digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blog.epicedits.com

60% of Photoshop Users are PIRATES!

blog.epicedits.com — Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate’s life for me....

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dotlizard, on 03/28/2008, -17/+832gee whiz golly, nobody i know is pirating photoshop. that would be illegal! i'm totally shocked and stuff. really.
    • 42Vindictive, on 03/28/2008, -17/+404Well maybe if Photoshop didn't cost umpteen million dollars, we wouldn't all pirate it.
      • arjie, on 03/28/2008, -15/+144Because the alternative is going without Photoshop, an essential part of human life.
        • Dokument, on 03/28/2008, -15/+9Paint FT...L : (
        • zephyr42, on 03/28/2008, -35/+24There's always GIMP
          • slippiefist, on 03/28/2008, -25/+117GIMP sucks.
          • Asianwaste, on 03/28/2008, -4/+47Yea.. I tried it once... I gotta say... its interface annoys the ***** out of me.
          • lolinyerface, on 03/28/2008, -11/+2Think of an image, make it look phat, grab a 7 second sfx and now you got a fad.
          • wellyuk, on 03/28/2008, -7/+15Actually, I've been saying gimp sucks for a long time and yes, it definitely did suck for a long time. I kind of had to eat my words a bit yesterday after trying out the latest version of gimp (for os x) and I was pleasantly surprised. It had some really nice features, the interface has been tidied up a bit - it's still ugly and clunky in places though.

            However, the big issue I have with it is it doesn't integrate into OS X in anyway, shape or form. I'm an OS X user - I want to use Apple-C and Apple-V to copy and paste, not Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V etc. While those might be petty comments, it's down to consistency and it's what will stop me from using Gimp and using Photoshop, Lightroom or Pixelmator instead. Whether or not you can change the Ctrl to the Apple key, I'm not sure but I'm not sure I'm that interested in finding out.

            But still, aside from those issues (for an OS X user), I was quite impressed with the latest version of Gimp. I'm not sure I can say gimp sucks anymore :(
          • theaceoffire, on 03/28/2008, -7/+11YES Gimp sucks, but its my only option. I do not want to steal software, but I am a student. If I want to design, I have to use Gimp.
            So why not have a bit of sympathy. Gimp does a decent job, it is far better than Paint and a bunch of other programs, and it does NOT deserve the ***** it gets.
          • Nicklogan, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5All I have to say is, ARRR! But what do ninjas say?
          • blazes816, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5@theaceoffire: But piracy gives you free stuff AND makes you look cool.
          • Asianwaste, on 03/28/2008, -3/+17Ninjas don't speak... only kill.
          • Seph7, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7GIMP sucks because of the strange looks I get when people ask me if their an app like a free version of photoshop available. and u have to reply "Theirs always the GIMP". Theirs no quiet way of saying "The GIMP". For starters its in capitals.
          • mookieXL, on 03/28/2008, -0/+27Gimp has everything average user needs, but wrapped in a horrible convoluted counter-intuitive crippled senseless masochistic ***** up interface.
          • DaMacGamer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6especially on the Mac.
          • Theli, on 03/28/2008, -0/+15I think the features that GIMP has would be enough for most Photoshop users (remember the 80/20 rule), but the user interface definitely falls in the designed-by-programmer category.

            "Now where should I put the button for my new cool effect? Oh, there's some empty space!"
          • Tonorific, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3GIMP is pretty good, if you take the time to learn how to use it. It can do almost everything PS can in some cases BETTER in some cases not. But the price is right.
          • GawtMilk, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5In what cases can GIMP do something better that Photoshop?

            ---

            Adobe recognizes the number of people who use, pay for and pirate Photoshop. They also realize that piracy spreads their product, and that people [like me] who have pirated since Photoshop 6 enter the professional market and have the money to pay for CS2 and then upgrade to CS3 *because* of the money you can make by using Photoshop professionally.

            I pirated Photoshop 6, 7 and CS. Then I bought CS2 / CS3.
        • Wargalas, on 03/28/2008, -8/+23There's Paint.NET

          http://www.getpaint.net


          And it's free.
          • chromerium, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Paint.NET replaced all my tools on windows machines for image editing. It does all I need.
      • jeriqo, on 03/28/2008, -15/+36Huh.
        I bet 90% of those 90% do not use all the features in Photoshop Elements.
        $84 on Amazon.
        • theOster, on 03/28/2008, -7/+34i'd go further - everyone in my office "needs photoshop" (their words). i ask them if they need adjustment layers, masks or blend modes and their typical response is "oh i just wanted to crop this picture". MAYBE they'd to some contrast or exposure adjustment, but usually it's very basic stuff.

          i see you're being buried - i guess i will be too...cest la vie!
        • ejhdigdug, on 03/28/2008, -1/+14Would Photoshop Elements exist if 90% of those people weren't already pirating Photoshop?
        • Tonorific, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6In most cases people are using crappy little 'idiot cameras' in auto mode to make the original photo with anyway. Some of these crappy cameras, if correctly used can actually take ok pic's, but these same retards will make sure the pics don't turn out, by placing the Sun directly behind the subject, shooting freehand at night with a flash too far away from the subject, Having the flash bounce of a mirror or glass straight back into the lens. etc.

          If these same jerks learned how to use the cameras they had, the need for PS would be greatly diminished, then again, that brings us back to the same fools only knowing how to use 10% of photoshop, doesn't it?
      • davidrools, on 03/28/2008, -9/+13Compared to the cost of cameras and lenses, Photoshop and Lightroom are relatively affordable. If you just want the basics, Photoshop Elements is a much more affordable alternative to the professional stuff. And if you're a student, grab an Academic license for about 1/8th the cost of retail.
        • aywwts4, on 03/28/2008, -0/+19I think you are missing the point, those 40 percent of legal users most actually have cameras, and lenses and stuff. That other sixty percent use google image search as their sources, and fark as their gallery, and then there is the fake celebrity porn demographic...
          • ohhoe, on 03/28/2008, -1/+9Yeah, but the Academic license is only applicable to students. If you're a student and you do freelance work, for example, they expect you to have a regular licensed version of photoshop for all of your commercial work also.

            It's *****.
          • davidrools, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2RTA: "A Photography Resource for the Aspiring Hobbyist" is the name of the blog that surveyed its readership.
          • GawtMilk, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2I got into Photography *because* of Photoshop. I was using renders and making forum signatures, then I ran out of decent stock images to use, and started shooting my own. Now I've bought two editions of Photoshop and use it professionally. It's all about stepping stones...Adobe never would've recieved ~$700 from me if it weren't for me photoshopping pictures of Zelda in my free time when I was 15.
      • Justizzle, on 03/28/2008, -11/+4I gotta say, even an educational version at my college book store runs you close to a grand. WTF? Anywho, my roommate ended up buying a copy... and I got it from him!
        • DigTheDoug, on 03/28/2008, -2/+15Either you're outside the US and using a different monetary system, or your book store is seriously gouging the ***** out of you. The commercial licence is only $649. The Educational is $299 for the Extended version.
          • bitterbug, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6They've probably just confused the regular with the academic. The local university here in London sells books for double what you pay on Amazon. It's nuts.
          • jakem1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11Did you really mean to say "only $649"?
      • Streeks, on 03/28/2008, -14/+15I hate that argument. By the same logic, we should all be stealing gasoline from Mobil/Exxon because paying $4.00+ for gas is madness.
        • KSUdesigner, on 03/28/2008, -2/+63If stealing gasoline were as easy as stealing photoshop, I'm sure a whole lot more people would be stealing gasoline.
          • InferiorWang, on 03/28/2008, -0/+391. copy gasoline
            2. ???
            3. profit!
          • TheVirus, on 03/28/2008, -10/+2Punch a hole in someone's gas tank and siphon... it's more common than you'd think.
          • senatorpjt, on 03/29/2008, -0/+12Yeah, and nobody would think it was even bad if you could create an infinite amount of gasoline at no cost.
        • DaMacGamer, on 03/28/2008, -2/+22Can I download gas through my bittorrent client? because if I can someone link me!
          • screensnot, on 03/28/2008, -0/+16I'd like to help you out, but I'm on Comcast, and they won't let me seed.
          • sonicjosh, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5No, only rapidshare; be prepared to wait a few days...
        • theodenking, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Copying != Stealing.
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -8/+46And maybe if Lamborghinis weren't so expensive, I'd quit stealing them.
      • shoveitfatty, on 03/29/2008, -4/+4Maybe if we didn't all pirate Photoshop, it wouldn't cost umpteen million dollars...


        (I don't even know how much that is....as I have never paid for a copy of Photoshop.)
        • ComradeGoby, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5No, they still want your money and are willing to rip you off.
    • BoneStamp, on 03/28/2008, -4/+12Yarghh.
    • MrZaiko, on 03/28/2008, -12/+4I feel I inspired this guy for this topic
    • OwdenBowden, on 03/28/2008, -6/+62Fact is Photoshop is way way way too expensive for the common user (and even for business). I really do feel it is a wonderful program but there are not some Open Source programs that can compete - they're not going to win the race but they are good enough.

      I understand that there are costs involved for development of a product but after a while it just becomes gouging. To pay anywhere from $999 to $3,000 plus is insane. I think that if they could come out with a product no more than $200 and they would be selling like hot cakes.
      • CosmicJustice, on 03/28/2008, -12/+13No it's not gouging. They did come out with a product for less than $200. It's call Photoshop Elements.
        • o0JoeCool0o, on 03/28/2008, -6/+35sux
          • OwdenBowden, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1exactly. They should just have Photoshop and not the Photoshop Elements crap.
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -16/+3@o0JoeCool0o:

          Then don't buy it. But don't steal Photoshop either.
        • Vorin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8so i can't have my cake OR eat it?
          that doesn't sound right.
        • senatorpjt, on 03/29/2008, -1/+9Photoshop Elements is useless. The people who don't need Photoshop, don't need Photoshop Elements either, they can just use some freeware to adjust the color balance on their pictures. Their problem is "one-size-fits-all" pricing. It's reasonably priced for a for-profit business to purchase, but that's only that 40% of the users that pay for it. They're certainly not losing any money - the people who pirate it would never even bother if it weren't available, they'd just find some other hobby. Plus, when people pirate Photoshop, it's essentially free advertising - when someone learns to use Photoshop on their own time, it may lead to getting a job where they end up using a paid-for version.
      • jferrari, on 03/28/2008, -4/+31Photoshop is not aimed at the common user, and if your business can't afford it your either in the wrong business or you don't need it.
        • InferiorWang, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11But there is a market there that is not properly tapped. If Adobe were to lower pricing on Photoshop then more people would be likely to buy it than steal it. Did you look at the latest poll results? Pirated PS has nearly double the votes of legit PS. Can you imagine selling a product that twice as many people steal rather than buy and the primary reason is that it is too expensive? Development costs money, but when you lower the entry price, you get more customers. Demand is there. I think Adobe lets people get away with pirating PS so that it remains the standard
          • BugMeNot2, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2There's a reason why Adobe made Photoshop Elements.
          • jeriqo, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1What market ?
            Cropping/saturating your vacation pictures ?
            Get Picassa or iPhoto.
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2[[Fact is Photoshop is way way way too expensive for the common user (and even for business).]]

        True, but the common user doesn't need all the features that Photoshop provides. There are plenty of less feature-rich products out there that are very affordable or even completely free.

        [[I think that if they could come out with a product no more than $200 and they would be selling like hot cakes.]]

        Precisely. Let the free market determine the prices. If people didn't buy (or steal) software that they felt was too expensive, the prices would magically begin to drop - or alternative products with affordable prices would emerge. That's the beauty of the free market.
        • jakem1, on 03/28/2008, -2/+7That's been Adobe's argument for about 10 years now and it's just plain wrong. People copy Photoshop BECAUSE it's so expensive. If Adobe put the price up to combat piracy then they will only continue to encourage piracy. Additionally, Photoshop was one of the first applications to introduce restricted use of serial numbers and other counter-piracy techniques. When will they learn that this stuff is working against them. Hell, the numbers in this article speak for themselves.

          BTW, Office suffers from exactly the same problems as Photoshop in this regard which is why so many people still use Office 97.
          • amadeusdemarzi, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3People still use Office 97?...
          • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1[[People copy Photoshop BECAUSE it's so expensive.]]

            Wrong. People pirate Photoshop because they are dishonest.
      • cryptoki, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Ive heard of a few devs who all use the freeware versions (cracked). On a side note... yeah.. overpriced. 300 bucks its worth it.
        the express editions and elements should be 19.95. no offense.. but thats just the way it should be.
    • reichg, on 03/28/2008, -7/+31fmaybe it photoshop wasnt 700 dollars and they didnt upgrade it every 1.5 years more people would pay for it
      • manitoba98xp, on 03/28/2008, -13/+201. Photoshop is $700 for two reasons: they spend a lot and R&D, and they're losing paying customers to piracy.
        2. Why do you care if they upgrade it? It doesn't make your version stop working. If you prefer a 3-year release cycle, just ignore every other version.
        3. It could cost $30 and there would still be a lot of pirates: don't kid yourself.
        • bitterbug, on 03/28/2008, -0/+17Your argument 3 and argument 1 contradict each other.
          You say they lose paying customers to piracy. Then you say that if it was dirt cheap they still wouldn't buy it.
          Those aren't paying customers.
          So no revenue is lost.
          • manitoba98xp, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Allow me to clarify: they lose SOME paying customers to piracy, but there would still be a LOT of pirates, albeit fewer. Most pirates wouldn't be paying customers, but some would (or used to) be.
        • senatorpjt, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5Photoshop is $700 because it's sold as a commercial product. I use a few programs for school that probably have a combined retail "value" around $100K. There's no way I'm buying it.
      • solid12345, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11The problem is alot of somethingawful kiddies think everything revolves around Photoshop. Adobe upgrades Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, After Effects, Premiere, Audition, and now they own Dreamweaver and Flash.

        It is amazing they actually do update all these packages so fast and every new feature is truly worth it. CS3's integration of Flash with Illustrator and Photoshop is gold.
    • math0ne, on 03/28/2008, -6/+8They have elements for a few other consumer oriented products already.
      • unjustend, on 03/28/2008, -4/+8Yes, a scaled back edition for the price most users think they should be selling photoshop at. That'll make'em money.
    • combatchuck, on 03/28/2008, -7/+11http://cristgaming.com/pirate.swf
    • diabolicdiablo, on 03/28/2008, -4/+42Maybe it just me justifying it to myself, but as long as I'm not using Photoshop to make money in a studio or for commercial use, I don't feel so bad.
      Also I would like to point out:
      Photoshop > GIMP
      • chessoriginal, on 03/28/2008, -10/+1hmmm photoshop is greater than gimp... i knowed i learnt something in skool
      • WillyWonka, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4Have you ever tried to use the gimp? All I wanted to do the other day was measure an image in pixels. So I downloaded it... my god it's rectangular marquee tool just doesn't work how you'd expect it to. Sometimes it moved the image, sometimes it didn't. At least in photoshop those two actions are distinct tools.
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1There's always GIMPShop or Paint.NET.
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -5/+5[[Photoshop > GIMP]]

        GIMP.price < Photoshop.price
        • Bologner, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4......Duh?
        • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Dugg down? Oh, I see. You're right and I'm wrong. Photoshop really does cost less than GIMP.
      • FascistUtopia, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2agreed. to take a course in Beginning Photoshop, it seems absurd to have to shell out that much for a program I use to make avatars & banners for personal use.
        • MsArtGeek, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3Luckily for you, you don't have to shell out, as there are many available fre programs that will help you, not to mention educational licenses for student use, not to mention Photoshop Elements, not to mention the free version that was on digg a couple days ago.
        • cryptoki, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2they make many things hard. thats how they stay in business.
        • McMaster88, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2@ cryptoki: That's what she said.
      • parkermauney, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4Really? I never would've guessed that a 12 year old open source project would be less functional than a thousand dollar application in production 20 years produced by one of the leading software manufacturers in existence.
    • Manuelmty, on 03/28/2008, -3/+15the rest are ninjas?
    • combatchuck, on 03/28/2008, -12/+34Free alternatives:

      Paint.NET - free OSS - http://www.getpaint.net/
      gIMP - free OSS - http://www.gimp.org/
      Photoshop Elements - $63.49 - http://www.gimp.org/
      Painter Essentials - $79.99 - http://tinyurl.com/2yemdb (tinyurl'd for insananely long addess)
      Pixia - free - http://park18.wakwak.com/~pixia/gallery.htm
      Pixen - free MacOS - http://opensword.org/pixen/
      Rasterley - free crossplatform - http://tinyurl.com/2g9mqh (another absurdly long URL)
      • PueSi, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4I used Pixia before, it sucks bad.
        • mookieXL, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5Pixia is just a simple replacement for mspaint. Don't expect anything more from it.
        • dajs, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2I like pixia, I think it aint that bad.
      • DarkDx, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3!
      • pattyboy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+22Damn you for the rick roll ('rasterley' link). At least the other links were legit though...
        • tas08, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Good Lord no, now they're tinyurl-ing the Rick Rolls? Just when i memorized uuiU...
      • skrowl, on 03/28/2008, -3/+9Paint.NET rules!
      • ejhdigdug, on 03/28/2008, -4/+35Come on, there really is no alternative.

        Going to a job interview:
        Interviewer: Do you know Photoshop?
        Interviewee: No, but I know Paint.NET and Gimp
        Sound of door slamming.
        • senatorpjt, on 03/29/2008, -0/+9I've heard an interesting argument for piracy - it actually helps sales because if people didn't pirate it, they wouldn't know how to use it, so companies wouldn't use it - because they wouldn't be able to find anyone who knew how.
        • microchp, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4If you can show them the same results from something else, they would hire you, get on their knees in front of you and gulp gulp.

          I am not saying I have those skills. I do not. I have seen some awesome work done using gimp however. If you could save them from buying xxx copies of Photoshop; you would be god to them.
        • sk11, on 03/29/2008, -3/+4Interviewer: Do you know photoshop?
          Interviewee: No, I use a free alternative called the gimp, which is just as good as photoshop.
          Interviewer: Free, WOW. We spend a lot of money on photoshop.
          Interviewee: It's easy to switch, I can show you, plus you get to save all that money.
          Interviewer thinks hmm, shall I hire someone who could save the company 10,000's of dollars a year...
          Interviewer: you're hired.
          • Cerebral, on 03/29/2008, -2/+10Actually in the "real" world it would have stopped after you said "no" to knowing Photoshop. Sorry but that's the truth.
          • McMaster88, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5That makes sense on paper, but not in real life...sorry, +1 point for effort.
          • peregrine, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2In my dreams maybe.
            It works the same for Blender.

            If you got good skills on gimp and have proof of such skills you can get a job using phootshop. Same apply for blender,
          • JusticeFriend, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4And then you wake up...
        • brownspank, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Yeah, because everyone who pirates Photoshop happens to be looking for a job in graphic design.
      • piesforyou, on 03/28/2008, -0/+14hehehe, that was welllll done.
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5That last one was doubtful - but lively.
      • gdtmsailor, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2there really is no alternative to photoshop. no options as great and the way it's integrated into the entire suite to work with premeire pro and other video editing and 3d animation stuff really makes it necessary
      • hatchet, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3I see what you did there, nice
    • humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -4/+94In related news, 40% of photoshop users are goddamned liars.
      • chaoswings, on 03/28/2008, -0/+9I see that I'm not the only one who thought that number should have been higher...
      • Tenoq, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4I was thinking 99%... but then I considered that businesses might actually buy it. So I figure 90%. :p
        • Cerebral, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5...and mostly because they actually HAVE to purchase PS. Otherwise nobody would purchase it. I wonder how many Adobe employees are a part of that 60%.
    • hollyminkowski, on 03/28/2008, -3/+12I think photoshop places a secret watermark on images it makes.
      Probably keyed to the serial number of the program.
      This would make it dangerous to use for commercial work if you bootlegged it.
      I suppose that if you took 2 copies of PS and produced exactly the same image then
      you could compare them and find the watermark bits.
      • bobbothegrayson, on 03/28/2008, -1/+11That is ridiculous sounding, but believable. Quick, someone try.
      • phenom2k7, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5Let's hope Penn and Teller can debunk this for us.
      • TH3W1R3D, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Is this a wild guess or do you have a source?
        • hollyminkowski, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3It's what I would do if I had an overpriced product and wanted some way to prove that an image had been modified by it and also be able to tie the mods to a particular serial number.
          This should be easily proved or disproved. Just choose a tiny image that is somewhere on the net available for download...have people grab the image and do something simple like lighten the gamma one step. Now have them run an md5 sum on the new image....see if they all match or not.
          Multiple copies of the image made with the same copy of PS might have different md5's ... this would raise suspicion since it would make it seem likely an identifier was being encoded but was made differently each time...this is easily done because there are endless ways to encode the same info.
    • Ataxia2008, on 03/28/2008, -0/+9"60% of Photoshop Users are PIRATES!"

      Wait, I thought Digg was a *news* site...
    • mirzmaster, on 03/29/2008, -0/+9Well, how do you think it became the de-facto industry standard? Every graphic artist worth their salt uses Photoshop, and likely became proficient on a pirated copy.

      I'm sure Adobe is crying all the way to the bank!
    • Myztry, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3That's the problem with intangible products. Clones just don't have the same value as creations, yet they like to pretend they do.
      1 Million x $900 is $900 Million dollars, but 10 million times $100 dollars is $1 Billion dollars.
      They deserve any loss their pricing policy causes them. Even $100 for a digital clone is generous.
    • floejoe, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1If you are a business and you have a legitimate need for Adobe product you can write it off on your taxes so it's free in a way. That's what most people do, it's a cost of doing business and it is also an investment because it will make you money.

      $700 is not expensive, their target audience is not high school / college kids but professionals who need it as part of their business.

      If you can't write it off on your taxes then you probably do not need Photoshop.
  • loopbiz, on 03/28/2008, -29/+122I always knew I was a minority!
    • weside, on 03/28/2008, -11/+16Dugg for honesty. Sadly others dugg down for not pirating.
    • BCModder1, on 03/28/2008, -4/+11honest comments on digg always seem to meet the same fate unless it's one of those rare ones that you manage to throw out there that people actually agree with.
    • sockpuppets, on 03/28/2008, -5/+28Whys it always gotta be about being black with you?
    • gegroff, on 03/28/2008, -0/+23We don't much like your kin around heer. You best keep movin along.
    • mistergoomba, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6i thought that percentage would be higher honestly
    • OpaqueMurdock, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5Funny, I just made a snarky comment yesterday about owning PS since 1.x. It feels weird sometimes, Like I am some big sucker for paying for it. Good to know at least 40% of the others out there also do. I would have guessed lower.
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -3/+4Honesty does not a sucker make.
        • OpaqueMurdock, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Thank you very much for saying so.
      • iamnobody8614, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I'm guessing a good portion of the 40% of legal copies of PS were bought by universities.
    • Asianwaste, on 03/28/2008, -5/+12You're the reason why Adobe doesn't crack down on the other 60%.
      To be frank, Adobe's not stupid. You can get audited if you are officially making money off computer graphic design. If you fail to show that you are a certified owner of the professional editions they bust you. Even the discounted Academic versions you bought in college won't get you out. My graphic design professor told me once that Adobe has guys that can look at a picture and find different types of signatures signaling that Photoshop or some other Adobe product was used in its development. Sounds far-fetched but I assume there's a reason why free-lance designers still buy it.
      • raynar, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6no they cant. Your teacher is a retard. If they have access to, I dont know, the friggin PSD PHOTOSHOP FILE, then maybe they can.
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Honesty and integrity, perhaps?
      • microchp, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2That is FUD. I agree that if you are using it for your business, then you would be a fool not to have a legit license for it. Your PSD files do have system specific information in them, but the web versions do not. Even if they did that, one could simply batch process them with any number of programs to remove watermarks or hidden exif tags.
    • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5There just may be some special scholarships out there for you.
    • MrWally, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3Which am I?

      I've pirated Photoshop on my Windows machine, but have owned literally every version of Photoshop since version 4 on my various Macs.
      • Asianwaste, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Meh, 1 legit copy pays for 5 other people. I don't think the FBI will break down your door.
    • danarama, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2doesn't matter adobe loves piracy they sell more copies because of it. people return to software they know and love.
    • breezytrees, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2me too! *wink*
    • ricky125, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2It feels good to grandstand.
  • Ninh, on 03/28/2008, -4/+762It could be worse for Adobe: If pirates would prefer someone else's product.
    • rokinroj, on 03/28/2008, -9/+48I am a Photoshop retard, I resize a few things, maybe layer an image or two, change a background color, thats about all I used it for, so nothing powerful at all, but about a year ago I switched over to Paint.NET and have not missed Photoshop at all. I'm sure that there are a lot of users who really do need it for all of it's complex features, (and Paint.NET does do some of them too) but there are also a lot like me who could make the switch and not need to "acquire" a copy of Photoshop at all.
      • LocalDocal, on 03/28/2008, -5/+9Agreed 100%.

        I used to pirate Photoshop; in fact, I did it for years. Eventually, it hit me that Photoshop seemed to have become an essential part of my computing experience, yet I never bothered to purchase a copy despite using the same edition (Photoshop 7) for years, which became (somewhat) affordable. I decided then to switch to a free alternative. I tried Gimp (and Gimpshop), but they were horrible beyond belief. Then I switched to Paint.net. It took some effort, but I learned how to use it and since then, I never went back.

        And, of course, it is at this time that Adobe releases a free edition of Photoshop. Figures.
        • KloroFormd, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3That free edition of Photoshop doesn't have half the features of Paint.NET. No worries.
        • kilikogo, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5I like Gimp :(
        • MrsJay, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2I like gimp too. :)
      • Ragarnok, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8Damn you pirates using free alternatives to photoshop! :p
      • caleb4mj, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2http://code.google.com/p/paint-mono/
    • asspants, on 03/28/2008, -3/+11/thread over
    • CrazyDave303, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4because I'm using all of the Adobe apps and liking them, I don't push Corel Draw any more. Plus I'm bugging work to get CS3.
    • SlvrEagle23, on 03/28/2008, -0/+78Totally. When it comes to software used by designers or programmers, you just don't hear all that much about their parent companies suing the pants off of every pirate out there. Those companies know very well that if a 16-year-old pirates Photoshop, they might grow up to call themselves professional digital artists with years of Adobe software experience, or if they pirate Visual Studio, they might grow up to be ASP.net developers.

      I can tell you that almost every single developer I encounter around here got their start working on a pirated piece of software. You have to start somewhere, and that experience led them to recommend the software to their companies for the rest of their careers. It pays off for Adobe, so you're completely right.
      • redxxx, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10Same reason they have educational licenses, students can't afford the stuff, but they want them to get indoctrinated into the cult of photoshop.
      • CSharpSauce, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I got a job when i was going to college when i was 18 as a graphics designer by using pirated software to learn it. (and now that i got the job, i'm a full fledge legal owner)
        Now, my current job as a .NET developer I also learned the skill with a pirated version, though i paid hundreds of dollars for all the red series books... so i'm not going to brag about that one.
      • Fryth, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3It's not so much that those companies are smart... it's that the RIAA is completely backwards.
        • hitdrumhard, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3what... you're going to learn the music so well that you will eventually get hired to listen to it and then finally go legit and pay for the music?
    • Odeon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+12Trying to combine Slvr Eagle and Ninh's original comment...
      As far as I know Adobe has never sued a private user for pirating software. This is an important part of their business model. Name another image editor from 10 years ago and I'll guarentee you it was harder to get a hold of than Photoshop. If you can't name a 10 year old image editor other than photoshop, it's because the availability of their product has given it market dominance. All the developers I know were pirates as teens, but now buy legitame copies for their business.
      • hexydes, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4MS Paint

        But yeah, no, I see what you mean. =)
      • ZigVicious, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I want 'a legitame' copy of CS3!
      • CobaltBlue, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Adobe is a member of the Business Software Alliance. The BSA takes care of the lawsuits for them.
    • MarrowMan, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I'll stick with Deluxe Paint 4
    • xsidekick409, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4Seriously, if I had to buy Photoshop, I would just go with GIMP. I don't like some of Adobe's policies, but their "free trials" *ahem* are great. If they were total assholes about piracy and suing people for trying to get started in the field where standard software is hundreds of dollars by pirating first and then buying later I would search for another alternative instead of buying their product. I will certainly buy their product when I have the means to do so.
  • jonmlm, on 03/28/2008, -5/+72duh
    • Borgcube636, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11I bet those graphs were made with photoshop.
      By a pirate.
    • magicmarc, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3You mean, pirating Adobe Photoshop © software
    • ninja0, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Yeah... this is... surprising?
  • AndrewDB, on 03/28/2008, -62/+9Photoshop is grand and all, but I went the free route: http://www.getpaint.net/

    It's faster than Photoshop, does every single thing Photoshop does, without taking up nearly as much hard drive space, or memory.
    • spect3r, on 03/28/2008, -6/+67No it does not do every single thing Photoshop does. Not even close ... :/ But it's still a good alternative for those just wanting to do touch-ups...

      The closest free alternative to Photoshop is the Gimp. http://www.gimp.org/; and even with every plugin installed and interface hack you can find - it's still hard to match Photoshop...
      • AndrewDB, on 03/28/2008, -32/+3Have you tried the latest version? It does do nearly every single thing that Photoshop does. Layering, shading, drop shadows, etc.
        • Cougaboy, on 03/28/2008, -5/+39This just shows how little you actually know about photoshop.
          • AndrewDB, on 03/28/2008, -20/+3OK, if you're so wise, tell me every single, and I mean every single thing, Photoshop does that paint.net doesn't do.
          • Cougaboy, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6I'm not saying that Photoshop is perfect for everyone, just that your little breakdown of features shows how many of the more advanced tools you have overlooked. Paint.net may be perfect for you, but it is definitely not perfect for everyone, and is nowhere near as advanced as photoshop.
          • Llanowar, on 03/28/2008, -2/+14How about the awesome filter called : Learn to do some research before keep making dumb comments.
            I use it all the time, you should too.
        • moyness, on 03/28/2008, -3/+1are you ***** us? . . .
    • ExRe, on 03/28/2008, -9/+12Comparing Paint.Net to Photoshop is like comparing a bike to a motorcycle. Paint.Net is a good alternative to Paint, but not much else.
      • nirav72, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8Agree. But I would say Paint.net is probably what Photoshop was around version 4.0 or maybe a little v5. Still capable if you know how to use it.
    • abran1984, on 03/28/2008, -4/+17Dude, have you ever used Photoshop? Or was that a joke?
    • Llanowar, on 03/28/2008, -8/+43I use MS Paint. It has even more options than Photoshop!
      • reazal, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Haha! I remember this guy who managed to draw a Monalisa and a really beautiful car by just using MS Paint.
        • irgeorge, on 03/28/2008, -1/+11That would be... anyone who can actually draw. Being surprised someone can draw in Paint is like being surprised that someone can draw with a pencil.
        • yunus, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3ok, you owe me a monitor. I put pencil marks all over it and now I can't get rid of them.
        • Audacitor, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Honestly, MS Paint is the only Windows program I have ever wished there would be a Mac port for.
          Then I found Pixen...
      • I_am_so_smrt, on 03/29/2008, -3/+1Mac Draw on the original Macintosh far surpasses Photoshop any day. The way it handles 4bit, black and white images is nothing short of amazing. It may not be able to handle my RAW files, but damn it... ***** it, I lost my place.
    • mdesjardins, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5For Macs (and several other platforms, I think), I've found that a cheap not-as-good-as-Photoshop-but-decent-image-editor is Pixel, http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12
      • wwwluckyro, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2hasn't been updated for months and it won't be. talked to one of the devs a few weeks ago...
      • vault, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3There's Pixelmator too for OS X, but it really doesn't hold a candle to Photoshop. It's sort of like a more advanced Photoshop Elements.
    • halobender, on 03/28/2008, -12/+1How Redmond working out for you?
      • insertAliasHere, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7I'm going to guess that was an attempt to tie Paint.NET to Microsoft. While it may use one of Microsoft's technologies (.NET) it is most certainly not produced or owned by Microsoft. Think, pause, think again, (maybe google a bit) and only then should you type a comment.
        • senatorpjt, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2The guy that wrote it works for Microsoft. But yeah, they don't own it.
    • reed311, on 03/28/2008, -4/+7Yeah, and then when it's $70 you guys will say "If only it was cheaper we wouldn't have to pirate it."
      • unjustend, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11I'd buy it at 70, much like I bought nero because it was only 60 bucks, and much like I bought AnyDVD because it was only 30... Pretty much if you can get it under 100 dollars, I'll think about buying it.
      • TimmyGUNZ, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11Not true. I'd gladly pay $70 to avoid having to find cracks for CS3 and to be able to seamlessly apply patches.
      • Hortnon, on 03/28/2008, -0/+9I'd buy it in an instant if it were $70, and I barely have a use for it. The only reason I don't have it is the cost.
        • ssn697, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I am a bit embarrassed to admit I still get new versions free, from Adobe, when they are released. One of the perks of having worked there many years ago (well, still having folks that worked for me working there). I forget how expensive the products still are...
          • Audacitor, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1You get free Adobe swag? That is awesome on so many levels.
      • digitalarcanum, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6when some versions of your program cost more than some peoples computers: you have a ***** problem.
        • Audacitor, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah, seriously. PS CS3 is $650. The Extended version is $1000.
          On the other hand, the software is actually good enough to warrant such a price.
    • p51d007, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I use paint.net when I just need to quickly crop something or resize it. Anything more than than it is CS2 for me.
  • rajputwarrior, on 03/28/2008, -5/+188thats seems kinda low...
    • ejhdigdug, on 03/28/2008, -1/+11Yha, I figured some of them must have lied rather then get caught.
    • moush, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5A lot of buisness's and schools use it, that's probably a lot right there that buy it. But they probably get discounts for buying in bulk.
      • Audacitor, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Not so many schools as you think. My old high school is still using v7, I believe.
  • bposeley, on 03/28/2008, -4/+890That's probably because the program is so damn expensive.
    • gametavern, on 03/28/2008, -82/+4expensive probably due to pirating.
      • Otto, on 03/28/2008, -4/+35Nonsense. Please explain how the price is at all related to how much it gets pirated?

