for your help. I will take this isuue up direct with Adobe - they seem not to understand how we work in the real world.

What on Earth are Adobe thinking?  Lots of people I know don't have the 'net on their DAW's, we try and keep these money earning devices as clean as possible.

For a number of reasons, I have been seriously contemplating parting from AA anyway - this issue is likely to convince me to leave.  It's bad enough not to have the full functionality that we are used to -  it would have been better to delay release than produce a half-baked imitation - but to stop people from trying it out seems total madness to me. As far as I can work out, even if I had the disk, I still couldn't get the software running without the 'net connection.

... it's no wonder that people are tempted to use cracked versions of software they would otherwise be willing to pay for.

[I really am turning into a GOM   ]

Well, the times, they are a-changin', aren't they?  Just hope that in time you'll find a compromise, maybe even AA6 perhaps in 2012, that will be a happier situation for you.  And what you've said is a lot considering how passionate you've been about Audition over the years.

Not that I like it -- I rather don't -- but the world Adobe lives in is one where cloud data storage is gaining momentum as "normal," Google is releasing an OS for 100% online computing, Adobe is trying to take increasing measures against that tempting piracy, Audition now has a reporting tool that helps the developers know what you tend to use and why crashes occur, and Windows 7 wants to do stuff for itself over the Internet, well, like constantly.  That's a rather connected world these days.

Graeme, I have always respected your preference to keep your DAW off the Internet, and I really do sympathize with your caution, but have to say that with a decade-plus of experience running AV software always when I'm in CEP/Audition, it just isn't that big a deal, at least to me.  It never gets in the way unless a full system scan is mis-scheduled (because that consumes too much HDD bandwidth).

Well, I'm sure you've read elsewhere that AA4 isn't for everyone, but has some great perks.  I do hope in time that you can find a trustworthy way to put a computer on the Internet long enough to install the trial and see what all the fuss is about.

Best regards,

MC

... it's no wonder that people are tempted to use cracked versions of software they would otherwise be willing to pay for.

I'll be honest here and say I have used a cracked piece of audio software on a regular basis over recent years - not made by Adobe, I should make clear. I'm using it because the same software that I purchased, and came originally with an online registration process but now requires a hardware dongle, became unusable thanks to the chronic unreliability of the dongle. So many times I was in real danger of missing deadlines and not producing work because I'd spent hours trying to get the damn thing working again - is it any surprise that I went off looking for a more reliable option.

It's a crazy world where the tools of one's trade are more reliably supplied by software pirates than the original manufacturer. I do have the full version, I did pay a lot of $$$$ for it, but it's the cracked version that I use. I simply gave up on the f''''ing dongle, and haven't bought any of their products since. (My use of said software has now been largely superseded by the superior Izotope RX, so it rarely gets run these days, but it does still get wheeled out from time to time.)

So many times I was in real danger of missing deadlines and not producing work because I'd spent hours trying to get the damn thing working again - is it any surprise that I went off looking for a more reliable option.

It's a crazy world where the tools of one's trade are more reliably supplied by software pirates than the original manufacturer.

It seems to me that software authors/purveyors are so consumed with the possibility of being pirated, they forget about the poor slobs at the bottom of the pile who are trying to use this stuff to earn a living and are willing to pay for it.  I only have one experience of a dongle-based software (not mine, it's translation software used by my better half) and right royal PITA it used to be - she, being non-technical, always called on me every time it went tits up.  They finally saw the light and the later versions have abandoned the dongle  - and now it works !

Graeme, I have always respected your preference to keep your DAW off the Internet, and I really do sympathize with your caution, but have to say that with a decade-plus of experience running AV software always when I'm in CEP/Audition, it just isn't that big a deal, at least to me.  It never gets in the way unless a full system scan is mis-scheduled (because that consumes too much HDD bandwidth).

Well, I'm sure you've read elsewhere that AA4 isn't for everyone, but has some great perks.  I do hope in time that you can find a trustworthy way to put a computer on the Internet long enough to install the trial and see what all the fuss is about.

Of course, I can see this is likely to be my only practical solution.  It's about time these guys realise that they will be pirated, no matter what sort of protection they try and introduce.  There are already cracked versions and keygens for CS5.5 on the 'net - in fact they were there before the official release. The crooks are rarely more than half a step behind the software houses.  The solution is not to be found in ever-increasingly complicated protection routines.  They don't stop the pirates for more than a few hours and they are a huge disincentive to a legitimate user, particularly those of us who use this stuff to earn a crust or two.

