josepheferguson 3:39am, 16 September 2008
I have an old CS2 from my uncle,and I'm able to update. But i can not get it to open RAW files. I just got my D90 and it's driving me crazy. I need Ideas.
jtj3photos PRO 9 years ago
Buy a real copy of CS3.
joshuadelaughter Posted 9 years ago. Edited by joshuadelaughter (member) 9 years ago
dont see how it being bootlegged would have anything to do with it, i mean i agree, adobe has put alot of time/effort into its product, and i support paying for it.

but perhaps you just got a shitty bootleg?(ie buy it, lol)

p.s. its really dumb to announce that you use illegal products, on such a renown form such as this.
kukkurovaca PRO 9 years ago

p.s. its really dumb to announce that you use illegal products, on such a renown form such as this.


Although Alex has put forth some good arguments on This Week in Media about the importance of bootleg copies in creating the photoshop user base and market supremacy in the first place. : )
hotelyankeefoxtrot 9 years ago
I'm guessing they haven't updated ACR with the D90 RAW info yet, as it is such a new camera.

And I agree - stupid idea to post here that you're using it illegally...
Harding Photos 9 years ago
I also have a new D90. You are correct. Neither Adobe or Apple have updated to accept the new D90 raw format yet. I current use the Capture NX2 demo (60 days) until Lightroom or Aperture releases their update.
borud PRO 9 years ago
While I myself own a legitimate copy of CS3 I have to say that I can understand that people pirate the application. While Adobe may think that selling Elements at $99 or whatever should be good enough for "hobbyists", I have to say I disagree.

I've been thinking about this (software pricing) for quite a while and my instinctive feeling is that the plain version of Photoshop CS3 should cost about $50 for nonprofessional users. Possibly even less. Remove the cost dis-incentive for "most hobbyist users" and more people will actually consider buying the app.

I know about 50 Photoshop CS3 users. Apart from myself I know only one other who I am certain paid for a legitimate copy.
kentgoldings PRO 9 years ago
You did know that Fred works for Adobe? Right?
ktooth 9 years ago
50 bucks? You believe Photoshop and its million tools are worth less than a PC game? If it has such little value, why aren't you satisfied with all the little image editing apps that are available? There are lots under $100.

With pro-level features on any app, you can expect a pro level price. I'm not going to argue that the price should be as unreachable as it is now. But there must be a happy medium.

However, I do agree that if Adobe charged $100 for Photoshop it may not make financial sense at first, but I'd be curious to know if they would sell 5x copies and plenty more upgrades to where it could pay off for them as well as the consumers in the end.
Dennis Ditto 9 years ago
what else do you use that you haven't paid for?
borud PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by borud (member) 9 years ago
@ktooth: the issue is not really what a piece of software is worth but how the price tag makes consumers (and software publishers) behave.

if you price a piece of software way beyond what the average consumer can afford, the average consumer will not buy it. the argument often goes something like "but they don't need it" and point to "consumer grade" alternatives.

now, there are a couple of things we know. first, people use pirated versions of Photoshop CS3. a *lot* of people do. this tells us that consumers do want it. and it is not surprising. they may not use all the features, but there is a whole social ecosystem around photoshop that isn't there for Elements. for instance the vast majority of interesting tutorials you find online are Photoshop tutorials. not Elements.

the second thing we know is that a piece of software has a cost beyond its monetary price. you need to learn it. in the case of photo editing, there is a lot of stuff to learn. if you are going to invest serious effort into learning photo editing, you might as well learn Photoshop -- since that is what "everyone else" knows and is interested in learning.

the third thing is a lot trickier and I am not going to pretend I understand it fully, but I try to observe and I think I see a pattern: consumers are wary of plonking down significant amounts of cash for something they are not entirely sure they will be using enough to justify the cost. most people have a threshold for how much they will pay for an item that they are not absolutely sure they need. the numeric value of this threshold depends on the type of goods we talk about.

