Photoshop should charge less?
InsuredDisaster
Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
I'm just wondering what all of you think of my thoughts.
I know that there are lots of people who don't make a dime from their photography, yet they want to have the best software. Photoshop, or others. Some of the plugins for example are pretty costly, but they do make pretty cool effects.
Now, I know that at one time photoshop was like one of the top 5 pirated programs in the world. So obviously, people weren't paying for it, and Adobe was losing a ton of potential money. But for some people, $600 is rediculous, or unaffordable if they are not getting any money back from it. So, its easy to just steal it. Granted, anti piracy locks are probably making it harder to steal PS, but maybe not.
With music, I think its too expensive at $1 per song, so I don't buy it. Don't steal it, but I don't buy it either. So even if I did steal it, it wouldn't affect the music industry's profits, because I'm not paying $1 for a song that I can hear legally and for free other ways. Now, I would pay 25 cents a song.
Anyway, I always wondered, what if Adobe had a "non commercial" license. Say, $100 for photoshop, but the deal is, no selling of your pictures. If you want to sell, Adobe requests that you pay the remainder of the cost.
I know people who agree with me, and say that they (this was some time ago when I knew these people) would rather pay $100 than use a pirated program.
Same for some of these plugins. There are some that I want, but just to play with more than anything else. I wrote to one company with my idea, but they never wrote back.
Sure one could buy Elements for $99, but who wants elements when PS is so much more powerful?
Of course, I can see why Adobe and others don't do this. If every Joe Blow buys CS4 and all the plugins that the pro's use, then the pros would face increased competition, and decrease interest, if Nacy Schmancy can just create the Dave Hill effect or whatever the latest hot plugin does on her own. So perhaps Adobe, and the photo unions would like to keep the best stuff out of the hands of non pros, or at least, keep a price high enough that short of stealing it, buying into it is only doable for the pros or amatuers with deep pockets. I've heard rumors, (maybe true) that nikon keeps the prices of the D3 and D3X artificially high just for that reason.
So what do you think?
If you don't sell photos, and don't own PS, at what price would you buy it? Any plugins that you want to play with but don't want to spend the big bucks?
If you do sell photos, do you think the non sellers would flood the world with high quality photos using PS and plugins, thus causing you to lose business? Do you fear a lower price?
For those who may have recently started selling your photos, if you had purchased PS for say, $100, would you pay the other $500 immediately after selling your first photo?
I know that there are lots of people who don't make a dime from their photography, yet they want to have the best software. Photoshop, or others. Some of the plugins for example are pretty costly, but they do make pretty cool effects.
Now, I know that at one time photoshop was like one of the top 5 pirated programs in the world. So obviously, people weren't paying for it, and Adobe was losing a ton of potential money. But for some people, $600 is rediculous, or unaffordable if they are not getting any money back from it. So, its easy to just steal it. Granted, anti piracy locks are probably making it harder to steal PS, but maybe not.
With music, I think its too expensive at $1 per song, so I don't buy it. Don't steal it, but I don't buy it either. So even if I did steal it, it wouldn't affect the music industry's profits, because I'm not paying $1 for a song that I can hear legally and for free other ways. Now, I would pay 25 cents a song.
Anyway, I always wondered, what if Adobe had a "non commercial" license. Say, $100 for photoshop, but the deal is, no selling of your pictures. If you want to sell, Adobe requests that you pay the remainder of the cost.
I know people who agree with me, and say that they (this was some time ago when I knew these people) would rather pay $100 than use a pirated program.
Same for some of these plugins. There are some that I want, but just to play with more than anything else. I wrote to one company with my idea, but they never wrote back.
Sure one could buy Elements for $99, but who wants elements when PS is so much more powerful?
