Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > serious price drop on Nik software

Reply
Thread Tools

serious price drop on Nik software

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> I said it could forestall someone from going over the *full* Photoshop
> >> subscription version. That costs Adobe future income from a
> >> subscriber.

> >
> >however, adobe did get a sale for elements.

>
> They already had that sale in my example. Adobe gained no new sale or
> revenue.


they don't need a new sale.

> >if someone is not going to buy the subscription (and not everyone will)
> >then it's best for adobe if the user buy another adobe product (in this
> >case, elements) rather than something from another company.
> >
> >> There are people who already have purchased Elements, so combining
> >> this with NIK could stop Adobe from getting a sale. The Elements sale
> >> is already in the barn.

> >
> >yes it was, that's the whole *point*.

>
> Do you understand your "point"? Understand "already have purchased"?
> The sale was made long before the subscription plan or the NIK
> discount was offered.


so what?

the claim was that nik's price cut was done to compete with adobe. as i
have repeatedly said, that's false because nik is not a photoshop
competitor, mainly because it works *with* photoshop.

if it was a competitor, it would not do that.

> >they are still a customer and did not switch to something else.

>
> No, they're not a "customer". Not in any active sense.


they absolutely are a customer. they own and use an adobe product and
even bought plugins to use with it. that makes them an active customer.

> Adobe
> receives no more revenue from someone who purchased a product months
> ago or years ago. If they switch to some other program, Adobe doesn't
> lose what they already gained from the previous sale. What Adobe
> loses is future revenue, and that was my *point*.


they aren't losing anything. maybe they will buy another adobe product
in the future. you have no way to know. in fact, those users are more
likely to choose another adobe product if their needs change because
they're familiar with it.

> >> I don't think what I've suggested could happen will be more than a
> >> drop in the bucket - if that - but "nobody" is such an inviting
> >> target.

> >
> >so you admit arguing just to argue, what you accuse me of doing. that
> >makes you a hypocrite.

>
> No, it's a valid point. "Some" is different from "nobody". You often
> say you post to correct people when they are wrong. That's what I've
> done to you.


just because someone says 'nobody does xyz' and you can find one person
that does doesn't disprove what was said. that's nothing more than
nitpicking words, and on the level of a spelling flame.

that's very different than refuting something with proof.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2013
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:23:19 -0400, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >> I said it could forestall someone from going over the *full* Photoshop
>> >> subscription version. That costs Adobe future income from a
>> >> subscriber.
>> >
>> >however, adobe did get a sale for elements.

>>
>> They already had that sale in my example. Adobe gained no new sale or
>> revenue.

>
>they don't need a new sale.


non sequitur.
>
>> >if someone is not going to buy the subscription (and not everyone will)
>> >then it's best for adobe if the user buy another adobe product (in this
>> >case, elements) rather than something from another company.
>> >
>> >> There are people who already have purchased Elements, so combining
>> >> this with NIK could stop Adobe from getting a sale. The Elements sale
>> >> is already in the barn.
>> >
>> >yes it was, that's the whole *point*.

>>
>> Do you understand your "point"? Understand "already have purchased"?
>> The sale was made long before the subscription plan or the NIK
>> discount was offered.

>
>so what?
>
>the claim was that nik's price cut was done to compete with adobe. as i
>have repeatedly said, that's false because nik is not a photoshop
>competitor, mainly because it works *with* photoshop.


Whoa! Aren't you tired from dragging this strawman all the way the
garden path?

Is this another one of those "this subthread is about..." things where
you attempt to control what is brought up by referencing something not
mentioned at all in the post you're replying to?

I don't think NIK cut the price in a competitive move against Adobe. I
think they cut the price to get a spike in sales. NIK has probably
already had the development costs for their modules returned by sales
at the previous pricing structure, so offering packages at $149 has
very minimal additional cost to them.

I jumped in to point out that your "never" or "no one" or "nobody" or
whatever it was was wrong. I'm not arguing that NIK and Adobe are
competitors other than being in competition for the consumer's choice
of where to spend money.

>if it was a competitor, it would not do that.


I think NIK competes more with Topaz and OnOne than anyone else.

