4 ms·

Taking a different side on that, Adobe decided that the small number of professional users who really need Pantone colours shouldn't be subsidised by those who

Taking a different side on that, Adobe decided that the small number of professional users who really need Pantone colours shouldn't be subsidised by those who do not.

torstenvl 4y ago
If this decision was driven by concern about the median customer paying more than their fair share, there would be a corresponding reduction in price. Has there been?
- cpach 4y ago
  That’s not how market works. The price of Adobe Creative Suite isn’t based on cost, it’s an attempt to reflect the value of the product. For me, an amateur with very basic image editing needs, it would be silly to pay $250+/year for using Photoshop. So instead, I use Acorn, which is $40. One-time fee. And if you want a FOSS alternative, there’s always Gimp and/or Krita. No payment required at all. It’s not as if people are forced to buy Adobe. I’d say the market works just fine here.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    I think you're confused about the conversation that's being had. Nobody is suggesting (reduction in production costs) → (reduction in median consumer price) We are only suggesting (reduction in production costs as a way to reduce median consumer price) → (reduction in median consumer price) If there was no reduction in median consumer price, then, contrary to GGP's position, it is fair to conclude that it's not part of Adobe's intent.
  - tough 4y ago
    Is not like you were not able to pirate photoshop 20y ago, or just now.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  > If this decision was driven by concern about the median customer paying more than their fair share, there would be a corresponding reduction in price That's not a logically sound. Adobe may have decided they can only continue to support the current price-point by reducing costs, for example.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Classic shrinkflation. Normally Adobe would raise prices due to inflation, but they decided that cutting costly features and keeping the price the same is received better by the market.
richbell 4y ago
I'm sure Adobe will announce price reductions any day now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc
madsbuch 4y ago
Do you have a source for this price reduction after november?
- petesergeant 4y ago
  Why do you think there will be a price reduction?

Taking a different side on that, Adobe decided that the small number of professional users who really need Pantone colours shouldn't be subsidised by those who do not.

torstenvl 4y ago

If this decision was driven by concern about the median customer paying more than their fair share, there would be a corresponding reduction in price. Has there been?

cpach 4y ago
That’s not how market works. The price of Adobe Creative Suite isn’t based on cost, it’s an attempt to reflect the value of the product. For me, an amateur with very basic image editing needs, it would be silly to pay $250+/year for using Photoshop. So instead, I use Acorn, which is $40. One-time fee. And if you want a FOSS alternative, there’s always Gimp and/or Krita. No payment required at all. It’s not as if people are forced to buy Adobe. I’d say the market works just fine here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 4y ago
  I think you're confused about the conversation that's being had. Nobody is suggesting (reduction in production costs) → (reduction in median consumer price) We are only suggesting (reduction in production costs as a way to reduce median consumer price) → (reduction in median consumer price) If there was no reduction in median consumer price, then, contrary to GGP's position, it is fair to conclude that it's not part of Adobe's intent.
- tough 4y ago
  Is not like you were not able to pirate photoshop 20y ago, or just now.
petesergeant 4y ago
> If this decision was driven by concern about the median customer paying more than their fair share, there would be a corresponding reduction in price That's not a logically sound. Adobe may have decided they can only continue to support the current price-point by reducing costs, for example.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
wongarsu 4y ago
Classic shrinkflation. Normally Adobe would raise prices due to inflation, but they decided that cutting costly features and keeping the price the same is received better by the market.

richbell 4y ago

I'm sure Adobe will announce price reductions any day now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc

madsbuch 4y ago

Do you have a source for this price reduction after november?

petesergeant 4y ago
Why do you think there will be a price reduction?