Adobe...maybe now they will learn

[Policenaut]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16779

I think this is a clear sign to Adobe that they need to change. People just got fed up with their release schedule. People pay lots of money for their software and don't appreciate having upgrades come so soon. How did they think CS4 was going to move product when CS3 came out just a year and a half earlier?

Also they are losing tons of money to pirates. Besides Windows, Photoshop has to be the most pirated software worldwide. If they just made the full version of Photoshop a reasonable price (instead of $600 retail...ensuring no one but pros will actually buy it) they would be making money hand over fist instead of having to cut jobs.

 

[Ducky]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=16779

I think this is a clear sign to Adobe that they need to change. People just got fed up with their release schedule. People pay lots of money for their software and don't appreciate having upgrades come so soon. How did they think CS4 was going to move product when CS3 came out just a year and a half earlier?

Also they are losing tons of money to pirates. Besides Windows, Photoshop has to be the most pirated software worldwide. If they just made the full version of Photoshop a reasonable price (instead of $600 retail...ensuring no one but pros will actually buy it) they would be making money hand over fist instead of having to cut jobs.

Or, conversely, like many tech companies right now (mine included) they are having to tighten their belt facing a slow economic recovery and dipping sales.


ETA: This line could be taken from the press releases of many tech companies right now:

Similar to other tech companies, Adobe has suffered even more due to the struggling economy, but it's unknown if future job cuts will be necessary.

 

[Darat]

I pretty much agree with Policenaut in regards to their pricing and upgrade policy - at least on this side of the Atlantic.

See: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/06/23/standing-up-to-uk-rip-off-prices/ for an example.

 

[Ducky]

I pretty much agree with Policenaut in regards to their pricing and upgrade policy - at least on this side of the Atlantic.

See: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/06/23/standing-up-to-uk-rip-off-prices/ for an example.

I don't disagree, but it may be changes to irritating practices really only come about when other factors force them. I don't think they're losing so much business solely from irritating release schedules. It's a much bigger picture than that.

 

[jsiv]

ETA: This line could be taken from the press releases of many tech companies right now:

It wouldn't be a huge loss if they just fired the people responsible for coming up with new and ever more horrific custom GUIs for every release.

 

[Ducky]

It wouldn't be a huge loss if they just fired the people responsible for coming up with new and ever more horrific custom GUIs for every release.

I'd take that one further: It would be a deserved change.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Photoshop still has a near monopoly - why would Adobe change? There's no one else to go to.

Also they are losing tons of money to pirates. Besides Windows, Photoshop has to be the most pirated software worldwide. If they just made the full version of Photoshop a reasonable price (instead of $600 retail...ensuring no one but pros will actually buy it) they would be making money hand over fist instead of having to cut jobs.

I see no reason to believe the increase in sales would reduce piracy.

As far as I can see, Adobe are doing it just right. Companies pay a lot of money for licenses because they can't take the risk of running pirated software, and individuals pirate it, ensuring Photoshop keeps it's dominant mindshare, making sure it's easy for companies to recruit people with Photoshop experience.

Stopping piracy would be the worst possible thing for Adobe. It would force people to use poorer free products such as the GIMP, giving it a large user base, and a larger developer base as a consequence, leading to a better product with mindshare to compete with Photoshop.

 

[Policenaut]

I didn't say it would stop piracy. Piracy will exist for anything that can be pirated. I'm saying that they are missing out on a ton of sales because there is a massive demand for Photoshop. Everyone and their mother has a pirated copy even if they only use it to resize photos. If they released it internationally for something like say $50 it would be a huge moneymaker for them even if only a small percentage of people that have a pirated copy now bought it.

 

[moopet]

As far as I can see, Adobe are doing it just right. Companies pay a lot of money for licenses because they can't take the risk of running pirated software, and individuals pirate it, ensuring Photoshop keeps it's dominant mindshare, making sure it's easy for companies to recruit people with Photoshop experience.

Surely if that was their intention, licensing it as free (as in beer) for non-commercial use would be a better option?

Stopping piracy would be the worst possible thing for Adobe. It would force people to use poorer free products such as the GIMP

Depends on your definition of the word "poorer". These two applications both have their advantages, and they're not in the same areas - saying one is better than the other doesn't really work unless you specifically know your audience.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Depends on your definition of the word "poorer". These two applications both have their advantages, and they're not in the same areas - saying one is better than the other doesn't really work unless you specifically know your audience.

That's interesting. Do you know of any industry for which GIMP is used in preference over Photoshop? I know some people use it for cost or as I do, ideological reasons (I'm not a power user), but all my designer colleagues use Photoshop. It's hard enough finding good designers as it is, if we asked for knowledge of the GIMP, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Also, things like the (unavoidable) lack of Pantone colour matching would make it difficult: our big clients have brand guidelines, and being unable to communicate with us what colours they prescribe would be less than ideal. And that's on the Web, I don't even want to think how that would work out in the print world.

 

[Soapy Sam]

That's interesting. Do you know of any industry for which GIMP is used in preference over Photoshop? I know some people use it for cost or as I do, ideological reasons (I'm not a power user), but all my designer colleagues use Photoshop. It's hard enough finding good designers as it is, if we asked for knowledge of the GIMP, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Or more tersely- "Standards have inertia". When change happens it tends to be dramatic though. Would it do any actual harm to add "Experience of non-photoshop design applications is valuable" to the job ads? It might reveal a pool of youngsters with original talent , but no money.