«

| > So whatever anyone can get away with.... You
| >respect them for that?
|
| That's two questions.
|
| Selling price is whatever the seller can get away with.
|
| What's respect got to do with the discussion?
|

You say that exploitive pricing has nothing to do
with morality. Your view seems to be one of moral
relativism: It's a dog-eat-dog world and anything
is OK if it helps one to "get ahead".

I find it rather odd that you're actually defending
Adobe's exploitation, but at the same time you're
angry that they're charging as much as they can
get away with in your case.

| Of course there is such a thing as price gouging. The point is that if
| you sell at too large a margin above cost you leave room for someone
| to come in underneath you. What both MS and Adobe have done is so
| shape the market it is not possible for someone to easily slip in
| underneath them

It's interesting that you consistently refuse to allow
any sort of moral or ethical factor into your reasoning.
Price gouging is not selling too high to be successful.
Price gouging is cheating people. Period. A roofer who
charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.

"Mayayana" <> wrote in message
news:k2jgiu$t4m$...
> Price gouging is cheating people. Period. A roofer who
> charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
> she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
> or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
> reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
> What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.

But if he charges everyone $5,000 for any of those reasons, it's considered
good business practice.
And if he gives a 'little old lady" a pensioner discount, by charging his
other customers more, he's considered a nice guy.
Funny world.

Trevor.

Eric Stevens <> wrote:

> you can sell an object. Price is a matter of how you position yourself
> in the market and in their own separate ways Microsoft and Adobe have
> positioned themselves very well. I don't like it but (except for the
> early years of Microsoft) I don't blame them.

Would it change your mind if someone like Microsoft broke laws
to reach and hold it's position? Or is that OK (in which case,
what about the Mafia and other organized crome circles)?

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens <> wrote:

> Of course there is such a thing as price gouging. The point is that if
> you sell at too large a margin above cost you leave room for someone
> to come in underneath you. What both MS and Adobe have done is so
> shape the market it is not possible for someone to easily slip in
> underneath them.

What about a company that constantly takes decisions that are
detrimental to it's users and customers but help cementing their
position as a quasi-monopoly?

What would that be called?

-Wolfgang

In article <k2jgiu$t4m$>, says...
>
> | > So whatever anyone can get away with.... You
> | >respect them for that?
> |
> | That's two questions.
> |
> | Selling price is whatever the seller can get away with.
> |
> | What's respect got to do with the discussion?
> |
>
> You say that exploitive pricing has nothing to do
> with morality. Your view seems to be one of moral
> relativism: It's a dog-eat-dog world and anything
> is OK if it helps one to "get ahead".
>
> I find it rather odd that you're actually defending
> Adobe's exploitation, but at the same time you're
> angry that they're charging as much as they can
> get away with in your case.

Who, exactly, is Adobe "exploiting"? Poor downtrodden corporations?

> | Of course there is such a thing as price gouging. The point is that if
> | you sell at too large a margin above cost you leave room for someone
> | to come in underneath you. What both MS and Adobe have done is so
> | shape the market it is not possible for someone to easily slip in
> | underneath them
>
> It's interesting that you consistently refuse to allow
> any sort of moral or ethical factor into your reasoning.

How does ethics enter into the question of pricing? There are plenty of
alternatives to Adobe products that can be had for far less money.
Adobe sells what they consider to be a premium product for a premium
price. You might as well argue that Rolls-Royce is "immoral" because
they charge high prices for their cars.

> Price gouging is not selling too high to be successful.
> Price gouging is cheating people.

Who is Adobe "cheating"?

> Period. A roofer who
> charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
> she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
> or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
> reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
> What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.

So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?

On 09/09/2012 22:32, Mayayana wrote:
> | There is no link between amorality and the
> | ability to get away with
> | what you call 'price gouging'.
>
> No. I said their prices are exploitively high because
> they're amoral *and* they can get away with it.

