KAJed wrote:
What it costs to me is absolutely relevant. The same issue exists to me for sending text messages. If you don't have a plan they can cost you $0.25 each. But for the provider to send them costs them closer to $0.00001 giving you a 25000% markup. This matters to me as a consumer.
The problem with Photoshop is that it really is DAMN good. There's no other VIABLE option (IMO, I've tried the Gimp and I just can't take some of the things it does differently). It is for all intents and purposes a monopoly on the product (just like ProTools). They get to set their price and the people that can afford it will.
Keep in mind I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here. If I had the money to upgrade with every new version I absolutely would, but I'd still think it's overpriced....Show more →
So develop a new product that is as good or better and sell it for less.
A consumer should never worry about how much profit a seller is making just if the product is worth the price being ask. Reason being is unless a company says hey we make **% profit you don't know what it is your just guessing.
Except that I have a pretty good understanding of the costs of development... being a professional developer myself.
I understand that a lot of work does go in to Photoshop, but I would argue that the brunt of the work has been done. At this point, most of the new additions to Photoshop are techs that Adobe has bought from smaller start-ups.
Bottom line.......the paradigm has shifted. What Adobe is doing is the correct thing to do for their business. Adobe is just bringing their business model inline with other software manufacturers. I'm amazed at how many FMers think that the software and hardware manufacturers owe them something, they want to be capitalists, yet they want their vendors to be socialists.....You can't have both ways.
rhyder wrote:
Yeah, but you're talking about upgrading one (1) version, which Adobe IS willing to do. What the OP is whining about is Adobe not going farther back.
The OP is not winning miss. Me the OP is stating a fact. Adobe had allowed upgrades for years and now they have changed. What is wrong with me discussing it. Your self ritousness is getting old. Take your blah blah blah to DP review. You will be a big hit there. Or maybe you won't but at least you will fit in.
KAJed wrote:
Except that I have a pretty good understanding of the costs of development... being a professional developer myself.
I understand that a lot of work does go in to Photoshop, but I would argue that the brunt of the work has been done. At this point, most of the new additions to Photoshop are techs that Adobe has bought from smaller start-ups.
Couldn't be farther from the truth, the work is nowhere close to done. A codebase as large as Photoshop needs continual maintenance and needs constant refactoring to incorporate new technology.
As for that new technology, Adobe has a few research labs that develop a lot of technology that goes into the products. This site is out of date (and somewhat difficult to navigate) but has some of the projects done there:
Examples of technology done at ATL and incorpoated into the products include Content Aware Fill, Photo Merge, Auto Blend, Quick Select, Refine Edge, Bristle Tips, Mixer Brush, Ray tracer, Warp Stabilizer, Puppet Warp, etc...
Content aware was bought (look it up). And I believe a number of the rest as well. They buy them and then their labs make it viable for production grade software.
As for maintaining code base. You're only partly correct. The big refactor happened when they started on the CS series. As of right now their code base is pretty solid. They've built it in a way to be very modifiable. Them adding new features is really no different than making a plugin. Adding content aware scaling didn't change the entire code base it changed one option on the fill menu.
rhyder wrote:
Bottom line.......the paradigm has shifted. What Adobe is doing is the correct thing to do for their business. Adobe is just bringing their business model inline with other software manufacturers. I'm amazed at how many FMers think that the software and hardware manufacturers owe them something, they want to be capitalists, yet they want their vendors to be socialists.....You can't have both ways.
ah actually in more then one case and more then one company you can skip versions. even with MS you can go from Office XP to the newest w/o a penelty
Bruce Sawle wrote:
The OP is not winning miss. Me the OP is stating a fact. Adobe had allowed upgrades for years and now they have changed. What is wrong with me discussing it. Your self ritousness is getting old. Take your blah blah blah to DP review. You will be a big hit there. Or maybe you won't but at least you will fit in.
It's funny that you're whinning like a little girl and you refer to me as "miss".
I guess there is nothing wrong with you discussing it (but I do wish you would update your spell checker), but you are whinning (they would love your whinning over at DP) about something you really have no control over. If you don't like what Adobe is doing...Man Up and don't use their product or code your own version. I'm not being self righteous...it just that your whinning is getting old. You have every right to moan and groan all you want on FM forums...just don't be surprised when some one doesn't share your self pity.
