4 ms·

Not really. You'd be amazed how easy it is actually. Read the book I linked, starting from the chapter on porn and haute-couture. There is very little overlap b

Not really. You'd be amazed how easy it is actually. Read the book I linked, starting from the chapter on porn and haute-couture. There is very little overlap between those who'd spend $2000 for a PRADA handbag and those who buy the chinese version at $5. Analogously, there's little overlap between those who'd buy full price photoshop from adobe and the kid who will download it from rapidshare.

pyre 16y ago
> There is very little overlap between those who'd spend $2000 for a PRADA handbag and those who buy the chinese version at $5. If anyone could buy the Chinese knock-off for $5 (in a legal fashion), then the people with $2k to spend on the 'official' version would probably be less likely to do so because it would seem less 'exclusive.' > Analogously, there's little overlap between those who'd buy full price photoshop from adobe and the kid who will download it from rapidshare. The difference here is that the full version Photoshop is not a status symbol. People don't flaunt the fact that they paid 'good money' for the latest version of Photoshop. It also increases Adobe's bottom-line because poor university students learn to use the tool by downloading the pirated version while they are in school (the 'edu' version of Photoshop was still $300 last I checked), then they pay for the full version once they are actually using it for business. If those same students could not pirate the latest version of Photoshop, they may well learn Gimp or PaintShopPro or something else, and use that once they get into the industry. This would affect Adobe's bottom line in reduced sales. It's the same argument for Microsoft and Windows. Pirated version of Windows increase the install-base for Windows. If those same people said "fuck it" and used Linux (or something else) instead of pirated Windows, then Microsoft would have less marketshare (and mindshare).
- chipsy 16y ago
  You're inverting a business positive into a consumer negative. Of course businesses want loyal repeat buyers. Of course businesses will all use similar tactics to win loyalty. But "evil and monopolistic" could only be the case when you're talking about an application or platform like Photoshop or Windows that influences an entire ecosystem of other work. Businesses based around content like music or games stand to benefit from piracy equally well; it's an opportunity for the best creators to rise in popularity and build their brand outside of traditional publishing mechanisms. As pointed out earlier in this discussion, content pirates aren't content buyers and their demographics are wildly different. If they become part of the pool of buyers at a later time(e.g. when they have disposable income), they're going to seek out familiar brands and buy from them. But this doesn't impact any other content business, since it's based almost entirely on the strengths of the work and not lock-in.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > But "evil and monopolistic" could only be the case when you're talking about an application or platform like Photoshop or Windows that influences an entire ecosystem of other work. Are you sure that you're responding to the right comment? I said nothing about 'evil' or 'monopolistic.'
- Zev 16y ago
  It also increases Adobe's bottom-line because poor university students learn to use the tool by downloading the pirated version while they are in school (the 'edu' version of Photoshop was still $300 last I checked), then they pay for the full version once they are actually using it for business. Actually, Adobe's edu prices are actually very reasonable. Looking at my colleges sales site (well, SUNY system's), the minimum edu discount given is upwards of $1000, and usually closer to $1300. CS5 {Design, Production, Web} Premium are all $385, Design Standard is $220. I could definitely afford $225, let alone $385, if needed. As could most others that I know (even if they would complain about the price). The software company that I havent found this to be the case for is Quark, with XPress. And thats when selling to colleges directly, not to students. Its still $600-$700 off for students to purchase on their own (totaling ~$200). And SUNY has an even better discount, bringing the cost down to $100.
