Use Cracked Photoshop ????

J
Posted By
joesplink
Nov 27, 2003
Views
9646
Replies
173
Status
Closed
I’m no longer surprised by the reverence I see for Adobe on this newsgroup…… but…I’m going to offer a counter opinion……as a sometimes ‘software professional’ I have a viceral hatred for Microsoft and Intel for both the hardware and software architecture of the PC and DOS/Windows …you would not believe the unnecessary effort and anguish these two companies have caused for software developers ….but you can be reminded of it anytime you wait x minutes for XP to come up or shut down …or y minutes for Photoshop to come up. I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ………..but I’m not sure about one thing ….. and I’ll admit to being wrong about Adobe if I’m wrong about this …… I’ll bet that the PSD format is
‘proprietary’….otherwise someone would write a compatible new version and sell it for $100.00.

JS

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

J
Jimmy
Nov 27, 2003
"Joesplink" wrote in message
…… and I’ll admit to being wrong about Adobe if I’m
wrong about this …… I’ll bet that the PSD format is
‘proprietary’….otherwise someone would write a compatible new version and sell it for $100.00.

JS

Yes it is proprietary. They devised a format that would allow layers to be saved rather than having
to flatten them as is needed in other formats. Great for saving works in progress.
P
PDannyD
Nov 27, 2003
"Joesplink" wrote in message

<snip>
…… I’ll bet that the PSD format is
‘proprietary’….otherwise someone would write a compatible new
version and
sell it for $100.00.

PaintShopPro reads and writes in PSD format (100% compatible?) and is 1/10th the price of PhotoShop. It can also use PhotoShop plugins.
S
steve
Nov 27, 2003
On 27 Nov 2003 18:07:57 GMT, (Joesplink) wrote:

I’m no longer surprised by the reverence I see for Adobe on this newsgroup…… but…I’m going to offer a counter opinion……as a sometimes ‘software professional’ I have a viceral hatred for Microsoft and Intel for both the hardware and software architecture of the PC and DOS/Windows …you would not believe the unnecessary effort and anguish these two companies have caused for software developers ….but you can be reminded of it anytime you wait x minutes for XP to come up or shut down …or y minutes for Photoshop to come up.

I have been a software developer for over 30 years on many different systems. Microsoft & Intel is by far the best and easiest architecture for developers. Something is wrong with the way your system is set up. XP and Photoshop will both come and shut down in seconds. Actual timings just taken. XP up to login from switch on in 43 seconds. Photoshop up and waiting for me in 29 seconds. Not bad for such a complex OS and application!

Steve

EasyNN-plus. The easy way to build neural networks.
Build networks from numeric, text and image files.
http://www.easynn.com
NW
No Where Man
Nov 27, 2003
If you have such a hatred for MS/Intel, there’s always Apple.

As to PS being overpriced, consider who it was originally designed for – graphic artists. Yeah, it’s expensive. But as a photographer, the lastest – Photoshop CS – is a definite accessory.

As someone else posted, the amount of time that Windows and PS takes to start indicates somethings wrong – either not enough RAM (512mb at least), slow processor, or too many background processes (antivirus, firewall, etc). Shoot – my computer at work takes almost 5 minutes – mostly because I connect to several Netware servers.

As noted in another post, Jasc Paint Shop Pro supports the PSD format.
N
nospam
Nov 27, 2003
In article ,
(Joesplink) wrote:

I’m no longer surprised by the reverence I see for Adobe on this newsgroup…… but…I’m going to offer a counter opinion……as a sometimes ‘software professional’ I have a viceral hatred for Microsoft and Intel for both the hardware and software architecture of the PC and DOS/Windows …you would not believe the unnecessary effort and anguish these two companies have caused for software developers ….but you can be reminded of it anytime you wait x minutes for XP to come up or shut down …or y minutes for Photoshop to come up. I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ………..but
I’m not
sure about one thing ….. and I’ll admit to being wrong about Adobe if I’m wrong about this …… I’ll bet that the PSD format is
‘proprietary’….otherwise someone would write a compatible new version and sell it for $100.00.

You may be a software developer, but you haven’t a friggin clue as to what Photoshop does and how well it does it. And I’ve never seen it take minutes to load. What planet do you live on?
J
joesplink
Nov 27, 2003
If you have such a hatred for MS/Intel, there’s always Apple.

Apple is completely unusable for engineering applications, and is never used…. that is in an application where the computer controls, monitors…. etc. hardware…

The initial PC architecture used an addressing scheme that was awful at the time and that quickly became absurd…. .. this hardward absurdity worked its way right up to the C program level… maybe they have finally (in the last 5 years) gotten away from it…. a C programmer would know if he still has to use FAR and VERY FAR …and SO FAR YOU CAN’T IMAGINE.. address types …. (I forget the particulars).

The horrors of DOS I won’t discuss…..or the COM, OLE, etc., nightmare …… although it has done wonders for the Indian imports who live and breathe that stuff and are the only ones I’ve met that have mastered it !!!!!

I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC with 512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …..computers with less power than the one on my desk used to power huge time-sharing networks, with 50 – 100 users, with faster response times. I’d love to see an analysis of the delay and why it’s necessary…. I mean why not just bring up the initial screen and do the bookkeeping later?

But I seem to be wrong about PSD being proprietary ???? That being the case …… I don’t see why all the competetors don’t use it… as PS is so dominant ……and…. I can’t think of any reason Adobe shouldn’t charge whatever they can get……(I figured a de facto monopoly, like Microsoft’s, allowed them to gouge the public).
N
nospam
Nov 27, 2003
In article ,
(Joesplink) wrote:

I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC with 512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …..computers with less power than the one on my desk used to power huge time-sharing networks,
with 50
– 100 users, with faster response times.

There was no GUI on that time-sharing machine, was there? Hell, some time-sharing systems (OpenVMS, for example) don’t load a program into memory, but load only as much as you need, and then share memory resident routines with others who need them. It’s a whole different world with the GUI and contemporary personal computers. But throw a full-featured windows interface on it (X-Windows, DECWindows, Xerox, whatever) and performance goes straight to hell.

I’d love to see an analysis of the
delay and why it’s necessary…. I mean why not just bring up the initial screen and do the bookkeeping later?

You would whine anyway.
J
joesplink
Nov 28, 2003
There was no GUI on that time-sharing machine, was there?

How long does is take to put up a GUI screen …. ans: 0.0 seconds.

Hell, some
time-sharing systems (OpenVMS, for example) don’t load a program into memory, but load only as much as you need,

Did someone pass a law against this?

CoolPro takes about 3 sec…….Adobe bought em …..maybe they can learn something.
N
nospam
Nov 28, 2003
In article ,
(Joesplink) wrote:

There was no GUI on that time-sharing machine, was there?

How long does is take to put up a GUI screen …. ans: 0.0 seconds.

Oh, I see! You think a GUI is just a picture! It isn’t. But I suppose one could throw up some kind of screen, but you can’t do anything until the program loads and then you would complain that there’s a GUI but you can’t do anything.

BTW – XP-Pro on my computer boots to the login prompt in far less than a minute, probably 20 seconds.

Hell, some
time-sharing systems (OpenVMS, for example) don’t load a program into memory, but load only as much as you need,

Did someone pass a law against this?

No need anymore. Besides, I don’t ever see 128 or more simultaneous interactive users running on one PC. But Micro$oft had the chance to emulate VMS’ memory management, passed, took some of the other goodies, screwed it up sideways, tried again and finally seem to have a real operating system regardless.
E
erimies
Nov 28, 2003
On 27 Nov 2003 22:44:51 GMT, (Joesplink) posted:

If you have such a hatred for MS/Intel, there’s always Apple.

Apple is completely unusable for engineering applications, and is never used…. that is in an application where the computer controls, monitors…. etc. hardware…

The initial PC architecture used an addressing scheme that was awful at the time and that quickly became absurd…. .. this hardward absurdity worked its way right up to the C program level… maybe they have finally (in the last 5 years) gotten away from it…. a C programmer would know if he still has to use FAR and VERY FAR …and SO FAR YOU CAN’T IMAGINE.. address types …. (I forget the particulars).

The horrors of DOS I won’t discuss…..or the COM, OLE, etc., nightmare …… although it has done wonders for the Indian imports who live and breathe that stuff and are the only ones I’ve met that have mastered it !!!!!

do you prefer programming for dos or windows? having cut my teeth with the borland stuff, I find myself more comfortable programming for dos.

I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC with 512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …..computers with less power than the one on my desk used to power huge time-sharing networks, with 50 – 100 users, with faster response times. I’d love to see an analysis of the delay and why it’s necessary…. I mean why not just bring up the initial screen and do the bookkeeping later?

But I seem to be wrong about PSD being proprietary ???? That being the case ….. I don’t see why all the competetors don’t use it… as PS is so dominant …..and…. I can’t think of any reason Adobe shouldn’t charge whatever they can get……(I figured a de facto monopoly, like Microsoft’s, allowed them to gouge the public).
U
Uni
Nov 28, 2003
PDannyD wrote:
"Joesplink" wrote in message

<snip>

…… I’ll bet that the PSD format is
‘proprietary’….otherwise someone would write a compatible new

version and

sell it for $100.00.

PaintShopPro reads and writes in PSD format (100% compatible?)

Reckless wrote:
"1 – It can open Photoshop 7 file format…. unfortunately it presents a single layer image so all the ‘juicy’ stuff is lost 🙁 "
IF
Ian Firth
Nov 28, 2003
In article ,
says…

timings just taken. XP up to login from switch on in 43 seconds. Photoshop up and waiting for me in 29 seconds. Not bad for such a complex OS and application!

What kind of system ?

My Win2k graphics system (2Ghz P4, 1GB RAM) boots to login in about 20 seconds. Photoshop 6 loads in about 9 seconds.


Regards,
Ian Firth
IF
Ian Firth
Nov 28, 2003
In article ,
says…

How long does is take to put up a GUI screen …. ans: 0.0 seconds.

It’s obvious you’re not really a programmer.

CoolEdit Pro is a much simpler application than Photoshop, the comparison isn’t fair.

PS. You might want to defrag your hard drive and do some other upkeep if your 2Ghz system takes 25 seconds to load Photoshop.


Regards,
Ian Firth
W
wes
Nov 28, 2003
CoolEdit Pro no longer exists. It is now Adobe Audition. As far as I can tell it is much faster to load than PSCS. On my machine, Pentium 2.3GHz, 1G RAM and plenty of hard disks space, it takes about 19 sec to load PSCS. If I close PSCS and then immediately reload it, it takes about 9 secs.

"Ian Firth" wrote in message
In article ,
says…

How long does is take to put up a GUI screen …. ans: 0.0 seconds.

It’s obvious you’re not really a programmer.

CoolEdit Pro is a much simpler application than Photoshop, the comparison isn’t fair.

PS. You might want to defrag your hard drive and do some other upkeep if your 2Ghz system takes 25 seconds to load Photoshop.


Regards,
Ian Firth
MV
Matti Vuori
Nov 28, 2003
(jjs) wrote in
news::
There was no GUI on that time-sharing machine, was there? Hell, some time-sharing systems (OpenVMS, for example) don’t load a program into memory, but load only as much as you need,

Hell, all modern OS’s can swap unneeded code to disk to make room for other applications. But they also are smart to load more of the code when there is room – constantly reading from the disk is very slow and stupid.


Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
T
tacitr
Nov 28, 2003
I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ……..

I bet you re not a professional user and you do not understand more than 10% of Photoshop’s capabilities.

If you use Photoshop professionally, then you realize that Photoshop is priced right where it belongs. Photoshop’s color separation engine alone makes it an incredibly valiable piece of software; it produces far better color separations than proprietary software I have used that carries a price tag double Photoshop’s.

If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my point; Photoshop is the wrong program for you. You aren’t a professional user, and you would be well-advised to buy Photoshop Elements for $99 rather than the full version of Photoshop. No point wasting money on a Ferrari if all you want is cargo carrying space…


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
R
Roberto
Nov 28, 2003
It is proprietary, but open as programs like ACDSee will read some of it (namely the flattened comp in side the PSD so you can get a preview of it in these programs.)

Also, there are other programs like Corel etc. that can read PSD files. They don’t always keep everything like layer effects, etc. but they are getting better. So it isn’t completely closed, but it is a format controlled and when needed updated by Adobe.

Unfortunately, there is no other format that really does well with keeping layers in tack, at least at the time so they created their own. TIFF now will do layers but it is a bloated mess that has little support from other programs.

Robert
J
joesplink
Nov 28, 2003
If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my point;

You are right … I don’t know what ‘color separation’ is ….. but…. PE is useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it ….If Adobe produced a full-up ‘non-pro’ version for $99.00, then, OK…. but PE ain’t it.

JS
J
joesplink
Nov 28, 2003
It’s obvious you’re not really a programmer.

Ha!…. I was a programmer when you booted up a system by flipping the power switch and then keying in the binary boot code !!!!! And, I could still boot up faster than XP or Photoshop !!!!!

JS
J
joesplink
Nov 28, 2003
CoolEdit Pro no longer exists. It is now Adobe Audition.

Aarrrggggg !
J
JJS
Nov 28, 2003
"Joesplink" wrote in message
If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my
point;
You are right … I don’t know what ‘color separation’ is ….. but…. PE
is
useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it

Those are not sustainable objections. Excellent tutorials are on-line for free, many of the ‘neat effects’ arein PE and in fact they are more idiot proof than in PS, you _can_ use many PS plugins in PE, and books? Well, they have never been free. PE is for you.
J
JJS
Nov 28, 2003
"Joesplink" wrote in message
It’s obvious you’re not really a programmer.

Ha!…. I was a programmer when you booted up a system by flipping the
power
switch and then keying in the binary boot code !!!!! And, I could still
boot
up faster than XP or Photoshop !!!!!

You haven’t anything over many of us: PDP 11/70: b 17777777, and with the puny RAM there was practically nothing to boot, regardless of the machine. Your hard drives the size of washing machines had all of 20mb, max. So now you have on your desktop a machine an order of MAGNITUDE larger. Live with it.
T
tacitr
Nov 28, 2003
PE is
useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it ….

The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.

But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for." Huh? That’s the worst justification for pirating I’ve ever heard!


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
N
nospam
Nov 28, 2003
In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

PE is
useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it ….

The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.
But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for." Huh? That’s the worst justification for pirating I’ve ever heard!

It’s not right to accuse every lazy, illiterate, brain-dead, wannabe turn-key artist and crafstman of piracy. 🙂 I said it.
J
joesplink
Nov 29, 2003
So now
you have on your desktop a machine an order of MAGNITUDE larger.

Many orders of magnitude… memory … 4k versus 512 *1000 k ……. speed….. 2 gig versus… (I can’t remember) ….100 K (?)…. 4 40 400 4000 40000….4000000….40000000…..4000000000….. 7 orders of magnitude on memory something similar for speed.

So, you’re happy when a Model T takes 1 sec …. while a ‘Ferrari’ takes 30 ………. you’ve truly been brainwashed…..by Bill Gates …. I think……
J
joesplink
Nov 29, 2003
The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.

Baloney.

But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for.

Not at all. I care less about tutorials than features. I’m saying that PE is a joke. Adobe could have started with Photoshop …. taken out your beloved ‘professional’ features … and sold the result to the rest of us home users. They didn’t do that …. they started from zero and worked their way up to one and a half out of ten. And are selling that for $100.00….. shame on them!

Actually … I started with …. I have a right to pirate Photoshop because they maintain a competition stifling monopoly through the use of a proprietary data format …. ….a variation on the reason I’d use to pirate MS any chance I got ……. I see some difficulties with this position (what would an ‘open’ format be ???) … but I’m sticking with it.
F
Farlo
Nov 29, 2003
(Joesplink) wrote:
I have a right to pirate Photoshop

Blah blah blah.

It’s always the same. A thief will justify himself, but there is no honor among thieves. The simple retarded fact is that software piracy is wrong. That’s all.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
SE
Special Ed
Nov 29, 2003
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:51:38 GMT, Farlo wrote:

(Joesplink) wrote:
I have a right to pirate Photoshop

Blah blah blah.

It’s always the same. A thief will justify himself, but there is no honor among thieves. The simple retarded fact is that software piracy is wrong. That’s all.

So is being stoopid, but that doesn’t stop you!
F
Farlo
Nov 29, 2003
Special Ed wrote:
From: Special Ed

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
CC
Chris Cox
Nov 29, 2003
I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC with 512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …..computers with less power than the one on my desk used to power huge time-sharing networks, with 50
– 100 users, with faster response times. I’d love to see an analysis of the delay and why it’s necessary…. I mean why not just bring up the initial screen and do the bookkeeping later?

