Why does Adobe hate non-Americans so much?

[Chris Pollock]

Funny, that comes from a guy who starts a thread how an American company hates non-Americans.

Yes, I criticized a single American company. I admit that the title of the thread was provocative, but in no way could it be called anti-American. If Adobe gave the British a lower price, and charged everyone else more, the title would have been "Why does Adobe hate non-British so much?"

I don't think I've ever posted anything that derogates Americans, or any other nationality for that matter. Regimes and governments are another story.

[Farmer]

I think you guys under-estimate the resources required to engineer a product like Photoshop, to update it, improve it, support it, etc.

I'm sure patents come into it, but so do having the engineers with the experience, knowledge and understanding.  It would be a huge understaking for someone to take on PS, let alone the entire Suite.

[Justan]

I've been wondering the same thing myself. Given the high price of Photoshop, Microsoft could undercut them by a fair margin and still make a tidy profit. It would also make them popular with a lot of people.

Probably the key stock holders decided that the 2 groups make more by not pretenting to compete in this area.

Check out the Vanguard Group in their many incarnations, as example, who are a major holder of MS. They are also major holders of Adobe. There are a few others who have a pretty large interest in both companies.

While the two companies products go under different corporate names (MS/Adobe), they are tied at the top to many of the same owners. Why would they try to cut the legs out from under their golden cash cow?

[Chris Pollock]

I think you guys under-estimate the resources required to engineer a product like Photoshop, to update it, improve it, support it, etc.

I'm sure patents come into it, but so do having the engineers with the experience, knowledge and understanding.  It would be a huge understaking for someone to take on PS, let alone the entire Suite.

I don't disagree that it would be a huge undertaking, but Microsoft is a huge company, and could afford to hire the best talent. Starting with a clean slate would enable them to avoid some of Photoshop's weaknesses, such as limited use of multithreading and less than perfect stability. It would take a while, but I don't doubt that Microsoft could create a competitive product if they wanted to. Perhaps the company has become relaxed and complacent in middle age, and no longer has the drive to boldly venture into new markets?

[john beardsworth]

They've just gone into different markets, especially enterprise-level software, where there's more money to be made.

Someone earlier mentioned Expression Web. That was when Microsoft did tilt in the direction of entering this market, buying the Creative House (?) products, iView MediaPro, and setting up technology partnerships with PhaseOne (I suspect they took an investment). They hired people including a well-known guy from Adobe who some would count as "the best talent" and spent a lot of money developing photo-centric apps including one which could have been a competitor to Lightroom/Aperture. Then they lost interest. Presumably they concluded they couldn't make money from it.

You should also consider what Apple did when they launched Aperture, their long-rumoured "Photoshop-killer". It made a certain dent in the market, but not for long.

[Chris Pollock]

You should also consider what Apple did when they launched Aperture, their long-rumoured "Photoshop-killer". It made a certain dent in the market, but not for long.

Speaking for myself, the biggest problem with Aperture is that it's Mac-only. In the Windows world I at least have a choice of hardware (I prefer to assemble my own machines) even though the OS is proprietary. I have no desire to buy into a platform that is tied to a single hardware vendor. (I also have no desire to debate the relative merits of Windows vs Mac OS.)

I don't doubt that if Apple released versions of Aperture for other operating systems (I'd like it on FreeBSD, but I'm probably unusual) they could sell a lot more copies, but they obviously won't do that, because they also want to sell Macs. I hear that it's also tightly integrated with Mac OS, so porting it would presumably be no trivial task.

[john beardsworth]

No argument from me there. Being limited to one brand of computers is a big downside, and I've often wondered what market share Apple would achieve if they ported Aperture to Windows. I have a self-built desktop and a Mac laptop so I could choose freely, and some features are (sadly) well ahead of Adobe's efforts with Lightroom. As for tight integration, Apple would certainly find a way to back flip on that!

[RSL]

What ticks me off is what I just saw with Dreamweaver. Less than a year ago I bought Dreamweaver CS5. Yesterday I decided to upgrade to CS6. Turns out the upgrade from CS5.5 -- don't know when it came out, but it must have been less than a year ago -- is $125. But the upgrade from CS5 is $250. In other words Adobe is going to make you pay for EVERY damn upgrade, including the ones you skipped. But I can buy a new copy of CS6 from B&H for $383. Screw it! I can't see that many improvements in CS6 over CS5, so I guess I'll skip an upgrade or two and then buy a new copy from scratch when there are real changes. Whoever's making pricing policy at Adobe must be smoking something strange.

[Justinr]

Probably the key stock holders decided that the 2 groups make more by not pretenting to compete in this area.

Check out the Vanguard Group in their many incarnations, as example, who are a major holder of MS. They are also major holders of Adobe. There are a few others who have a pretty large interest in both companies.

While the two companies products go under different corporate names (MS/Adobe), they are tied at the top to many of the same owners. Why would they try to cut the legs out from under their golden cash cow?

That would make sense but then if I were a stockholder I'd want the companies motivated somehow.

BTW, I might have missed it somewhere but how does the cost of Photoshop cloud differ globally?

[Rhossydd]

I can't see that many improvements in CS6 over CS5, so I guess I'll skip an upgrade or two and then buy a new copy from scratch when there are real changes.

