The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!
Image processing is pretty complicated.
Im not saying its easy, and in fact they probably have some really really smart people over there working on new photoshop iterations, but when you look at the improvements when you go from one version to another, I'd be surprised if it took more than one programmer and one graphic designer. They have over a years worth of time between iterations, and they barely add any features, most of which you'll never use. The rest of the program has already been done for them for a decade, and even then, the meat and potatoes of the program can be found in freeware like GIMP and OpenCanvas.
Then look at most modern video games. Teams of a hundred, if not more artists, designers, and programmers, building an interactive world from scratch.
EDIT: to furious: you ask why its the program that everyone loves and uses? Its the best at what it does. Simple as that. I also think Gears of War is the best at what it does as an xbox 360 game but Im not paying 500 dollars for it.
Also, if this adds to my credibility at all (doubtful) I work in the game industry and use photoshop daily.
I have these same complaints with 3d programs that usually cost 3,500...
The GIMP isn't freeware (Open source != freeware), and OpenCanvas isn't free (or open).
Edit: To clarify, GIMP is GPL, and you can't just mix and match it with proprietary; OpenCanvas is a misnomer.
With software, there needs to be a "pay as you use" system.
You acquire a copy, then pay X amount per hour as you use it. That way, casual users have to pay a minimal amount, whereas dedicated users have to pay more (make it cap at a certain amount of course, or at least establish it on a logarithmic curve).
This is one of those ideas, like DRM and activation, which simply encourage users to pirate by making the retail version less usable than the pirated version.
Having to pay more down the road sucks. I wouldn't want to get a popup telling me that I had reached 100 hours of usage and would I please enter my credit card number to unlock the software again.
MKR, there was a free older version of opencanvas. I'd completely forgotten that you have to pay for it now.
The older version was badass because you could network people together and have several people paint on the same canvas at once, which for some reason got removed from the non-free versions.
I would say that whilst Adobe in general don't suffer from downloaders who wouldn't buy Photohop anyway, other companies do. What about that company that makes a piece of image software that sells at $100? They're ignored as the downloaders think "I can't pay $1000 for Photoshop, therefore I'll download it" and don't think of the alternatives.
edit: Furious has it:
If you are a casual user and don't think you'll use all of CS3's features, buy a more basic program.
So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!
Image processing is pretty complicated.
Im not saying its easy, and in fact they probably have some really really smart people over there working on new photoshop iterations, but when you look at the improvements when you go from one version to another, I'd be surprised if it took more than one programmer and one graphic designer. They have over a years worth of time between iterations, and they barely add any features, most of which you'll never use. The rest of the program has already been done for them for a decade, and even then, the meat and potatoes of the program can be found in freeware like GIMP and OpenCanvas.
Then look at most modern video games. Teams of a hundred, if not more artists, designers, and programmers, building an interactive world from scratch.
Honestly, it's like comparing apples and oranges because video games and photoshop are completely different things. Photoshop programmers build the engine that most digital work is with with. Video game programmers use a preexisting engine to make a game. If you aren't interested in photo manipulation, digital painting or making some sort of 2-D non moving picture, then Photoshop is not for you. It also doesn't change the fact that it's an incredible program. Additionally, there's a reason why the upgrade from one version to the next doesn't cost as much as the full program.
Technically speaking, there are actually some major improvements with CS3 and a lot of things in CS2 that you can't do with other programs. Even now, the up and coming changes to GIMP are ones found in CS or CS2. CS3 has superior system of filters/actions to control color/value, recovering lost information in a image file,defining edges and a better program to organize pictures in your computer. Things that use to be huge complicated processes(but nescessary) are now a lot easier with the new features in CS3. It's worth paying the price if you are a passionate amateur or professional.
tldr: Comparing video game programming and photoshop is comparing apples and oranges. Photoshop is an insanely powerful program that does a hell of a lot more than remove red eye. If you are a casual user and don't think you'll use all of CS3's features, buy a more basic program or download a free one.
I'm planning on being a professional illustrator when I get out of school, so I'll put my two cents in here given this is a near and dear topic.
I interpret this issue as much more of a moral one than a legal one. Frankly, I cannot believe that the average casual photoshop pirate can really be considered lost revenue for these companies. I'm talking about people who like to "photoshoop" their friends in compromising situations, participate in "Photoshop Friday" type events or just your average pseudo-artistic dweeb who think's inverting and filtering his mugshot would look neat on his facebook page. It's a toy to most of these people, regardless of what the software is capable of, and so long as their utilization of the software remains casual and amateur, this kind of piracy I think is sort of innocuous as it doesn't really hurt anyone.