Of course, I can see why Adobe and others don't do this. If every Joe Blow buys CS4 and all the plugins that the pro's use, then the pros would face increased competition, and decrease interest, if Nacy Schmancy can just create the Dave Hill effect or whatever the latest hot plugin does on her own. So perhaps Adobe, and the photo unions would like to keep the best stuff out of the hands of non pros, or at least, keep a price high enough that short of stealing it, buying into it is only doable for the pros or amatuers with deep pockets. I've heard rumors, (maybe true) that nikon keeps the prices of the D3 and D3X artificially high just for that reason.
So what do you think?
If you don't sell photos, and don't own PS, at what price would you buy it? Any plugins that you want to play with but don't want to spend the big bucks?
If you do sell photos, do you think the non sellers would flood the world with high quality photos using PS and plugins, thus causing you to lose business? Do you fear a lower price?
For those who may have recently started selling your photos, if you had purchased PS for say, $100, would you pay the other $500 immediately after selling your first photo?
0
Comments
I'd love to get PS for cheap, only way I'm getting it given my budget. But the price will only go so high as the market can support. They want $699, then $699 it is. As such I'll wait a little longer, maybe tax time will do.
They do offer a student rate, $299 I think it is for CS4, so they're doing that already.
It's like anything else, they're going to charge whatever the market will bear balanced off the competition.
I see your point, about what would happen if someone only paid me a portion of my wages.
However, I'm just saying, PS is pirated a huge amount, some of these "pirates" would buy it if adobe offered a low cost, non-commercial license.
If you found out that thousands of people were basically using your back yard for BBQ's when you weren't around, and there wasn't anything you could really do to stop it, and you also heard that some of these people wanted to pay you $10 to be able to use your back yard, would you say, No, just stop using it (even though the people will come anyway) or will you say, OK, you can pay me $10, and be legal, but you can't charge your friends money when you invite them here.
??
And yeah, I guess its sorta based on the honor system, but if people are already stealing your product, whats to say they won't just start selling photos anyway. Just musings of mine.
A large part of the reason that it's so much is because of piracy. I read in a trade journal years ago that software would cost about half if they could stop piracy.
How does that work?
If it becomes more expensive and lucrative as it is now, it would push it beyond most artist's financial grasp.
www.tednghiem.com
So, let's see...you're saying that large, publicly traded corporations seek only a certain level of profit and will gladly pass anything beyond that back to their customers through lower prices rather than increase their profits? Color me skeptical. Marketing driven organizations seek to maximize profit and structure their prices accordingly. Keep in mind that a significant portion of the pirates would not buy the software at any price...these are not lost sales and simply don't count in any supply/demand calculation.
This type of thinking seems to becoming more prevalent in todays world. You want something but can't afford it or don't want to pay the price asked by the seller so you rationalize stealing it or threatening to steal it if they don't offer it at a price YOU think it shod be.
A thief is a thief is a thief. Thief's have no morels, honor or ethics, why would anyone think a thief would pay for something after getting it for free after stealing?
You do know that part of the cost you pay for retail items is to cover shoplifting.
I can see you have never owned a business or been responsible for meeting a payroll. The company you work for does not magically have money pop into their bank account. They must charge their customers more then they pay for the services and products they sell. Please take a basic business course and then come back.
Just as a very general statement, (don't try and get specific here with this product or that) if you were manufacturing widgets, and your direct costs to manufacture these was a $1.00 each you would need to sell these at somewhere between $2.00 and $3.00 each to make a real proffit and keep yoy head above water.
Oh, and I would be interested in finding these nefarious photographers unions.
Sam
If you feel you must have the full capability of CS4, then you should pay the price for the software you need.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
My website | NANPA Member
And I think in today's generation, a lot of people see soft goods like software in a different light than hard, tangible goods like lenses and bodies. So asking someone if they would steal a camera lens vs a song or software I think is a pretty silly question today.
I've read in newspapers where groups claim that when the music or video industry gets up on their pulpit and starts shedding tears about how many people have gone hungry and died of starvation due to piracy, they are inflating the claimed losses dramatically; most of the pirated songs and videos are downloaded by people who don't buy anyway, so the industry is not actually losing sales. And there is absolutely no direct monetary loses if Joe Blow downloads a song. Sure, hate me for saying this, but unlike a camera (the materials, R&D, shipping costs, man power, a finite amount, etc) a music song has no immediate, direct monetary value. Its infinite, so one person who would never buy a song giving the song to another person who won't buy anyway, doesn't deprive someone who does want to buy the opportunity to buy. Whereas, if I go in and steal a camera, the store loses that direct cost (say, $1,500 which comes out of their pocket) as well as deprives someone else from filling the store's pocket with $300 of profit (say if the camera retails for $1,800). If someone is sharing a song or software, it doesn't empty the pockets of the industry. It might not fill the pockets, but it doesn't empty them. Knowing my habits (I don't buy, nor do I steal, and I would only buy if songs were much cheaper) I an inclined to believe these claims. And I'm pretty sure there are others out there who are like me.
And to remark on the comment where piracy causes increased prices, well, perhaps, but maybe increased prices causes piracy.
Now, I'm not saying I condone illegal downloading, file sharing, or any of that. I don't do it and agree that if you do want something, then save up and buy it. My whole point is, I see a potential for profit to get everyone on board with a tiered pricing scheme.
If you are a student, you already get a steep education discount. If you take a cheap class at a school that has enough accreditation to hand out an eligible student ID (i.e. community college), you can get that discount.
That's three price options already.
Yes, that's fairly common with shareware. A big company probably would turn that down because you're asking them to increase administrative and legal complexity in the license agreement while at the same time receive a lot less money in return.
How much does each of your lenses and bodies cost? Are you asking Photoshop to take a loss because they're the only tool in the bag that isn't physical, even though it's just as important as all the rest? I'm not sure that's fair. Photoshop is full of features that have been carefully engineered for professional requirements. That level of detail went into those features even if a non-pro opens the app to use only uses a few other features. I can't walk into a serious auto racing shop and ask for an 80% discount on some expensive engine part just because I want to have it in my family car. Those parts are engineered for pros.
I'm not saying I don't want a cheaper Photoshop. I'd love that. All I'm saying is the cost does not seem out of line compared to the gear it is used with and its value in the workflow.
And actually it just occurred to me that there is a fourth low-price option, $299 for Lightroom. That does 90% of what one needs for 50% of the price of Photoshop. If you're still asking for every last Photoshop feature, then it sounds like Photoshop does have at least the same usefulness to you as a good lens and should be priced that way. Mid-range lenses are around $600...
These programs are actually very good for most of the edits you would need to make. I would encourage any of you frustrated with cost to take a look and see if they meet your needs.
http://www.gimp.org/
facebook
photoblog
Quarks are one of the two basic constituents of matter in the Standard Model of particle physics.
Not hating on you!
Software development is just as expensive, and time consuming as hardware to develop. The fact that it is software does not make it cheap. If you are a photographer you should consider it as another tool in the process, and budget for it. And compared to other graphic software the prices are not expensive.
I work with 3d studio max, xsi and other 3d programs that cost well over $1000. and you have to upgrade yearly.
If you want to save money buy one of the adobe collections. You will get several great programs.
My website | NANPA Member
Excellent points and examples.
I promise you for every copy of an Adobe product that is pirated, every other company lost one too. Thus the prices go up across the board. They all account for it.
Are they going to pass savings on to you? Nope, they'd get $1mil a copy if they could. But that's the great thing about competition, keeps each other in check.
Now on to understanding intellectual property a little bit.
Adobe creates a variety of software products. The bulk of the value for these products is intangible or intellectual property. The actual tangible portion, the box, instructions, disks are a very Small part of the sale price.
You are (for the sake of this discussion) a photographer. The primary value of a photograph is intangible not directly related to the paper and ink used to print it.
Now you as a photographer have spent a paltry $10,000.00 on camera gear, and an inadequate $5,000.00 on computer and software, plus years learning and practice. Now it turns out you actually have some talent for it and are creating unique images people have an interest in buying.
You just spent two weeks, and a lot of money on a trip to Death Valley getting up before dawn, and going to bed after dark. You have culled through thousands of images to find a few really great images to print.
Now your clients are telling you that your charging too much. After all Costo only charges $2.00 for a print, and if you charges less they would buy one. Oh and what about a download? You don't have any cost for that!
What if a dozen or so approach you and say you need to sell your prints for what they are willing to pay or they will buy one print, scan it and make as many as they want.
What do you do?
Sam
After reading all of your rantings on price and all, I'm gonna guess your age at between 20 and 30 y.o. I'm also gonna guess that you've never been in business. As far as I'm concerned stealing a lens and stealing/file sharing music is also stealing. As someone who is married to someone who does derive monetary value from publishing let me just say there is an immediate value to both the song writer and the music publishing company, so don't talk about something you don't understand.
Kind of ad hominem.
Adobe finally worked that out and, faced with Aperture and other competitors, developed Lightroom (at a more moderate price) - which is already the future for increasing numbers of photographers.
Well Sam, I 100% agree with you. 100%.
I do recognize, as you do, that there is a considerable amount of talent wrapped up in Photoshop, as well as overhead spent designing, marketing and distributing it, (I'd say supporting it, but I found out today, Adobe never spent anything on support for it, so that's out.
And yes, it may look like I'm rationalizing that its ok to steal it. Certainly not though. Like I said, for me, if I think something is too expensive, I don't buy it. And if I really want it, well, I'll save up for it. But I don't download software or music. I'm simply pointing out the train of thought that many "pirates" find rolling through their head when they start downloading the Record Industry's lunch money. Arrgggghhhh me matey!
That being said, my point is, that I'm wondering if Adobe could make more money offering non commercial licenses.
There are student licenses, great, I definately took advantage of student licenses on various software back in U, so I know that those exist.
And yes, there is Elements, but for me, I didn't like it the first time I looked at it, and while it may have improved, I just don't feel like downgrading. Plus I wanted the increased integration between LR and PS, but I digress.
And of course, you can always bring out The Gimp and have a ball with that. I've tried it, but last time I did, I liked the PS UI much better.
So yes, there are lots of options out there for cheaper alternatives and licenses. My earlier "$100" price was tossed out. The actual licensing price would certinaly be a different value, if it was to make sense with all the other upgrade deals.
But as I mentioned, I had used a program in the past that had a non commercial license with one charge (Used to design guages for computer flight sims) but if you wanted to sell your work, you were required to purchase the Commercial version. Seeing this system made me wonder, if Adobe could bring out such a license, they might be able to increase their profits.
And actually, while this does appear to be focused on Adobe, I'm also wanted to bring up other plugins. Some are extremely costly, and I'm only wondering if some of those companies might benefit from the tiered licensing idea.
Of course, someone else brought up that it would be difficult to enforce it with a product so widespread as Adobe, and lesser studios might not be able to enforce the licensing in courts due to the financial hardships anyway.
So Sam, I certainly agree with your points, and I was just throwing out an idea I had based on seeing other "non commercial" licenses for programs out there. And yes, it is rather unlikely to see this idea make a widespread appearance.
This is an interesting moral dilemma. As users, we are all generally agreed and adamant that we want the prices to come down and the locks to come off the music, movies, and software we buy. We don't like being treated like thieves, and we don't like paying a lot of money for something invisible. But as photographers, many of the threads in this very forum are about the opposite: How to lock up our own digital products with watermarks, right-click protection, lo-res online versions, copyright embedded in the image and registered with the government, JavaScript and CSS obfuscation schemes, and passworded galleries to keep people from copying our work for no income. Guess it depends on which side of the transaction you're on...
I think you hit it right on the head.
Until Photoshop has a real competitor for their product, they can charge whatever they want.
I have CS3, which doesn't convert raw shots from either of my cameras.
I'm thinking that lightroom or aperture will be on my computer next, but I'm not sure which one yet.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I do agree with all of the points made about value of intelectual property. And I not trying to advocate stealing, but rather just pointing out the claims that some make that many pirates shouldn't be factored into the profit equation.
Anyway, but let me offer this example.
Suppose you put a photo up on a stock agency. The shot is great, and you agree to the prices and all that set up by the agency.
You see two purchases of your photo on your account. Now, I'm not sure what most of your work would go for on a stock agency, but for the purposes of my example, lets say its $100 for non exclusive rights to the image. And I may not know all that restrictions that go into this, but lets say you happily cash your check, but and on the way home see your photo on two times.
1 is a low budget magazine with photo budget of $1,000 and a circulation of 25,000.
The other is the one and only photo used in X product's $2 million ad campaign, and it this product goes on to earn the company $20 million dollars, not that your photo was 100% the cause of this.
Wouldn't you have liked to get a lot more from the company that clearly made the steal of the century by purchasing your photo so cheaply in comparison to the company that spent 10% of its entire photo budge on your photo?
Just saying, don't knock my idea of having a pricing plan designed to reflect the end use. Yeah, it may not work and may never work out, but I think there is some merit to the idea.
I think it's a very good idea and may well come to pass some day. But it's proving a tough nut to crack, both from a technical and business perspective. Micropayment systems have been discussed for years for distribution of bits--music, news articles, movies, etc., but so far nobody has been able to make it work as a general, non-proprietary service. Apple's iTunes store has been successful in letting customers buy music one track at a time--a big improvement, IMO--but how about paying for music based on how often you listen to it? If the price were right, you could experiment with unfamiliar music with little to lose. Price flexibility based on use of software might turn out to be easier with the advent of cloud computing, but it's too soon to tell how successful that's going to be. Stay tuned, though. The technology is pretty good, and with another order of magnitude increase in normal net connection speed, it will no longer be a roadblock. That's going to happen soon enough, but it remains to be seen when/whether businesses embrace the new possibilities or fight them to the bitter end.
Well said, and correct.
Interesting concept when applied to the music industry. I think this could pros and cons. Consumers might object to what they see as invasion of privacy, where as the industry might really enjoy it as they can track listening habbits down to the letter.
Of course, this might in turn cause problems as less popular bands would e given the boot.
Consumers might appreciate it if they can try the songs for a while. I object to itunes 30 second clip as it seems to be done at random. So sometimes you only get the hear the refrain, or the verses, or the intro or guitar solo. Makes it difficult IMO to discover new music.
I don't have any objection to the idea in principle. As has been said, the real problem is in implementation.
Now, in the above example, from what I have heard about the stock industry, it wouldn't happen that way. The company with the huge budget would probably ask for exclusive rights, because they wouldn't want the critical image of their campaign to be seen in any other possibly unknown context. Too much is at stake. The agency would charge them the exclusive rate, and you would still get significantly more money from them under the current system. But that's just about the specific example and does not disprove your stand. I don't see anything wrong with your idea going into practice, but it's the market and the technology that's somehow going to make it happen. Maybe some changed conditions or competition will move into place that will make Adobe willing to offer Photoshop in just the way you want. So keep talking about it, so that if the time comes, people have that idea in their heads. In the meantime, there are all those other less-than-half-price options for using Photoshop-level technology.
The reason that they do not have competition is because no one is spending the necessary money to research, develop and market a better product.
While bashing a company who has done the above is certainly politically correct these days, it doesn't make it right. If you don't like the price, buy something else. No one is forced to purchase photoshop.
Despite what the TV tells you, making money is how businesses continue to stay in business.
Website