10 ms·

If only the desktop version was sold at a reasonable cost, I think they would make more money.

ig1 15y ago
The desktop version is pretty reasonably priced given it's aimed at professional users. $50/month is less than 1% of the salary of a designer, and it definitely increases productivity by much more than 1%. In comparison it's cheaper than SEOMoz or a Business Plus account on Linkedin.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Yes, it is pretty key to remember Photoshop is not meant for casual home users. It is not MS Paint, and it is priced accordingly.
  - tar 15y ago
    I wonder how paint.NET and GIMP stack up compared to Photoshop.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      GIMP had a lot of the functionality (Photoshop has pulled away recently with all the content-aware stuff) but it never had the interface. I don't think paint.NET ever came close, though it could potentially catch up.
    - phaus 15y ago
      You can take pretty much any image editor and create professional quality artwork from scratch, some just take a lot more effort. I've seen people do some amazing things with GIMP, yet most feel that it is too difficult to get anything accomplished.
    - ebiester 15y ago
      Pantone was always the key feature GIMP can't have, and it matters in print.
    - gurkendoktor 15y ago
      A big problem is the ecosystem too. Since most people either use Photoshop or a cracked Photoshop, it's almost impossible to replace it as the industry standard. I hope Adobe will keep improving their DRM to the point where cracks stops working, that'd be the best thing to ever happen to Paint.NET and GIMP.
- phaus 15y ago
  Web designers may make more than 5000/month, but most graphic designers, artists, and photographers make about half of that (if they can even find a job.) To make matters worse, the fact that they frequently deal with printed materials means that Photoshop Elements probably won't cut it for many of them. Then there's the massive amounts of student loans that they will be paying off for a decade, due to insanely high art school tuition rates. $50 may not sound like much to a web developer, but for a large percentage of Adobe's target demographic, it is hard to afford.
  - ghshephard 15y ago
    There are a lot of photo manipulation tools out there that cost a great deal less than Photoshop goes for. Much of their market consists of people who find Photoshop too expensive. Alternatively, one can purchase a new version every three-four years - bringing the cost down to something like $10-$15/month. I've got a several-years old version of CS3 running on my MacBook Air. Works just as well as it did when it was considered the latest-and-greatest. I suspect, as a non-professional graphics designer, I'll do fine purchasing a new copy every 8-10 years or so. I'd rather Adobe make a decent profit on their tools from their high-end commercial clients so they can continue to invest, do research, and improve the product. The rest of us can get by with an "Academic Version", slightly outdated version, or cage a heavily discounted copy off of a friend-of-friend who works for Adobe. If you are working in the graphic design industry, Linkedin probably has you two or three hops away from an Adobe employee, and I guarantee that if you are "in the biz" and impoverished to the point of having a tough time paying for a new retail copy of CS5, someone will have a employee credit that they can give you. Heck, there's a good chance that if you write (and design) an impassioned plea to Adobe Marketing, Adobe will comp you a discounted copy.
  - riffraff 15y ago
    let's say it's half: that makes 50$ 2% of it, surely the expense for their most important tool is reasonable?

ig1 15y ago

The desktop version is pretty reasonably priced given it's aimed at professional users. $50/month is less than 1% of the salary of a designer, and it definitely increases productivity by much more than 1%. In comparison it's cheaper than SEOMoz or a Business Plus account on Linkedin.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Yes, it is pretty key to remember Photoshop is not meant for casual home users. It is not MS Paint, and it is priced accordingly.
- tar 15y ago
  I wonder how paint.NET and GIMP stack up compared to Photoshop.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    GIMP had a lot of the functionality (Photoshop has pulled away recently with all the content-aware stuff) but it never had the interface. I don't think paint.NET ever came close, though it could potentially catch up.
  - phaus 15y ago
    You can take pretty much any image editor and create professional quality artwork from scratch, some just take a lot more effort. I've seen people do some amazing things with GIMP, yet most feel that it is too difficult to get anything accomplished.
  - ebiester 15y ago
    Pantone was always the key feature GIMP can't have, and it matters in print.
  - gurkendoktor 15y ago
    A big problem is the ecosystem too. Since most people either use Photoshop or a cracked Photoshop, it's almost impossible to replace it as the industry standard. I hope Adobe will keep improving their DRM to the point where cracks stops working, that'd be the best thing to ever happen to Paint.NET and GIMP.
phaus 15y ago
Web designers may make more than 5000/month, but most graphic designers, artists, and photographers make about half of that (if they can even find a job.) To make matters worse, the fact that they frequently deal with printed materials means that Photoshop Elements probably won't cut it for many of them. Then there's the massive amounts of student loans that they will be paying off for a decade, due to insanely high art school tuition rates. $50 may not sound like much to a web developer, but for a large percentage of Adobe's target demographic, it is hard to afford.
- ghshephard 15y ago
  There are a lot of photo manipulation tools out there that cost a great deal less than Photoshop goes for. Much of their market consists of people who find Photoshop too expensive. Alternatively, one can purchase a new version every three-four years - bringing the cost down to something like $10-$15/month. I've got a several-years old version of CS3 running on my MacBook Air. Works just as well as it did when it was considered the latest-and-greatest. I suspect, as a non-professional graphics designer, I'll do fine purchasing a new copy every 8-10 years or so. I'd rather Adobe make a decent profit on their tools from their high-end commercial clients so they can continue to invest, do research, and improve the product. The rest of us can get by with an "Academic Version", slightly outdated version, or cage a heavily discounted copy off of a friend-of-friend who works for Adobe. If you are working in the graphic design industry, Linkedin probably has you two or three hops away from an Adobe employee, and I guarantee that if you are "in the biz" and impoverished to the point of having a tough time paying for a new retail copy of CS5, someone will have a employee credit that they can give you. Heck, there's a good chance that if you write (and design) an impassioned plea to Adobe Marketing, Adobe will comp you a discounted copy.
- riffraff 15y ago
  let's say it's half: that makes 50$ 2% of it, surely the expense for their most important tool is reasonable?