Yep, that downloading over the extra distance sure must cost around $170 USD, I mean it is a long way for 97MB to travel, and to think of the weight...
All I know is that I avoid Lightroom 'cause I lose EXIF data when I edit my shots and save as .jpg. Mickeysoft Orifice's Pitcher Mangler is good enough for non-critical tasks -- and it leaves the damned EXIF data in place.
I wonder whether Adobe fixed the problem. But I'm not counting on it.
All I know is that I avoid Lightroom 'cause I lose EXIF data when I edit my shots and save as .jpg. Mickeysoft Orifice's Pitcher Mangler is good enough for non-critical tasks -- and it leaves the damned EXIF data in place.
Well, when exporting from Lightroom you should untick "Minimize embedded metadata" checkbox
Yep, that downloading over the extra distance sure must cost around $170 USD, I mean it is a long way for 97MB to travel, and to think of the weight...
And paying an extra $200 to get a box and a CD?
And it is more than €300 in Europe, what makes it $485. No wonder that here (Lithuania) almost everyone has illegal copies of Adobe products... Price it right and people are going to buy it. Price it wrong and people will steal it. Simple.
Well, they just lost me as a bona fide Adobe customer.! Grrrr! I purchased a copy of Lightroom 5 weeks and 2 days ago, and registered it. I had already purchased a previous copy for my Windows machine, and this second copy was for a Macbook Pro. I believed I was doing the right thing.
Now, I've just called Adobe (the Malysian call centre, of course!) and was told that I do NOT qualify for a free upgrade to version 2 - the grace period is only 1 month! That stinks. And there I was assuming that doing the right thing by Adobe was going to be acknowledged. Hah! Bah!
So - they've lost an honest, paying customer, as I now will be looking on the Bit Torrent sites to see what I can find. I refuse, point blank, to pay the outrageous inflated Australian prices any more, especially with our dollar being almost at parity with the US dollar (about 96 cents as I write this).
If Adobe treat their customers this way, then I have absolutely no compunction in spreading the cost of my software over a couple of bought copies and other "non-bought" copies. No matter how good LR2 may be, it's not worth forking out again to buy it only 5 weeks and 2 days after buying version 1.4
On the one hand, software development costs money.
On the other hand, software prices cost customers.
Terrible upgrade policy. But I knew this about Adobe already. Upgraded versions of their products often have only a few new features but cost the moon. Compare Photoshop CS3 to something several versions older, say version 7. How much has really changed? How much have people paid in incremental upgrade fees?
__________________
All images (c) 2008 Robin Parmar. Visit my Flickr images, website, or blog.
Pete, that sucks, that is truly gouging of the highest order.
I was a fan of LR2 until the release, and the price difference became obvious. I'll switch to Aperture for the the price and .edu discount alone.
With the price difference here, there will be a few box copies for sale new in the marketplace soon I'd think.
Originally Posted by Derridale
Well, they just lost me as a bona fide Adobe customer.! Grrrr! I purchased a copy of Lightroom 5 weeks and 2 days ago, and registered it. I had already purchased a previous copy for my Windows machine, and this second copy was for a Macbook Pro. I believed I was doing the right thing.
Now, I've just called Adobe (the Malysian call centre, of course!) and was told that I do NOT qualify for a free upgrade to version 2 - the grace period is only 1 month! That stinks. And there I was assuming that doing the right thing by Adobe was going to be acknowledged. Hah! Bah!
So - they've lost an honest, paying customer, as I now will be looking on the Bit Torrent sites to see what I can find. I refuse, point blank, to pay the outrageous inflated Australian prices any more, especially with our dollar being almost at parity with the US dollar (about 96 cents as I write this).
If Adobe treat their customers this way, then I have absolutely no compunction in spreading the cost of my software over a couple of bought copies and other "non-bought" copies. No matter how good LR2 may be, it's not worth forking out again to buy it only 5 weeks and 2 days after buying version 1.4
Yep, that downloading over the extra distance sure must cost around $170 USD, I mean it is a long way for 97MB to travel, and to think of the weight...
The bizzare thing is that since NZ doesn't have an Adobe store, they offer it via the international one for $389 USD, so converted, with GST that would be about $600 NZD.
Originally Posted by Maxington
They can charge what they can, and people will just pirate when they can. Pretty simple.
Originally Posted by Edvinas
Price it wrong and people will steal it. Simple.
Originally Posted by Derridale
So - they've lost an honest, paying customer, as I now will be looking on the Bit Torrent sites to see what I can find.
This is the sad thing, you all somehow think you're "sticking it to the man" by pirating it, you aren't. You know what every person using a pirated copy of lightroom isn't doing? They probably aren't using a competitor's product...
So you aren't really screwing Adobe at all. Go check out the competitor's products instead!
On the one hand, software development costs money.
Definitely it does.
On the other hand, when development is over, cost of making another copy of the software is close to 0. So, basically they spend money on the development and then they sell as many copies as they can for as much as people are paying to get that development money back.
It is much better to sell 10000 copies for €30 each than 100 copies for €300
Software pricing should be adjusted to match people buying power and analysis of how much people are willing to spend on that software should be made. Adobe definitely didn't do that in case with Eastern Europe. For example LR2 costs here half of average monthly salary Would you, Americans, buy LR2 if it would cost you $1750?
Definitely it does.
On the other hand, when development is over, cost of making another copy of the software is close to 0. So, basically they spend money on the development and then they sell as many copies as they can for as much as people are paying to get that development money back.
It is much better to sell 10000 copies for €30 each than 100 copies for €300
Software pricing should be adjusted to match people buying power and analysis of how much people are willing to spend on that software should be made. Adobe definitely didn't do that in case with Eastern Europe. For example LR2 costs here half of average monthly salary Would you, Americans, buy LR2 if it would cost you $1750?
That's precisely what targets Adobe, Windows and all the software makers when pricing. The flaw in your reasoning is "10000 copies for €30 each than 100 copies for €300", indeed, it would be more like 200 copies at 30€ vs 100 copies at 300€.
Don't forget that the core market for Adobe is enterprise and professionals with much higher buying power, and a large majority not wanting to use hacked versions. (no support and threat for the assets of the enterprise)
This is precisely why Photoshop is priced at 1500€ vs 80€ for Elements in France, this is mass market strategy vs enterprise. Even if Elements is much simpler, people using it would be able to use Photoshop as well for most, instead Adobe chose to develop a second soft to enter the mass market without cutting revenue from the Enterprise.
The real thing that makes me sick is that 1$ = 1€ for Adobe (as with most software maker), even the 20% VAT doesn't explain the difference, and marketing wise, it's like calling a******les European customers.
Some Asian companies like Asus have changed making currency rates more realistic, but apparently American companies are still considering "Rest of the world" as a deep pocket.