Because the OS needs time to load the binary, relocate the binary, link the binary, load preferences files, figure out what language(s) it is using, figure out what size type it’s using, etc. just to bring up the splash screen. (that accounts for around 80% of the launch time, the rest is PS getting ready to work)

As for delaying stuff – we assume you have work to do when you launch Photoshop. If you wanted to go on a coffee break after launching, then why did you launch it in the first place?

Chris
CC
Chris Cox
Nov 29, 2003
In article , Joesplink
wrote:

The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.

Baloney.

But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for.

Not at all. I care less about tutorials than features. I’m saying that PE is a joke. Adobe could have started with Photoshop …. taken out your beloved ‘professional’ features … and sold the result to the rest of us home users.
They didn’t do that …. they started from zero and worked their way up to one
and a half out of ten. And are selling that for $100.00….. shame on them!

Uh, no.
Elements is Photoshop with the professional stuff taken out. Photoshop and Elements are built from the same codebase.

Chris
TC
Tony Cooper
Nov 29, 2003
On 28 Nov 2003 19:27:54 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ……..

I bet you re not a professional user and you do not understand more than 10% of Photoshop’s capabilities.

If you use Photoshop professionally, then you realize that Photoshop is priced right where it belongs. Photoshop’s color separation engine alone makes it an incredibly valiable piece of software; it produces far better color separations than proprietary software I have used that carries a price tag double Photoshop’s.

If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my point; Photoshop is the wrong program for you. You aren’t a professional user, and you would be well-advised to buy Photoshop Elements for $99 rather than the full version of Photoshop. No point wasting money on a Ferrari if all you want is cargo carrying space…

Your statement assumes the user is starting out fresh today and can choose the program that meets his needs. That’s not the way most of us got on board. I’d guess that almost all users (1) of Photoshop 7, for example, started out with some earlier version of Photoshop and upgraded to obtain certain features that appealed to them or upgraded to keep up with OS changes (2).

I wouldn’t take a guess at the percentage of utilization of PS’s features the average user has mastery over, but I’d guess that it’s something around 50% or less. Most users tend to specialize in certain applications and never touch certain other areas.

For example, I’ve played around with the filters, but I’m proficient with less than 10% of the filters available. I’ve never made a photograph look like a charcoal sketch or stained glass, and have no interest in doing so. I don’t feel unprofessional (3) because I don’t bother to learn to use some of the features that are part of the package.

The same holds true with Plug-Ins. I’ve added one Plug-In, and I ended up taking that one out. I just haven’t seen one that does something that I want to do. I don’t have any interest in some Plug-In that makes type look like it’s on fire. I do like the idea of a program that integrates Plug-Ins, but only because someday I may come across one that has interest to me.

One of the major benefits of Photoshop is that it is a program that can grow with the user’s interests. You don’t necessarily buy what it does, but you buy what it can do if you want to do it.

(1) Legitimate users, that is, and not users that pirated a copy of whatever that was available to them.

(2) I also use CorelDraw. I upgraded, or downgraded, to CorelDraw’s Essentials just because my old CorelDraw version wouldn’t work with Windows XP.

(3) Not that I am a professional or use the program for professional use. I’m strictly an amateur that uses PS for my own enjoyment.
TC
Tony Cooper
Nov 29, 2003
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 04:34:45 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Special Ed wrote:
From: Special Ed

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"? We can presume that SpecialEd has the first name of "Ed", and that Hall.j.m. has the last name of Hall, but does either reveal any information that the other doesn’t?

Dragons are known for their bad breath, not for intellect.
N
nospam
Nov 29, 2003
In article ,
(someone) wrote:

this discussion of ps vs pse got me thinking. for old timers, which version of photoshop do you think photoshop elements 2.0 is functionally equivalent to?

V7.1 with an infantile interface, a lot of shmoozie-newbie actions thrown in, but with all the pre-press stuff thrown out.
E
erimies
Nov 29, 2003
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:51:16 GMT, Tony Cooper
posted:

On 28 Nov 2003 19:27:54 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ……..

I bet you re not a professional user and you do not understand more than 10% of Photoshop’s capabilities.

If you use Photoshop professionally, then you realize that Photoshop is priced right where it belongs. Photoshop’s color separation engine alone makes it an incredibly valiable piece of software; it produces far better color separations than proprietary software I have used that carries a price tag double Photoshop’s.

If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my point; Photoshop is the wrong program for you. You aren’t a professional user, and you would be well-advised to buy Photoshop Elements for $99 rather than the full version of Photoshop. No point wasting money on a Ferrari if all you want is cargo carrying space…

Your statement assumes the user is starting out fresh today and can choose the program that meets his needs. That’s not the way most of us got on board. I’d guess that almost all users (1) of Photoshop 7, for example, started out with some earlier version of Photoshop and upgraded to obtain certain features that appealed to them or upgraded to keep up with OS changes (2).

I wouldn’t take a guess at the percentage of utilization of PS’s features the average user has mastery over, but I’d guess that it’s something around 50% or less. Most users tend to specialize in certain applications and never touch certain other areas.
For example, I’ve played around with the filters, but I’m proficient with less than 10% of the filters available. I’ve never made a photograph look like a charcoal sketch or stained glass, and have no interest in doing so. I don’t feel unprofessional (3) because I don’t bother to learn to use some of the features that are part of the package.

The same holds true with Plug-Ins. I’ve added one Plug-In, and I ended up taking that one out. I just haven’t seen one that does something that I want to do. I don’t have any interest in some Plug-In that makes type look like it’s on fire. I do like the idea of a program that integrates Plug-Ins, but only because someday I may come across one that has interest to me.

One of the major benefits of Photoshop is that it is a program that can grow with the user’s interests. You don’t necessarily buy what it does, but you buy what it can do if you want to do it.

(1) Legitimate users, that is, and not users that pirated a copy of whatever that was available to them.

(2) I also use CorelDraw. I upgraded, or downgraded, to CorelDraw’s Essentials just because my old CorelDraw version wouldn’t work with Windows XP.

(3) Not that I am a professional or use the program for professional use. I’m strictly an amateur that uses PS for my own enjoyment.

this discussion of ps vs pse got me thinking. for old timers, which version of photoshop do you think photoshop elements 2.0 is functionally equivalent to?
S
steph
Nov 29, 2003
"Ian Firth" wrote in message
In article ,
says…

timings just taken. XP up to login from switch on in 43 seconds. Photoshop up and waiting for me in 29 seconds. Not bad for such a complex OS and application!

What kind of system ?

My Win2k graphics system (2Ghz P4, 1GB RAM) boots to login in about 20 seconds. Photoshop 6 loads in about 9 seconds.


Regards,
Ian Firth

all of these timings are entirely dependent on what processor, graphics card, ram and motherboard is installed in the system and additionally dependent on how many and what applications the computer has installed total

my own system is lightning fast with only a few apps installed, but when the full load is on there it takes minutes for each of the above procedures

there is no set global "time"
ML
Mike Latondresse
Nov 29, 2003
(Tacit) wrote in
news::

I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ……..

I bet you re not a professional user and you do not understand more than 10% of Photoshop’s capabilities.

A professional what???
If you use Photoshop professionally, then you realize that Photoshop is priced right where it belongs. Photoshop’s color separation engine alone makes it an incredibly valiable piece of software; it produces far better color separations than
proprietary software I have used that carries a price tag double Photoshop’s.

But in photography I do I don’t use separation because I don’t publish stuff, so separation is a non starter

If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my point; Photoshop is the wrong program for you. You aren’t a professional user, and you would be well-advised to buy Photoshop Elements for $99 rather than the full version of Photoshop. No point wasting money on a Ferrari if all you want is cargo carrying space…
Nonsense of course, as this PSCS version is the first PS that begins to address what the future buyers are going to be interested in (including all the non pro ones) and that is the photo part of PS.
F
Farlo
Nov 30, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
TC
Tony Cooper
Nov 30, 2003
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

Whoa! You *still* have your reference copy of "Captain Billy’s Whiz Bang" with the latest spiffy put-downs from 1922?
TS
Tony Spadaro
Dec 1, 2003
So buy a Mac and use whatever image editor it comes with and shut your trap and get a life.


http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist’s Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Joesplink" wrote in message
I’m no longer surprised by the reverence I see for Adobe on this newsgroup…… but…I’m going to offer a counter opinion……as a
sometimes
‘software professional’ I have a viceral hatred for Microsoft and Intel
for
both the hardware and software architecture of the PC and DOS/Windows
….you
would not believe the unnecessary effort and anguish these two companies
have
caused for software developers ….but you can be reminded of it anytime
you
wait x minutes for XP to come up or shut down …or y minutes for
Photoshop to
come up. I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ………..but
I’m not
sure about one thing ….. and I’ll admit to being wrong about Adobe if
I’m
wrong about this …… I’ll bet that the PSD format is
‘proprietary’….otherwise someone would write a compatible new version
and
sell it for $100.00.

JS
B
Brian
Dec 1, 2003
Joesplink wrote:

I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC with 512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …

Says who? I’ve never owned or used a copy of Photoshop on ANY machine, high-end to low-end, Mac or Windows, that launched in 2 seconds or anything close to that.
B
Brian
Dec 1, 2003
Joesplink wrote:

Actually … I started with …. I have a right to pirate Photoshop because they maintain a competition stifling monopoly through the use of a proprietary data format

Demonstrate for us where that right originates…. theiving idiot.
PJ
Peter Jones
Dec 2, 2003
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:18:43 -0500, Brian
wrote:

Joesplink wrote:

Actually … I started with …. I have a right to pirate Photoshop because they maintain a competition stifling monopoly through the use of a proprietary data format

Demonstrate for us where that right originates…. theiving idiot.

Corel PhotoPaint can read and write PhotoShop files.
Digital Photography Reference
http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/PJDigPhot.htm
Touchup, an image viewing applet (also shows EXIF)
http://members.shaw.ca/jonespm2/software.htm
Health, happiness and healing
http://www.SuperNaturalWoman.com
B
Brian
Dec 2, 2003
Peter Jones wrote:

Demonstrate for us where that right originates…. theiving idiot.

Corel PhotoPaint can read and write PhotoShop files.

Why did you quote me? You’re basically saying the same thing – if PhotoPAINT can read and write PSDs (which I know it can – I do it all the time) then that refutes Joesplink’s original comment about stifling competition through the use of proprietary data formats.

Please be careful who you quote so everyone understands who said what, and who you’re replying to. (And, if you were replying to me, I don’t understand why.)

Brian
SP
stan.phillips
Dec 2, 2003
J > >It’s obvious you’re not really a programmer.
J >
J > Ha!…. I was a programmer when you booted up a system by flipping the power J > switch and then keying in the binary boot code !!!!! And, I could still boot J > up faster than XP or Photoshop !!!!!
J >
J > JS
J >

That example makes you a computer operator, not a programmer. On the old GE400 (the model that Dartmouth invented the basic programming language on), you put in a binary code, that loaded the tape reader, that loaded the card reader, to load in the operating system (whichever system one wanted at the time). It even had the latest data storage, several fairly large consoles, each with a (removable) disk pack that could store in excess of 30K. (K not Meg). In the corner of the room, there was the pump (high pressure oil) to drive the heads.

All the best.

Stan

* Never trust a skinny cook.

NS
n8 skow
Dec 3, 2003
Also, the amount of fonts you have installed will largely effect Photoshop/Illustrator start-up times.

n8

If you have such a hatred for MS/Intel, there’s always Apple.

Apple is completely unusable for engineering applications, and is never used…. that is in an application where the computer controls,
monitors….
etc. hardware…

The initial PC architecture used an addressing scheme that was awful at
the
time and that quickly became absurd…. .. this hardward absurdity worked
its
way right up to the C program level… maybe they have finally (in the
last 5
years) gotten away from it…. a C programmer would know if he still has
to use
FAR and VERY FAR …and SO FAR YOU CAN’T IMAGINE.. address types …. (I
forget
the particulars).

The horrors of DOS I won’t discuss…..or the COM, OLE, etc., nightmare
…….
although it has done wonders for the Indian imports who live and breathe
that
stuff and are the only ones I’ve met that have mastered it !!!!!
I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC
with
512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …..computers with
less
power than the one on my desk used to power huge time-sharing networks,
with 50
– 100 users, with faster response times. I’d love to see an analysis of
the
delay and why it’s necessary…. I mean why not just bring up the initial screen and do the bookkeeping later?

But I seem to be wrong about PSD being proprietary ???? That being the
case
….. I don’t see why all the competetors don’t use it… as PS is so
dominant
…..and…. I can’t think of any reason Adobe shouldn’t charge whatever
they
can get……(I figured a de facto monopoly, like Microsoft’s, allowed
them to
gouge the public).
T
tacitr
Dec 4, 2003
Also, the amount of fonts you have installed will largely effect Photoshop/Illustrator start-up times.

Ditto for color profiles, plug-ins, TWAIN drivers, and the like.

The presence of a corrupt font can also *dramatically* slow down Photoshop’s launch (when it doesn’t cause Photoshop to crash on launch altogether).

Long launch times usually tend to make me look for problematic fonts and/or color profiles when I’m troubleshooting.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
J
joesplink
Dec 5, 2003
That example makes you a computer operator, not a programmer.

Well, I (re)wrote the boot code…..to adapt to a new disk drive (which replaced a tape drive) . … At least I think that is true…. it’s been a while!

On the old GE400
You got me beat there, though.
J
joesplink
Dec 5, 2003
I have a right to pirate Photoshop because

These weren’t actually my words… I was quoting ….I’m only trying to understand the phenomena.
J
joesplink
Dec 5, 2003
Why did you quote me? You’re basically saying the same thing – if PhotoPAINT can read and write PSDs

Is it true? What about adjustment layers? That question got me to thinking about what a ‘open’ format for PSD type files would be. It seems to me that an ‘open’ format would be a challenge to even formulate, much less get agreement on and implement. As long as the file only contains images… even in layers…no problem ….but if it contains algorithm parameters …. then you got to know the algorithm….so that’s a problem if there are ‘proprietary’ algorithms….
S
Scroobie
Dec 16, 2003
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:09:04 -0500, Brian
wrote:

Joesplink wrote:

I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC with 512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …

Says who? I’ve never owned or used a copy of Photoshop on ANY machine, high-end to low-end, Mac or Windows, that launched in 2 seconds or anything close to that.

Say now, you may have hit on something. Aren’t there these RAM-card devices that will store programs and launch them super-fast? Or simply buy an extra 512 stick and assign the added memory to be a RAMdisk with PS copied to it. Or get a 15K RPM drive to hold your O/S and PS. Lots of ways to speed things up.
S
Scroobie
Dec 16, 2003
On 28 Nov 2003 19:27:54 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ……..

I bet you re not a professional user and you do not understand more than 10% of Photoshop’s capabilities.

If you use Photoshop professionally, then you realize that Photoshop is priced right where it belongs. Photoshop’s color separation engine alone makes it an incredibly valiable piece of software; it produces far better color separations than proprietary software I have used that carries a price tag double Photoshop’s.

If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my point; Photoshop is the wrong program for you. You aren’t a professional user, and you would be well-advised to buy Photoshop Elements for $99 rather than the full version of Photoshop. No point wasting money on a Ferrari if all you want is cargo carrying space…

I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).
S
Scroobie
Dec 16, 2003
On 28 Nov 2003 22:02:17 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

PE is
useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it ….

The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.
But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for." Huh? That’s the worst justification for pirating I’ve ever heard!

This then begs the question: what is the BEST justification for pirating you’ve ever heard?
S
Scroobie
Dec 16, 2003
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.
J
james
Dec 16, 2003
Lowering the price of any software, be it Photoshop or Windows XP, will not stop piracy. Just look at the shareware software that is out that gets pirated. Some people steal to be stealing and nothing more. If the price of Photoshop or any other program is too high, the proper reaction is to not buy it , not steal it. Then companies can decide it they need to lower the price to gain market share.
Adobe is in no danger of going out of business because of the price of their products. It is still the number one selling Image editing program out. Simply because it is recognised as the best.
james

"Scroobie" wrote in message
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.
JG
James Gifford
Dec 16, 2003
Scroobie wrote:
I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).

Then let them. PS is a professional’s tool and one of the best of "best in class" tools I know of. There is simply no reason that Adobe should shift their price point to suit casual users who do not need, use, understand or want most of the advanced features. If it’s not worth ~$450 to you, then use something cheaper. If you need the advanced control of color for professional output, then $450 is a bargain.


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
J
JJS
Dec 16, 2003
"Scroobie" wrote in message

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.

I’ve added a filter just for you – it puts your posts into my Critical Thinking 101 case folders, under "Typical Boneheaded Things People Think."
SM
Steve Moody
Dec 16, 2003
In article , Scroobie
wrote:

I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).

YOU need to revisit Economics 101.

1) Adobe spends a tremendous amount of money developing Photoshop. They can do this because of the profit they make selling it. If the halve the price, it will not bring in enough sales to maintain their current profit – much less increase profit.