There is another group which I will call 'young professionals', basically people who want to do digital illustration, 3D modeling/animation, or graphic design work as a career and have a real need to know how to operate these software suites effectively in order to make them more lucrative hires. Although this group is utilizing the software on a far more professional level than the casual pirates, I still really don't think it's reasonable to expect a young person (often a college student who has enough problems with tuition alone) to pay the exorbitant price of getting a legitimate software license. The fact of the matter is that if these people get hired into production houses that their employer is going to pay for the cost of the software on their workstation anyway. Piracy is almost beneficial to the software developers in this case in that it ensures that the younger generation of users will know how to operate THEIR software when they become professionals.
As a caveat though, the minute a member of that second group ever starts doing freelance commission work and making money using that software, they have a moral obligation to buy themselves a genuine software license.
Having to pay more down the road sucks. I wouldn't want to get a popup telling me that I had reached 100 hours of usage and would I please enter my credit card number to unlock the software again.
This reminds me of the awesome rail against free publicity on Abode's site:
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
I'm planning on being a professional illustrator when I get out of school, so I'll put my two cents in here given this is a near and dear topic.
I interpret this issue as much more of a moral one than a legal one. Frankly, I cannot believe that the average casual photoshop pirate can really be considered lost revenue for these companies. I'm talking about people who like to "photoshoop" their friends in compromising situations, participate in "Photoshop Friday" type events or just your average pseudo-artistic dweeb who think's inverting and filtering his mugshot would look neat on his facebook page. It's a toy to most of these people, regardless of what the software is capable of, and so long as their utilization of the software remains casual and amateur, this kind of piracy I think is sort of innocuous as it doesn't really hurt anyone.
This may not hurt Adobe, but it does hurt any other developer that makes say a lower priced editor as they lose sales because people just pirate Photoshop as some one said a couple posts before.
There is another group which I will call 'young professionals', basically people who want to do digital illustration, 3D modeling/animation, or graphic design work as a career and have a real need to know how to operate these software suites effectively in order to make them more lucrative hires. Although this group is utilizing the software on a far more professional level than the casual pirates, I still really don't think it's reasonable to expect a young person (often a college student who has enough problems with tuition alone) to pay the exorbitant price of getting a legitimate software license. The fact of the matter is that if these people get hired into production houses that their employer is going to pay for the cost of the software on their workstation anyway. Piracy is almost beneficial to the software developers in this case in that it ensures that the younger generation of users will know how to operate THEIR software when they become professionals.
As a college student you have both a student discount and opportunity to use your college's PCs which either makes the use free or way cheaper than it normally would be.
So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!
Image processing is pretty complicated.
Im not saying its easy, and in fact they probably have some really really smart people over there working on new photoshop iterations, but when you look at the improvements when you go from one version to another, I'd be surprised if it took more than one programmer and one graphic designer. They have over a years worth of time between iterations, and they barely add any features, most of which you'll never use. The rest of the program has already been done for them for a decade, and even then, the meat and potatoes of the program can be found in freeware like GIMP and OpenCanvas.
Then look at most modern video games. Teams of a hundred, if not more artists, designers, and programmers, building an interactive world from scratch.
Honestly, it's like comparing apples and oranges because video games and photoshop are completely different things. Photoshop programmers build the engine that most digital work is with with. Video game programmers use a preexisting engine to make a game. If you aren't interested in photo manipulation, digital painting or making some sort of 2-D non moving picture, then Photoshop is not for you. It also doesn't change the fact that it's an incredible program. Additionally, there's a reason why the upgrade from one version to the next doesn't cost as much as the full program.
Technically speaking, there are actually some major improvements with CS3 and a lot of things in CS2 that you can't do with freeware. Even now, the up and coming changes to GIMP are ones found in CS or CS2. CS3 has superior system of filters/actions to control color/value, recovering lost information in a image file,defining edges and a better program to organize pictures in your computer. Things that use to be huge complicated processes(but nescessary) are now a lot easier with the new features in CS3. It's worth paying the price if you are a passionate amateur or professional.
tldr: Comparing video game programming and photoshop is comparing apples and oranges. Photoshop is an insanely powerful program that does a hell of a lot more than remove red eye. If you are a casual user and don't think you'll use all of CS3's features, buy a more basic program or download a free one.
Ok, Im not disputing that its an incredible program. I really like photoshop. It does lots of things very well.
but Im gonna have to dissagree with you when you say that comparing video games and photoshop is like comparing apples and oranges. First off, many studios program their own engines. They did where I worked. Second off, I really dont think thats the point.
The point Im trying to make is that they are not putting in 10x the man hours than your average AAA video games (they're putting a fraction of the hours into actual development, all their time goes into marketing) so they should not be charging 10x the price. What they are creating is a very easily reproducable product just like all software (and video games).
It being an incredible program should not make it incredibly pricy. It should make an incredible amount of people want to buy it.