  - wwortiz 16y ago
    For comparison as an engineering student I spent 100 dollars for matlab, something I end up using all the time for class, for a convenience factor as I don't really pirate anything but if I were a design student I really wouldn't want to fork over 300 dollars for a program I can't use commercially (and as a student 300 dollars really isn't something easily within my budget). Other examples from engineering/architecture/math: Pro/ENGINEER and Mathcad are only ~100 dollars for students, mathematica comes close to 100 and Autodesk gives software to students for free.
    - Zev 16y ago
      Whats your point? Or rather: How does your point differ from my point? You're not getting one program for $385; you're getting multiple programs in one suite. 5-6 programs at $385 or 3-4 programs at $220. For example, Adobe CS Design Standard suite ($220) comes with 3-4 fairly big programs; Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat. Four big programs - two of which (Photoshop, Illustrator) you're near guaranteed to use at some point if you're doing digital art. Comes out to less than $100/program. I only focused on Adobe and other creative programs because that is what the OP I was responding to mentioned. My point would still stand if I used engineering/math programs instead of art/design programs.
rick888 16y ago
"If those same students could not pirate the latest version of Photoshop, they may well learn Gimp or PaintShopPro or something else, and use that once they get into the industry. This would affect Adobe's bottom line in reduced sales." Since the industry doesn't use Gimp, those students would be putting themselves out of the market. "It's the same argument for Microsoft and Windows. Pirated version of Windows increase the install-base for Windows. If those same people said "fuck it" and used Linux (or something else) instead of pirated Windows, then Microsoft would have less marketshare (and mindshare)." This idea may work with a handful of apps. It doesn't work with the mid-sized software company trying to make a profit.
- zaphar 16y ago
  "Since the industry doesn't use Gimp, those students would be putting themselves out of the market." Your making a chicken and egg argument. The reason the industry doesn't use Gimp is because no one in the industry uses Gimp. If a whole graduating class of students skipped Photoshop and used Gimp for price reasons then the picture could and likely would change.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Your making a chicken and egg argument. The reason the industry doesn't use Gimp is because no one in the industry uses Gimp. If a whole graduating class of students skipped Photoshop and used Gimp for price reasons then the picture could and likely would change." no. I'm saying since the industry doesn't use gimp, it's not in the best interest for the students to use it either. How Photoshop actually became the industry standard is another topic. If a whole graduating class used Gimp, the whole graduating class would be disappointed when they went to find a job and couldn't find one due to lack of experience. Students don't set the industry standard. They follow it.
    - itistoday 16y ago
      > Students don't set the industry standard. They follow it. There are exceptions to most rules, including this one. Consider for example what has taken place with Blender. I know a lot of people who would have been learning 3DS Max (or Maya, etc.), but now know and use Blender instead because that's what they can afford. And these students don't have to venture forth into The Industry. They can create their own that will topple the existing one. There are plenty of growing startups who would be more than happy to hire someone with "3D Skillz", and many of them don't care what tools they use, so long as the work gets done.