2) If you had a grasp of how economics works, your won’t be justifying piracy of Adobe’s products.
R
Rick
Dec 16, 2003
"Steve Moody" wrote in message
In article , Scroobie
wrote:

I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).

YOU need to revisit Economics 101.

1) Adobe spends a tremendous amount of money developing Photoshop. They can do this because of the profit they make selling it. If the halve the price, it will not bring in enough sales to maintain their current profit – much less increase profit.

Uh, Adobe spent a tremendous amount of money developing
Photoshop TWELVE YEARS AGO. Since then they’ve been
adding as few features as possible to justify reselling it every year as a new product.

Not that Adobe is any different than Microsoft or most other major software developers. Just please don’t spout the
nonsense that they’re investing anything near as much into development as they did originally — it simply doesn’t work that way. New versions since PS4 have certainly been
useful, but nothing approaching new products.

2) If you had a grasp of how economics works, your won’t be justifying piracy of Adobe’s products.

Pirates don’t buy software. Net loss to Adobe = close to zero. Meanwhile they continue to accumulate market share by the distribution of shared/pirated copies.

Rick
J
JJS
Dec 16, 2003
"Rick" wrote in message

Uh, Adobe spent a tremendous amount of money developing
Photoshop TWELVE YEARS AGO. Since then they’ve been
adding as few features as possible to justify reselling it every year as a new product.

Your statement is so friggin stupid that I shouldn’t respond, but if you think the core of PS was _done_ twelve years ago, then you live on another planet and have no friggin clue whatsoever what it takes to build and evolve a sophisticated software product, nor do you have a single ounce of business sense, and now I suspect you are crippling innumerate if you cannot see by the simple credits how many people are involved (and that’s not the whole lot of ’em.)

Adobe simply didn’t come out with base code and _add_ to it. It doesn’t work that way. Additional features require an enormous amount of intelligent research, specialists of all kinds to come up with needs, then research has to indicate that the field wants it (from the press people all the way to the consumer), then coding has to be considered within the overall Adobe suite, coding has to be done and often the whole program suite has to be rewritten. Then there are OS changes to deal with, bugs in the OS to work around. And it goes ON AND ON. If someone went to the trouble of spellinig out what all is involved it would be a book – one you wouldn’t read anyway.

You gotta be a computer science undergrad, delusional, a ward of the state or pre-pubescent to be so stupid as to believe what you wrote.
NS
Nicholas Sherlock
Dec 16, 2003
Scroobie wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:09:04 -0500, Brian
wrote:

Joesplink wrote:

I just brought up Photoshop 7….. took about 25 seconds on a 2 gig PC with 512meg memory ….. it should take about 2 seconds …

Says who? I’ve never owned or used a copy of Photoshop on ANY machine, high-end to low-end, Mac or Windows, that launched in 2 seconds or anything close to that.

Say now, you may have hit on something. Aren’t there these RAM-card devices that will store programs and launch them super-fast?

Windows does this just fine on its own. It’s called a disk cache.

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
SM
Steve Moody
Dec 17, 2003
In article <brnps4$5501g$>, Rick
wrote:

Uh, Adobe spent a tremendous amount of money developing
Photoshop TWELVE YEARS AGO. Since then they’ve been
adding as few features as possible to justify reselling it every year as a new product.

SoŠ Version 1.0 is just as good as version CS? It just has a few patches in it that didn¹t require Adobe to pay a team of expert programs for 12 years labor? I guess they got some pimple-face kids to call in sick from their McDonald¹s jobs one day and had them throw the code together for $6 an hour?

Not only do you know little about economics and business, you know little about computer programming either.

2) If you had a grasp of how economics works, your won’t be justifying piracy of Adobe’s products.

Pirates don’t buy software. Net loss to Adobe = close to zero. Meanwhile they continue to accumulate market share by the distribution of shared/pirated copies.

www.dictionary.com defines "Market share":

The proportion of industry sales of a good or service that is controlled by a company.

www.m-w.com defines "Market share:"

the percentage of the market for a product or service that a company supplies

"market" is further defined:

the area of economic activity in which buyers and sellers come together and the forces of supply and demand affect prices

Stolen software do not count as part of Adobe’s market share because it did not involve a sale – except the blank CD it was burned to. Although I don’t put it past them to shoplift that blank CD either.

Software thieves (like all thieves) benefit no one but themselves.
SM
Steve Moody
Dec 17, 2003
In article
wrote:

sense, and now I suspect you are crippling innumerate if you cannot see by the simple credits how many people are involved (and that’s not the whole lot of ’em.)

Chris Cox can correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect that the list is not the full team of programers, just the top players. Even so, the list does not take into account the many other employees at Adobe.

Excecutives, mail room workers, secretaries, IT, payroll, legal, etc…

Then the cost of merely being in business. Taxes, utilities, rent, sales, demos, web presence, advertizing, packaging.

This costs, money Rick. Business cannot spend money if they cannot make money. Adobe does a remarkably good job of providing a product that is well worth the cost the is needed to maintain a profitable business.
F
Farlo
Dec 17, 2003
Scroobie wrote:

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase …

Tell yourself whatever it takes to assuage the guilt.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 17, 2003
Scroobie wrote:
On 28 Nov 2003 19:27:54 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

I think that Photoshop is obscenely overpriced ……..

I bet you re not a professional user and you do not understand more than 10% of Photoshop’s capabilities.

If you use Photoshop professionally, then you realize that Photoshop is priced right where it belongs. Photoshop’s color separation engine alone makes it an incredibly valiable piece of software; it produces far better color separations than proprietary software I have used that carries a price tag double Photoshop’s.

If you do not know what "color separation" is, you have just proven my point; Photoshop is the wrong program for you. You aren’t a professional user, and you would be well-advised to buy Photoshop Elements for $99 rather than the full version of Photoshop. No point wasting money on a Ferrari if all you want is cargo carrying space…

I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).

I tend to agree with this. I think that Photoshop has come close to saturating the market. The group they don’t reach are the non-professional folks for whom the price is too high. And, as you say, Adobe isn’t alone in this at all.

After all, the price point is just an educated guess. There’s really no way to realistically shift the price to see how sales react. Most of those who are going to upgrade do so within a few months of the introdution of a new version.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 17, 2003
Scroobie wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.

I still do not believe that there are very many amateurs who pirate the software who would spend the money to buy a legal copy. I’m not advocating piracy at all, but I don’t think *this* sort of piracy costs Adobe much money.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 17, 2003
James Gifford wrote:
Scroobie wrote:
I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).

Then let them. PS is a professional’s tool and one of the best of "best in class" tools I know of. There is simply no reason that Adobe should shift their price point to suit casual users who do not need, use, understand or want most of the advanced features. If it’s not worth ~$450 to you, then use something cheaper. If you need the advanced control of color for professional output, then $450 is a bargain.

This is contrary to Economics 101. Adobe is in business to make money. One way they make money is by selling
Photoshop. Determining the right price point is a bit
of informed guesswork. It is quite possible that if they sold CS at $300 that they’d make a good bit more money
in total.

If they were convinced that was true, I’m convinced that they would do it.

On the other hand, lowering the price to $300 might cost them a bundle, overall. Perhaps the right price point
is $850?

What I do think is that most individual non-professionals who pirate Photoshop are not going to buy a copy at all. I also think that few of them use it to any great length. It is on their computers to show their friends what prowess they possess.

—- Paul J. Gans
JG
James Gifford
Dec 17, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:
James Gifford wrote:
Then let them. PS is a professional’s tool and one of the best of "best in class" tools I know of. There is simply no reason that Adobe should shift their price point to suit casual users who do not need, use, understand or want most of the advanced features. If it’s not worth ~$450 to you, then use something cheaper. If you need the advanced control of color for professional output, then $450 is a bargain.

This is contrary to Economics 101. Adobe is in business to make money. One way they make money is by selling
Photoshop. Determining the right price point is a bit
of informed guesswork. It is quite possible that if they sold CS at $300 that they’d make a good bit more money
in total.

And I have no doubt that they have at least several business professionals who are much more highly informed than you and whose guesswork is far closer to a theoretical optimum than you seem to think.

Your arguments are those of someone who has simply decided a product isn’t worth what the manufacturer is charging for it. Since the manufacturer in question is quite healthy and the product in question is the defining product of its class, you just might want to concede that someone at Adobe is schooled *past* Economics 101. Some of them might even have – GASP! – a decade or two of real-world experience!

(I know, that’s a shocking concept for you university types who think the solution to everything is another graduate seminar…)


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 17, 2003
Steve Moody wrote:
In article , Scroobie
wrote:

I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).

YOU need to revisit Economics 101.

1) Adobe spends a tremendous amount of money developing Photoshop. They can do this because of the profit they make selling it. If the halve the price, it will not bring in enough sales to maintain their current profit – much less increase profit.

2) If you had a grasp of how economics works, your won’t be justifying piracy of Adobe’s products.

As I’ve just finished posting, *we* don’t know that. I’d bet Adobe doesn’t know that either. Setting price points is an arcane art and, realistically, there is no way to
know if they’ve hit it right or not. Not even for them.

Adobe, however, will likely be happy with the price point if it brings in sufficient funds to send the stock price up.

—- Paul J. Gans
J
john
Dec 17, 2003
In article <broi1s$it4$>, Paul J Gans
wrote:

I still do not believe that there are very many amateurs who pirate the software who would spend the money to buy a legal copy.

You told us not long ago that you had personal knowledge of schools that have nothing but hacked or illegal copies of Photoshop.
F
Farlo
Dec 17, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Setting price points
is an arcane art and, realistically, there is no way to
know if they’ve hit it right or not. Not even for them.

That’s flatly untrue.

After gathering a little market information, it is actually basic calculus to determine the exact price point (min-max functions). Just because you are not an accountant, doesn’t mean that they have no access to one. I bet that they can afford an accountant. =)

One of the signs of really aggressive stupidity is assigning your own personal limits to other people. "I cannot do calculus, therefore ‘X’ is impossible". Feh. "People who are against piracy think ‘Y’ …". You don’t read minds, either.

This "conversation" is over.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
SM
Steve Moody
Dec 17, 2003
In article <broi9n$it4$>, Paul J Gans
wrote:

This is contrary to Economics 101. Adobe is in business to make money. One way they make money is by selling
Photoshop. Determining the right price point is a bit
of informed guesswork. It is quite possible that if they sold CS at $300 that they’d make a good bit more money
in total.

You are the one exercising guesswork. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know more than people who’s job and education is to determine minimum pricing for a product in order to make a profit. A business that guesses at the best price for thier product will not maximize profit.
S
Stuart
Dec 17, 2003
Scroobie wrote:

On 28 Nov 2003 22:02:17 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

PE is
useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it ….
The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.
But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for." Huh? That’s the worst justification for pirating I’ve ever heard!

This then begs the question: what is the BEST justification for pirating you’ve ever heard?

My dog ate my PS disk and manual?? :))

Stuart
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 17, 2003
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:39:37 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

Setting price points
is an arcane art and, realistically, there is no way to
know if they’ve hit it right or not. Not even for them.

That’s flatly untrue.

After gathering a little market information, it is actually basic calculus to determine the exact price point (min-max functions). Just because you are not an accountant, doesn’t mean that they have no access to one. I bet that they can afford an accountant. =)

Are you thinking of "break-even point"? That’s a mathematically derived figure, but "price-point" is not. The price-point – that figure at which the product yields the maximum return – is more intuitive than mathematical. There is a perceived value to a product, and no formula will determine perceived value.

Paul’s statement is basically correct. I wouldn’t use "arcane" since the people that set price-points are hardly among the initiate, but it is a specialized function of marketing people (not accountants). There’s some math involved in modeling, but the end result is more of guess than anything else, and they never know if they made the best guess.

A good current example of determining price-point is bottled water. A same-sized bottle filled with water can be sold for anywhere from $1.00 to $10.00. The price-point is not determined by the cost of the bottle, the water, and the overhead, but by guessing at what the perceived value of the product will be to the consumer and by a marketing program that tries to establish a perceived value.

Price-point setting for products like Photoshop is much the same. The marketing people ask themselves "How high can we set the unit price without having a drop-off in unit sales that negatively affects yield." Surveys and statistical modeling contribute to the answer, but don’t provide it. It’s a best-guess answer, even if the guess is an informed guess.

One of the signs of really aggressive stupidity is assigning your own personal limits to other people. "I cannot do calculus, therefore ‘X’ is impossible". Feh. "People who are against piracy think ‘Y’ …". You don’t read minds, either.

Not understanding your own limits is right up there, too. You seem to have blown through that sign.
F
Farlo
Dec 17, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:

Are you thinking of "break-even point"?

No.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
S
Scroobie
Dec 17, 2003
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:20:28 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Scroobie wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.

I still do not believe that there are very many amateurs who pirate the software who would spend the money to buy a legal copy. I’m not advocating piracy at all, but I don’t think *this* sort of piracy costs Adobe much money.

—- Paul J. Gans

Even Gates himself said that. His concern was with those who were pirating his software (by reassembling), then selling it as their own creation. These pirated PS copies are nearly all being used by those who would never purchase the software in the first place, and that being the case, it has to be considered simply free advertising. I’m aware of no graphic arts studios or corporations that condone or encourage piracy, quite the opposite.

Maybe Adobe should consider value-added items that would make purchasing more lucrative–for example, bundling a crt/lcd cal device with their program, or quality tutorials.
S
Scroobie
Dec 17, 2003
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:39:27 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Scroobie" wrote in message

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.

I’ve added a filter just for you – it puts your posts into my Critical Thinking 101 case folders, under "Typical Boneheaded Things People Think."
think I give a rat’s ass what you think, turd-for-brains???
R
Rick
Dec 17, 2003
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:39:37 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

Setting price points
is an arcane art and, realistically, there is no way to
know if they’ve hit it right or not. Not even for them.

That’s flatly untrue.

After gathering a little market information, it is actually basic calculus to determine the exact price point (min-max functions). Just because you are not an accountant, doesn’t mean that they have no access to one. I bet that they can afford an accountant. =)

Are you thinking of "break-even point"? That’s a mathematically derived figure, but "price-point" is not. The price-point – that figure at which the product yields the maximum return – is more intuitive than mathematical. There is a perceived value to a product, and no formula will determine perceived value.

Paul’s statement is basically correct. I wouldn’t use "arcane" since the people that set price-points are hardly among the initiate, but it is a specialized function of marketing people (not accountants). There’s some math involved in modeling, but the end result is more of guess than anything else, and they never know if they made the best guess.

Correct. Supply and demand doesn’t apply to computer software. It never has. Instead the game is:

1. Accumulate market share, preferably a monopoly or near monopoly, then

2. Once market share is acquired, gouge as much as possible.

End result? $100+ billion in cash reserves for Microsoft.

Now compare this to the computer _hardware_ market, where consumers get twice as much power/capacity/etc. for half the price, each and every year. Amazing how we never seem to hear hardware developers whining about not recouping their development costs.

The software market is a royal scam.

Rick
W
wdflannery
Dec 17, 2003
2 points …

1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production cost (the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for $600.00 ???? I can’t….some pills may be in that league after accounting for numbers (you need lots of pills) … but there the developmental costs really are exorbitant.

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ???? I don’t…. it’s just out of scale.
SM
Steve Moody
Dec 17, 2003
In article , Wdflannery
wrote:

1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production cost (the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for $600.00 ????

You are confusing the cost of packaging the product with the cost of DEVELOPING and CREATING the product. AND, you think we will belive the the CD, manual, and box and be manufactured for a total cost of about $2.

You have no clue how a product is marketed.

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ???? I don’t…. it’s just out of scale.

Most people who have no use for a $600 piece of software do not justify stealing it by claiming that it cost too much anyway.
JG
James Gifford
Dec 17, 2003
(Wdflannery) wrote:
2 points …

From someone completely pointless, not to mention clueless.

1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production cost (the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for $600.00 ????

This is a juvenile argument used by every cheap shit who wants stuff for free or within whatever they think it’s worth. That the materials in the box – manual, CD-ROM, miscellany – can be duplicated for a few dollars does not mean that the product is worth only that, or that that trivial cost has anything much to do with the value of the item.

Go study up on "intellectual property" and "economics of commercial software development" and get back to us. Or don’t, actually.

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ????

I’m typing this very slowly because it’s clear you can’t read very fast. Photoshop…is…not…intended…for…"home"…users.


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? | Heinlein stuff at: | www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
JG
James Gifford
Dec 17, 2003
Steve Moody wrote:
You are confusing the cost of packaging the product with the cost of DEVELOPING and CREATING the product. AND, you think we will belive the the CD, manual, and box and be manufactured for a total cost of about $2.