These days, I do near enough all my recording using a hardware recorder, the software is only used for restoration work (where RX is starting to be more useful) and a bit of tidying up of the mixes from the hardware machine (and I can do that with CE96). You're probably right, but I do have a (not totally ungrounded) dislike of having a DAW connected to the 'net.  My personal view is, whether or not my fears are real, I should have the option of using the kit, I have spent a lot of money on over the years, the way *I* want - not the way that someone else dictates. As it is, I always try out a new bit of software on one machine and if it looks at all flaky, it never gets as far as the DAW.

My C: drive is full of bits and pieces that belong to applications that are (supposedly) on a separate drive - why is this?  If I ask for a software to be installed on drive D:, why do bits of it end up on C:? .... and don't get me started about softwares that simply install everything on the C: drive, without even giving me an option to change the destination.  Actually, unless they are super-useful, they don't stay there long .

Sometimes I long for the days of DOS and CP/M.

[OK, I think that's enough GOM attitude for today]

While I totally agree with these comments, I have grudgingly allowed the main audio systems to go online- at least at times. For a very long time, I would not do that, by design- to avoid all the temp files and added overhead etc etc. Like many others here, I've never liked the idea of the audio systems being online all the time, and still don't.

When we first set up Prem El 9 last year, I pretty much HAD to allow online access - we really only use it for laybacks with work sweetened in AA3, since we're in audio, not video as our full time occupation.  It was pretty clear what direction things were going, so it didn't surprise me at all to see that CS5.5/AA4 required it too. It's a cloud model, with online help and the resource central features etc etc. Many things seem headed that way now.

The UA plugs we use don't require it - you can d/load an authorization and updates on another machine and take them over to the DAW to install and/or authorize - a simple system that seems to work fine.  But now we allow that to happen online directly from the DAWs too.  If you install a new version of their software, it will first come up as non-functional. You simply copy your auth. file downloaded over to the machine, then drag that over to their own "resource monitor'  app and it loads the authorizations and you're all set.  That would seem a very good model for others to follow- it allows downloading both updates and authorizations on another machine or the local one - the user can choose their pref.

Though it does not solve the added overhead and temp files etc, what we do is use USB wireless dongles for the DAWs. That way, when
online access is not necessary, we can either shut off the radio inside them, or just unplug them altogether. Other non-DAW systems here
are mostly wired though we run a few with wireless.

Yes, I meant to make the point about the online help - if you are new to the product, then you need to ba able to access the help files - and this requires you to be online.  I just downloaded the manual, but that might be a little too easy for some to grasp.

Anyway, the whole subject is moot now.  My latest experience has convicnced me that I want nothing to do with Adobe and CS5.5.

At the suggestion of the support guy, I created a new account with Adobe and downloaded a fresh version of the trial software, direct to a USB stick.  I then installed an ethernet card into the DAW and set up a 'net connection.  Of course, this also meant I had to install AV software and a firewall.  Having done all this and got everything working (purely to authorise a bit of software) I then plugged in the stick and proceeded to install the software.

Guess what?  Exactly the same thing happened and it asked for a disk I don't have!!  All that faffing about for exactly no advance at all.

So - sorry Adobe, but you have finally lost me as a customer.  Obviously, where support is concerned, things have got even worse than it was when I had all the problems
with AA3 - documented in http://audiomastersforum.net/amforum/index.php/topic,6590.0.html .  If it hadn't been for the intervention of an Adobe employee who was much higher up the pecking chain (thanks to SteveG for organising that) I would have abandoned the product then.  This time, I can't be bothered to argue the toss.  Adobe will make more than enough money without my having to add to their coffers.

[Planet Adobe!]

There isn't really a good  answer to any of this at all - times they are a changin', whether we like it or not, or even whether it's really a good thing, it would seem.

I've been living with some of these compromises for a while now, and whilst I don't like them, it seems to be okay as long as you take due account of what could happen, and minimise the amount of time your DAW has to spend on-line. So here - well, the LAN around this place is well hidden behind a firewall, and since the only thing I require to happen on-line as far as the DAW itself is concerned is access to a couple of specific servers as a one-off, rather than general browsing, it's not too much of a risk from that POV. I keep AVG available on the DAW, but most of the time it's doing absolutely nothing, and the DAW is physically disconnected from the network.

