Re: Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mayayana, Sep 9, 2012.

  1. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me.
    | The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to
    | most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having
    | to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived
    | in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I
    | know they are ripping me off and I resent that.

    You're very forgiving. By those standards, if
    you're stuck in the desert and a man with a
    tanker truck full of water offers you a glass in
    exchange for all of your belongings, you'd consider
    that fair... just so long as he doesn't give a
    similar glass of water to someone else for less.

    I try to take the approach of simply not doing
    business with people who exploit others out of
    greed. That's the only way to stop them. MS Office
    and PS/CS* are absurdly priced simply because
    they're amoral operations and they can get away
    with price gouging.
    Mayayana, Sep 9, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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.

    | 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.)
    Mayayana, Sep 9, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mayayana

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <k2j1td$efi$>, says...
    >
    > | 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.
    >
    > | 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.)


    Now, if you can convince New Zealanders to pay that for your water
    instead of drinking what comes out of the faucet, you've got yourself a
    business.
    J. Clarke, Sep 9, 2012
    #3
  4. Mayayana

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 17:32:00 -0400, "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.


    Oh, please. What moral standard applies to the pricing of a
    completely non-essential software program?

    What disadvantage is Eric currently facing without Photoshop? He's
    contributed submissions to the Shoot-In that don't seem to lack for
    his inability to edit them in Photoshop.

    I'm sorry that Eric has to pay more than I do for Photoshop, but I
    certainly don't see it as a moral issue.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Sep 9, 2012
    #4
  5. Mayayana

    Trevor Guest

    "Mayayana" <> wrote in message
    news:k2idep$coo$...
    >| I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me.
    > | The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to
    > | most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having
    > | to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived
    > | in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I
    > | know they are ripping me off and I resent that.
    >
    > You're very forgiving. By those standards, if
    > you're stuck in the desert and a man with a
    > tanker truck full of water offers you a glass in
    > exchange for all of your belongings, you'd consider
    > that fair...


    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!


    > I try to take the approach of simply not doing
    > business with people who exploit others out of
    > greed. That's the only way to stop them. MS Office
    > and PS/CS* are absurdly priced simply because
    > they're amoral operations and they can get away
    > with price gouging.


    Exactly! The same reason I don't own anything by Apple. My laptops did
    contribute to MS $billions though, just as it is unavoidable to not
    contribute to many other greedy enterprises if you want to live in the
    modern world. All you can do is decide your options on a case by case basis.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Sep 10, 2012
    #5
  6. Mayayana

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> I try to take the approach of simply not doing
    >>business with people who exploit others out of
    >>greed. That's the only way to stop them. MS Office
    >>and PS/CS* are absurdly priced simply because
    >>they're amoral operations and they can get away
    >>with price gouging.
    >>

    > There is no link between amorality and the ability to get away with
    > what you call 'price gouging'.


    At least none that *you* can see anyway.


    >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. 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.


    10% of the world thinks it's great business just like you, the rest think
    it's immoral that 10% the world recieves 90% of the worlds
    income/goods/resources.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Sep 10, 2012
    #6
  7. Mayayana

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/9/2012 5:32 PM, 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.
    >
    > | 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.)
    >
    >


    Is buying the program a matter of life % death.
    If no, competitive forces in the marketplace will adjust prices.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Sep 10, 2012
    #7
  8. Mayayana

    Trevor Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <k2j1td$efi$>, says...
    >>
    >> | 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.
    >>
    >> | 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.)

    >
    > Now, if you can convince New Zealanders to pay that for your water
    > instead of drinking what comes out of the faucet, you've got yourself a
    > business.


    Yep, the bottled water industry *is* big business, despite some not even
    being as good as what comes out of the tap (faucet)
    Not quite at the level mentioned though.....yet.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Sep 10, 2012
    #8
  9. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | Yep, the bottled water industry *is* big business, despite some not even
    | being as good as what comes out of the tap (faucet)
    | Not quite at the level mentioned though.....yet.
    |

    I forgot about that. To think.... I was
    trying to sound farfetched for comedic effect. :)
    Mayayana, Sep 10, 2012
    #9
  10. Mayayana

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <k2jdkf$f6b$>, says...
    >
    > | Yep, the bottled water industry *is* big business, despite some not even
    > | being as good as what comes out of the tap (faucet)
    > | Not quite at the level mentioned though.....yet.
    > |
    >
    > I forgot about that. To think.... I was
    > trying to sound farfetched for comedic effect. :)


    Further, the Japanese are willing to pay $16 an ounce for desalinated
    ocean water from Hawaii. I love the Japanese, but I will never
    understand them.
    J. Clarke, Sep 10, 2012
    #10
  11. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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, Sep 10, 2012
    #11
  12. Mayayana

    Trevor Guest

    "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.
    Trevor, Sep 10, 2012
    #12
  13. 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 10, 2012
    #13
  14. 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 10, 2012
    #14
  15. Mayayana

    J. Clarke Guest

    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?
    J. Clarke, Sep 10, 2012
    #15
  16. Mayayana

    Martin Brown Guest

    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
    Martin Brown, Sep 10, 2012
    #16
  17. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | > 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.
    Mayayana, Sep 10, 2012
    #17
  18. Mayayana

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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. :)
    Mayayana, Sep 10, 2012
    #18
  19. Mayayana

    J. Clarke Guest

    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, Sep 10, 2012
    #19
  20. Mayayana

    Bruce Guest

    "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.]
    Bruce, Sep 10, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wayne J. Cosshall
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    285
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Jan 29, 2007
  2. Bruce

    Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

    Bruce, Sep 5, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    322
    Bruce
    Sep 5, 2012
  3. tony cooper

    Re: Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

    tony cooper, Sep 9, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    342
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 9, 2012
  4. Trevor

    Re: Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

    Trevor, Sep 11, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    275
    Trevor
    Sep 11, 2012
  5. Trevor

    Re: Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

    Trevor, Sep 11, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    282
    Trevor
    Sep 11, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page