I’d be surprised if the cost of a PS package, on the shelf, is more than about $5 including the cost of the shrinkwrap. Commercial-scale duplication produces absurdly low unit costs. Which has nothing to do with the arguments of the fkwt you’re answering. 🙂

Most people who have no use for a $600 piece of software do not justify stealing it by claiming that it cost too much anyway.

I find it absolutely fascinating that no commercial user of Photoshop has been seen to complain about the price (other the the occasional price/value ratio of some upgrades), while those who bitch and moan and scream about unfair pricing are invariably pissant "home" users who probably don’t understand 90% of PS’s features. Says it all, doesn’t it?

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

But the fkwts will continue to bitch because their $50 Best Buy gift card won’t buy them any pretty box in the store.


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
R
Rowley
Dec 17, 2003
Just jumping in.

Random comments.

Martin

Wdflannery wrote:

2 points …

1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production cost (the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for $600.00 ???? I can’t….some pills may be in that league after accounting for numbers (you need lots of pills) … but there the developmental costs really are exorbitant.

There are a ton of other items that cost more than what it cost to actually manufacture them. A good set of encyclopedias for one – heck even a copy of TV guide costs a couple of dollars and it’s printed mostly on newsprint. When you are "buying" something such a software program – you’re not really buying it for the cd that you get or the paper that the manual is printed on (if that was the case any office supply store sells blank cds and reams of copy paper pretty cheap – but then again they are both blank at the time of sale). What you are actually paying for is what the software can do for you. When you "buy" a ticket from an airline, you’re not actually buying the plane, nor the seat that you will be sitting in – what you’re purchasing is the service of getting from point "A" to "B" – nothing more.

Programs like Phostoshop do cost a lot of money – but there are cheaper alternatives. You can always keep using the free copy of paint that ships with most MS OSs, or if you want to spend a bit of money – go buy a license of Paint Shop Pro, which does nearly most of what PS does.

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ???? I don’t…. it’s just out of scale.

What exactly does most average home users really need to do to justify the use of a program such as PS? I know digital camera sales are booming – but then again, just about every digital camera that I’ve bought or heard of others buying usually come bundled with some SE version of so photo editing program. If the home user needs more power that what the bundled stuff can provide – then there are other very inexpensive packages that they can easily pick up at Fry’s, Best Buy, or even Wal-Mart.

Commercial software is priced with the commercial industry in mind. Just as a commercial stove that would be used in a typical restaurant costs 10+ times want the average residential model that is being sold on the floor of Best Buy. In industry a software package such as PS is a very small part of the cost of doing business. Once you looked at the big picture and see that the salary that a company is going to be paying someone to use that software. Factor in the cost of the computer and/or network, the cost of printers and supplies, the cost of rent, utilities, insurance, etc. – $600 is just a drop in a very big bucket. It’s just another cost on the one side of the business ledger that hopefully will be offset by the profit from the work that you can accomplish with the software (and all that other stuff) on the other side.

Martin
W
wdflannery
Dec 17, 2003
1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental
production cost (the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for $600.00 ????

This is a juvenile argument

It ain’t an argument, it’s a question.

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ????

Again, it is a simple question…. and presumably has an answer. Are home users paying $600.00 ??? Who buys Photoshop?. Again … not arguments … questions.

That the materials in the
box – manual, CD-ROM, miscellany – can be duplicated for a few dollars does not mean that the product is worth only that, or that that trivial cost has anything much to do with the value of the item.

Well, I agree it doesn’t have anything at all to do with the ‘value’ of an item….. but in the real world it may have something to do with how much can be charged for the item. Example…. suppose I discover the cure for heart disease, just by chance…. and can write it down on a page or two ….. can I then sell this page to all and sundry for $1000.00, or since it’s value is greater, even $10,000.00 or better yet $100,000.00… while forbidding any duplication, sharing, etc. ??? The answer is no, I think….. for any societal rule to be maintained, it must be enforceable.
B
bhilton665
Dec 17, 2003
From: James Gifford

I find it absolutely fascinating that no commercial user of Photoshop has been seen to complain about the price (other the the occasional price/value ratio of some upgrades), while those who bitch and moan and scream about unfair pricing are invariably pissant "home" users who probably don’t understand 90% of PS’s features. Says it all, doesn’t it?

Yep, that says it all pretty well (wide grin).

If Photoshop is not worth $600 to someone then they would probably be better served by Elements or PSP anyway.

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

Yep.
T
tacitr
Dec 17, 2003
Again, it is a simple question…. and presumably has an answer. Are home users paying $600.00 ??? Who buys Photoshop?. Again … not arguments …questions.

Photoshop is aimed at people in the professional prepress and print-production industries, not at home users. Most of Photoshop’s capabilities are in areas a home user does not understand, does not want to learn about, and does not need.

Home users who spend $600 for Photoshop are foolish; the overwhelming majority of home uers would be better served by Photoshop Elements.

To use an analogy: 18-wheel semi trucks are not aimed at the consumer market. A consumer can pay $180,000 for an 18-wheeler if he wants to, but it’d be foolish if his goal is to drive to the store for groceries.

Well, I agree it doesn’t have anything at all to do with the ‘value’ of an
item….. but in the real world it may have something to do with how much can
be charged for the item.

When you calculate how much it costs to produce Photoshop, you can’t look at the cost of the CD and the box it comes in. If Adobe spends $7,000,000 on programming and testing, then that $7,000,000 is part of the cost. The product does *not* cost just the amount of the CD plus the amount of the box.

Example…. suppose I discover the cure for heart
disease, just by chance…. and can write it down on a page or two …..

Already exists. Eat less red meat, watch your diet, exercise.

But your analogy is flawed. If it costs $0.01 for the sheet of paper, $0.05 for the pencil, and $15,000,000 to discover the secret, then your cost of writing it down is not $0.06; it’s $15,000,000.06.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
J
JJS
Dec 17, 2003
In article , Wdflannery
wrote:
1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production
cost
(the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for
$600.00

There are many products that have a similar mark-up: Candy, cigarettes, bottled water, pictures of the Queen, British ‘country music’… Get it?

But it does not cost $2.00 to produce an Adobe product. You should know that.
R
Rowley
Dec 17, 2003
A justification of the theft of software such as "I wouldn’t have bought it in the first place" is just a lame attempt to excuse the fact that they are doing something that they know is wrong. Unless this is one of those people who download stuff and burn it to a cdr as part of some collection of "expensive" software.

I’m assuming that the average typical user of bootleg software is making some use of the software or they wouldn’t have downloaded it and installed it in the first place. If somehow every one of those bootlegged copies locked up tomorrow and the users were unable to make use of them – I bet there would be a period of time shortly after where the sales figures for PS and other equivalent software packages rose a bit as some of these people replaced the unworking bootlegged software with a work legal license. The laws of averages dictate that some percentage of these people would do that. So there is some degree of "lost" sales due to the availability / use of bootlegged software.

Also consider the idea that the use of bootlegged copies of PS hurts the sales of the mid-price packages. Why buy something that you CAN afford when you can get a copy of something that you can’t? Such use also pretty much kills off most development of an alternative packages. Take a look at the figures of use of bootlegged software in countries where there is a high degree of use of such copies – do you ever see any company in any of those countries making a investment in developing & marketing an alternative to PS when there are millions of bootlegged copies that can be either downloaded or bought on Cdr. for a few dollars?

As for the attempt to rationalize bootlegged software as "free" advertising for Adobe, if that was true then why aren’t these companies sending cds with working copies of these high dollar applications to everybody in the phonebook? AOL does that, so it must be some what cost effective. But they (Adobe) doesn’t, instead they spend tons of money to buy ads in magazines and set up booths at industry trade shows. The only "free" advertising that I’ve seen them hand out have been the print/save crippled versions or the versions that time out after so many days. That seems to rule out them thinking of bootlegged versions as "free advertising". And besides I thought the people that was being talked about wouldn’t buy the software in the first place – what’s the point of advertising to them?

Martin

Scroobie wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:20:28 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Scroobie wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.

I still do not believe that there are very many amateurs who pirate the software who would spend the money to buy a legal copy. I’m not advocating piracy at all, but I don’t think *this* sort of piracy costs Adobe much money.

—- Paul J. Gans

Even Gates himself said that. His concern was with those who were pirating his software (by reassembling), then selling it as their own creation. These pirated PS copies are nearly all being used by those who would never purchase the software in the first place, and that being the case, it has to be considered simply free advertising. I’m aware of no graphic arts studios or corporations that condone or encourage piracy, quite the opposite.

Maybe Adobe should consider value-added items that would make purchasing more lucrative–for example, bundling a crt/lcd cal device with their program, or quality tutorials.
R
Rowley
Dec 17, 2003
Rick wrote:

"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:39:37 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

Setting price points
is an arcane art and, realistically, there is no way to
know if they’ve hit it right or not. Not even for them.

That’s flatly untrue.

After gathering a little market information, it is actually basic calculus to determine the exact price point (min-max functions). Just because you are not an accountant, doesn’t mean that they have no access to one. I bet that they can afford an accountant. =)

Are you thinking of "break-even point"? That’s a mathematically derived figure, but "price-point" is not. The price-point – that figure at which the product yields the maximum return – is more intuitive than mathematical. There is a perceived value to a product, and no formula will determine perceived value.

Paul’s statement is basically correct. I wouldn’t use "arcane" since the people that set price-points are hardly among the initiate, but it is a specialized function of marketing people (not accountants). There’s some math involved in modeling, but the end result is more of guess than anything else, and they never know if they made the best guess.

Correct. Supply and demand doesn’t apply to computer software. It never has. Instead the game is:

1. Accumulate market share, preferably a monopoly or near monopoly, then

2. Once market share is acquired, gouge as much as possible.
End result? $100+ billion in cash reserves for Microsoft.

How is MS "gouging" anyone? Their software seems pretty reasonably priced compared to anyone’s else’s. If you want to
beat them up for something stick to their heavy handed monopolistic tricks and not their software pricing (unless
you’re complaining about them giving away "free" versions of their versions of applications that other companies are
charging reasonable prices for.

MS & Gates just happen to be at the right place at the right time and make a very savvy deal with the one company that
set the tone for the industry. The same could complaint could probably be made about Intel too. I know that I paid a
LOT of $$ for many a processors only to see them 1/2 that price in less than 6 months and even less than that a few
years later. Yet, you hardly ever see anyone complain about that.

Selling "nothing" (software) for big $$ isn’t anything new – heck, insurance companies have been doing that for years.
I can’t begin to tell you of all the money I sent my insurance company and since I was never in any accidents never
saw a dime of it again.

Now compare this to the computer _hardware_ market, where consumers get twice as much power/capacity/etc. for half the price, each and every year. Amazing how we never seem to hear hardware developers whining about not recouping their development costs.

The software market is a royal scam.

If that was really the case I think that you would see more people / companies doing it.

Martin

Rick
R
Rowley
Dec 17, 2003
Stuart wrote:

Scroobie wrote:

On 28 Nov 2003 22:02:17 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

PE is
useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it ….
The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.
But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for." Huh? That’s the worst justification for pirating I’ve ever heard!

This then begs the question: what is the BEST justification for pirating you’ve ever heard?

My dog ate my PS disk and manual?? :))

That wouldn’t really constitute as being pirating as what you paid for was the use of the license – so long as you knew what the original serial number was any installation source is "legal" just so long as you use that serial number.

Martin

Stuart
JG
James Gifford
Dec 17, 2003
(Wdflannery) wrote:

Again, it is a simple question…. and presumably has an answer. Are home users paying $600.00 ??? Who buys Photoshop?. Again … not arguments … questions.

Which have been answered many, many times. No, home users don’t generally pay $600 for professional-grade image-editing software. They pay $50-100 for what is sometimes very powerful and well-designed image-editing software, but which most pros would find lacking in crucial details that matter not a whit to a home user.

Pros buy Photoshop. Pros are happy to pay $600 for it. Adobe is happy to sell it to pros (or anyone who wants it) for $600. Adobe is happy; pros are happy; home users who somehow think they need Photoshop and should be able to buy it for PSP’s price (or GIMP’s) are very unhappy. Boo-hoo.

The answer is no, I think….. for any societal rule to be maintained, it must be enforceable.

It is enforceable. That a moderately skilled fkwt can install a pirated copy of PS (prior to CS, anyway) doesn’t change that; it’s still illegal and the fkwt is bereft of all support, updates, upgrades, etc. except those he finds a way to steal.


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
JG
James Gifford
Dec 17, 2003
(Tacit) wrote:

To use an analogy: 18-wheel semi trucks are not aimed at the consumer market. A consumer can pay $180,000 for an 18-wheeler if he wants to, but it’d be foolish if his goal is to drive to the store for groceries.

SHHHH, DAMMIT! It’s already hard enough to park in a supermarket lot full of Expeditions and H2s!


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
R
Rowley
Dec 17, 2003
Why should the price of materials or resources invested (time / money) be of a consideration for the final cost of a product? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa or how much did the oil paint/brushes and canvas cost? How much was the model paid? Compared to what the painting is worth today those costs don’t even figure into it’s "price".

In the case of something such as a software application, cost of development, cost of marketing, cost of investment do have some minor consideration – but the main price for such a "product" is the service it provides and the time it saves in using it compared doing the same work without it.

Martin

jjs wrote:

In article , Wdflannery
wrote:
1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production
cost
(the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for
$600.00

There are many products that have a similar mark-up: Candy, cigarettes, bottled water, pictures of the Queen, British ‘country music’… Get it?
But it does not cost $2.00 to produce an Adobe product. You should know that.
R
Rowley
Dec 17, 2003
James Gifford wrote:

(Tacit) wrote:

To use an analogy: 18-wheel semi trucks are not aimed at the consumer market. A consumer can pay $180,000 for an 18-wheeler if he wants to, but it’d be foolish if his goal is to drive to the store for groceries.

SHHHH, DAMMIT! It’s already hard enough to park in a supermarket lot full of Expeditions and H2s!

Everytime I see a parking lot of those I wonder how so many people can afford them, or even afford the cost of gas and insurance.

Martin


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
SM
Steve Moody
Dec 17, 2003
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.
J
JJS
Dec 17, 2003
"Wdflannery" wrote in message

Well, I agree it doesn’t have anything at all to do with the ‘value’ of
an
item….. but in the real world it may have something to do with how much
can
be charged for the item. Example…. suppose I discover the cure for
heart
disease, just by chance…. and can write it down on a page or two …..
can I
then sell this page to all and sundry for $1000.00, or since it’s value is greater, even $10,000.00 or better yet $100,000.00… while forbidding any duplication, sharing, etc. ??? The answer is no, I think….. for any
societal
rule to be maintained, it must be enforceable.

Get thee to a dictionary and look up the word ‘specious’. You are searching for mismeasures in your dreamworld. Forget the analogy and get into real life. Copyright issues clearly cover Adobe’s intellectual property. Look it up. Nobody is likely to drop dead if they can’t get PS for free.
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 18, 2003
On 17 Dec 2003 19:42:35 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

Again, it is a simple question…. and presumably has an answer. Are home users paying $600.00 ??? Who buys Photoshop?. Again … not arguments …questions.

Photoshop is aimed at people in the professional prepress and print-production industries, not at home users. Most of Photoshop’s capabilities are in areas a home user does not understand, does not want to learn about, and does not need.
Home users who spend $600 for Photoshop are foolish; the overwhelming majority of home uers would be better served by Photoshop Elements.

This assumes that the home user became interested in this type of program within the last few years. Elements has not been around all that long. Many of us home users started out with PhotoShop because there just weren’t other programs available that did what we wanted.

The "foolish" part is a rather foolish statement. To pay $600 to engage in a hobby is only foolish when a wife states the foolishness of spending money on a hobby that could be spent on new carpeting. I’ve got far more than $600 invested in scuba gear, way more than $600 in golf clubs, and considerably more than $600 in 35 mm camera equipment. I use PhotoShop more than any of this stuff.
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 18, 2003
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:36:21 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Are you thinking of "break-even point"?

No.

I was giving you an out. Rather than just admit you weren’t thinking at all, I dangled the option.
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 18, 2003
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:01:29 -0800, "Rick" wrote:

Correct. Supply and demand doesn’t apply to computer software. It never has. Instead the game is:

1. Accumulate market share, preferably a monopoly or near monopoly, then

How do they accumulate this market share? Do they go through dumpsters like bums looking for aluminum cans? Or, do they offer a product that people want and are willing to buy?

2. Once market share is acquired, gouge as much as possible.

The word is "earned", not "acquired".
End result? $100+ billion in cash reserves for Microsoft.
Now compare this to the computer _hardware_ market, where consumers get twice as much power/capacity/etc. for half the price, each and every year. Amazing how we never seem to hear hardware developers whining about not recouping their development costs.

The software market is a royal scam.

Rick
J
john
Dec 18, 2003
In article <brq25c$6cg41$>, "Rick"
wrote:

Now compare this to the computer _hardware_ market, where consumers get twice as much power/capacity/etc. for half the price, each and every year. Amazing how we never seem to hear hardware developers whining about not recouping their development costs.

The software market is a royal scam.

If someone makes an image processing program better than photoshop, professionalis will buy it, even if it costs more. That’s how it works, puppy. Now ask yourself why it hasn’t happened. Gee, it must have something to do with how HARD and EXPENSIVE it is. Get it yet?
R
Roberto
Dec 18, 2003
I have to agree that is a really stupid statement to make. If you go with that train of thought then anytime someone hand an idea, then it would be perfectly ok to steal it because it only cost the person brains a few calories to come up with it.

That is just stupid. Personally, I have no problem pay for software I use and I think that most companies have a fair price. What I do have a problem with is activation and the company treating everyone like they either are a criminal or would rip them off the first chance they got. I also have a problem with companies charging what they do for software that is loaded with bugs and then having to wait 4 or 5 months for a patch that often times causes other problems as it fixes others. I also have problems with companies that go off and do what they want with their software while ignoring what the customer wants. I think most companies pay too much attention to the feature wants of their very high end beta testers (lets face it Billy Bob from next door isn’t on their beta test team) while ignoring the wants and needs of other 98% of their users who are super high end.

These are what I have a problem with. So much so that I think it is high time laws are passed to protect the consumer and their money. If a company wants to put out buggy unstable software that causes headaches for their user’s then the people getting the headaches should be able to take them to court to recoup their losses. Activation technology should be made illegal. It is high time that the companies just accept the fact that some people are going to pirate their software and live with it as part of being in the business instead of bashing the honest paying customer over the head.

Jerry
J
john
Dec 18, 2003
In article wrote:

Why should the price of materials or resources invested (time / money) be of a consideration for the final cost of a product? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa or how much did the oil paint/brushes and canvas cost? How much was the model paid? Compared to what the painting is worth today those costs don’t even figure into it’s "price".

In the case of something such as a software application, cost of development, cost of marketing, cost of investment do have some minor consideration – but the main price for such a "product" is the service it provides and the time it saves in using it compared doing the same work without it.

Jeeze, Martin. I hope I was making it clear that I don’t agree that material resources are a measure of value. I’d be the last person to say that.

TOP posting confuses things.

jjs wrote:

In article , Wdflannery
wrote:
1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production
cost
(the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for
$600.00

There are many products that have a similar mark-up: Candy, cigarettes, bottled water, pictures of the Queen, British ‘country music’… Get it?
But it does not cost $2.00 to produce an Adobe product. You should know that.
R
Rick
Dec 18, 2003
"Tony Cooper" wrote in message
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:01:29 -0800, "Rick" wrote:
Correct. Supply and demand doesn’t apply to computer software. It never has. Instead the game is:

1. Accumulate market share, preferably a monopoly or near monopoly, then

How do they accumulate this market share? Do they go through dumpsters like bums looking for aluminum cans? Or, do they offer a product that people want and are willing to buy?

I’ve not read where anyone in this thread questioned the quality or usefulness of PS. Nor would I.

2. Once market share is acquired, gouge as much as possible.

The word is "earned", not "acquired".

Either term works.

Rick
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
James Gifford wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
James Gifford wrote:
Then let them. PS is a professional’s tool and one of the best of "best in class" tools I know of. There is simply no reason that Adobe should shift their price point to suit casual users who do not need, use, understand or want most of the advanced features. If it’s not worth ~$450 to you, then use something cheaper. If you need the advanced control of color for professional output, then $450 is a bargain.

This is contrary to Economics 101. Adobe is in business to make money. One way they make money is by selling
Photoshop. Determining the right price point is a bit
of informed guesswork. It is quite possible that if they sold CS at $300 that they’d make a good bit more money
in total.

And I have no doubt that they have at least several business professionals who are much more highly informed than you and whose guesswork is far closer to a theoretical optimum than you seem to think.

Your arguments are those of someone who has simply decided a product isn’t worth what the manufacturer is charging for it. Since the manufacturer in question is quite healthy and the product in question is the defining product of its class, you just might want to concede that someone at Adobe is schooled *past* Economics 101. Some of them might even have – GASP! – a decade or two of real-world experience!

(I know, that’s a shocking concept for you university types who think the solution to everything is another graduate seminar…)

Not at all. I was not lecturing in that post and did not cover all the possibilities. It could well be that Adobe could make more money overall by *raising* the price of the product.

It is their duty to do the best for their stockholders. Customers factor into that, but are not the primary concern.

But in the end it is, as I said, informed guesswork. If we had a set of parallel universes at hand, Adobe could set a different price in each and find out which maximized profit. But we don’t.

That’s all I was commenting on.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
jjs wrote:
In article <broi1s$it4$>, Paul J Gans
wrote:

I still do not believe that there are very many amateurs who pirate the software who would spend the money to buy a legal copy.

You told us not long ago that you had personal knowledge of schools that have nothing but hacked or illegal copies of Photoshop.

No, commercial and governmental offices. For a while, a few years back, schools were not careful about licenses. After a few very public incidents they are now.

I’m sure that a number of students have pirated copies. But I doubt they use them much or that they are in the market for a legal one no matter what. The academic price for Photoshop (or for the Suite) is quite low.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
Farlo wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Setting price points
is an arcane art and, realistically, there is no way to
know if they’ve hit it right or not. Not even for them.

That’s flatly untrue.

After gathering a little market information, it is actually basic calculus to determine the exact price point (min-max functions). Just because you are not an accountant, doesn’t mean that they have no access to one. I bet that they can afford an accountant. =)

I stand by what I’ve said. There is only one data point. The current selling price and the sales volume at that price. All else is an estimate. Arcane at that too.

One of the signs of really aggressive stupidity is assigning your own personal limits to other people. "I cannot do calculus, therefore ‘X’ is impossible". Feh. "People who are against piracy think ‘Y’ …". You don’t read minds, either.

But I can do calculus. Does that help?

This "conversation" is over.

Did we have a conversation? I expressed an opinion
and you rather strongly rejected it. I have no problem
with that, but let’s not call it a "conversation".

—– Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
Steve Moody wrote:
In article <broi9n$it4$>, Paul J Gans
wrote:

This is contrary to Economics 101. Adobe is in business to make money. One way they make money is by selling
Photoshop. Determining the right price point is a bit
of informed guesswork. It is quite possible that if they sold CS at $300 that they’d make a good bit more money
in total.

You are the one exercising guesswork. Unlike you, I don’t pretend to know more than people who’s job and education is to determine minimum pricing for a product in order to make a profit. A business that guesses at the best price for thier product will not maximize profit.

Pure guesswork? You are quite right. Informed guesswork is another story.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
Steve Moody wrote:
In article , Wdflannery
wrote:

1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production cost (the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for $600.00 ????

You are confusing the cost of packaging the product with the cost of DEVELOPING and CREATING the product. AND, you think we will belive the the CD, manual, and box and be manufactured for a total cost of about $2.

You have no clue how a product is marketed.

C’mon. Flannery said *incremental* cost. That’s the cost of producing one more copy. It is the cost of producing the CD, the packaging, and the shipping.

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ???? I don’t…. it’s just out of scale.

Most people who have no use for a $600 piece of software do not justify stealing it by claiming that it cost too much anyway.

Nobody said any of this justifed stealing. At least I never did.

—- Paul J. Gans
R
Rowley
Dec 18, 2003
Comments inline – Martin

jjs wrote:

In article wrote:

Why should the price of materials or resources invested (time / money) be of a consideration for the final cost of a product? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa or how much did the oil paint/brushes and canvas cost? How much was the model paid? Compared to what the painting is worth today those costs don’t even figure into it’s "price".

In the case of something such as a software application, cost of development, cost of marketing, cost of investment do have some minor consideration – but the main price for such a "product" is the service it provides and the time it saves in using it compared doing the same work without it.

Jeeze, Martin. I hope I was making it clear that I don’t agree that material resources are a measure of value. I’d be the last person to say that.

I got that- I was more or less tagging onto what you were saying.

TOP posting confuses things.

Sorry, I’m still using NS 4.x which defaults to a top posting postion.

Martin

jjs wrote:

In article , Wdflannery
wrote:
1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production
cost
(the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for
$600.00

There are many products that have a similar mark-up: Candy, cigarettes, bottled water, pictures of the Queen, British ‘country music’… Get it?
But it does not cost $2.00 to produce an Adobe product. You should know that.
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
James Gifford wrote:
(Wdflannery) wrote:
2 points …

From someone completely pointless, not to mention clueless.

1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production cost (the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for $600.00 ????

This is a juvenile argument used by every cheap shit who wants stuff for free or within whatever they think it’s worth. That the materials in the box – manual, CD-ROM, miscellany – can be duplicated for a few dollars does not mean that the product is worth only that, or that that trivial cost has anything much to do with the value of the item.

Amazing. I was under the misimpression that we were talking about the sales price of Adobe Photoshop. Why you conclude that anyone talking about that is a pirate or a wannabe
pirate is beyond me.

That said I’ll only note that the value of a piece of software to the user is quite variable. And it has nothing to do with the price that Adobe charges. What it *does* have to do with is the likelyhood that the customer will buy the software. If he or she thinks it is worth it to them, they will buy it. Otherwise they will not.

Go study up on "intellectual property" and "economics of commercial software development" and get back to us. Or don’t, actually.

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ????

I’m typing this very slowly because it’s clear you can’t read very fast. Photoshop…is…not…intended…for…"home"…users.

I’m sorry, but that isn’t so. It is sold via retail outlets that cater to the home user. There are many programs aimed at professionals that you cannot buy at retail software
stores. Your doctor doubtless uses one such and your accountant another.

—- Paul J. Gans
JG
James Gifford
Dec 18, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:
C’mon. Flannery said *incremental* cost. That’s the cost of producing one more copy. It is the cost of producing the CD, the packaging, and the shipping.

Fine. You pay $15 million for copy 1 of the next release, and we’ll all pay $5 for duplication.


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
jjs wrote:
In article , Wdflannery
wrote:
1. Can you think of any other product that has an incremental production
cost
(the cost of producing one more unit) of about $2.00 and sells for
$600.00

There are many products that have a similar mark-up: Candy, cigarettes, bottled water, pictures of the Queen, British ‘country music’… Get it?

But it does not cost $2.00 to produce an Adobe product. You should know that.

The word he used was "incremental". That is the cost of producing n+1 copies minus the cost of producing n copies. Incremental pricing on most mass produced objects is rather small. This is neither here nor there with regard to the question of the best price to charge for Photoshop from
Adobe’s point of view.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
Rowley wrote:
A justification of the theft of software such as "I wouldn’t have bought it in the first place" is just a lame attempt to excuse the fact that they are doing something that they know is wrong. Unless this is one of those people who download stuff and burn it to a cdr as part of some collection of "expensive" software.

Sorry for picking on you, but you are one of many folks who have this opinion. Why do you assume that I am a pirate or that anyone else posting in this thread is a pirate? That’s rather insulting. If you work for Adobe you can verify that I’m a registered user.

The constant repetition of ‘you must be a pirate’ to all discussion of pricing might make somebody think that the bunch of you feel guilty about something.

I’m assuming that the average typical user of bootleg software is making some use of the software or they wouldn’t have downloaded it and installed it in the first place.

Actually, I think that quite a few just want to show off. But I have no way of checking this.

If somehow every one of those bootlegged copies locked up tomorrow and the users were unable to make use of them – I bet there would be a period of time shortly after where the sales figures for PS and other equivalent software packages rose a bit as some of these people replaced the unworking bootlegged software with a work legal license. The laws of averages dictate that some percentage of these people would do that. So there is some degree of "lost" sales due to the availability / use of bootlegged software.

Yes there is.

Also consider the idea that the use of bootlegged copies of PS hurts the sales of the mid-price packages. Why buy something that you CAN afford when you can get a copy of something that you can’t? Such use also pretty much kills off most development of an alternative packages. Take a look at the figures of use of bootlegged software in countries where there is a high degree of use of such copies – do you ever see any company in any of those countries making a investment in developing & marketing an alternative to PS when there are millions of bootlegged copies that can be either downloaded or bought on Cdr. for a few dollars?

I agree with this.

As for the attempt to rationalize bootlegged software as "free" advertising for Adobe, if that was true then why aren’t these companies sending cds with working copies of these high dollar applications to everybody in the phonebook? AOL does that, so it must be some what cost effective. But they (Adobe) doesn’t, instead they spend tons of money to buy ads in magazines and set up booths at industry trade shows. The only "free" advertising that I’ve seen them hand out have been the print/save crippled versions or the versions that time out after so many days. That seems to rule out them thinking of bootlegged versions as "free advertising". And besides I thought the people that was being talked about wouldn’t buy the software in the first place – what’s the point of advertising to them?

I think your emphasis here is misplaced. Adobe doesn’t have to advertise in this way. They advertise by making a trial version available. Sensible users download the trial version to ensure that it will run on their hardware *before* they buy it. It also gives potential users a chance to try out the new version. That’s *excellent* advertising.

—- Paul J. Gans

Scroobie wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:20:28 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Scroobie wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.

I still do not believe that there are very many amateurs who pirate the software who would spend the money to buy a legal copy. I’m not advocating piracy at all, but I don’t think *this* sort of piracy costs Adobe much money.

—- Paul J. Gans

Even Gates himself said that. His concern was with those who were pirating his software (by reassembling), then selling it as their own creation. These pirated PS copies are nearly all being used by those who would never purchase the software in the first place, and that being the case, it has to be considered simply free advertising. I’m aware of no graphic arts studios or corporations that condone or encourage piracy, quite the opposite.

Maybe Adobe should consider value-added items that would make purchasing more lucrative–for example, bundling a crt/lcd cal device with their program, or quality tutorials.
F
Farlo
Dec 18, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:

I was giving you an out.

You were wrong and there isn’t any purpose in debating with you. You have your opinion, which is wrong, and I have mine, which is correct. Educating you doesn’t seem to be an option.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
Rowley wrote:
Why should the price of materials or resources invested (time / money) be of a consideration for the final cost of a product? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa or how much did the oil paint/brushes and canvas cost? How much was the model paid? Compared to what the painting is worth today those costs don’t even figure into it’s "price".

In the case of something such as a software application, cost of development, cost of marketing, cost of investment do have some minor consideration – but the main price for such a "product" is the service it provides and the time it saves in using it compared doing the same work without it.

Martin

Please don’t tell me you are a financial advisor… 😉

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 18, 2003
Steve Moody wrote:
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

And by the way, various customer groups pay varying amounts for Photoshop.

—- Paul J. Gans
F
Farlo
Dec 18, 2003
(Wdflannery) wrote:

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ???? I don’t…. it’s just out of scale.

It depends on the home.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
F
Farlo
Dec 18, 2003
(Wdflannery) wrote:

Are home
users paying $600.00 ??? Who buys Photoshop?. Again … not arguments … questions.

Yes. Pros, and hobbyists.

Those are the answers.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
F
Farlo
Dec 18, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:
Why do you assume that I am a pirate …

Wow. Perfectly typical – except, usually they can’t spell.

His next stage is admitting that he once had a copy which wasn’t legal. It’s almost like dealing with patients with selective brain damage or mild retardation. He really doesn’t see the "why" or "how" of it.

*shrug* Pitiable.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
JG
James Gifford
Dec 18, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

….because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT. In most cases, anyone who walks into, say, Circuit City and buys a copy of PS would likely be as happy with PSE, just as a good point-and-shoot one-third the price of the high-end digicam they bought would serve their needs. There are a lot of idiots who think that more expensive is better, even if they have no clue why or even what their additional spending is buying them. If Circuit City, Best Buy, CompUSA et al. can sell these idiots a copy of PS instead of PSE, PSP, etc., they’re quite happy to.

I can walk into a store about a mile from my house and walk out (1) with an extremely high-grade surveyor’s transit and (2) $12,000 poorer. Would I be able to use it better than my ~$200 laser transit and tripod? Nope. Would I have a major I’m-so-damn-kewl to wave in the mirror and to my DIY buddies? Sure.

What is your point?


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 18, 2003
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:07:34 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

I was giving you an out.

You were wrong and there isn’t any purpose in debating with you. You have your opinion, which is wrong, and I have mine, which is correct.

That’s funny. Your statement was patently wrong, and you decline to "debate" it because you have no idea at all how to defend your rather absurd contention.

Educating you doesn’t seem to be an option.

The Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, found it a rather viable option.
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 18, 2003
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

I stand by what I’ve said. There is only one data point. The current selling price and the sales volume at that price. All else is an estimate. Arcane at that too.

Come on over to aue and offer that usage for "arcane". Don’t bring Hines with you, though.
F
Farlo
Dec 18, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:
Kellogg School of Management

It gets better? 🙂


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
W
wdflannery
Dec 18, 2003
But your analogy is flawed. If it costs $0.01 for the sheet of paper, $0.05 for
the pencil, and $15,000,000 to discover the secret, then your cost of writing it down is not $0.06; it’s $15,000,000.06.

you should have written ……. .06 + (15000000 / units sold)

I think my analogy is bang on …and if it is .. … it is a devastating argument against Adobe priceing. My analogy is good if the ‘development’ cost of Photoshop is a relatively small percentage of the price … and my analogy is bogus is it isn’t….. when I look at Photoshop, admittedly not knowing all the super duper ‘professional’ features … I don’t see any great development cost …. some clever guys working hard … sure …but I don’t see any magic. But my opinion ain’t worth diddly … this is an empirical question that has an empirical answer ….. but apparently none of us know it…. and I’ll wager Adobe ain’t tellin.
S
Stuart
Dec 18, 2003
Rowley wrote:

Stuart wrote:

Scroobie wrote:

On 28 Nov 2003 22:02:17 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

PE is
useless to me as all the tutorials, books, neat effects, aren’t in it ….
The tutorials that cover Photoshop, for the most part, work in Elements too.
But if I read you right, you are saying "I have aright to pirate a complex program that I will never use all the capability of, because the program that is inexpensive and suits my needs is a program I can’t find tutorials for." Huh? That’s the worst justification for pirating I’ve ever heard!
This then begs the question: what is the BEST justification for pirating you’ve ever heard?
My dog ate my PS disk and manual?? :))

That wouldn’t really constitute as being pirating as what you paid for was the use of the license – so long as you knew what the original serial number was any installation source is "legal" just so long as you use that serial number.
Martin

It was a joke!!!

Stuart
R
Rowley
Dec 18, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
A justification of the theft of software such as "I wouldn’t have bought it in the first place" is just a lame attempt to excuse the fact that they are doing something that they know is wrong. Unless this is one of those people who download stuff and burn it to a cdr as part of some collection of "expensive" software.

Sorry for picking on you, but you are one of many folks who have this opinion. Why do you assume that I am a pirate or that anyone else posting in this thread is a pirate? That’s rather insulting. If you work for Adobe you can verify that I’m a registered user.

When did I say you specifically was a pirate – I thought this was just a hypothetical discussion on the subject.

The constant repetition of ‘you must be a pirate’ to all discussion of pricing might make somebody think that the bunch of you feel guilty about something.

I’m new to the group and to this thread – but I’ve read over a bulk of the postings in this thread and I don’t get the feeling that there is any finger pointing going on. As for this being a discussion on the "pricing" of the software – I guess I was thrown on that by the title of the thread "Use Cracked Photoshop ????". I can’t say that I (can’t speak for the others) feel any guilt about anything – at least not where it concerns the software I use – everything I use is legal and has been paid for (either by me or my employers) and is registered. My background is that of a creative one – which is what probably drew me to end up working with graphical / cgi software. I’m also a very capitalistic kind of person – I believe that the work I produce is worth something and usually expect to get paid for it – as I assume the people that develop and market these software applications probably do too. It truly amazes me that given both sides of the equation have really talented and creative people (people who make the software and people who use it) that some of the people using the software can’t recognize that appropriating other people’s work without compensation is just not right. (Just in case you misunderstand – I’m not talking about you, just the topic in general.)

I’m assuming that the average typical user of bootleg software is making some use of the software or they wouldn’t have downloaded it and installed it in the first place.

Actually, I think that quite a few just want to show off. But I have no way of checking this.

What kind of numbers are you talking about – 10 people, 20 people, under 1,000? I would bet that there are probably a few million of people who do this and that number keeps growing. This same discussion pops up regularly on nearly every newsgroup dedicated to some software application. One reason I think that participating in these kind of discussion is that it brings to light that using bootlegged software is not an acceptable practice as a lot of people seem to think it is.

Martin

If somehow every one of those bootlegged copies locked up tomorrow and the users were unable to make use of them – I bet there would be a period of time shortly after where the sales figures for PS and other equivalent software packages rose a bit as some of these people replaced the unworking bootlegged software with a work legal license. The laws of averages dictate that some percentage of these people would do that. So there is some degree of "lost" sales due to the availability / use of bootlegged software.

Yes there is.

Also consider the idea that the use of bootlegged copies of PS hurts the sales of the mid-price packages. Why buy something that you CAN afford when you can get a copy of something that you can’t? Such use also pretty much kills off most development of an alternative packages. Take a look at the figures of use of bootlegged software in countries where there is a high degree of use of such copies – do you ever see any company in any of those countries making a investment in developing & marketing an alternative to PS when there are millions of bootlegged copies that can be either downloaded or bought on Cdr. for a few dollars?

I agree with this.

As for the attempt to rationalize bootlegged software as "free" advertising for Adobe, if that was true then why aren’t these companies sending cds with working copies of these high dollar applications to everybody in the phonebook? AOL does that, so it must be some what cost effective. But they (Adobe) doesn’t, instead they spend tons of money to buy ads in magazines and set up booths at industry trade shows. The only "free" advertising that I’ve seen them hand out have been the print/save crippled versions or the versions that time out after so many days. That seems to rule out them thinking of bootlegged versions as "free advertising". And besides I thought the people that was being talked about wouldn’t buy the software in the first place – what’s the point of advertising to them?

I think your emphasis here is misplaced. Adobe doesn’t have to advertise in this way. They advertise by making a trial version available. Sensible users download the trial version to ensure that it will run on their hardware *before* they buy it. It also gives potential users a chance to try out the new version. That’s *excellent* advertising.

—- Paul J. Gans

Scroobie wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:20:28 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Scroobie wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:34:48 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

Doesn’t the anonymous handle just say it all?

=)

That’s a favorite observation of yours. The logic escapes me. What is more anonymous about "SpecialEd" compared to "hall.j.m"?

It is self-evident.

By the way, I called your village. Their idiot is missing, and they are concerned about you.

This is the usual reaction from someone who actually paid for the program and is seeking to justify the purchase while surrounded by pirates that are laughing up their silken sleeves. This should not be the case, since it does take money to develop and market superior programs, just not all that much money. If Adobe desires a more favorable ratio of purchasers to pirates, they need only lower the price to be more attractive.

I still do not believe that there are very many amateurs who pirate the software who would spend the money to buy a legal copy. I’m not advocating piracy at all, but I don’t think *this* sort of piracy costs Adobe much money.

—- Paul J. Gans

Even Gates himself said that. His concern was with those who were pirating his software (by reassembling), then selling it as their own creation. These pirated PS copies are nearly all being used by those who would never purchase the software in the first place, and that being the case, it has to be considered simply free advertising. I’m aware of no graphic arts studios or corporations that condone or encourage piracy, quite the opposite.

Maybe Adobe should consider value-added items that would make purchasing more lucrative–for example, bundling a crt/lcd cal device with their program, or quality tutorials.
R
Rowley
Dec 18, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Steve Moody wrote:
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

Personally I see a difference in comparing Photoshop to AutoCAD – a single seat of AutoCAD goes for around $2,700 (price varies) and is only sold through the Autodesk’s authorized dealer network. The price of PS is well within the range of the average shopper at the stores it is sold in – AutoCAD is not. However, along with it are usually a lot less expensive packages such as Jasc’s paint Shop Pro – which one store around here usually has for around $100 and if you use a rebate you can sometimes get $50 off that price. Just curious, would you say that Photoshop is the most expensive software package in one of these retail stores – or are there other packages that cost more?

MS Office is usually offered in most of these retail stores as well as many other business software – even Autodesk sells a scalled down CAD package in most of these places. With a lot of people setting up home offices and or going into business themselves it makes sense to put a few of these business / industry packages on the shelves in these stores – at least to me it does.

Martin

And by the way, various customer groups pay varying amounts for Photoshop.

—- Paul J. Gans
R
Rowley
Dec 18, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
Why should the price of materials or resources invested (time / money) be of a consideration for the final cost of a product? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa or how much did the oil paint/brushes and canvas cost? How much was the model paid? Compared to what the painting is worth today those costs don’t even figure into it’s "price".

In the case of something such as a software application, cost of development, cost of marketing, cost of investment do have some minor consideration – but the main price for such a "product" is the service it provides and the time it saves in using it compared doing the same work without it.

Martin

Please don’t tell me you are a financial advisor… 😉

Nope. But I have worked in industry for awhile and in retail many many years ago.

Martin

—- Paul J. Gans
R
Rowley
Dec 18, 2003
Farlo wrote:

(Wdflannery) wrote:

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ???? I don’t…. it’s just out of scale.

It depends on the home.

That is true – a few years ago a student put an post on one of the 3D graphics ngs saying that he had a full unregistered license of 3DSM for sale at some unbelievable cheap price ($500 I think I remember). Said his dad had bought it for him and he wasn’t interested in playing with it. Everybody accused him of trying to pawn off an academic license. I checked out the school where the kid was emailing from – it was one of those high end college prep boarding schools – average tuition was more than I make in several years (and this was for high school level classes!). The person who ended up buying it reported back that it was actually a full commercial license just like the kid said.

Martin


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
R
Rowley
Dec 18, 2003
Wdflannery wrote:

But your analogy is flawed. If it costs $0.01 for the sheet of paper, $0.05 for
the pencil, and $15,000,000 to discover the secret, then your cost of writing it down is not $0.06; it’s $15,000,000.06.

you should have written ……. .06 + (15000000 / units sold)
I think my analogy is bang on …and if it is .. … it is a devastating argument against Adobe priceing. My analogy is good if the ‘development’ cost of Photoshop is a relatively small percentage of the price … and my analogy is bogus is it isn’t….. when I look at Photoshop, admittedly not knowing all the super duper ‘professional’ features … I don’t see any great development cost …. some clever guys working hard … sure …but I don’t see any magic. But my opinion ain’t worth diddly … this is an empirical question that has an empirical answer ….. but apparently none of us know it…. and I’ll wager Adobe ain’t tellin.

That’s probably the problem – you don’t know what you’re talking about not knowing the "super duper ‘professional’ features". Looking at Amazon.com, I see that PS7 is currently going for somewhere between $500+/- to $600+/- and Paint Shop Pro 8 is going for $90 ($40 with rebate). As someone who has used both I can tell you that there are things that you simply can’t do with PSP that you can in PS. It’s some of those "super duper ‘professional’ features" that make one cost well over five times the cost (SRP) of the other.

Same goes for the high end 3D graphics programs. 3DSM w/CS sells in the neighborhood of $7,000 whereas Carrara Studio sells for a couple hundred dollars. You can probably do 80% – 90% of what you can do in Max in Carrara, but just not as easy or as fast. It’s the horsepower that you’re buying – or at least that people in industry are buying. Time is money, being able to do what you need to quickly makes these high priced packages worth more than their low cost imitators.

Lets turn the question around. If there is a similar package to PS which sells for $40-$90 dollars instead of $400-$600 – why would anybody buy the high priced one over the other?

Martin
J
john
Dec 18, 2003
In article , Farlo
wrote:

(Wdflannery) wrote:

2. Do you think any ‘home user’ is going to pay $600.00 for any piece of software ???? I don’t…. it’s just out of scale.

It depends on the home.

Indeed! Look at the amateur photographers who have spendy, high-end cameras just because they can afford them, and only barely in some cases. That guy over there with the huge Hasselbald system who takes two rolls of film a year. (He’s probably the same guy with the decked-out 4WD SUV who won’t drive it in the rain.)

And isn’t PS priced somewhere in the stratosphere in parts of Europe? What’s with that? I realize that some places, for example Germany, holds software vendors to outrageous standards of performance. Is that the reason?
J
john
Dec 18, 2003
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT.

WHAT? AutoCAD LT is $50 at our university bookstore.
T
tacitr
Dec 18, 2003
This assumes that the home user became interested in this type of program within the last few years. Elements has not been around all that long. Many of us home users started out with PhotoShop because there just weren’t other programs available that did what we wanted.

Paint Shop Pro? Color It? GIMP?

The "foolish" part is a rather foolish statement. To pay $600 to engage in a hobby is only foolish when a wife states the foolishness of spending money on a hobby that could be spent on new carpeting.

I have hobbies I’ve spent far more than $600 on…it becomes "foolish" only when you spend that $600 on things you do not need and will not use.

Home users do not know what color separation is, do not know the difference between spot color and process color, do not particularly care about CMYK color correction, and don’t need any of those capacities. When such a user purchases a high-end prepress product, he is wasting money.

I’ve got far more than $600 invested in scuba gear, way more than $600 in golf clubs, and considerably more than $600 in 35 mm camera equipment. I use PhotoShop more than any of this stuff.

Do you use ALL OF Photoshop? Or did you buy capacity and capabilities you don’t use?


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
T
tacitr
Dec 18, 2003
when I look at Photoshop, admittedly not knowing all
the super duper ‘professional’ features … I don’t see any great development cost …. some clever guys working hard … sure …but I don’t see any magic.

That’s because you don’t understand the professional features.

You likely do not know what "color separation" means, and it’s quite possible that you don’t know that Photoshop has the ability to produce top-notch color separations. I’d be willing to bet money that you *also* don’t realize that doing this requires more than sitting down at a keyboard and hammering out some code; you need a good programmer, but you ALSO need experts in color theory and color modelling.

There are programs on the market that do nothig but color separation. They sell for twice what Photoshop sells for, and they don’t do as good a job. I’ve used them.

The problem here is this: If you do not understand what Photoshop does, then you lack the cognitive skills to assess how difficult it was to produce. That’s not a criticism of you; nobody can be expected to know everything about everything. I know nothing about securities exchange; it seems pretty simple to me, but then, as I’m ignorant on the subject, I would not assume to make judgements about how complex it actually is.

Photoshop is not like any other program. Photoshop is the champion of professional image editing, despite the fact that many companies make image editing software, because producing a program like Photoshop can not be done by computer programmers. It requires computer programmers, pressmen, prepress experts, experts in color theory, experts in color calibration, and others to create something like Photoshop.

About 75% of Photoshop’s capability is invisible to you; you literally have no idea that it’s there, what it does, or what it’s used for. Because of that, you should not try to evaluate Photoshop’s development costs.

As a simple thought experiment, though, consider this: If Photoshop’s development were easy, why is there no other program on the market that can do what Photoshop does?


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
J
john
Dec 18, 2003
In article ,
(Wdflannery) wrote:

I think my analogy is bang on …and if it is .. … it is a devastating argument against Adobe priceing. My analogy is good if the ‘development’ cost of Photoshop is a relatively small percentage of the price
[… snip admission of benign ignorance …]

See, that’s just it – you don’t know what the development and support costs are. As one who was mired in complex software development and support for almost twenty years, my view is different. People are expensive as hell.

Just look at Adobe’s web site – _that_ thing probably requires a heck of a team of people to maintain. Accounting? Another horror story. Legal services? Don’t even get me going. Marketing, on, and on and on.

And if it were easier and less expensive to cut an original program better than Photoshop, someone would do it, but nobody has. Yet. It will happen eventually. I believe that, but I’m not sure it will happen in the current economic paradigm. (Maybe the Chinese will never honor copyrights and flood the world with Adobe copies, but they would better spend their economic-war efforts pirating Game Boyz or something.)

Finally, your view of a socially-reciprocal value of unneccessary software is way off base. We aren’t talking about making and distributing flu vaccines, which reminds me of how friggin expensive THAT stuff is compared to development costs. Go on over to the medical and socialist groups to find pertinent rants along those lines. We’re talking about something else here.
J
john
Dec 18, 2003
In article ,
(Tacit) wrote:

I have hobbies I’ve spent far more than $600 on…it becomes "foolish" only when you spend that $600 on things you do not need and will not use.

Oh, is that S&M and bondage leather stuff spendy?
JG
James Gifford
Dec 18, 2003
(jjs) wrote:

In article , James
Gifford wrote:

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT.

WHAT? AutoCAD LT is $50 at our university bookstore.

….and then we have "academic pricing," which further convinces the collegians that they’re entitled to a free ride out in the real world.


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
W
wdflannery
Dec 18, 2003
As one who was mired in complex software development and support for almost twenty years

I was mired in it (mostly aerospace R&D not production) for 30… literally trained a cute Indian girl to replace me at my last one!…… and am trying to get another gig ! …. but you’re right … I don’t have a clue as to what the development costs are… an ex-Adobe guy worked at my last shop …. should have asked him …. but that was before I was a photog !

BUT … there were 2 points to the analogy …
1. … a price needs to be justified … and ‘value’ alone may not be sufficient ….the value of a simple cure for heart disease would be very high …. but if you can write it on a piece of paper …. you can’t charge that much for it …. whether you spent 10 $ or 10 billion developing it.
2….Charging $600.00 for a $2.00 CD that everyone wants… is not enforceable
…..and making unenforceable rules is not generally a good idea.
J
john
Dec 18, 2003
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

(jjs) wrote:

In article , James
Gifford wrote:

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT.