LLondon wrote:
What it cost to create is irrelevant to you the consumer. They must make a profit.
If your selling your images do you let your customer tell you how much you can make? You set your prices by what is fair market price. If you set to high you don't sell. To low and you go broke.
Photoshop is near the top of the best seller list. Must be a good value for what it is.
Wonder how many working photographers send their customers new updated albums for free when they learn better ways to PP ??
KAJed wrote:
Given the relatively minor additions that Adobe bakes in to their 'new versions' I don't think it makes sense to charge users a thousand dollars.
You're basically paying $1000 for one extra feature.
Wow!! $1000 for an upgrade? Where did you get that number??
Talking of spell checkers, is that how you spell whining?
I know, I'm British, but even the American dictionary only has one n in the word.
Just adding a bit of levity to the argument.
If they start removing the ability to upgrade more than once then that is what you'll be paying for your new software.
Also, do YOU understand the definition of monopoly? How many other image editing suites are there out there? How many of them are of the same caliber as PS? The cost of entry into such a market means no one bothers. Photoshop is understood to be the industry standard.
Like Windows... I really don't have much choice but to use it if I own a PC. Linux isn't viable for the same reason I don't consider Mac viable (for myself, others are welcome to them), the software support just isn't there.
I don't like Windows, that doesn't mean I'm going to go and write an operating system.
rhyder wrote:
It's funny that you're whinning like a little girl and you refer to me as "miss".
I guess there is nothing wrong with you discussing it (but I do wish you would update your spell checker), but you are whinning (they would love your whinning over at DP) about something you really have no control over. If you don't like what Adobe is doing...Man Up and don't use their product or code your own version. I'm not being self righteous...it just that your whinning is getting old. You have every right to moan and groan all you want on FM forums...just don't be surprised when some one doesn't share your self pity. ...Show more →
I will go out on a limb and assume you are apathetic little person who has no friends and gets off bagging people on public forums for your own amusement. I guarantee you would not have the balls to do it in person. Your the type who oly can be herd on the public forum hence to reason you won't shut up. There is no need for aholes like you here on FM.
Adobe shares are moving higher, so, I guess the market likes Adobe's marketing scheme. I look forward to new products from Adobe. For those who don't, there is always other software options such as Capture NX2.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
I will go out on a limb and assume you are apathetic little person who has no friends and gets off bagging people on public forums for your own amusement. I guarantee you would not have the balls to do it in person. Your the type who oly can be herd on the public forum hence to reason you won't shut up. There is no need for aholes like you here on FM.
The above sounds more like your self description.......
As usual...when someone like you runs out of valid things to say, you resort to name calling and personal attacks. I haven't "bagged" you....you've "bagged yourself. I'm niether apathetic (if I were I would have ignored your whinning) nor am I little. I have said nothing in my posts that I wouldn't say to you in person.
....and for the love of Mike...get a spell checker...everyone knows a-hole uses a hyphen.
KAJed wrote:
Content aware was bought (look it up). And I believe a number of the rest as well. They buy them and then their labs make it viable for production grade software.
As for maintaining code base. You're only partly correct. The big refactor happened when they started on the CS series. As of right now their code base is pretty solid. They've built it in a way to be very modifiable. Them adding new features is really no different than making a plugin. Adding content aware scaling didn't change the entire code base it changed one option on the fill menu.
Content Aware Fill was developed by Connely Barnes (a Princeton PhD student at the time, interning at Adobe, and now working in one of the research labs), Eli Shechtman (Adobe), Adam Finkelstein (professor at Princeton and Connelly's advisor) and Dan Goldman (Adobe) and presented at SIGGRAPH 2009.
The notion that the technology was bought is false. As for the rest, some may or may not have had pieces of technology which get licensed (very few cutting edge technology is built in a total black box) but for the most part they were developed in-house. Its been many years since Adobe actually bought a image science based startup.
As for maintaining the Photoshop code base, if you believe that it ends at making the transition from Carbon to Cocoa, you would be mistaken. There are many refactorings that need to happen on a continual basis to allow better user experiences and to allow Photoshop to take advantage of new hardware. This work is neither complete, nor trivial.
