Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

"Mayayana" wrote in message
...
| 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.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
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.

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...

So you don't actually read what is written, only the headers? I guess that
explains it then. Seems like a very weird passtime though!

You are flanneling. The evidence of the headers is that you responded
to the wrong article and now you are trying to say that the postman
should ignore the address and pay attention only to the presumed
intent of the author.

I responded to the THREAD, I included NOTHING from you. Get over
yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trevor.

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article , am 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.

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.

| 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?

That's two questions.

Selling price is whatever the seller can get away with.

What's respect got to do with the discussion?

There's no such thing as price gouging?

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. That's not to say that neither of them have
competitors, because they do, but they have managed to so shape both
their products and the market that there is very little contestable
room for their competitors.


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.)

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:32:56 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

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.

But it still irritates hell out of me. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

| 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.

In article , am 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.

| 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.