WHAT? AutoCAD LT is $50 at our university bookstore.

…and then we have "academic pricing," which further convinces the collegians that they’re entitled to a free ride out in the real world.

Bullshit, and you know it.

It is all about marketing, and profitable to the vendor or the AutoCAD people would not do it. Students use the student version while in school or they don’t learn the package. They learn the package and buy it later, or recommend its purchase. If there were no student pricing, the cost of educating the student in it would be passed on to you, Mr. America, somehow, or more likely not taught at all.

It’s not like tax dollars are paying the difference – they aren’t. So it has nothing to do with what those in academe deem to be entitlements. Besides, the student version is quite likely not the same as the Real Thing, and the EULA makes it clear, just as does Adobe’s EULA that the license is restricted.

See how it just pisses me off when someone rants on higher ed like that? What are ya, some kinda Harvard MBA to screw up like that? 🙂
JG
James Gifford
Dec 18, 2003
(jjs) wrote:
…and then we have "academic pricing," which further convinces the collegians that they’re entitled to a free ride out in the real world.

Bullshit, and you know it.

That most in college or just out of it have almost no idea how the real world works, especially in financial terms? That most of them operate with a level of delusion about economics that would be greedy and self-serving in a kindergarten class? Nary a whiff of bullshit there, JayJay. I’ve hired too many, fired almost as many, and have two in the succeeding generation right now.


| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So… your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
R
Rowley
Dec 18, 2003
jjs wrote:

In article , James
Gifford wrote:

(jjs) wrote:

In article , James
Gifford wrote:

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT.

WHAT? AutoCAD LT is $50 at our university bookstore.

…and then we have "academic pricing," which further convinces the collegians that they’re entitled to a free ride out in the real world.

Bullshit, and you know it.

It is all about marketing, and profitable to the vendor or the AutoCAD people would not do it. Students use the student version while in school or they don’t learn the package. They learn the package and buy it later, or recommend its purchase.

Very few individuals buy or recommend programs like AutoCAD. Most people who are in some sort of training / educational situation will eventually go on to be employed at a firm that already has an established CAD/Graphics department where they already have a license of the software ready and waiting for them to use. AutoCAD and the like are proven packages and industry standards and have been for years – most companies are not going to need to wait till they hire someone fresh from school to make such a decision.

There is a difference between paying $450 for LT at Best Buy and paying $50 for it at the university bookstore – that difference is the licensing – one is a commercial license and the other is an academic license. One is meant to be used for actual work and the other just for "learning". AFAIK, there is no real diffrence in how either package works – just in the terms of the license and maybe if anything a watermark (on anything printed) or splash screen on the academic version to indicate the the user was using a non-commercial license. I know with Maya, the Personal Learning Edition (PLE) saves files in a non-standard way so that you can’t open the files with the commercial software and you can not use the commercial plug-ins either – other than the output (renders) being watermarked.

Martin

If there were no student pricing, the cost of
educating the student in it would be passed on to you, Mr. America, somehow, or more likely not taught at all.

It’s not like tax dollars are paying the difference – they aren’t. So it has nothing to do with what those in academe deem to be entitlements. Besides, the student version is quite likely not the same as the Real Thing, and the EULA makes it clear, just as does Adobe’s EULA that the license is restricted.

See how it just pisses me off when someone rants on higher ed like that? What are ya, some kinda Harvard MBA to screw up like that? 🙂
J
JJS
Dec 18, 2003
"Wdflannery" wrote in message
As one who was mired in complex software development and support for almost twenty years

I was mired in it (mostly aerospace R&D not production) for 30…
literally
trained a cute Indian girl to replace me at my last one!…… and am
trying to
get another gig ! …. but you’re right … I don’t have a clue as to what
the
development costs are… an ex-Adobe guy worked at my last shop ….
should
have asked him …. but that was before I was a photog !

Some years ago I declined to interview for a singular IT position in a very well known motorcycle manufacturer’s R&D division. They ended up hiring _two_ Asian Indian gentlemen combined for just a bit more than the salary they were offering me. Believe me, they are all better off. 🙂
T
tacitr
Dec 18, 2003
I have hobbies I’ve spent far more than $600 on…it becomes "foolish"
only
when you spend that $600 on things you do not need and will not use.

Oh, is that S&M and bondage leather stuff spendy?

Oh, yeah. You have NO idea. 🙂

I was thinking more about R/C airplanes, though. The plane itself isn’t all that much, but the radio gear, servos, and so on add up pretty quick. On top of that, people who fly R/C glow aircraft at flying fields are required to carry special liability insurance, which is on top of club fees, flying field fees, and so on.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
B
bhilton665
Dec 18, 2003
From: (Tacit)

Do you use ALL OF Photoshop? Or did you buy capacity and capabilities you don’t use?

I’d bet that almost no one uses ALL OF Photoshop, given the many different things you can do with it, from web design to painting to digital photography to prepress to whatever.
J
JJS
Dec 18, 2003
"nospam" wrote in message
[…]
These are what I have a problem with. So much so that I think it is high time laws are passed to protect the consumer and their money. If a company wants to put out buggy unstable software that causes headaches for their user’s then the people getting the headaches should be able to take them
to
court to recoup their losses. […]

Well, there is a clause in the EULA that addresses this. If the software does not perform to the documentation you can send back everything you got from Macromedia and get either a version that does work (if available), or a refund. You have to do this within 90 days of receiving it. Of course, the Company is not liable for any damages such as loss of business, broken windows, punched-out walls or general pissed-offness on the part of anyone due to the faulty software.

If you live in Germany you probably have additional recourse. I hear they will actually send a representative to your home to buy you beer, then you can bitch-slap him silly. Ah, good old Germany.
J
JJS
Dec 18, 2003
"Tacit" wrote in message

I was thinking more about R/C airplanes, though. […]

Do you get people who show up saying "Ah, I _found_ this ($3,000) airplane. Can you tell me how to use it? And how come everytime I press this lever, _your_ airplane turns?" That’s what it’s like here sometimes.
T
tacitr
Dec 18, 2003
Do you get people who show up saying "Ah, I _found_ this ($3,000) airplane. Can you tell me how to use it? And how come everytime I press this lever, _your_ airplane turns?" That’s what it’s like here sometimes.

Not exactly. We *do* occasionally get people who pick up one of the 3-channel electric slowfliers you can get in places like Sharper Image and try to fly ’em right down the street from the field, in apparent ignorance of the fact that their transmitters can cause problems for us (and vice-versa). And once we had someone think it’d be a good idea to bring his pet dog out to the field–you can probably imagine how quickly a 60-pound animal can damage a whole bunch of planes on the flight line, and you’d be right.


Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
R
RogM
Dec 18, 2003
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:14:56 -0500, Steve Moody
wrote:

In article , Scroobie
wrote:

I still think that Adobe needs to revisit Economics 101 to learn about price elasticity etc. If the program was priced at half of what it is now I daresay they’d make more money and have an even greater dominance in the industry–same might be said of AutoCad. The market for PS has changed over the years it has been available, to include a majority of non-professional users that are resistant to such high prices (and will thus seek alternatives).

YOU need to revisit Economics 101.
Economics 101, at least the one that I took years ago was all about elasticity; that is, the idea of adjusting the product to an optimum price that maximizes profits. Perhaps Adobe attempts something like this by offering crippled versions (such as Elements) at substantially lower prices. At least that’s one way to feel the market out.

1) Adobe spends a tremendous amount of money developing Photoshop. They can do this because of the profit they make selling it. If the halve the price, it will not bring in enough sales to maintain their current profit – much less increase profit.

2) If you had a grasp of how economics works, your won’t be justifying piracy of Adobe’s products.

Making simple observations of fact is not justifying piracy; it’s simply seeing what’s going on and accepting it.
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 19, 2003
On 18 Dec 2003 15:43:34 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:

This assumes that the home user became interested in this type of program within the last few years. Elements has not been around all that long. Many of us home users started out with PhotoShop because there just weren’t other programs available that did what we wanted.

Paint Shop Pro? Color It? GIMP?

I’ve never heard of Color It or GIMP. PSP was around, and – if I remember right – a free download when I started with PS. I lost it somewhere in the change of computers over the years.

Part of "what we wanted" was advice and help from others. I’m including in "we" novices at this type of thing, people without any sort of training from any classes, and all of the amateur hobbyists that seem to be held in such low regard here.

PhotoShop had users. There were Bulletin Boards (remember them?) with PS help. There were articles to read. PSP didn’t have that yet.

The "foolish" part is a rather foolish statement. To pay $600 to engage in a hobby is only foolish when a wife states the foolishness of spending money on a hobby that could be spent on new carpeting.

I have hobbies I’ve spent far more than $600 on…it becomes "foolish" only when you spend that $600 on things you do not need and will not use.

I don’t know what your hobbies are, Tacit, but go look in my golf bag at that graphite shafted Big Bertha that I did not need and didn’t do a damn thing for my game other than allow me to hit it further out of bounds. God, I’ll bet I’ve spent $600 on putters alone and I still can’t putt.

I’ve never done it, but how many exercise bicycles, rowing machines, and health club memberships have readers here foolishly spent money on. If you make a living that produces more money than the necessities require, you are entitled to blow some of it on useless and unneeded things just because you want to.

Home users do not know what color separation is, do not know the difference between spot color and process color, do not particularly care about CMYK color correction, and don’t need any of those capacities. When such a user purchases a high-end prepress product, he is wasting money.

So what? How many SUVs are driven only on paved streets, and how many pick-up trucks are used to haul payloads no bigger than a flat of seedlings? We buy what we want because we want it.

I guarantee you that you spend money on something that I consider to be complete waste of time and resources. It’s not my business to worry about that, though, and it’s not yours to worry about what I spend mine on.

I’ve got far more than $600 invested in scuba gear, way more than $600 in golf clubs, and considerably more than $600 in 35 mm camera equipment. I use PhotoShop more than any of this stuff.

Do you use ALL OF Photoshop? Or did you buy capacity and capabilities you don’t use?

It’s not a Chinese restaurant where you order one from Column A and two from Column B. You buy a package.

I don’t know how much of what’s available that I use. Probably somewhere between 10 and 25 percent. A lot of what I do is the same thing over and over. Whatever it is, it’s higher than last month’s figure. I spent an enjoyable three hours in Borders reading the graphics magazines and have been applying some of what I learned since then. I enjoy doing that.

I drive an eleven year old Toyota Camry. The power antenna is disabled and it’s missing a wheel cover. I don’t give a rat’s ass about cars. I haven’t made a car payment in 8 years. I spend my money on what pleases me to own. I don’t need any more justification than that.
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 19, 2003
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:34:54 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
Kellogg School of Management

It gets better? 🙂

It would if you’d share. Give me that formula that can be used to determine the price-point, and I’ll write a book about it. Not the formulas for modeling; I’ve got those in Lotus already. The one that the accountant uses to determine the price-point if he knows calculus. The one you alluded to.

Come on, we’ll both get rich on book sales. We’ll sell seminars. You do the slide shows and I’ll autograph the books.
F
Farlo
Dec 19, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:
It would if you’d share. Give me that formula …

You want it all for free, dontcha’?
First Photoshop, now basic calculus.

Actually, that problem can be solved with algebra, too.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 19, 2003
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 03:03:19 GMT, Farlo wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
It would if you’d share. Give me that formula …

You want it all for free, dontcha’?
First Photoshop, now basic calculus.

Actually, that problem can be solved with algebra, too.

I paid for PhotoShop. I had no idea that I could avoid paying if I knew more algebra. Why isn’t useful information like this brought up in CGAP?
F
Farlo
Dec 19, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:

I paid for PhotoShop. I had no idea that I could avoid paying if I knew more algebra

Wow, that’s quite the cognitive disconnect … *Sigh* I miss Mike. He’d love this special ‘net toy.


Farlo, the Urban Fey Dragon
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
James Gifford wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
C’mon. Flannery said *incremental* cost. That’s the cost of producing one more copy. It is the cost of producing the CD, the packaging, and the shipping.

Fine. You pay $15 million for copy 1 of the next release, and we’ll all pay $5 for duplication.

What *is* it with some of you folks? Facts bother you?
Or is it that you simply don’t understand the terms
used in economics.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
Farlo wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
Why do you assume that I am a pirate …

Wow. Perfectly typical – except, usually they can’t spell.

His next stage is admitting that he once had a copy which wasn’t legal. It’s almost like dealing with patients with selective brain damage or mild retardation. He really doesn’t see the "why" or "how" of it.

*shrug* Pitiable.

What *are* you rambling about? I guess you missed the
part about my registered copies. I guess you missed
the topic I was discussing. I guess you just missed.

Or is it the custom here to call everyone with a
different opinion about *anything* a pirate?

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
James Gifford wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT. In most cases, anyone who walks into, say, Circuit City and buys a copy of PS would likely be as happy with PSE, just as a good point-and-shoot one-third the price of the high-end digicam they bought would serve their needs. There are a lot of idiots who think that more expensive is better, even if they have no clue why or even what their additional spending is buying them. If Circuit City, Best Buy, CompUSA et al. can sell these idiots a copy of PS instead of PSE, PSP, etc., they’re quite happy to.

I can walk into a store about a mile from my house and walk out (1) with an extremely high-grade surveyor’s transit and (2) $12,000 poorer. Would I be able to use it better than my ~$200 laser transit and tripod? Nope. Would I have a major I’m-so-damn-kewl to wave in the mirror and to my DIY buddies? Sure.

What is your point?

Gee, I totally agreed with you right up to that last bit.

My point was made in response to the person who claimed
that Photoshop is only for professionals. I noted that it is sold by Adobe in software stores and is available to
anyone. Clearly Adobe targets it at amateurs as well.

Many programs aimed specifically at professionals are not available at your local software outlet (or even from
Amazon or some other mass marketer.) One has to buy them either through the company or from a specific distributor.

Sorry to have to make the point again, but I think it
is a valid one.

—- Paul J. Gans

—– Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

I stand by what I’ve said. There is only one data point. The current selling price and the sales volume at that price. All else is an estimate. Arcane at that too.

Come on over to aue and offer that usage for "arcane". Don’t bring Hines with you, though.

Hey, the last time I visited aue was over the Great Teletype Fiasco. But fear not, he’s still alive and well and busy slagging folks for spelling errors.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
Rowley wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
A justification of the theft of software such as "I wouldn’t have bought it in the first place" is just a lame attempt to excuse the fact that they are doing something that they know is wrong. Unless this is one of those people who download stuff and burn it to a cdr as part of some collection of "expensive" software.

Sorry for picking on you, but you are one of many folks who have this opinion. Why do you assume that I am a pirate or that anyone else posting in this thread is a pirate? That’s rather insulting. If you work for Adobe you can verify that I’m a registered user.

When did I say you specifically was a pirate – I thought this was just a hypothetical discussion on the subject.

You did not say specifically that I was a pirate. But you did use the term in your response to my post. You’ve left your response above and anyone can see it.

I may have misinterpreted that. If so, I’m sorry.

The constant repetition of ‘you must be a pirate’ to all discussion of pricing might make somebody think that the bunch of you feel guilty about something.

I’m new to the group and to this thread – but I’ve read over a bulk of the postings in this thread and I don’t get the feeling that there is any finger pointing going on. As for this being a discussion on the "pricing" of the software – I guess I was thrown on that by the title of the thread "Use Cracked Photoshop ????". I can’t say that I (can’t speak for the others) feel any guilt about anything – at least not where it concerns the software I use – everything I use is legal and has been paid for (either by me or my employers) and is registered. My background is that of a creative one – which is what probably drew me to end up working with graphical / cgi software. I’m also a very capitalistic kind of person – I believe that the work I produce is worth something and usually expect to get paid for it – as I assume the people that develop and market these software applications probably do too. It truly amazes me that given both sides of the equation have really talented and creative people (people who make the software and people who use it) that some of the people using the software can’t recognize that appropriating other people’s work without compensation is just not right. (Just in case you misunderstand – I’m not talking about you, just the topic in general.)

Capitalism has, I think, little to do with it. Fair is fair. I do not use pirated software either.

It is true that the thread has drifted since the title was pinned on it. That’s common on the internet. I have been addressing the issue of how the price of a product such as Photoshop is determined. That’s all.

I’m assuming that the average typical user of bootleg software is making some use of the software or they wouldn’t have downloaded it and installed it in the first place.

Actually, I think that quite a few just want to show off. But I have no way of checking this.

What kind of numbers are you talking about – 10 people, 20 people, under 1,000? I would bet that there are probably a few million of people who do this and that number keeps growing. This same discussion pops up regularly on nearly every newsgroup dedicated to some software application. One reason I think that participating in these kind of discussion is that it brings to light that using bootlegged software is not an acceptable practice as a lot of people seem to think it is.

