comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Sandman" stated in post
mr-00090C.00254711042008@News.Individual.NET on 4/10/08 3:26 PM:

>> Also consider that many of these people are only stealing Photoshop
>> because of its position. The GIMP would suit many of these people's
>> needs just fine.
>
> I disagree with that, of course.

What do you think most Photoshop users use that GIMP does not offer?

One possibility is a semi-decent UI, but I wonder what you were thinking of.

> But then again, I am one of the professionals that actually pay for Photoshop.

My copies are legal as well (both my OS X and Windows copies).

>
>> Also even the lowest priced Wacom tablet comes bundled with Photoshop
>> Elements which would also fit many of these people's needs just fine.
>>
> No argument here.
>
>> So they aren't stealing Photoshop because they have a hobby or a need that
>> has no other way to find an outlet. They're stealing Photoshop purely because
>> they want to. That's not something that should be rewarded unless you want
>> more of it.
>>
> Are you equally opposed to reduced prices for specific target groups, such as
> education? Logically, those pricing schemes could be one way to tackle the
> theft issue, since those target groups would likely steal the software
> otherwise.

One reason for EDU pricing is that Adobe realizes if you get people "hooked"
on their products they will want to use it later. They also realize that
EDU institutions, which get a huge price break, often buy in pretty large
quantities.

> Is this also to "reward theft"? If not, where do you draw the line?

It might be tied to reducing piracy but it is not the only reason.

> Where, between todays educational pricing of Photoshop (if any) and $0 is it
> rewarding and where is it not?

You are assuming EDU pricing is only to reduce piracy. That seems a silly
assumption.

--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs