I just dont understand what constitutes a 499.99+ price for programs!

D3v1L80Y · Apr 8, 2006

Les Exposé said:
Something like Photoshop is a great price for a something like a design company.

Yes, it is a good price for a professional design company. After all, that is exactly who the application was created for... professionals.

Les Exposé said:
However for a consumer its a rip off.

I am going to disagree. As I stated, Photoshop was designed by professionals FOR professionals. It was never intended for "regular" consumer use. If you are a consumer and want to use a professional level app, then you should be prepared to pay the professional level price.

Let's say you are doing a little home improvement. You want to use the best tools available to do the job. You can't expect to go to an upscale hardware store and get professional grade tools for a bargain price. It doesn't work that way.
Same goes for the professional tools of a photographer/designer. If you want a pro-level camera, you are going to pay for it. The camera is a tool. Photoshop is a tool as well, it just happens to be a computer program. You are going to pay the professional's price for it.
If you really absolutely need all the power of Photoshop and don't want to pay for it, there are several alternatives that are less expensive. GIMP is free and does more or less the exact same things.
But the bottom line is simple... to reiterate, if you want to use a professional's tool, be prepared to pay the professional's price.

Tiranis · Apr 8, 2006

caveatipss said:
Because they can. It's that simple. As long as enough people are willing to pay $700, they won't refuse the money. The prices are not based on how much it costs to develop them, but rather on what the market will support.

Excuse me? That has to be the single, most ignorant comment I've seen here. If you're so smart, create your own version for less than that [plus support, localizations, and much more]. We'll see how it goes. But wait, you don't have to bother. I already know the result. It won't be possible.

How is time spent creating programs any different from time spent creating computers or anything else? Things don't cost a cent in this world, it's the time people spend creating (digging up, inventing, etc.) those things that costs money. Diamonds don't cost a lot because they're diamonds, they cost a lot because of how much work went into getting them and their useful properties. Programs are the same.

caveatipss · Apr 8, 2006

Tiranis said:
Excuse me? That has to be the single, most ignorant comment I've seen here. If you're so smart, create your own version for less than that [plus support, localizations, and much more]. We'll see how it goes. But wait, you don't have to bother. I already know the result. It won't be possible.

How is time spent creating programs any different from time spent creating computers or anything else? Things don't cost a cent in this world, it's the time people spend creating (digging up, inventing, etc.) those things that costs money. Diamonds don't cost a lot because they're diamonds, they cost a lot because of how much work went into getting them and their useful properties. Programs are the same.

Why specifically was my quote ignorant? At least in the US, we live in a free-market capitalist economy. Adobe, for example, exists to make money, not to provide low cost software for people. You may have misunderstood my comment? My point was that software costs so much because they can get so much. If Photoshop sold tomorrow for $10,000 and no one bought it, they would have to lower the price or go out of business. If they started sellin it for $1 and sold billions of copies, that would be good for them, but it might not pay their overhead. The fact is that companies set prices based on different factors, to be sure, but they are quite willing to price their products as high as they can while having people still buy them. That is the way a capitalist economy works.

Moreover, diamonds are expensive NOT because of their "useful properties" or the process of making them. They are expensive because people want them because they are shiny and pretty, and because they are not as numerable as, say, dirt. Why do you think that almost all of the precious metals and jewels in the world are shiny and pretty? People want diamonds because they are pretty, and thus are willing to pay lots of money for them. Sure, the manufacturing process adds something to the price, but no matter how hard something is to make, unless there is consumer demand for it, it will not sell. If tomorrow I figured out how to manufacture plasma lightning balls in a lab, and it was a painstaking and amazing process, but no one wanted to buy any, then I would not sell any, even for a penny. Photoshop is expensive because people want it and its features. That is the "profit" in it for Adobe.

jacostilllives · Apr 8, 2006

caveatipss said:
Why specifically was my quote ignorant? At least in the US, we live in a free-market capitalist economy. Adobe, for example, exists to make money, not to provide low cost software for people. You may have misunderstood my comment? My point was that software costs so much because they can get so much. If Photoshop sold tomorrow for $10,000 and no one bought it, they would have to lower the price or go out of business. If they started sellin it for $1 and sold billions of copies, that would be good for them, but it might not pay their overhead. The fact is that companies set prices based on different factors, to be sure, but they are quite willing to price their products as high as they can while having people still buy them. That is the way a capitalist economy works.

Moreover, diamonds are expensive NOT because of their "useful properties" or the process of making them. They are expensive because people want them because they are shiny and pretty, and because they are not as numerable as, say, dirt. Why do you think that almost all of the precious metals and jewels in the world are shiny and pretty? People want diamonds because they are pretty, and thus are willing to pay lots of money for them. Sure, the manufacturing process adds something to the price, but no matter how hard something is to make, unless there is consumer demand for it, it will not sell. If tomorrow I figured out how to manufacture plasma lightning balls in a lab, and it was a painstaking and amazing process, but no one wanted to buy any, then I would not sell any, even for a penny. Photoshop is expensive because people want it and its features. That is the "profit" in it for Adobe.

I agree with you 100% buddy except for the part about diamonds being as numerous as dirt...they pretty much are

most plentiful resource on the planet.

I just dont understand what constitutes a 499.99+ price for programs!

D3v1L80Y

Tiranis

Guest

caveatipss

Guest

jacostilllives

Guest

Shop Amazon