It is Adobe's product though and if they want to only market their product to bussinesses and fuck over the casual users then thats their choice. I just won't be buying a liscence.
There is another group which I will call 'young professionals', basically people who want to do digital illustration, 3D modeling/animation, or graphic design work as a career and have a real need to know how to operate these software suites effectively in order to make them more lucrative hires. Although this group is utilizing the software on a far more professional level than the casual pirates, I still really don't think it's reasonable to expect a young person (often a college student who has enough problems with tuition alone) to pay the exorbitant price of getting a legitimate software license. The fact of the matter is that if these people get hired into production houses that their employer is going to pay for the cost of the software on their workstation anyway. Piracy is almost beneficial to the software developers in this case in that it ensures that the younger generation of users will know how to operate THEIR software when they become professionals.
As a college student you have both a student discount and opportunity to use your college's PCs which either makes the use free or way cheaper than it normally would be.
If I bought all the software I used at student prices, I'd still be out at least a grand. Their student discounts are still pricey.
I can't count the number of times I've seen a person proudly declare that they're in the middle of downloading hundreds, even thousands of dollars in software on internet forums and chatrooms. It usually comes up in the most casual of manners:
Person A: Hey, can someone help me find a good image editor?
Person B: Just download Photoshop or something.
What I think is hilarious is that these people TRUST the source that they're getting their WAREZ from. Yeah, let me download this gigantic executable that might happen to be LABELED Photoshop and WOOPS, C:\ baleeted!
How do these idiots know they're not downloading spy-infected garbage?
Answer: They don't. They don't care. Which is why they later become identity theft or hack victims themselves. Crime, meet Punishment.
For the sake of clarification, Adobe and lot of other companies actually allow trial downloads of complete functioning software suites from their own websites which are easily defeated at no risk to the pirate.
As a college student you have both a student discount and opportunity to use your college's PCs which either makes the use free or way cheaper than it normally would be.
How about a self-taught proffessional? Computer labs are fine for course work, but having to go to a lab ANY time you want to work on anything is a pretty shitty proposition.
So much more work goes into developing a video game then it goes into developing a pretty simple program like photoshop. It should be 50 bucks I say!!!
This reminds me of the awesome rail against free publicity on Abode's site:
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
I'd like to photoshop Adobe's face shut after reading this.
This reminds me of the awesome rail against free publicity on Abode's site:
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
ITT: people fail at understanding how trademarks and such work.
I don't know. For students specifically I don't have much sympathy...generally academic prices are pretty reasonable (I'd say Adobe is perhaps one exception), and many science/engineering programs seem to offer educational versions (with limitations) for free. For instance, my copy of MATLAB cost about the same as a textbook. Orcade and Modelsim were free for educational use, with restrictions. I think a lot of the casual piracy of such apps (especially Photoshop) is from people who have no real need for the software to begin with, and are using it simply as a toy. I have little problem with this, to be honest, because such a person would never have spent a dime on it anyway.
This reminds me of the awesome rail against free publicity on Abode's site:
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
ITT: people fail at understanding how trademarks and such work.
More like ITW nobody gives a shit about "preserving" Adobe's trademarks insofar as conversation is concerned.
You can thank the American legal system for that little bit on proper trademark use. They have to actively protect their trademark in order to prevent dilution. IIRC, Google was trying to do the same thing a while back. The cost of photoshop to a professional is nominal. You can write it off for starters, and even an amateur can cover the cost in a couple of small jobs. The same goes for autocad. The cost of autocad isn't that much compared to the courses you'd take to learn how to use it and, depending where you live, you can walk out of a course and have a job at an engineering firm the same day. The downside is that it is a relatively low paying job (30-35k here with no real increase after 35k) with no real chance for advancement.
I also have more problem with people ripping off independents than I do the larger companies, though I feel that no matter what, if you make money off software, you should have paid for it. If someone infringes on my copyright and doesn't pay 20$ for a piece of shareware, it means that is on less meal on my plate. If I had licenced something to some larger company and made enough to cover a few years, I wouldn't care nearly as much.
I don't know. For students specifically I don't have much sympathy...generally academic prices are pretty reasonable (I'd say Adobe is perhaps one exception), and many science/engineering programs seem to offer educational versions (with limitations) for free. For instance, my copy of MATLAB cost about the same as a textbook. Orcade and Modelsim were free for educational use, with restrictions. I think a lot of the casual piracy of such apps (especially Photoshop) is from people who have no real need for the software to begin with, and are using it simply as a toy. I have little problem with this, to be honest, because such a person would never have spent a dime on it anyway.
Who said textbooks were fairly priced?
I would never, ever buy MATLAB. Ever. It's a piece of crap. In fact, I probably wouldn't take a home copy for free.
And, yeah, I have to say that textbooks are quite obscenely priced.