Online help? Forget it. Yes, I regularly dump stuff into a cloud-based storage system for clients, but this always goes via a sacrificial machine. You might wonder how it gets from the DAW to there to do this, but almost always that's via removable storage devices of one sort or another. To run RX2 on the DAW I use an iKey, and I have to say that this works fine for me, although I've heard that this isn't always the case for some people. But in essence, using that is the same as moving files - you set up the iKey on the sacrificial machine, and physically transfer it to the DAW to use it, so no compromise there.

I think though that one of the factors that's driving all this along is the vidiots. They are used to dealing with huge files, and far more regularly transfer work from one place to another. And they like the idea of centralised resources - probably in a way that's really rather unhealthy, although that's another argument. They almost certainly regard our ideas about keeping machines 'clean' as being rather old-fashioned and quaint, though, and if, as unfortunately seems to be the case, they are driving the DAW market along at the moment then they're the ones that will get listened to. On top of that, you have to bear in mind Adobe's background in all of this - and on that basis, it seems that we're doomed to be vidiot hangers-on for all eternity, doesn't it?

Probably the ultimate worst-case scenario is that we aren't allowed to run DAWs any more - all data is centralised, and operations on it are carried out also on centralised processors from remote instructions. So all you have to do is run a thin client on your machine. It's an appalling idea, I know - and hopefully I will have fully retired by then!

Oh yeah, Adobe live on - Planet Adobe! Ha Ha, Hee Hee, the funny farm, where life is wonderful all the time... (please excuse the slight misquote)

I thought it was planet Uranus 

Although I have definitely made up my mind over Adobe and CS5.5, I've been giving a little thought to the general problem of trial versions and it seems to me it stems from a basic laziness on the part of the software houses.

These days, trial versions are invariably fully functional applications, but with certain features crippled (no save, for example).  This is an open invitation to the hacking guys since, if they can crack the trial, they then have a fully operational application.  Because of this, the software houses are introducing ever more protection, which means that someone who just wants to see if something is going to suit them, has to jump through a heap of hoops, just to get it running. This does nothing to encourage the end user to try something out.

To my mind, the solution is simple.  Rather than crippling a full application, produce a trial version that doesn't have any of the code for the parts you want to cripple.

There's no point in cracking such a software, because there is nothing to crack, so it can be released into the market with absolutely no need for any protection.  This means it would reach a wider potential user base and not cause the sort of problems I have experienced. Only if you like something enough to want to buy it are you then having to make decisions about protection systems.

It seems to me this is a win/win situation for both the software houses and the users.  All it takes is a little extra effort on the part of the former.

I don't see how that would work very well, Graeme.  If the trial version was crippled, you wouldn't know how the full, whole uncrippled version operates.  And you'd want to know that.

I don't see how that would work very well, Graeme.  If the trial version was crippled, you wouldn't know how the full, whole uncrippled version operates.  And you'd want to know that.

Well, the most common cripple is to stop you saving anything.  Another one is to introduce some form of audio noise/interruption in the output file.  To my mind, neither of these would stop someone from determining if the software was going to be of use. Rather disabling the code for (say) saving, all that really needs to be done is omit it.

I still maintain that the software houses would reach a larger potential market if they released trial versions, with no protection, that could not be easily hacked into full ones.

Having my DAW online hasn't been a problem for me for many years now. Years ago I did have a problem with Norton Anti-Virus conflicting with my Cool Edit program. Once I got rid of Norton, all my headaches went away. So now fast forward to 2011, and I have Windows 7 and Microsoft's Security Essentials, and have had zero virus problems and no conflicts with CS 5.5. Times have changed and having a DAW online ain't such a bad thing anymore.

By the way, I am enjoying my CS 5.5 very much thank you.

I run a Windows 7 PC with a Duo-core Intel processor and 8GB RAM.  It's also connected to the internet, and I run Microsoft Security Essentials, and I have no problems with audio software.  I even surf while making recordings.

Today's powerful computers should be able to withstand extra processes while doing audio.

The "Cockos" people seem to be doing ok despite releasing Reaper with no copy protection at all, and simply relying on people's honesty to pay. It doesn't need an internet connection to run or for authorisation.  It doesn't even need to be installed on a computer (ie it can be simply copied onto a portable drive or USB stick and run from there).  And the download isn't bloated by copy protection stuff so it's still tiny (under 5MB I think for Windows 32 bit), thus making frequent updates no big deal to download.   

But the chances of Adobe ever following that model are zero, I'm afraid.