a further observation is that people do not mind paying for software as long as the price makes sense and the payment solution and the DRM doesn't inconvenience them. a good example is the iTunes App store. while most of this is trivial software that sells for mere pennies, the whole buying experience is streamlined, the price is well below any threshold where people ask themselves "do I really, really need this" and DRM is not an issue. of course, the system is locked down, subject to Apple's whims and you would be completely mad to plan making a living off it as a software vendor, but that is a bit beside the point. the point is that buying an app is not a Big Decision.

an example at the other end of the spectrum is Oracle. up until about a decade or so ago, you had to pay Oracle obscene amounts of money to get your hands on a working, legal Oracle license. after all, who on earth would need an Oracle license unless they were going to run a huge database for a big company? turns out, far more people were interested in that than there were legal Oracle licenses on the market. there were many legitimate scenarios in which an individual might be interested in installing Oracle; including learning Oracle, adapting products to work with Oracle and just doing some simple prototyping without shelling out tens of thousands of dollars -- an expense that you could not afford and rarely expect to earn back.

So they loosened the license terms somewhat, made sure that *anyone* could get their software without *any* form of DRM, malware or crippling. The potential market opportunity lost was essentially zero (after all, who would *buy* a license unless they could afford it) but on the flip side, they gained something extremely valuable: *when* people were going to choose a database, there would be a greater chance that they would choose Oracle simply because of familiarity and ease of access. I have worked on several projects where we used Oracle. a few of them were launched as production systems and at that time, a proper license was bought. nobody in their right mind would run a business critical app on pirated software and additionally the lack of DRM meant that there was one thing less that might end up biting us in the ass.

one last thing that one must bear in mind is the educational effect of placing something outside someone's reach by legitimate needs while it is still easily accessible by illegitimate means.

if you put your mind to getting your hands on an illigitimate copy of Photoshop CS3 right now, you will have it up and running in about half an hour plus the time it took you to download it. the NEXT time you want to get an illegitimate copy of an application you will spend less time, and already being "a criminal", your threshold for doing so will be lower.

we are educating people to be pirates. for my generation there was some effort involved. for people who cannot remember a time when the internet wasn't there, it is more or less how you get your hands on software.

in fact, it has gone so far that I am regularly *mocked* for actually having bought Photoshop CS3. people point out all the photographic equipment that I could have bought for the same money. In fact, I could have gotten a D90 for what you have to pay for Photoshop here.

this is not about what software is worth -- software is only worth what people want to pay for it. and if the price is too high, people steal. keep the prices out of touch with what the users want and what suppresses their impulse to buy, and you foster a culture that says it is okay to steal. ingrain into people's minds that buying software is just not worth the hassle and the cost and we all lose.
borud PRO 9 years ago
actually, I just checked the price for Adobe Lightroom, and much of what I think about the pricing of Photoshop applies there. in my opinion I think the price tag would have to be around 1/5 to 1/6 (of the Norwegian price tag) for me to buy Lightroom.

at the current price I wouldn't buy it unless I was sure I would use it enough to justify the expense.


in fact, I don't know a single Lightroom user who has a legitimate license. I happen to know a bunch of BibblePro users who do have legitimate licenses. all of them. even though a key generator is farily easy to come by.
borud PRO 9 years ago
@kukkurovaca: indeed, software publishers are hypocrites in this sense. they depend on their software being pirated to win dominant mind share (market share always follows), then get all worked up over how badly piracy is hurting them whenever they need to smack someone who has taken it too far.