This reminds me of the awesome rail against free publicity on Abode's site:
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
ITT: people fail at understanding how trademarks and such work.
More like ITW nobody gives a shit about "preserving" Adobe's trademarks insofar as conversation is concerned.
ITW stands for In The World, by the way.
That doesn't mean that Adobe can just let them go undefended. Hence why they do these things.
It's for the same reason that if you ask for a Coke in an establishment that serves Pepsi, they'll ALWAYS ask "Is Pepsi okay?"
You can thank the American legal system for that little bit on proper trademark use. They have to actively protect their trademark in order to prevent dilution. IIRC, Google was trying to do the same thing a while back. The cost of photoshop to a professional is nominal. You can write it off for starters, and even an amateur can cover the cost in a couple of small jobs. The same goes for autocad. The cost of autocad isn't that much compared to the courses you'd take to learn how to use it and, depending where you live, you can walk out of a course and have a job at an engineering firm the same day. The downside is that it is a relatively low paying job (30-35k here with no real increase after 35k) with no real chance for advancement.
I'm pretty sure I'm legally entitled to refer to anything in any way I please. I can photoshop the photoshop out of Adobe if I like. I'd like to see them try to censor that in court.
This reminds me of the awesome rail against free publicity on Abode's site:
Proper use of the Photoshop trademark
Trademarks help protect corporate and product identity, and Photoshop is one of Adobe's most valuable trademarks. By following the below guidelines, you can help Adobe protect the Photoshop brand name.
The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:
Trademarks are not verbs.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
Trademarks are not nouns.
CORRECT: The image pokes fun at the Senator.
INCORRECT: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator.
Always capitalize and use trademarks in their correct form.
CORRECT: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software.
INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Photoshopped.
INCORRECT: The image was Adobe® Photoshopped.
Trademarks must never be used as slang terms.
CORRECT: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form.
INCORRECT: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form.
INCORRECT: My hobby is photoshopping.
ITT: people fail at understanding how trademarks and such work.
More like ITW nobody gives a shit about "preserving" Adobe's trademarks insofar as conversation is concerned.
ITW stands for In The World, by the way.
That doesn't mean that Adobe can just let them go undefended. Hence why they do these things.
It's for the same reason that if you ask for a Coke in an establishment that serves Pepsi, they'll ALWAYS ask "Is Pepsi okay?"
You can thank the American legal system for that little bit on proper trademark use. They have to actively protect their trademark in order to prevent dilution. IIRC, Google was trying to do the same thing a while back. The cost of photoshop to a professional is nominal. You can write it off for starters, and even an amateur can cover the cost in a couple of small jobs. The same goes for autocad. The cost of autocad isn't that much compared to the courses you'd take to learn how to use it and, depending where you live, you can walk out of a course and have a job at an engineering firm the same day. The downside is that it is a relatively low paying job (30-35k here with no real increase after 35k) with no real chance for advancement.
I'm pretty sure I'm legally entitled to refer to anything in any way I please. I can photoshop the photoshop out of Adobe if I like. I'd like to see them try to censor that in court.
Absolutely, it is your right. But they still have ot make the appearance of defending their trademark in order to keep from losing it.
The point Im trying to make is that they are not putting in 10x the man hours than your average AAA video games (they're putting a fraction of the hours into actual development, all their time goes into marketing) so they should not be charging 10x the price. What they are creating is a very easily reproducable product just like all software (and video games).
It being an incredible program should not make it incredibly pricy. It should make an incredible amount of people want to buy it.
It is Adobe's product though and if they want to only market their product to bussinesses and fuck over the casual users then thats their choice. I just won't be buying a liscence.
While I(as a person who isn't wealthy) blanch at prospect of dropping a top end of 1-2k for software, paying $50 bucks for a copy of Photoshop isn't profitable and way too low a price for such powerful software. I don't know the economic workings of digital imaging industry, so I wouldn't be able to tell you the "proper" price for Photoshop would be, but Adobe should be getting credit where it's due. If you are paying for a full version of Photoshop($700-$1000) you are paying for a total of 20 years of development and work. Obviously, upgrades shouldn't and don't cost as much as buying a full copy.
If CS is way out of a person's budget, Adobe's already released a "casual's" version of Photoshop. Adobe Elements is a $150, which is extremely affordable. The casual photographer and the average human being won't need more than that. If you are a digital painter, corel painter is an extremely affordable program. If you aren't sure you want to buy a program, download a free trial and see if you like it. There are a ton casual friendly alternatives out there. people just have to look.
P.S. And I don't have any problems with people downloading CS if they are just going to fucking around and use it once or twice. If people that are serious about making art(serious non-student amateur,professional) you should eventually purchase a copy if you use it a lot.
