Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview

"Mayayana" wrote in message
...
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.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:45:33 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"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!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you genuinely believe that, and from the intensity of your reply
you seem to, either you have missed an article or you are suffering
from one of the bugs to which Outlook Express is prone.

Did you in fact see all the articles which I mentioned when I set out
the relationship between the various message IDs and the references
set out in the headers?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:56:23 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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.

Actually, I have just installed Paint Shop Pro X5. I have only dabbled
with it but it looks as though it might be starting to cover some of
Photo Shop's ground. The RAW conversion has worked very well so far
but I do miss the entirely non-destructive editing of NX2.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

PeterN wrote:

Is buying the program a matter of life % death.

Considering that one more or less needs, say, Office, to read
all the stuff customers send one ... it may well be life or death
for a company, and food or depending on charity for an individual.

If no, competitive forces in the marketplace will adjust prices.

Always assuming the marketplace has the semblance of a level
field or at least an angled plane one could climb up on ...

-Wolfgang

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:45:33 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"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!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you genuinely believe that, and from the intensity of your reply
you seem to, either you have missed an article or you are suffering
from one of the bugs to which Outlook Express is prone.


Did you in fact see all the articles which I mentioned when I set out
the relationship between the various message IDs and the references
set out in the headers?

In his original reply Tevor was responding directly to the OP.
There was nothing in his original reply to indicate that
he'd even read your post.

This fact is obvious to everyone excepting yourself it would
seem.

This is Usenet, and believe it or not, nobody is forced to
respond to any other particular poster's messages if they don't
want to. That includes your posts. Freedom of expression
doesn't automatically confer a right of audience.

This has nothing to do with Outlook Express or any other
NewsReader for that matter. On the other hand it might well
be, that users of particular NewsServers might experience
delays in recieving messages at certain times.
Perhaps you're confusing the two.


michael adams

....



--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:20:21 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:

If you genuinely believe that, and from the intensity of your reply
you seem to, either you have missed an article or you are suffering
from one of the bugs to which Outlook Express is prone.


Did you in fact see all the articles which I mentioned when I set out
the relationship between the various message IDs and the references
set out in the headers?

In his original reply Tevor was responding directly to the OP.
There was nothing in his original reply to indicate that
he'd even read your post.

Nonsense.

Did you not read my article Message-ID:
in which I set out the
IDs of the chain of articles which make up this thread?

Did you understand it?

Probably not. I see you are another user of Outlook Express.

Every Usenet article has at its head a real cluster-**** of 20 or 30
lines of information about the article. If you can examine these you
will see exactly who responded to who in the thread.

Once again, the series is:

Bruce started the thread with his Message-ID:


Alan Browne responded to Bruce with his Message-ID:


I responded to Alan Browne with my Message-ID:


Trevor then responded with his Message-ID:


All of this can be seen in Trevor's article in which the relevant
block of headers is:

"Message-ID:
References:

"

The lines I have just quoted above are Trevor's latest message ID at
the top and the sequence of preceding messages running upwards from
the bottom.

If you don't have the ability to confirm this for yourself, please
stop telling me I am wrong.

If you can read the headers in the thread, please tell me where I am
wrong.



This fact is obvious to everyone excepting yourself it would
seem.

This is Usenet, and believe it or not, nobody is forced to
respond to any other particular poster's messages if they don't
want to. That includes your posts. Freedom of expression
doesn't automatically confer a right of audience.

This has nothing to do with Outlook Express or any other
NewsReader for that matter. On the other hand it might well
be, that users of particular NewsServers might experience
delays in recieving messages at certain times.
Perhaps you're confusing the two.

Nothing to do with delays. The usenet system gives message IDs and
creates a list of 'References' which unambiguously sets out the
sequence of the various articles. How else do you think a Usenet
reader constructs a thread? It's certainly nothing to do with date or
time of arrival at a news server.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:02:54 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Mayayana wrote:

I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my
power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the
basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis
of what they cost to produce.

They are not priced on the basis of production costs.
They are priced on what the market will bear.

Exactly.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , am 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?