4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat’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 agoI 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 agoIs 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 agoClassic 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.