You can thank the American legal system for that little bit on proper trademark use. They have to actively protect their trademark in order to prevent dilution. IIRC, Google was trying to do the same thing a while back. The cost of photoshop to a professional is nominal. You can write it off for starters, and even an amateur can cover the cost in a couple of small jobs. The same goes for autocad. The cost of autocad isn't that much compared to the courses you'd take to learn how to use it and, depending where you live, you can walk out of a course and have a job at an engineering firm the same day. The downside is that it is a relatively low paying job (30-35k here with no real increase after 35k) with no real chance for advancement.
I'm pretty sure I'm legally entitled to refer to anything in any way I please. I can photoshop the photoshop out of Adobe if I like. I'd like to see them try to censor that in court.
Absolutely, it is your right. But they still have ot make the appearance of defending their trademark in order to keep from losing it.
I don't really see how this defends their trademark, though. What if they chose to embrace the "dilution" of their trademark by allowing it to be used in this manner? It increases mindshare and I think they'd be able to argue that it was an effective marketing strategy to get consumers to co-opt their trademark as a verb.
I understand the fundamental point, sure, but I think they could have just as easily reversed the tirade and suggested the same things they are railing against and it would have the same effect. Getting your trademark into common vernacular seems like a good thing to me. I guess I can understand how it might be legally perceived as the dilution of a specific trademark, but in this case the dilution of the trademark helps them.
You can thank the American legal system for that little bit on proper trademark use. They have to actively protect their trademark in order to prevent dilution. IIRC, Google was trying to do the same thing a while back. The cost of photoshop to a professional is nominal. You can write it off for starters, and even an amateur can cover the cost in a couple of small jobs. The same goes for autocad. The cost of autocad isn't that much compared to the courses you'd take to learn how to use it and, depending where you live, you can walk out of a course and have a job at an engineering firm the same day. The downside is that it is a relatively low paying job (30-35k here with no real increase after 35k) with no real chance for advancement.
I'm pretty sure I'm legally entitled to refer to anything in any way I please. I can photoshop the photoshop out of Adobe if I like. I'd like to see them try to censor that in court.
Absolutely, it is your right. But they still have ot make the appearance of defending their trademark in order to keep from losing it.
I don't really see how this defends their trademark, though. What if they chose to embrace the "dilution" of their trademark by allowing it to be used in this manner? It increases mindshare and I think they'd be able to argue that it was an effective marketing strategy to get consumers to co-opt their trademark as a verb.
I understand the fundamental point, sure, but I think they could have just as easily reversed the tirade and suggested the same things they are railing against and it would have the same effect. Getting your trademark into common vernacular seems like a good thing to me. I guess I can understand how it might be legally perceived as the dilution of a specific trademark, but in this case the dilution of the trademark helps them.
Thus, trademark laws are dumb.
QED.
Once it's diluted, The GIMP could be called Photoshop, or any competitor. You would see knock-off Photoshop in wal-mart for $50.
Let's suppose they allow it to be diluted. At some point, someone could build competing software and call it Photoshopper Pro. If they haven't even made an effort to protect their trademark, they are screwed. They can't defend against it and the average person new to photo editing might buy it instead because all they hear about is photoshopping. It is a poor and far fetched example, but look at Kleenex. How many people actually have Kleenex brand facial tissues in their house? And how many call them Kleenex anyway?
A friend of mine bought a ds cartridge that takes an sd card. He downloads games and plays them for free. I could do the same but I'd feel guilty. My DS brings me a lot of joy. Long train rides would suck without it. I appreciate what i recieve and don't mind paying what I feel is a very reasonable price for it.
But I get the impression that the extent of my feelings on the matter are fairly rare.
The point of trademark law is to create a balance that allows new usage of words into the language. If trademark law worked like copyright law we'd have a colossal mess, and if didn't exist at all we'd have a different sort of mess.
Anyway, as far as the OP.
I "acquired" old-version copies of photoshop and illustrator as an undergraduate because I needed them for a lot of my coursework. It was legally available in two places: at public computer labs that were frequently full and didn't allow you to save your work, and at various stores, where they was available as part of the Adobe Creative Suite bundle.
Which, even at the university bookstore discount, cost something like four hundred dollars, money I did not have.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I saw the comparison to textbook pricing made. I don't think it's a great analogy, but in this case it turned out to hold up.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
A friend of mine bought a ds cartridge that takes an sd card. He downloads games and plays them for free. I could do the same but I'd feel guilty. My DS brings me a lot of joy. Long train rides would suck without it. I appreciate what i recieve and don't mind paying what I feel is a very reasonable price for it.
But I get the impression that the extent of my feelings on the matter are fairly rare.
No, generally on video-game forums people are pretty staunchly against game piracy. It just doesn't seem to extend to other fields..
