3 ms·
I think it is an overall societal drain, and we're just in the early stages of it. Photoshop is an interesting example to me, because I count Photoshop as anot
by CrankyPants 14y ago
I think it is an overall societal drain, and we're just in the early stages of it.
Photoshop is an interesting example to me, because I count Photoshop as another model that has had to change with the times: it used to be for pure professionals only, at a time when professionals often worked for companies that bought their licenses. Like the sports tickets of software. Crazy expensive, but if you did it as a full-time job, it was more than easily absorbed. After all, it required expensive (and technically challenging) hardware to run it on, so that barrier was already crossed by potential customers.
Today, everyone's a designer. Alright, that's not a fair assessment, but the number of people who have design skills–ranging from minor editing to some real mind-blowing stuff–but don't depend on them to feed their family, is astonishingly high compared to just a couple of decades ago. People who never consider themselves graphic artists find a lot of utility value in Photoshop, or one of its offshoots.
So its old price point, relative to everything else, just doesn't make sense if broad adoption is their goal, unless they're totally happy to capture just the pure pro crowd, who, for perspective, can run it quite handily on hardware that costs what a night or two in a mid-grade hotel in any big city does. The technical and cost barriers have fallen dramatically.
So that's changing.
Now, consider if Photoshop were ad-supported, and had been so for long enough to where designers grew up with that being the new normal.
Then, imagine someone comes out with an ad-free image-editing program, with no ads, that costs a reasonable amount. In some ways, better than Photoshop, in other ways, probably not as specialized, not as built-out, but pretty solid.
I think there's a market there for the taking.
Adobe's trying to strike that balance, and I'm not here to say whether or not they're doing a good job at it with their current approach (that's a much longer post and I doubt my ability to think about it as clearly as I believe I can other segments of the industry), but my point is that well-made products at a reasonable price is something I still want to believe there's a huge market for.
And we tend to underestimate it because of all the sub-par stuff, our conditioning to which we don't even realize.
I'd like to think that enough humanity still has the innate thoughtfulness to be slightly skeptical when being pitched to trade hours of their life (that is, the money they earned by working) for a given product, to provide a market for it.
And if we've all reached the point where we'll happily trade our time, attention spans, compromise our abilities to focus and concentrate, and reveal a wealth of personal data so as to pay a bit less, well, then we get what we deserve. But that's probably outside the scope of this particular comment.
Edit: Fixed a typo.
- canistr 14y agoI agree that the market exist for a no-ad, reasonably cost version of program X. I guess what I'm getting at is how do you try software without 30-day trials, ad-supported free versions, or having to pay a hefty price without test driving? Is there a better way?
- CrankyPants 14y agoGood question. From my (limited) perspective, I see nothing wrong with time/feature-limited trials. It's the free food sample at the store. If it's good, it makes me want to buy. If it doesn't, I carry on. Works for me. And I don't even necessarily see ad-supported free versions as the worst option. A lot of developers find the paid version winds up getting them far more revenue, and from better customers, which magnifies the gains. So if that's a good gateway for them, great, and if that's a good filter by which to learn that they should ditch the free version, even better. I don't love it. I think a truly enlightened society would look for better ways to connect customers with the products they'd enjoy and find value in, but having an ad-supported version plus a paid version, seems to be a step in the right direction. One could argue that's what's being done by networks who broadcast their shows for free and sell them on iTunes/Amazon, but I'd like it if: they came out at the same time, and if it wasn't clear the ad-supported model is largely necessary because most of their products are garbage, and they rely on the big hits to subsidize their general lack of taste. (Same goes for the music industry.) Now, I've made donations to sites that disable the ads for donors, and I get why they do that. I don't judge the guys who see an ad-supported version as their only potential way of gaining some traction (though I might not always agree with that assessment). They're scrappy, and doing what they have to. What I think really drives me nuts is this frantic, 90s-like gold rush push for the ability to corner the market on every square inch at which eyeballs point, with the aim towards placing corporate sponsorship there. And hey, for the square-inches that aren't digital, let's put glasses between your eyes and it! (Don't get me wrong, wearable displays will be massively useful, and massively 'disruptive,' to use the local dialect, but I'd just as soon get mine from someone who wants to make a really good one, and sell it to me for a profit, and then carry on designing the next, even better one, as opposed to spending most of their time thinking about how to monetize my life even more. But that's probably just me.)