I think that most companies are too conservative when they try to optimize the price tag of a piece of software. you get all these useless marketing people chiming in. people who only see markets in the form of segments (tried to buy a laptop from a PC vendor website?) -- who only stick to whatever rules they were taught at some university and never think about game-changing initiative.

the premises for selling software have changed a lot over the last decade and the industry at large hasn't really paid attention. some companies have done radical things, but for the most part we are seeing companies and people who may see that things have changed, but are completely befuddled as to how they should approach it.
Dennis Ditto Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Dennis Ditto (member) 9 years ago
as a former software developer let me first say that software doesn't grow on trees, nor does it just appear on a computer.

individuals and/or companies will invest copious amounts of time and money in developing a software product, that may or may not make it to market.

that said, if it "costs" $500,000 to create a software product and get it to market, then what should it cost the consumer? granted if it's a specialized product it will cost dearly (tens of thousands), but if it's a "consumer" product like photoshop (either CS3 or elements), then why should it be given away? $100 is not unreasonable for a great piece of software (whatever the software is).

if you want free stuff there are plenty of open source products out there. the people and programmers that create open source products are doing a great service and shouldn't be underestimated.

if you want a commerical product, then pay for it... if you want free, then go open source.

my 2 cents.

P.S. -- oh... and the reason photoshop CSn costs so much? it's because it's among the highest bootlegged software out there.
borud PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by borud (member) 9 years ago
@hdrdude: as a current software developer I can understand that you worry about the profitability of developing software. after all, I make a living developing software and have done so for about two decades.

it is exactly because I worry about what comes 10 years down the road I think it is time reality kicked in.

and please do not suggest that I think Adobe should give Photoshop away. I am not suggesting that and I clearly expressed exactly that.

simply saying that there are open source alternatives doesn't cut it in this context either. there is no free equivalent to Photoshop CS3. there might be one some day, but that day is not any time in the immediate future.

also, I think your assertion that Photoshop costs so much because it is among the most pirated pieces of software is incorrect. it costs so much because Adobe can make a living off those who can afford to buy it. it may be an optimum, but it is a local optimum and it presupposes a market strategy that I think is out of touch with reality. it used to be a specialty piece of software that only professionals would have any real need for, but that hasn't been true for a long time now.

photo editing is a consumer activity, thus it would make more sense to adjust the price accordingly rather than ensure that Photoshop is a piece of software that you do not pay for in the consumer segment.
Dennis Ditto 9 years ago
@borud

being a developer then you know the costs don't end at getting the product to market... you've got support costs and maintenance, as well as R&D for future versions... everything costs money.

yes, Adobe makes revenue by "selling" software... the higher priced products (CS3, for example) are aimed at professionals, not general consumers, and that's how they justify the higher price. Adobe has addressed the general consumer market by creating the Elements product which can be purchased in the USA for well under $100 (I've seen it for $60-$70)... and in most cases Elements, or other such editing products, come free with a digital camera.

I own a car... I would love to own a Ferarri, but I can't afford to own one... so should I bitch at Ferarri for making cars that I can't afford? should I go steal one? no, I own a car that is within my means. will I ever own a Ferarri? probably not... c'est la vie.
borud PRO Posted 9 years ago. Edited by borud (member) 9 years ago
@hdrdude

I am not suggesting that Adobe should make less money. I am suggesting they stay in business. In fact, I am suggesting they might have the potential to make a lot *more* money in the long run.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think you are very wrong in thinking that Photoshop CS3 is a product that only a professional would find any use for. in fact, you contradict yourself vigorously by stating that Photoshop is among the most widely pirated pieces of software. are all these pirates professionals?

wouldn't it be better if the majority of Photoshop users were customers of Adobe too? I seriously doubt that being the case now.

your car analogy is a common one: comparing software, which has a reproduction cost of zero, with a physical product, where almost all of the cost represents material and work per unit sold. it is a common mistake to compare the two scenarios even though they are quite obviously not comparable.
Scott Bourne [deleted] 9 years ago
This thread contains about as much miss-information as I have ever seen here.

Bottom line - if you steal software - you are a thief and should be put in jail.

If you can't afford it - save up.

If you think it's too expensive, buy something else.

And don't believe most of the stuff you've read on this thread.
Groups Beta