I have no idea how many pirated copies are out there. Adobe’s attempt to stop piracy by authentication tends to indicate that there are a lot. On the other hand, the authentication costs them money too.

I’m sure they have balanced the two, taken other factors into account, and made a decision. Sadly, if the reports of a properly cracked copy of Photoshop are true, the authentication won’t stop much piracy.

[big snip of old material]

—– Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
Rowley wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Steve Moody wrote:
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

Personally I see a difference in comparing Photoshop to AutoCAD – a single seat of AutoCAD goes for around $2,700 (price varies) and is only sold through the Autodesk’s authorized dealer network. The price of PS is well within the range of the average shopper at the stores it is sold in – AutoCAD is not. However, along with it are usually a lot less expensive packages such as Jasc’s paint Shop Pro – which one store around here usually has for around $100 and if you use a rebate you can sometimes get $50 off that price. Just curious, would you say that Photoshop is the most expensive software package in one of these retail stores – or are there other packages that cost more?

I don’t know. But again, the post I was responding to
claimed that Photoshop was a program for professionals.
My response above, and yours, with which I agree, shows
that it is not a program just for professionals, but is
a program that targets amateurs as well.

From this I gather that amateurs, for whatever reason,
buy Photoshop in enough numbers to make that market viable for Adobe.

[snip]

—– Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
Rowley wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
Why should the price of materials or resources invested (time / money) be of a consideration for the final cost of a product? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa or how much did the oil paint/brushes and canvas cost? How much was the model paid? Compared to what the painting is worth today those costs don’t even figure into it’s "price".

In the case of something such as a software application, cost of development, cost of marketing, cost of investment do have some minor consideration – but the main price for such a "product" is the service it provides and the time it saves in using it compared doing the same work without it.

Martin

Please don’t tell me you are a financial advisor… 😉

Nope. But I have worked in industry for awhile and in retail many many years ago.

Martin

Then you certainly know that the cost of materials and resources (in this case programmers and time) must be factored into the price charged for the product.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
Tacit wrote:
This assumes that the home user became interested in this type of program within the last few years. Elements has not been around all that long. Many of us home users started out with PhotoShop because there just weren’t other programs available that did what we wanted.

Paint Shop Pro? Color It? GIMP?

The "foolish" part is a rather foolish statement. To pay $600 to engage in a hobby is only foolish when a wife states the foolishness of spending money on a hobby that could be spent on new carpeting.

I have hobbies I’ve spent far more than $600 on…it becomes "foolish" only when you spend that $600 on things you do not need and will not use.

Home users do not know what color separation is, do not know the difference between spot color and process color, do not particularly care about CMYK color correction, and don’t need any of those capacities. When such a user purchases a high-end prepress product, he is wasting money.

I’ve got far more than $600 invested in scuba gear, way more than $600 in golf clubs, and considerably more than $600 in 35 mm camera equipment. I use PhotoShop more than any of this stuff.

Do you use ALL OF Photoshop? Or did you buy capacity and capabilities you don’t use?

I use Photoshop. I do not use all of its features. In
particular I do not use CMYK color correction or separation. I use Photoshop primarily for the web and for my private photography. I do not think I can do what I do with Paint Shop Pro.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
James Gifford wrote:
(jjs) wrote:

In article , James
Gifford wrote:

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT.

WHAT? AutoCAD LT is $50 at our university bookstore.

…and then we have "academic pricing," which further convinces the collegians that they’re entitled to a free ride out in the real world.

Academic pricing is up to Adobe, not the school. It is
done to get students used to using the product. Folks
get attached to a product they know well and often
continue to use it in later life.

Many companies have learned over the years that it pays
to seduce college students. Many do it, many do not.

—— Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
jjs wrote:
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

(jjs) wrote:

In article , James
Gifford wrote:

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT.

WHAT? AutoCAD LT is $50 at our university bookstore.

…and then we have "academic pricing," which further convinces the collegians that they’re entitled to a free ride out in the real world.

Bullshit, and you know it.

It is all about marketing, and profitable to the vendor or the AutoCAD people would not do it. Students use the student version while in school or they don’t learn the package. They learn the package and buy it later, or recommend its purchase. If there were no student pricing, the cost of educating the student in it would be passed on to you, Mr. America, somehow, or more likely not taught at all.

It’s not like tax dollars are paying the difference – they aren’t. So it has nothing to do with what those in academe deem to be entitlements. Besides, the student version is quite likely not the same as the Real Thing, and the EULA makes it clear, just as does Adobe’s EULA that the license is restricted.

See how it just pisses me off when someone rants on higher ed like that? What are ya, some kinda Harvard MBA to screw up like that? 🙂

I’d also be surprised if Adobe takes a loss on the academic pricing. But they likely don’t make much if any money on it either.

The academic pricing is up on their web site at the "store".

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 22, 2003
Farlo wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
It would if you’d share. Give me that formula …

You want it all for free, dontcha’?
First Photoshop, now basic calculus.

Actually, that problem can be solved with algebra, too.

Oooooh. Then can I get in on this too. I can do
algebra! I even know f/stops.

I’ll trade you a virtual keg of beer for the formula.

—- Paul J. Gans
TC
Tony Cooper
Dec 22, 2003
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

I stand by what I’ve said. There is only one data point. The current selling price and the sales volume at that price. All else is an estimate. Arcane at that too.

Come on over to aue and offer that usage for "arcane". Don’t bring Hines with you, though.

Hey, the last time I visited aue was over the Great Teletype Fiasco. But fear not, he’s still alive and well and busy slagging folks for spelling errors.

You have been cross-posted there recently. Probably something medieval.
R
Rowley
Dec 22, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Tacit wrote:
This assumes that the home user became interested in this type of program within the last few years. Elements has not been around all that long. Many of us home users started out with PhotoShop because there just weren’t other programs available that did what we wanted.

Paint Shop Pro? Color It? GIMP?

The "foolish" part is a rather foolish statement. To pay $600 to engage in a hobby is only foolish when a wife states the foolishness of spending money on a hobby that could be spent on new carpeting.

I have hobbies I’ve spent far more than $600 on…it becomes "foolish" only when you spend that $600 on things you do not need and will not use.

Home users do not know what color separation is, do not know the difference between spot color and process color, do not particularly care about CMYK color correction, and don’t need any of those capacities. When such a user purchases a high-end prepress product, he is wasting money.

I’ve got far more than $600 invested in scuba gear, way more than $600 in golf clubs, and considerably more than $600 in 35 mm camera equipment. I use PhotoShop more than any of this stuff.

Do you use ALL OF Photoshop? Or did you buy capacity and capabilities you don’t use?

I use Photoshop. I do not use all of its features. In
particular I do not use CMYK color correction or separation. I use Photoshop primarily for the web and for my private photography. I do not think I can do what I do with Paint Shop Pro.

—- Paul J. Gans

I doubt that if you’re only using the base features of PS that you wouldn’t be just as happy using PSP7/8. I was a long time PSP user before switching over to PS. One of the reasons for not switching sooner was that it seemed to me that I could do a lot more with PSP than I could PS. That perspective however was just from knowing PSP more than I knew PS. If you were to list all the features that you typically use in PS, and then compared that list to what features PSP has – I would bet that you could probably match your list 100%.

Martin
R
Rowley
Dec 22, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
Why should the price of materials or resources invested (time / money) be of a consideration for the final cost of a product? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa or how much did the oil paint/brushes and canvas cost? How much was the model paid? Compared to what the painting is worth today those costs don’t even figure into it’s "price".

In the case of something such as a software application, cost of development, cost of marketing, cost of investment do have some minor consideration – but the main price for such a "product" is the service it provides and the time it saves in using it compared doing the same work without it.

Martin

Please don’t tell me you are a financial advisor… 😉

Nope. But I have worked in industry for awhile and in retail many many years ago.

Martin

Then you certainly know that the cost of materials and resources (in this case programmers and time) must be factored into the price charged for the product.

—- Paul J. Gans

Sure it does, as well as factoring in some return on the initial investment that was spent, and the resources spent on marketing. The technical writers who wrote the manuals have to get paid, so do the graphics people who created the graphical theme that runs throughout the packaging / documentation / web site / etc. The people / companies that prints the boxes / manuals have to be paid, so do the people / companies that pick up the crates and deliver the packages to the POS. At theend of the week a lot of people are going to be expecting pay checks, the same is true at the end of the month – there’s oing to be a lot of companies that expect Adobe to pay their bills. There is a lot more that goes on than just paying the programmers or paying for the cd that comes in the box.

However, that is usually just part of what goes into deciding on the cost of a product. Do you really think that there is that much difference in the design / manufacture / marketing of any of these exotic cars costing more than $250,000 and that of the cars costing $25,000? Ten times as much going into production of one compared to the other? There are other pricing considerations to consider. Brand name for instance – you yourself mentioned in another post that you don’t use PSP, but instead use PS. You doubted that PSP has the capability to do what you wanted. I’m betting that doubt comes from 1) the low price and 2) that you know what you’re getting with a company such as Adobe rather than one named Jasc. The same was true back when PCs first started being marketed to business – IBMs name played a bigger part in a lot of buying decisions than the comparative cost of a clone machine. People "knew" what they were getting when they bought IBM. Same was true for the car I just recently purchased. I bought a car from a company that I knew – even though I could have gotten a fairly comparable vehicle at a lower price from one of these "other" manufactures.

Price is usually what the market will spend, price it too high and too many people don’t buy the product, too low and people seem to think there something wrong with the product. You’re never going to get to the point where you make all ends of the market happy.

Martin
R
Rowley
Dec 22, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Steve Moody wrote:
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

Personally I see a difference in comparing Photoshop to AutoCAD – a single seat of AutoCAD goes for around $2,700 (price varies) and is only sold through the Autodesk’s authorized dealer network. The price of PS is well within the range of the average shopper at the stores it is sold in – AutoCAD is not. However, along with it are usually a lot less expensive packages such as Jasc’s paint Shop Pro – which one store around here usually has for around $100 and if you use a rebate you can sometimes get $50 off that price. Just curious, would you say that Photoshop is the most expensive software package in one of these retail stores – or are there other packages that cost more?

I don’t know. But again, the post I was responding to
claimed that Photoshop was a program for professionals.
My response above, and yours, with which I agree, shows
that it is not a program just for professionals, but is
a program that targets amateurs as well.

From this I gather that amateurs, for whatever reason,
buy Photoshop in enough numbers to make that market viable for Adobe.

[snip]

—– Paul J. Gans

You’ve conveniently snipped off the part where I mention that several other business applications (such as Office) are also offered in these stores. I don’t think I was implying that these packages were on the store shelves strictly for "amateurs" – they are there for the "professionals" that shop these stores too. There are many non-amateurs that have business concerns that do buy software applications at these retail stores. A few months ago I purchased a arcade (game) software package from "Office Depot" – does buying that package in a business store make me a professional game player?

You still haven’t really convinced me that the cost of the full version of PS is really too much – even for non-professionals.

Martin
R
Rowley
Dec 22, 2003
Paul J Gans wrote:

James Gifford wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

…because the software stores find that people will buy it off the shelf. Just as they’ll plunk down $450 for AutoCAD LT. In most cases, anyone who walks into, say, Circuit City and buys a copy of PS would likely be as happy with PSE, just as a good point-and-shoot one-third the price of the high-end digicam they bought would serve their needs. There are a lot of idiots who think that more expensive is better, even if they have no clue why or even what their additional spending is buying them. If Circuit City, Best Buy, CompUSA et al. can sell these idiots a copy of PS instead of PSE, PSP, etc., they’re quite happy to.

I can walk into a store about a mile from my house and walk out (1) with an extremely high-grade surveyor’s transit and (2) $12,000 poorer. Would I be able to use it better than my ~$200 laser transit and tripod? Nope. Would I have a major I’m-so-damn-kewl to wave in the mirror and to my DIY buddies? Sure.

What is your point?

Gee, I totally agreed with you right up to that last bit.
My point was made in response to the person who claimed
that Photoshop is only for professionals. I noted that it is sold by Adobe in software stores and is available to
anyone. Clearly Adobe targets it at amateurs as well.

Many programs aimed specifically at professionals are not available at your local software outlet (or even from
Amazon or some other mass marketer.) One has to buy them either through the company or from a specific distributor.

And any Joe-Six pack can usually walk in off the street at any of these distributors or authorized dealers and plunk down their money and buy any of these commercial packages. The main reason that most of these high-end commercial software package are sold / marketed this way is due more to the complexity of the software and how much the customer is going to probably rely on having a local dealer for support.

Martin

Sorry to have to make the point again, but I think it
is a valid one.

—- Paul J. Gans

—– Paul J. Gans
T
threetoe
Dec 24, 2003
Hey, just in case anyone’s interested, compared to the $$ i’ve made with Photoshop, the cost of version 4 and the 4 upgrades seems dirt cheap.
Happy Holidays!
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 24, 2003
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:

I stand by what I’ve said. There is only one data point. The current selling price and the sales volume at that price. All else is an estimate. Arcane at that too.

Come on over to aue and offer that usage for "arcane". Don’t bring Hines with you, though.

Hey, the last time I visited aue was over the Great Teletype Fiasco. But fear not, he’s still alive and well and busy slagging folks for spelling errors.

You have been cross-posted there recently. Probably something medieval.

Sorry about that. I try not to do it if I can help it.

I’ll look out for aue.

—– Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 24, 2003
Rowley wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

I use Photoshop. I do not use all of its features. In
particular I do not use CMYK color correction or separation. I use Photoshop primarily for the web and for my private photography. I do not think I can do what I do with Paint Shop Pro.

—- Paul J. Gans

I doubt that if you’re only using the base features of PS that you wouldn’t be just as happy using PSP7/8. I was a long time PSP user before switching over to PS. One of the reasons for not switching sooner was that it seemed to me that I could do a lot more with PSP than I could PS. That perspective however was just from knowing PSP more than I knew PS. If you were to list all the features that you typically use in PS, and then compared that list to what features PSP has – I would bet that you could probably match your list 100%.

Martin

I don’t really know psp. But I’m a heavy layers user along with masks of various sorts. And I do a moderate amount of color correction mainly via channels. And for the web I’ve got to do a large amount of image shrinkage where I can
watch rather carefully what is going on.

In addition I slice quite a bit in Image Magic.

This isn’t a complete list by any means.

Of course I do a fair amount of trivial things too. But then, they are trivial because they are common.

—- Paul J. Gans
PJ
Paul J Gans
Dec 24, 2003
Rowley wrote:

Paul J Gans wrote:

Rowley wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

Steve Moody wrote:
In article , James
Gifford wrote:

I think the reason most pros don’t complain is because PS is an absurdly cheap tool, relative to price/value, all things considered.

I never looked at it that way before. My original purchase, plus upgrades amounts to an investment of about $1500, but I’ve earned far more than that using Photoshop. $600-700 IS cheap for the customer Photoshop is make for.

Yes, it is cheap for the professional — who can also list it as a business expense so that a bit of the price comes off their taxes too.

But unlike programs like AutoCad, Photoshop is sold at retail software outlets. So while it is designed for the print professional, Adobe is quite happy to sell it to individuals as well.

Personally I see a difference in comparing Photoshop to AutoCAD – a single seat of AutoCAD goes for around $2,700 (price varies) and is only sold through the Autodesk’s authorized dealer network. The price of PS is well within the range of the average shopper at the stores it is sold in – AutoCAD is not. However, along with it are usually a lot less expensive packages such as Jasc’s paint Shop Pro – which one store around here usually has for around $100 and if you use a rebate you can sometimes get $50 off that price. Just curious, would you say that Photoshop is the most expensive software package in one of these retail stores – or are there other packages that cost more?

I don’t know. But again, the post I was responding to
claimed that Photoshop was a program for professionals.
My response above, and yours, with which I agree, shows
that it is not a program just for professionals, but is
a program that targets amateurs as well.

From this I gather that amateurs, for whatever reason,
buy Photoshop in enough numbers to make that market viable for Adobe.

[snip]

—– Paul J. Gans

You’ve conveniently snipped off the part where I mention that several other business applications (such as Office) are also offered in these stores. I don’t think I was implying that these packages were on the store shelves strictly for "amateurs" – they are there for the "professionals" that shop these stores too. There are many non-amateurs that have business concerns that do buy software applications at these retail stores. A few months ago I purchased a arcade (game) software package from "Office Depot" – does buying that package in a business store make me a professional game player?

You still haven’t really convinced me that the cost of the full version of PS is really too much – even for non-professionals.

Martin

I’ve never said the cost was too high. All I said was that Adobe priced it as best they could. Product pricing is an art, an arcane art at that.

The right price for Adobe is the one that maximises profit. That might be $600 or it might be $800 or it might be $400. There is no real way to tell. Market research can only go so far.

—– Paul J. Gans

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections