You're saying this "mom" doesn't understand or really need high end photo editing software. And she also can't afford to spend much on it.

So why should Adobe lower the price for her? She doesn't have the money or need the software. She's a lousy prospect.

So who cares if she goes out and pirates their software? That does not represent a lost sale. Adobe was never gonna have her business to begin with.

You don't "market" a product to everybody. Or if you hate the word "marketing" we can say this: you dont' create and sell a product and hope literally everybody and their brother will buy a copy for one dollar apiece. Different products appeal to different people. Photoshop is high end software programmed for people who need it and can afford to pay for it. People who aren't in the "market" for such a product because they don't understand it and can't afford it are a waste of adobe's time. Trying to appeal to them AND to the high end at the same time would result in software that is middling, and pleases no one. Adobe knows their audience, knows what it can afford, and knows how to please them.

Nothing to do with which college you went to. It's just about figuring out where the money is and not wasting your time with everyone else.

Adobe does a LOT of dumb things but Photoshop pricing isn't one of them.

Their model for Photoshop is to create hands-down the best photo editing software there is.

Their target customer pays a day's wages every year or 2 in exchange for the continued use and expansion of what is truly Best In Class software.

What you're looking for is something simpler, like Acorn (for Mac). Or something cheaper (like pirated software or, if you are ethical, and don't need a tool with a super-efficient user interface, something open source). You're right that there is a market there.

And over time, Adobe has to worry about the Acorns of the world getting better and better and competing on price for the low end of the market.

But software companies that try and compete on price with pirated copies of their own products don't stay in business very long.

Personally, I'll shell out. I make a living using photoshop and I support the idea that a bunch of extremely talented software engineers ought to be able to make a living developing it.

I hate buying/installing SSL certs for clients. But:

How exactly are we supposed to create an "identity verification" process that's "free?"

The whole point of an SSL cert is supposed to be that someone, before issuing it, did some good old-fashioned sanity checking against the application and said, "yes, this person really IS the owner of the domain BankofSeattle.com"

How are you supposed to make that process "free?"

I wish it were easier. I do it all the time and hate it. So this is a sincere question.

But let's not assume it's ever going to be "free." Free, by necessity, means no human is putting any labor into it. Unless we are going to create an open source non-profit SSL issuing authority.

Ooh, sounds so very fun and stimulating. Any volunteers?

Yeah, but from TFA:

It's important to remember that, even though the late-2008 MacBook Pro 15 inch doesn't keep up in either colour accuracy or viewing angle with laptops from IBM/Lenovo, its display is still quite good and still falls on the right side of the line of acceptable display quality for field use by a working photographer, at least in ambient light that discourages reflections.

While at the same time, the slashdot headline says simply:

Photog Rob Galbraith Rates Macbook Pro Display "Unacceptable"

If you read the whole quote (not to mention the article), then surely you perceive my issue here.

You've expressed *your* opinion: that the MacBook Pro is not an acceptable choice for a professional photographer. Fine - go write a blog post and get timothy to link it.

But this article - the one slashdot actually liked to - says it *IS* acceptable.

Which is why I think the headline is... well, to put it kindly, a bit off the mark.

Mod Parent up.

This "story" is a pretty egregious example of the slashdot submitter posting something that's utterly out of sync with the linked article (who I otherwise tend to assume is actually the blog author himself trawling for traffic).

Now, I've been around here long enough not to get all worked up and grumpy: "Jeez, slashdot editors, how about RTFA before you post these things?" Because I know it has always been this way and always Shall Be.

But nowadays, the difference is, there are other places I can go for online news and some of them actually do try to maintain some kind of quality control on submissions.

I'm not gonna disappear. I stopped taking slashdot seriously a long time ago. Now I just come for the women.

But continued relevance is at stake. Jeez, slashdot editors!