pyre 16y ago

> There is very little overlap between those who'd spend $2000 for a PRADA handbag and those who buy the chinese version at $5. If anyone could buy the Chinese knock-off for $5 (in a legal fashion), then the people with $2k to spend on the 'official' version would probably be less likely to do so because it would seem less 'exclusive.' > Analogously, there's little overlap between those who'd buy full price photoshop from adobe and the kid who will download it from rapidshare. The difference here is that the full version Photoshop is not a status symbol. People don't flaunt the fact that they paid 'good money' for the latest version of Photoshop. It also increases Adobe's bottom-line because poor university students learn to use the tool by downloading the pirated version while they are in school (the 'edu' version of Photoshop was still $300 last I checked), then they pay for the full version once they are actually using it for business. If those same students could not pirate the latest version of Photoshop, they may well learn Gimp or PaintShopPro or something else, and use that once they get into the industry. This would affect Adobe's bottom line in reduced sales. It's the same argument for Microsoft and Windows. Pirated version of Windows increase the install-base for Windows. If those same people said "fuck it" and used Linux (or something else) instead of pirated Windows, then Microsoft would have less marketshare (and mindshare).

chipsy 16y ago
You're inverting a business positive into a consumer negative. Of course businesses want loyal repeat buyers. Of course businesses will all use similar tactics to win loyalty. But "evil and monopolistic" could only be the case when you're talking about an application or platform like Photoshop or Windows that influences an entire ecosystem of other work. Businesses based around content like music or games stand to benefit from piracy equally well; it's an opportunity for the best creators to rise in popularity and build their brand outside of traditional publishing mechanisms. As pointed out earlier in this discussion, content pirates aren't content buyers and their demographics are wildly different. If they become part of the pool of buyers at a later time(e.g. when they have disposable income), they're going to seek out familiar brands and buy from them. But this doesn't impact any other content business, since it's based almost entirely on the strengths of the work and not lock-in.
- pyre 16y ago
  > But "evil and monopolistic" could only be the case when you're talking about an application or platform like Photoshop or Windows that influences an entire ecosystem of other work. Are you sure that you're responding to the right comment? I said nothing about 'evil' or 'monopolistic.'
Zev 16y ago
It also increases Adobe's bottom-line because poor university students learn to use the tool by downloading the pirated version while they are in school (the 'edu' version of Photoshop was still $300 last I checked), then they pay for the full version once they are actually using it for business. Actually, Adobe's edu prices are actually very reasonable. Looking at my colleges sales site (well, SUNY system's), the minimum edu discount given is upwards of $1000, and usually closer to $1300. CS5 {Design, Production, Web} Premium are all $385, Design Standard is $220. I could definitely afford $225, let alone $385, if needed. As could most others that I know (even if they would complain about the price). The software company that I havent found this to be the case for is Quark, with XPress. And thats when selling to colleges directly, not to students. Its still $600-$700 off for students to purchase on their own (totaling ~$200). And SUNY has an even better discount, bringing the cost down to $100.
- wwortiz 16y ago
  For comparison as an engineering student I spent 100 dollars for matlab, something I end up using all the time for class, for a convenience factor as I don't really pirate anything but if I were a design student I really wouldn't want to fork over 300 dollars for a program I can't use commercially (and as a student 300 dollars really isn't something easily within my budget). Other examples from engineering/architecture/math: Pro/ENGINEER and Mathcad are only ~100 dollars for students, mathematica comes close to 100 and Autodesk gives software to students for free.
  - Zev 16y ago
    Whats your point? Or rather: How does your point differ from my point? You're not getting one program for $385; you're getting multiple programs in one suite. 5-6 programs at $385 or 3-4 programs at $220. For example, Adobe CS Design Standard suite ($220) comes with 3-4 fairly big programs; Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat. Four big programs - two of which (Photoshop, Illustrator) you're near guaranteed to use at some point if you're doing digital art. Comes out to less than $100/program. I only focused on Adobe and other creative programs because that is what the OP I was responding to mentioned. My point would still stand if I used engineering/math programs instead of art/design programs.

rick888 16y ago

"If those same students could not pirate the latest version of Photoshop, they may well learn Gimp or PaintShopPro or something else, and use that once they get into the industry. This would affect Adobe's bottom line in reduced sales." Since the industry doesn't use Gimp, those students would be putting themselves out of the market. "It's the same argument for Microsoft and Windows. Pirated version of Windows increase the install-base for Windows. If those same people said "fuck it" and used Linux (or something else) instead of pirated Windows, then Microsoft would have less marketshare (and mindshare)." This idea may work with a handful of apps. It doesn't work with the mid-sized software company trying to make a profit.

zaphar 16y ago
"Since the industry doesn't use Gimp, those students would be putting themselves out of the market." Your making a chicken and egg argument. The reason the industry doesn't use Gimp is because no one in the industry uses Gimp. If a whole graduating class of students skipped Photoshop and used Gimp for price reasons then the picture could and likely would change.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Your making a chicken and egg argument. The reason the industry doesn't use Gimp is because no one in the industry uses Gimp. If a whole graduating class of students skipped Photoshop and used Gimp for price reasons then the picture could and likely would change." no. I'm saying since the industry doesn't use gimp, it's not in the best interest for the students to use it either. How Photoshop actually became the industry standard is another topic. If a whole graduating class used Gimp, the whole graduating class would be disappointed when they went to find a job and couldn't find one due to lack of experience. Students don't set the industry standard. They follow it.
  - itistoday 16y ago
    > Students don't set the industry standard. They follow it. There are exceptions to most rules, including this one. Consider for example what has taken place with Blender. I know a lot of people who would have been learning 3DS Max (or Maya, etc.), but now know and use Blender instead because that's what they can afford. And these students don't have to venture forth into The Industry. They can create their own that will topple the existing one. There are plenty of growing startups who would be more than happy to hire someone with "3D Skillz", and many of them don't care what tools they use, so long as the work gets done.