Before anyone trundles out the theory that Adobe's business model includes massive piracy, I will point out that Photoshop's copy protection has become more strict with each version. They really do want you to give them money.
Apparently CS3's protection is supposed to be completely unbreakable.
Marketing spin.
Show me an unbreakable protection scheme, and I will show you a very wealthy and powerful person.
Did anyone ever manage to break digital cable or digital satellite on a large scale?
The dreams of an unbreakable protection scheme is like the dream of a chess computer that could beat out a grandmaster.
Wait...
One thing that pisses me off though is that Indesign CS3 isn't backwards compatible to Indesign CS2, nor does it have an option to save to earlier version. So if I want to upgrade to a machine to CS3, I have to upgrade the entire office to CS3.
Oh yeah, keep in mind that you need CS3 to run native on Intel Macs. So if I want to bring any Intel Macs into the office, I need to either a) Spend $2000 on software upgrades, or b) Run it under parallels.
[
Ok, Im not disputing that its an incredible program. I really like photoshop. It does lots of things very well.
but Im gonna have to dissagree with you when you say that comparing video games and photoshop is like comparing apples and oranges. First off, many studios program their own engines. They did where I worked. Second off, I really dont think thats the point.
The point Im trying to make is that they are not putting in 10x the man hours than your average AAA video games (they're putting a fraction of the hours into actual development, all their time goes into marketing) so they should not be charging 10x the price. What they are creating is a very easily reproducable product just like all software (and video games).
I have worked in game development, and I am familiar with the processes involved in creating something like Photoshop. Yeah, pretty much apples and oranges.
For one thing, the work that goes into making image editing or modeling software is extremely code-centric. The work that goes into making a video game is extremely art-centric. Given that programmers make, on average, 2-3 times what artists make, that doubles or triples the production cost right there, assuming comparably sized teams.
Speaking of which, Photoshop is created by a fleet of employees that dwarfs the size of all but the most massive gaming projects. Your assumption that all, or even most, games are made by "100" or more people is way off base. The very largest games use that many, at times. More commonly, a game is made by a couple dozen fellows, and even this is only a recent development. At my company, games were made by teams of five or six. Not every games is GTA.
Also, the difference between successive versions of Photoshop is not limited to new features. Often, even old features are recoded to optimize the software for new hardware, or to use new and more efficient techniques. So yeah, those 45 programmers are putting in a fair amount of time. Not to mention that a lot of them are probably working on tools that get scrapped for assorted reasons, or are doing R&D.
Let's see, what else? Well, there's the economies of scale. A good video game sells a million or two copies. Photoshop doesn't - it sells a fraction of that. When you have a smaller demographic, you need to charge more to realize a profit.
And yes, there's the fact that Adobe sells its wares to wealthy companies or independent contractors for whom $700 is a sound investment, as opposed to pimply teenagers who want to frag their buddies. When you sell to people with money, you charge more.
And lastly, there's the fact that hobbyists have tons of alternatives available if they just want to kill the red-eye in their photos.
tl;dr: Omigod are you wrong.
It being an incredible program should not make it incredibly pricy. It should make an incredible amount of people want to buy it.
Economics would like to have a word with you.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I still have the mentaility that I had when I was a Jr.High kid . Remember the days of the "mixed tape"?
Back then people would copy tapes for freidns all the time. I never heard an negative thing about it, of course I was 12 and didn't exactly follow current events at the time.
So naturally when "coping CD's" started to become more popular I didn't think anything of that either.
p2p is just the next step of that.
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
Posts
The GIMP isn't freeware (Open source != freeware), and OpenCanvas isn't free (or open).
Edit: To clarify, GIMP is GPL, and you can't just mix and match it with proprietary; OpenCanvas is a misnomer.
O_o
What? How is it less usable?
The older version was badass because you could network people together and have several people paint on the same canvas at once, which for some reason got removed from the non-free versions.
And for gimp, my terms suck.
edit: Furious has it:
Honestly, it's like comparing apples and oranges because video games and photoshop are completely different things. Photoshop programmers build the engine that most digital work is with with. Video game programmers use a preexisting engine to make a game. If you aren't interested in photo manipulation, digital painting or making some sort of 2-D non moving picture, then Photoshop is not for you. It also doesn't change the fact that it's an incredible program. Additionally, there's a reason why the upgrade from one version to the next doesn't cost as much as the full program.
Technically speaking, there are actually some major improvements with CS3 and a lot of things in CS2 that you can't do with other programs. Even now, the up and coming changes to GIMP are ones found in CS or CS2. CS3 has superior system of filters/actions to control color/value, recovering lost information in a image file,defining edges and a better program to organize pictures in your computer. Things that use to be huge complicated processes(but nescessary) are now a lot easier with the new features in CS3. It's worth paying the price if you are a passionate amateur or professional.
tldr: Comparing video game programming and photoshop is comparing apples and oranges. Photoshop is an insanely powerful program that does a hell of a lot more than remove red eye. If you are a casual user and don't think you'll use all of CS3's features, buy a more basic program or download a free one.
