I routinely get 14.4 modem speeds (or worse) on downloads from Acrobat.com. It's been abysmal for months and seems to be getting worse. I get faster downloads on my iPhone!
I've been waiting patiently for the system to improve. With the Drop 20 Release of DPS, I had hoped that improvements to the "server" might be implemented as well; but nothing has changed that I can tell.
We all know and understand periodic server outages and downtime. They are infrequent and unplanned interruptions to our work. But I am beginning to question whether Adobe is living up to its obligation to make reasonable efforts to provide access to the Acrobat.com server.
By forcing us to utilize their hosting service for DPS rather than our own, they have made us completely dependent upon their definition of reasonable up time and bandwidth utilization. Yet nowhere in the Acrobat.com terms of service is this specifically defined.
I don't think their efforts are "reasonable" anymore.
Mostly I am concerned that as a multitude of new DPS users purchase CS6 Creative Cloud and jostle with us for access to Acrobat.com we will continue to experience highly unreliable service.
Anyone? Zeke, John, Neil, Bob - care to comment?
from acrobat.com terms of service
Availability of the Services. Adobe uses reasonable efforts to make the Services available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, there will be occasions when the Services will be interrupted for maintenance, upgrades and repairs, or as a result of failure of telecommunications links and equipment that are beyond Adobe's control. Adobe will take reasonable steps to minimize such disruption, to the extent it is within Adobe's reasonable control. The Services may not be available in all languages.
I couldn't agree more. We need to the community to ask insist on the ability to host our own files. It's obvious why Adobe wants to provide a hosting service (a huge revenue opportunity as illustrated below), but those of us who can host things on our own should have that option. I'm fine with Adobe making a healthy profit on hosting services for those who don't know how to, or don't care to mess around with it, but the pricing, reliability and speed of Adobe's hosting compared to others is simply unacceptable.
Case in point, here's a comparison of Adobe's hosting vs. Amazon's S3, which is one of many viable "cloud" hosting options out there.
Assuming I have a 150MB app, and it is downloaded 5,000 times...
- "Free" to store the file.
- $1,500 in download costs (5000 download x $0.30).
Through Amazon's S3:
- $0.02/month to store the file (includes redundancy).
- $89.89 in download costs.
So comparing Adobe's hosting to S3, we get:
- 1666% higher pricing.
- Less (or no) redundancy.
- Considerably less reliability.
- Immensely slower speeds (up and down).
For those interested in pricing out your own apps with S3, here's Amazon's calculator:
I'm sure others would swear by other cloud services. I've been happy with S3. In the last 4+ years hosting data there, we've had something like 7 seconds of downtime. It's simply rock solid compared to many hosting solutions, let alone compared to what Adobe is offering.
So please, community, let's make our voices heard and demand we have the option of hosting our own files. The solution Adobe is currently providing is simply not reasonable, as Mike said.
I had no idea the distribution servers were Amazon's.
So Adobe buys Amazon storage in bulk and resells it to us at 30 cents a download.
Now that's a great business model!
Maybe they could take some of those profits and beef up Acrobat.com!!!
Not that I belived it anyway...but it really puts to shame their argument that 30 cents per issue is competitive with offset printing.
Europe, Middle East and Africa