[magkelly]

The markup on the product is quite high. I got that straight from the source. A friend works for Adobe, has for years. As many copies as they sell they could be selling it for substantially less and they'd still make a hefty profit. He admitted to me once that even with all the overhead and development costs they still marked it up a lot more than they had to.

Fact is they can. It's just smart business. Profit is king, you know? There are other image editors out there and some of them are good ones but they are the industry standard in graphics and even a lot of non-pros use it in a majority sense. They have a bit of a monopoly thing going and they do take advantage of that. Photoshop is one of the best selling software programs in history. I don't begrudge them their success but I do wince a bit when I look at the price tag and think about upgrading sometimes. I don't upgrade every time now. Photoshop has gotten so feature rich I don't have to, but I do whenever they add something really major that might be helpful to me I think about it and eventually I do it.

I must admit it really helps knowing someone in the office there though. When I was out there I did several beta testing days, got a free upgrade out of it, a couple of times. That was way cool. They're nice people the Adobe gang. I always wanted to work there but I'm not that much of a tech head that I can get into coding and open permanent office jobs there are few and far between. Not too many people who go to work for them leave unfortunately...

[cardinal43]

The main thing that gets me about Adobe is how much they charge for the software. $300 for lightroom three but if I have a student ID I can get it for $90.

I'm sorry but if they can sell it to students for $90 they can sell it to me as a consumer for $100. This is what is called price gouging.

Adobe is just like the motor fuel companys, Just because we need the software doesn't mean they need to tear out our wallets and part of our butts.

I'm glad they have the student discount as my wife just got a copy. She is a Career Center Coordinator at a local HS. She had to provide proof (ID card or pay statement) of being employed by the school.

[normhead]

Steve's biggest problem with Flash was he didn't invent or own it.

He didn't own or invent html5 either. Sooooo, what was your point again? Funny how some folks, if they are saying something nasty about Steve Jobs or Apple, feel they don't even have to make sense to have their point accepted. They can just lash out and spew.. and that's ok. Steve did explain his logic. Now if you wanted to say flash isn't a full of holes , memory hog that was causing 90% of the crash reports on Apple equipment (yes folks, he knows because every time my machine crashes a report is sent to Apple, twice a year or whatever that is). I can see you making that argument. Saying Steve Jobs didn't like anything he didn't invent or didn't control...that is probably a bit harsh. I'm sure the man had a car and a toothbrush. And he may have even liked them. It's preposterous to claim he didn't because of the spurious reason stated above.

[bigdavephoto]

OK, I would LOVE to hear how you arrive at your estimate of $40-50 a copy. Please do share. As for Adobe "faking" documents, there's a Politics and Religion subforum where the rest of the conspiracy nutjobs hang out, you can probably get a fine discussion going there.

If it was so easy raking in big bucks "tweaking older software" I am sure some other company would come up with their own Lightroom clone and sell if for $150 or so, making a fortune in the process. Where are those guys?

I do beleave you owe me an apology good sir, if you are indeed calling me a, and I quote, "a conspiracy nutjob."

As for how I came up with the cost of production for a copy of Lightroom three. That's simple. Basic manufacturing rules.

Rule #1. Hire temp workers so you only pay them a little over minimum wage.

Rule #1.5. When production demands more workers on the production lines, do not hire new people, instead, put all production jobs on over time because it is cheaper to work people overtime then to hire new people.

Rule #1.75. when rule #1.5 doesn't work, move producton to a country that has a $0.10 minimum wage and no child labor laws.

Rule #2. Buy all supplys in bulk. example, "Projected sales next month of all software is 200,000 hard copys world wide, so lets buy 3,000,000 blank DVD's at $0.0002 each."

Rule #3. All wages, R&D, and production cost are spread over ALL items being manufactured.

Rule # 4. Get Local, State and Federal goverments to give tax abatments on all infrastructure and equipment bought so the cost of manufacturing is cheaper.

Rule #4.5. If rule #4 does not work, see rule #1.75.

Do you really think that when Toyota builds a new Camery, they spend $0.20 on every bolt in that car? No they don't. I worked for a company that supplied bolts to Toyota. When we would ship a container of bolts to Toyota, that container would cost about $20.00. Now, when you take into account that the avarerge amount of bolts in a container is 2,000 to 3,000, that would make the cost per bolt $0.01 to $0.006.

As for making a clone of lightroom, give it time.

When it comes to photo editing, I have 4 different editors. Yes, I admit, two of them are Adobie products, and I will not upgrade to better versons because of the cost involved.

[bigdavephoto]

Not that I like paying a small fortune for my image editor and upgrades, but to be fair the student versions of Adobe products do have their limitations. First off you can't upgrade them to a regular version when you're ready to. Secondly they're not full capacity applications. They're meant to be learner applications so that people who will be working in the industry can get a shot at being able to use them, but they're usually not quite as full featured as the retail versions. Honestly though? Most students I knew in design school never even bothered with those versions. They just went bootleg until they could afford the real thing. (I'm not promoting it, but it's a fact that Photoshop is one of the most widely pirated applications in the world, shrug.) Technically you're supposed to buy a legit pro version when you start working in the field. Working professionally with a student version of the application is considered a no-no in graphics. Student editions are supposed to be reserved for people in school. They also have a bulk discount for teachers, schools, et all, but once you leave school and go out on your own Adobe frowns on using a student version. It's kind of lame using it anyway. The real deal is much better.

From what I understand, The student verson of Lightroom 3 is the full verson. Maybe the other software isn't but I never looked into the student verson of anything else.

Just so people understand where I am coming from, I'm not knocking students because they can get this software cheaper then the end consumer, I'm just hate companys that rip off the end consumer because they beleave that they can.

[magkelly]

It might be full, some of the student applications are now, but I'll bet that if you tried to call and order an upgrade for it at the Adobe store you'd be out of luck. Usually they'll tell you that student editions are not upgradable. It sucks but I get their point. You go pro and are finally outside of school you're supposed to be able to pay full price for them.

[pingflood]

It might be full, some of the student applications are now, but I'll bet that if you tried to call and order an upgrade for it at the Adobe store you'd be out of luck. Usually they'll tell you that student editions are not upgradable. It sucks but I get their point. You go pro and are finally outside of school you're supposed to be able to pay full price for them.

Not the case for me, I bought the student version of Lightroom 1 ($99 at the time) and had no issues upgrading to 2 and 3 using regular retail upgrades.

photogdave: I agree with what you are saying in regards to traditional manufacturing (I've integrated systems and developed code for commercial refrigeration plants, ceramic-coated steel manufacturers, cable box ODMs and some other fun stuff), but when it comes to software there is virtually no real cost of "production" but rather R&D and testing. Again, if Adobe could sell the software for a fraction of what they charge and still make a decent profit they would have some amazing quarterlies but they do not. For instance Photoshop has been around for 21 years and if somebody could put together a strong competitor at e.g. a quarter of the price that was equally viable in the market it would have happened by now.

On the flash thing, by the way: I think Apple dissed it because flash is a horribly inefficient resource hog and they likely realized they could not get it to run smoothly on iOS devices. Steve would never knowingly let something out that could diminish the user experience, so choppy vids and flash apps was never an option. Say what you will about the guy, but he was extremely particular about how he wanted Apple products to be experienced,

---

Last edited by pingflood; 12-15-2011 at 01:17 AM.

[magkelly]

Really? I'm surprised. They didn't used to let people with student editions do that. I've known several people who tried to upgrade Photoshop and it was a definite no go. I'm going to have to go ask in the Adobe forum about it. Be nice if you could do it.

[normhead]

My Adobe story...

My school board decided to go with Macs for it's year book and photography course in 94. I had to learn photoshop and the publishing program of the day... We didn't have computers in the school before then, I had nothing to learn on, so I went out and dropped 6 grand on a system, part of which was photoshop , at a cost of $800. A day after the purchase, one of the VPs mentioned to me that there were educational versions for cheaper, I went back and tried to exchange the full version for the educational version that evening. The ed version was $300. Well they claimed, since I had opened my package they couldn't do it. Adobe to this day owes me $500. And I am taking my pound of flesh by never buying any Adobe software, but stealing what I want. Of course my school board got an educational license that covered me so I didn't have to steal from them for years, but I will feel absolutely no guilt when I pirate my next. The Interest on my $500 since 94 will more than cover any fininancial interest Adobe has in their product.

Another Adobe product "Contribute", I bought at full price, but, Adobe had a lock on it that I had to phone and activate, to prevent piracy. I was working didn't mind paying for it , since technically, it wasn't Photoshop. two and a half years later I bought a new computer and tried to install my paid in full version of "Contribute" on my new machine. Adobe claimed they couldn't do it. They only supported that version for two years, after that you could only run it on the machine you bought it for.

I will not deal with this company directly, for any reason, only successful because of the quality of thier product and the fact that they have no real competition. Of course they are successful, they have $700 of my money they shouldn't have, even by their own warped rules. If they get the same from everyone else, and many suckers just pay up, of course they make billions. But, at this time, I don't need any Adobe product. And I will risk viruses going to warez sites if I do need anything from Adobe. Cause they are greedy , dollar sucking bastards. There's no other way to put it. Legally they owe me nothing, ethically, they owe me a couple of thousand dollars.

People who think MacIntoshes are overpriced hvae no business coming on here defending Adobe. At least Apple gives you overpriced reliable hardware, that you can use years later if you so choose. With Adobe, 10 years later I have zip. Or as Steve Jobs points out, it's a bunch of suits who sit around figuring out new ways to rip you off.

[bigdavephoto]

Not the case for me, I bought the student version of Lightroom 1 ($99 at the time) and had no issues upgrading to 2 and 3 using regular retail upgrades.

photogdave: I agree with what you are saying in regards to traditional manufacturing (I've integrated systems and developed code for commercial refrigeration plants, ceramic-coated steel manufacturers, cable box ODMs and some other fun stuff), but when it comes to software there is virtually no real cost of "production" but rather R&D and testing. Again, if Adobe could sell the software for a fraction of what they charge and still make a decent profit they would have some amazing quarterlies but they do not. For instance Photoshop has been around for 21 years and if somebody could put together a strong competitor at e.g. a quarter of the price that was equally viable in the market it would have happened by now.

On the flash thing, by the way: I think Apple dissed it because flash is a horribly inefficient resource hog and they likely realized they could not get it to run smoothly on iOS devices. Steve would never knowingly let something out that could diminish the user experience, so choppy vids and flash apps was never an option. Say what you will about the guy, but he was extremely particular about how he wanted Apple products to be experienced,

I think they could sell it for less then what they do. Recently, I have seen brick and morter stores selling Lightroom 3 for $150 to $170 for a hard copy. A store is just like Adobe, they are trying to make a profit, but how can they make a profit if they are selling Lightroom 3 at half price? The only way I see is that Adobe allowed the store to cut the profit margin for a short time so that instead of making 50% they are making 10%.

Now if it was a download only program, I agree, no production cost, but the problem to the consumer still is there.

I understand photography is a small nitch and photo editing even more so but, to me, that does not justify pricing items so that the normal consumer can not buy it. (actually I can say the same thing about a lot of items including photographic bodies and lenses.)

[normhead]

OH, one more example.. I bought a copy of Pagemill (early web editing software.), it was defective.. the store didn't have another copy, so I phoned Adobe directly... they hummed and hawed and couldn't seem to come up with a solution. I went on line, downloaded a copy from usenet, put in my legal password. It was another three days before Adobe managed to send me a file. I told them thanks but I already have it. They wanted to know where I got it, and I basically said screw you, if you'd done what you were supposed to do, what I paid you for when I bought your product, I wouldn't have needed to search the internet for warez, and now you want me to rat out the guys who actually helped me? Too funny.

Every time I deal with this company, it's a night mare.

[pingflood]

I think they could sell it for less then what they do. Recently, I have seen brick and morter stores selling Lightroom 3 for $150 to $170 for a hard copy. A store is just like Adobe, they are trying to make a profit, but how can they make a profit if they are selling Lightroom 3 at half price? The only way I see is that Adobe allowed the store to cut the profit margin for a short time so that instead of making 50% they are making 10%.

Nah, the stores aren't making any 50% on the full price sales. I currently run the business systems for a large online retailer and we sometimes get promotions from dealers/manufacturers that let us heavily discount things without losing money on them. E.g. we might normally buy product X for 280 and sell it for 300, but either get a partial credit on our current stock (lowering our cost to say 140), or get a credit on every copy sold for a given period.

[JenniferLeigh]

Not that I like paying a small fortune for my image editor and upgrades, but to be fair the student versions of Adobe products do have their limitations. First off you can't upgrade them to a regular version when you're ready to. Secondly they're not full capacity applications.

This must be new? I had a educational version of CS2 which had no limitations and I was able to upgrade to a regular license.

I love Adobe software, I use most of the Creative Suite programs every day - but honestly their new upgrade policy really irks me. Generally I upgrade every 2-3 versions, not every version is worth the money to upgrade. Which at the current time is $650 to upgrade from Design Premium CS4 to CS5.5, versions older than CS3 are $950 and full is $1900.

As for Flash, it still has it's place however for majority of web applications it's dead.

[bigdavephoto]

Nah, the stores aren't making any 50% on the full price sales. I currently run the business systems for a large online retailer and we sometimes get promotions from dealers/manufacturers that let us heavily discount things without losing money on them. E.g. we might normally buy product X for 280 and sell it for 300, but either get a partial credit on our current stock (lowering our cost to say 140), or get a credit on every copy sold for a given period.

I was talking mainly about Adobe on the 50% part. I know the profit margen at retail stores are a lot less and in some cases almost zero.

[lithos]

Steve's biggest problem with Flash was he didn't invent or own it.

This. Times a million. And Apple still insists on using Quicktime on their site.