I interpret this issue as much more of a moral one than a legal one. Frankly, I cannot believe that the average casual photoshop pirate can really be considered lost revenue for these companies. I'm talking about people who like to "photoshoop" their friends in compromising situations, participate in "Photoshop Friday" type events or just your average pseudo-artistic dweeb who think's inverting and filtering his mugshot would look neat on his facebook page. It's a toy to most of these people, regardless of what the software is capable of, and so long as their utilization of the software remains casual and amateur, this kind of piracy I think is sort of innocuous as it doesn't really hurt anyone.
There is another group which I will call 'young professionals', basically people who want to do digital illustration, 3D modeling/animation, or graphic design work as a career and have a real need to know how to operate these software suites effectively in order to make them more lucrative hires. Although this group is utilizing the software on a far more professional level than the casual pirates, I still really don't think it's reasonable to expect a young person (often a college student who has enough problems with tuition alone) to pay the exorbitant price of getting a legitimate software license. The fact of the matter is that if these people get hired into production houses that their employer is going to pay for the cost of the software on their workstation anyway. Piracy is almost beneficial to the software developers in this case in that it ensures that the younger generation of users will know how to operate THEIR software when they become professionals.
As a caveat though, the minute a member of that second group ever starts doing freelance commission work and making money using that software, they have a moral obligation to buy themselves a genuine software license.
You start at $0. There is no payment in advance.
This may not hurt Adobe, but it does hurt any other developer that makes say a lower priced editor as they lose sales because people just pirate Photoshop as some one said a couple posts before.
As a college student you have both a student discount and opportunity to use your college's PCs which either makes the use free or way cheaper than it normally would be.
Ok, Im not disputing that its an incredible program. I really like photoshop. It does lots of things very well.
but Im gonna have to dissagree with you when you say that comparing video games and photoshop is like comparing apples and oranges. First off, many studios program their own engines. They did where I worked. Second off, I really dont think thats the point.
The point Im trying to make is that they are not putting in 10x the man hours than your average AAA video games (they're putting a fraction of the hours into actual development, all their time goes into marketing) so they should not be charging 10x the price. What they are creating is a very easily reproducable product just like all software (and video games).
It being an incredible program should not make it incredibly pricy. It should make an incredible amount of people want to buy it.
It is Adobe's product though and if they want to only market their product to bussinesses and fuck over the casual users then thats their choice. I just won't be buying a liscence.
If I bought all the software I used at student prices, I'd still be out at least a grand. Their student discounts are still pricey.
For the sake of clarification, Adobe and lot of other companies actually allow trial downloads of complete functioning software suites from their own websites which are easily defeated at no risk to the pirate.
How about a self-taught proffessional? Computer labs are fine for course work, but having to go to a lab ANY time you want to work on anything is a pretty shitty proposition.
What the fuck? No. No no no.
I'd like to photoshop Adobe's face shut after reading this.
ITT: people fail at understanding how trademarks and such work.
Who said textbooks were fairly priced?
More like ITW nobody gives a shit about "preserving" Adobe's trademarks insofar as conversation is concerned.
ITW stands for In The World, by the way.
I also have more problem with people ripping off independents than I do the larger companies, though I feel that no matter what, if you make money off software, you should have paid for it. If someone infringes on my copyright and doesn't pay 20$ for a piece of shareware, it means that is on less meal on my plate. If I had licenced something to some larger company and made enough to cover a few years, I wouldn't care nearly as much.
I would never, ever buy MATLAB. Ever. It's a piece of crap. In fact, I probably wouldn't take a home copy for free.
And, yeah, I have to say that textbooks are quite obscenely priced.
That doesn't mean that Adobe can just let them go undefended. Hence why they do these things.
It's for the same reason that if you ask for a Coke in an establishment that serves Pepsi, they'll ALWAYS ask "Is Pepsi okay?"
I'm pretty sure I'm legally entitled to refer to anything in any way I please. I can photoshop the photoshop out of Adobe if I like. I'd like to see them try to censor that in court.
It never is though. It never is.
Absolutely, it is your right. But they still have ot make the appearance of defending their trademark in order to keep from losing it.
While I(as a person who isn't wealthy) blanch at prospect of dropping a top end of 1-2k for software, paying $50 bucks for a copy of Photoshop isn't profitable and way too low a price for such powerful software. I don't know the economic workings of digital imaging industry, so I wouldn't be able to tell you the "proper" price for Photoshop would be, but Adobe should be getting credit where it's due. If you are paying for a full version of Photoshop($700-$1000) you are paying for a total of 20 years of development and work. Obviously, upgrades shouldn't and don't cost as much as buying a full copy.
If CS is way out of a person's budget, Adobe's already released a "casual's" version of Photoshop. Adobe Elements is a $150, which is extremely affordable. The casual photographer and the average human being won't need more than that. If you are a digital painter, corel painter is an extremely affordable program. If you aren't sure you want to buy a program, download a free trial and see if you like it. There are a ton casual friendly alternatives out there. people just have to look.
P.S. And I don't have any problems with people downloading CS if they are just going to fucking around and use it once or twice. If people that are serious about making art(serious non-student amateur,professional) you should eventually purchase a copy if you use it a lot.
I don't really see how this defends their trademark, though. What if they chose to embrace the "dilution" of their trademark by allowing it to be used in this manner? It increases mindshare and I think they'd be able to argue that it was an effective marketing strategy to get consumers to co-opt their trademark as a verb.
I understand the fundamental point, sure, but I think they could have just as easily reversed the tirade and suggested the same things they are railing against and it would have the same effect. Getting your trademark into common vernacular seems like a good thing to me. I guess I can understand how it might be legally perceived as the dilution of a specific trademark, but in this case the dilution of the trademark helps them.
Thus, trademark laws are dumb.
QED.
Once it's diluted, The GIMP could be called Photoshop, or any competitor. You would see knock-off Photoshop in wal-mart for $50.
edit: Wow, bad sentence.
But I get the impression that the extent of my feelings on the matter are fairly rare.
Anyway, as far as the OP.
I "acquired" old-version copies of photoshop and illustrator as an undergraduate because I needed them for a lot of my coursework. It was legally available in two places: at public computer labs that were frequently full and didn't allow you to save your work, and at various stores, where they was available as part of the Adobe Creative Suite bundle.
Which, even at the university bookstore discount, cost something like four hundred dollars, money I did not have.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I saw the comparison to textbook pricing made. I don't think it's a great analogy, but in this case it turned out to hold up.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
No, generally on video-game forums people are pretty staunchly against game piracy. It just doesn't seem to extend to other fields..
Did anyone ever manage to break digital cable or digital satellite on a large scale?
The dreams of an unbreakable protection scheme is like the dream of a chess computer that could beat out a grandmaster.
Wait...
One thing that pisses me off though is that Indesign CS3 isn't backwards compatible to Indesign CS2, nor does it have an option to save to earlier version. So if I want to upgrade to a machine to CS3, I have to upgrade the entire office to CS3.
Oh yeah, keep in mind that you need CS3 to run native on Intel Macs. So if I want to bring any Intel Macs into the office, I need to either a) Spend $2000 on software upgrades, or b) Run it under parallels.
Annoying fuckers.
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml ?[/QUOTE]
I see a bit too many counts of "trick" and "fake" and "experimental" on that page.
I have worked in game development, and I am familiar with the processes involved in creating something like Photoshop. Yeah, pretty much apples and oranges.
For one thing, the work that goes into making image editing or modeling software is extremely code-centric. The work that goes into making a video game is extremely art-centric. Given that programmers make, on average, 2-3 times what artists make, that doubles or triples the production cost right there, assuming comparably sized teams.
Speaking of which, Photoshop is created by a fleet of employees that dwarfs the size of all but the most massive gaming projects. Your assumption that all, or even most, games are made by "100" or more people is way off base. The very largest games use that many, at times. More commonly, a game is made by a couple dozen fellows, and even this is only a recent development. At my company, games were made by teams of five or six. Not every games is GTA.
Also, the difference between successive versions of Photoshop is not limited to new features. Often, even old features are recoded to optimize the software for new hardware, or to use new and more efficient techniques. So yeah, those 45 programmers are putting in a fair amount of time. Not to mention that a lot of them are probably working on tools that get scrapped for assorted reasons, or are doing R&D.
Let's see, what else? Well, there's the economies of scale. A good video game sells a million or two copies. Photoshop doesn't - it sells a fraction of that. When you have a smaller demographic, you need to charge more to realize a profit.
And yes, there's the fact that Adobe sells its wares to wealthy companies or independent contractors for whom $700 is a sound investment, as opposed to pimply teenagers who want to frag their buddies. When you sell to people with money, you charge more.
And lastly, there's the fact that hobbyists have tons of alternatives available if they just want to kill the red-eye in their photos.
tl;dr: Omigod are you wrong.
Economics would like to have a word with you.
Back then people would copy tapes for freidns all the time. I never heard an negative thing about it, of course I was 12 and didn't exactly follow current events at the time.
So naturally when "coping CD's" started to become more popular I didn't think anything of that either.
p2p is just the next step of that.