[ QUOTE ]
Bad news. I saw a press release this morning that Adobe is in the process of purchasing Macromedia. Now I am depressed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bad and sad indeed. If there were any doubts as to my rantings and others' complaints not being heeded the slightest bit - there are definitely no bets in favour of a Better Service Plan after the merge in Autumn.
News has it that the new name has to be short and to the point, Adobe-Macromedia is thought to be obviously long-winded and too distant from the proposed aggressive in-your-face attitude towards the consumer. It is to be called TIOLI Corp. TIOLI being the perfect catchy acronym for Take It Or Leave It.
Ho-hum,
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Thanks for quoting some of what I said. I'll leave it to the other guy to thank you for his bit you included. "SOME" for taxation and exchange rates on software is no way two point three times the original and no, we don't pay just 'cos we want to. In fact, in case you haven't heard the news, Adobe is supposed to be worried about something called piracy which means there are some people who don't even pay the price at all. Once again I ask; duh, Why is dat?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Thanks for quoting some of what I said. I'll leave it to the other guy to thank you for his bit you included. "SOME" for taxation and exchange rates on software is no way two point three times the original and no, we don't pay just 'cos we want to. In fact, in case you haven't heard the news, Adobe is supposed to be worried about something called piracy which means there are some people who don't even pay the price at all. Once again I ask; duh, Why is dat?
End quote.
Fine then. I'll post ALL of what you said even though I may not address ALL of what you said. Seems silly to me, but you appear to want it that way. There it is.
I asked a simple question: how much does taxation affect the price. I asked because I do not know. Why chastise me when I admit I'm ignorant of a subject and ask for information? Why the confrontational attitude to my question?
I'll make my point very simply again, because it appears to be lost on you. You DO pay it because you want to. Plain and simple. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you buy Photoshop. Do not confuse WANTING to pay for something with LIKING what you are paying. I never said you liked the price, I said you were willing to pay it. The fact you don't have a pirated copy affirms that. If I am wrong about the gun to the head, please pick up the phone and call the police department.
As per why some people pirate software, the answer is very simple: fundamentally they don't mind breaking the law. Its shoplifting, its stealing, its illegal. If I don't like the price of a Ralph Lauren shirt I am not justified in stealing it, am I? I either buy the shirt or I buy something else. Ditto with the young Napster crowd who feel the "high" price of music "justifies" stealing it. People steal software primarily because it is easier than stealing shirts. It is a law that is easy to break with low chances of getting caught.
Digital photographs are easy to steal, too.
Photoshop is NOT the only software available to edit photos with. Maybe it is the best, maybe it does what you need better than anything else available, I don't know. If its not, the don't worry about the cost of Photoshop and buy something else. If it is, then it obviously has value to you worth spending the money.
You are in charge of the money leaving your pocket. Don't blame Adobe.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
You DO pay it because you want to. Plain and simple. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you buy Photoshop. Do not confuse WANTING to pay for something with LIKING what you are paying. I never said you liked the price, I said you were willing to pay it. The fact you don't have a pirated copy affirms that. If I am wrong about the gun to the head, please pick up the phone and call the police department.
Don't blame Adobe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well Sir, ALL of my initial post spelt it out pretty clearly for most. What is written on these pages and how it is written is that it's for all to see and thus is in no way privvy to just the person sitting in front of one computer screen. Sorry if this was taken directly.
I WANT to pay for good software, it's my way of thanking the people who spent their brains on it, it's only fair. I don't LIKE paying more than double the price for the same thing than the next man, that's not fair. Yes, you are wrong about the gun to the head and I've picked up my mouse and tried umpteen times to contact the Adobe department about it. They are in no way interested in solving this problem the easy way despite their rantings about piracy. Consequently my only option left is to rant and rave on forums like these and keep you away from your tea. Sorry again.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
> I WANT to pay for good software, it's my way of thanking the people who
> spent their brains on it, it's only fair. I don't LIKE paying more than
> double the price for the same thing than the next man, that's not fair.
I can understand that, fully. However, ask yourself what the photographer customers say to the photographer. "You charged magazine ABC only $Y for that same photo six months ago". To which the standard reply goes something like "but you are using it for a cover shot, or in a larger circulation publication, or...". You get the idea. It is not uncommon, at all, for the same photo to be charged radically different rates to different customers. It is done partly because it can be justified (at least to the photographer), but ultimately solely because someone was willing to pay a different price than someone else for the same thing.
In other words, lots of products in this world are sold at different prices to different customers. Look at how cars are sold as just one example. I bought a Mazda Tribute three years ago. It is extremely likely that an otherwise identical car was sold by that same dealer in that same week, maybe even by the same salesperson, for a price much different than what I paid. Is that fair? Should cars be sold differently?
> Yes, you are wrong about the gun to the head
As I said, call the police then. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And no, I'm not wrong about the gun to the head thing either.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
>It is not uncommon, at all, for the same photo to be charged radically different rates to different customers. It is done partly because it can be justified (at least to the photographer), but ultimately solely because someone was willing to pay a different price than someone else for the same thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now now, Bill; don't be puttin' more ideas into Adobe's head, d'ye hear?
Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