Swap 'when' for 'if' and I think that would summarise many people's attitude to Adobe's imaging products at the moment. They've reached a state of maturity where making significant improvements(ie worth paying for) becomes harder and harder.
I'm quite happy with CS4 for PS, ID, Il, & Acrobat9 and whilst they run on my systems I see no reason to upgrade. PP CS5 does everything I'll need, so that won't need changing either.

Whilst Adobe are trying to screw every penny out of their customer base and increasingly annoying them with changing upgrade policies and poor PR on other issues, free alternatives like The Gimp, Scribus and Lightworks continue to improve and are starting to look credible alternatives for anyone with concerns about budget.

[Justinr]

Whilst Adobe are trying to screw every penny out of their customer base and increasingly annoying them with changing upgrade policies and poor PR on other issues, free alternatives like The Gimp, Scribus and Lightworks continue to improve and are starting to look credible alternatives for anyone with concerns about budget.

Point to note. Items like the Gimp, Irfanview etc are put together on a shoestring and although they are no match for the sleekness of PS they can still render comparable results yet we are told that it would be nigh on impossible for MS to do the same even with all their resources. Something doesn't add up.

[john beardsworth]

Of course it's not impossible, and they did have something - Google "Microsoft SmartFlow". The ROI probably wasn't enough.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, man! So many brilliant business-strategy ideas in this thread! I am sure Microsoft talent acquisition experts are trying to locate you as we speak. In the meantime, or if that does not pan out, why don't you try to participate in the "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" show?

[Rob C]

Rob, I'm sure there are many here who can tell you more about Lightroom than I can. I'm still using Hasselblad Phocus and Photoshop, but almost every pro I know now uses Lightroom or Capture One instead of PS.

Can't promise it won't mean altering your workflow...

Keith

Hi Keith

Had a look at Lightroom over on the other section of LuLa; it sure appears to have problems - one of them, for me, being the need for a much more powerful computer! Guess I'll get along without correcting any verticals...


Oh - a new art gallery opened here on Sunday - run by the front lady who ran the big one here that was closed down recently because the owners realised that there were more profitable things to do with property. We had a chat - something may come from it at some time. At least we know each other from the old gallery, so it's not cold calling!

;-)

Rob C

[Justinr]

Oh, man! So many brilliant business-strategy ideas in this thread! I am sure Microsoft talent acquisition experts are trying to locate you as we speak. In the meantime, or if that does not pan out, why don't you try to participate in the "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader" show?

Never watched it, must be on Sky I guess. Is it any good?

[Justan]

That would make sense but then if I were a stockholder I'd want the companies motivated somehow.

They are motivated - to maintain the status quo. MS and Adobe are both goliaths with completely sewn up market places. They tend to collaborate more than really compete. They both lavish Apple with Mac versions of consumer products. They both have adopted the idea of the model year to their production schedule. They both provide limited support intervals and endless opportunity for add-on support. And most importantly, they have virtually no competition.

Google is a potential contender with Picasa (and i suppose and to MS Office with Google Docs), but Picasa is a long way from the professional tools provided by Adobe. Every time a 3rd party comes along with something exceptional, the company gets bought out by these guys. So it makes me wonder what could be done to motivate Adobe? (or other other top software producers, for that matter.) The policy shown by Adobe is one of leveraging its access to each customer.

[Farmer]

Comparing GIMP to a potential product from MS is silly.  GIMP doesn't have to worry about the same support issues, doesn't have to pay staff, deal with corporate issues and so on, it's also taken it years and years to reach the level it has.

[Justinr]

Comparing GIMP to a potential product from MS is silly.  GIMP doesn't have to worry about the same support issues, doesn't have to pay staff, deal with corporate issues and so on, it's also taken it years and years to reach the level it has.

Have you any idea of the p*ss poor level of support that MS offer for Expression Web? A forum with one or two helpful souls on it whilst the rest are just the usual crowd of IT prima donnas. There is an awful lot more useful info on Gimp etc available than there is Expression.

Why has Gimp taken so long to reach the level it has? Exactly because it hasn't been paying staff, a few million would certainly accelerate its development.

[Farmer]

Exactly my point.  If MS were to provide the level of support to which we are accustomed for Windows or Office or the like, it would cost a fortune.

[Chris Pollock]

Exactly my point.  If MS were to provide the level of support to which we are accustomed for Windows or Office or the like, it would cost a fortune.

What one company can do, another can do too. The fact that an apparently highly profitable product has no competition is an anomoly. Manufacturing and supporting airliners, automobiles, microprocessors, and gaming consoles isn't exactly easy either, yet each of these industries has multiple players.

Do Microsoft and Adobe offer free tech support with their software these days? I honestly don't know, because the idea of calling Adobe's support hasn't even crossed my mind. These days most questions about how to do something can be answered by a quick Google search. If that fails you can always try a user forum, or even a good old-fashioned book.

The only times I've had to call Microsoft's support were to fix problems with their troublesome activation process. The support staff were polite and efficient, but I wouldn't have needed to bother them if the software had been better designed.

I realize that "support" also means things like adding support for new cameras and lenses. This is a major task, but hardly insurmountable. DxO Labs have apparently been doing OK, and they're a minnow compared to Microsoft.