Their price point is determined by whether or not enough people buy
their product. You are not forced to buy Photoshop. PSPro does a pretty
decent job of most things and its JPEG settings are more flexible.
>
> | It was long ago pointed out to me that
> | there is no link between the cost of production
> | and the price at which you can sell an object....
> | I don't blame them.
> | --
>
> So whatever anyone can get away with.... You
> respect them for that? There's no such thing as
> price gouging? In that case, can I interest you in a
> glass of water? I'm running
> a special today for New Zealanders. Only 7 easy
> payments of $79.99 each. (Plus shipping and handling,
> processing fee, single order adjustment fee, currency
> translation fee, and parcel insurance fee.)

US corporations seem to charge extra for selling to the ROW.

You do have the choice to buy or not to buy their products.

Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price on offer or
contract terms then don't buy it - it is simple as that.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

| > Period. A roofer who
| > charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
| > she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
| > or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
| > reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
| > What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.
|
| So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
| ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?

I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't hire someone with
your attitude to replace my roof. Thus I avoid Adobe.

| Unfortunately that is the capitalist way, and held up as a model of good
| business practice by half the world or more
| You don't get to be a multi-$billionaire by compasion for others and fair
| pricing after all!
|

It's nice to know there's someone out there who
doesn't view ethics as just a quaint theme for
Jimmy Stewart movies.

In article <k2kqph$bd8$>, says...
>
> | > Period. A roofer who
> | > charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
> | > she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
> | > or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
> | > reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
> | > What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.
> |
> | So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
> | ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?
>
> I guess I'm saying that I wouldn't hire someone with
> your attitude to replace my roof. Thus I avoid Adobe.

Well, now, how much do those stupid corporations that you would not hire
make in a year, and how much do you make?

"J. Clarke" <> wrote:
>In article <k2jgiu$t4m$>, says...
>> | > So whatever anyone can get away with.... You
>> | >respect them for that?
>> |
>> | That's two questions.
>> |
>> | Selling price is whatever the seller can get away with.
>> |
>> | What's respect got to do with the discussion?
>>
>> You say that exploitive pricing has nothing to do
>> with morality. Your view seems to be one of moral
>> relativism: It's a dog-eat-dog world and anything
>> is OK if it helps one to "get ahead".
>>
>> I find it rather odd that you're actually defending
>> Adobe's exploitation, but at the same time you're
>> angry that they're charging as much as they can
>> get away with in your case.
>
>Who, exactly, is Adobe "exploiting"? Poor downtrodden corporations?
>
>> | Of course there is such a thing as price gouging. The point is that if
>> | you sell at too large a margin above cost you leave room for someone
>> | to come in underneath you. What both MS and Adobe have done is so
>> | shape the market it is not possible for someone to easily slip in
>> | underneath them
>>
>> It's interesting that you consistently refuse to allow
>> any sort of moral or ethical factor into your reasoning.
>
>How does ethics enter into the question of pricing? There are plenty of
>alternatives to Adobe products that can be had for far less money.
>Adobe sells what they consider to be a premium product for a premium
>price. You might as well argue that Rolls-Royce is "immoral" because
>they charge high prices for their cars.
>
>> Price gouging is not selling too high to be successful.
>> Price gouging is cheating people.
>
>Who is Adobe "cheating"?
>
>> Period. A roofer who
>> charges a little old lady $5,000 for a $1,000 job, because
>> she doesn't know any better, or because she's desperate,
>> or because he's the only roofer in town, or for any other
>> reason, is cheating her. He's not "shaping the market".
>> What he's doing is just plain old lying and stealing.
>
>So you're saying that the corporations that buy Adobe products are too
>ignorant and stupid to research the market before they buy?


The corporations don't have the same problem with high prices that
individuals do. Not only does Adobe advertise discounted rates for
multi-user licences, but Adobe offers further unadvertised discounts
to corporations.

They don't have to be large corporations either. I paid a lot less
for Creative Suite than the advertised, discounted price for the
multi-user licence I purchased, and I am now being offered an even
greater percentage discount to upgrade to CS 6.

Of course there is another saving available to individuals who buy an
OEM version when purchasing qualifying hardware.


[Please note: I am not recommending that anyone should purchase OEM
software without buying qualifying hardware.]