>> >they are still a customer and did not switch to something else.

>>
>> No, they're not a "customer". Not in any active sense.

>
>they absolutely are a customer. they own and use an adobe product and
>even bought plugins to use with it. that makes them an active customer.


They didn't buy the plugins from Adobe. I'm not an active customer of
Adobe because I bought a monitor on which to view my efforts in
Photoshop.

If you really want to understand who Adobe considers to be their
customer, find someone who added a plugin to Photoshop 5 or 7. They
use an Adobe product and added a plugin to an Adobe product, but Adobe
won't recognize them as a customer.

You need to understand the difference between "customer" and "user".


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >> I said it could forestall someone from going over the *full* Photoshop
> >> >> subscription version. That costs Adobe future income from a
> >> >> subscriber.
> >> >
> >> >however, adobe did get a sale for elements.
> >>
> >> They already had that sale in my example. Adobe gained no new sale or
> >> revenue.

> >
> >they don't need a new sale.

>
> non sequitur.


you brought it up.

> >> >if someone is not going to buy the subscription (and not everyone will)
> >> >then it's best for adobe if the user buy another adobe product (in this
> >> >case, elements) rather than something from another company.
> >> >
> >> >> There are people who already have purchased Elements, so combining
> >> >> this with NIK could stop Adobe from getting a sale. The Elements sale
> >> >> is already in the barn.
> >> >
> >> >yes it was, that's the whole *point*.
> >>
> >> Do you understand your "point"? Understand "already have purchased"?
> >> The sale was made long before the subscription plan or the NIK
> >> discount was offered.

> >
> >so what?
> >
> >the claim was that nik's price cut was done to compete with adobe. as i
> >have repeatedly said, that's false because nik is not a photoshop
> >competitor, mainly because it works *with* photoshop.

>
> Whoa! Aren't you tired from dragging this strawman all the way the
> garden path?


i'm not the one doing the dragging.

> Is this another one of those "this subthread is about..." things where
> you attempt to control what is brought up by referencing something not
> mentioned at all in the post you're replying to?


no

> I don't think NIK cut the price in a competitive move against Adobe.


then we agree.

that's what i said several days ago, but true to form, all you wanted
to do was argue.

> I think they cut the price to get a spike in sales.


obviously.

> NIK has probably
> already had the development costs for their modules returned by sales
> at the previous pricing structure, so offering packages at $149 has
> very minimal additional cost to them.


also that it's under new ownership (google) and they have different
ideas about what to do with it than nik did.

> I jumped in to point out that your "never" or "no one" or "nobody" or
> whatever it was was wrong. I'm not arguing that NIK and Adobe are
> competitors other than being in competition for the consumer's choice
> of where to spend money.


word games.

> >if it was a competitor, it would not do that.

>
> I think NIK competes more with Topaz and OnOne than anyone else.


yep.

> >> >they are still a customer and did not switch to something else.
> >>
> >> No, they're not a "customer". Not in any active sense.

> >
> >they absolutely are a customer. they own and use an adobe product and
> >even bought plugins to use with it. that makes them an active customer.

>
> They didn't buy the plugins from Adobe.


i didn't say they did. you're confused, as usual.

> I'm not an active customer of
> Adobe because I bought a monitor on which to view my efforts in
> Photoshop.


what the hell does that have to do with anything?

> If you really want to understand who Adobe considers to be their
> customer, find someone who added a plugin to Photoshop 5 or 7. They
> use an Adobe product and added a plugin to an Adobe product, but Adobe
> won't recognize them as a customer.


nik won't work with photoshop that old so that too is irrelevant.

> You need to understand the difference between "customer" and "user".


more word games.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Google buys NIK! PeterN Digital Photography 4 11-04-2012 01:52 AM
US price v Uk price /\\BratMan/\\ Digital Photography 19 11-23-2007 05:18 AM
sigma ef500 super dg fr nik d70 tbm Digital Photography 0 03-29-2005 10:07 PM
Nik Sharpener Pro and Canon 10D n Digital Photography 3 01-28-2004 12:35 PM
Re: a serious question for a non-serious cause... henry DVD Video 1 11-08-2003 04:38 PM



Advertisments