        If anything, it's pirated more because it costs so damn much.
        • Audacitor, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1And it's Piracy is a good thing. If Photoshop weren't pirated, it wouldn't be nearly as widely used as it is now. It is not unlikely that had the software remained unpirated, it might not be around today.

          If it weren't piracy, Photoshop would be used as a verb.
      • tendonut, on 03/28/2008, -2/+38Yep, because people were downloading PS 2.0 on their 33.3k modems back in the mid 90's when it STILL cost about the same.

        That is the kind of excuse we'd expect to see from the RIAA/MPAA
        • LocalDocal, on 03/28/2008, -8/+1If I recall correctly, Photoshop 2 came on floppies.
          • tendonut, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4Yeah, but was it as incredibly easy to get your hands on as it is now? Were there nearly as many online users intelligent enough to find a way to download it back then as there is now? It's like saying gas prices are high now because people in the 1820's were filling up their horses and driving off without paying.

            I think that analogy works...
          • LocalDocal, on 03/29/2008, -0/+0I'm not saying downloading Photoshop back in the day was as easy as now. Instead, what I'm asking is this: When a program comes on floppies, do you even need to download it? How long does it take us to download the 700MB Photoshop as opposed to some guy copying the program from five floppies?
      • BCModder1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10yea, I use the gimp but would use photoshop if I could afford it however their costs are way to high and imho very unrealistic for a company in the business of making money. the smart way to go would be to put their product out there with a lower cost that's more within reason, if they did that I would buy it.
    • jcastillo81, on 03/28/2008, -7/+316For real, if Photoshop cost $70 as opposed to $700 I bet enough people would actually purchase it to make up for the price difference.
      • bxblox, on 03/28/2008, -9/+2If you're a student you could probably get a cheap copy, or you could get a student you know to buy you a copy.
        • LemonHerb, on 03/28/2008, -3/+16I believe the latter is still piracy.
          • bxblox, on 03/28/2008, -5/+5No its not.
          • marktastic, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3HolemCross already posted what I was gonna say. Go read his a few posts down
        • republicker, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1And then pirate it.
        • HolemCross, on 03/28/2008, -1/+9I would have recommended a student copy as well but the license agreements still bar commercial use of the product, making student copies worthless.
          • bxblox, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Its not really worthless. If you are really in need of a commercial license, then you're making money using photoshop and can save a few bucks to buy a copy.
          • burningjonny, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Actually, at least here in Canada, the student license allows you to use the product for commercial uses, so long as you are a freelancer.
        • coheedcollapse, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8The student copy (At IUB at least) was still $400. I really should have gotten it as it's a great discount on the program, but my god. It's so damn expensive.
        • PopcornDave, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3The other problem with the student edition is that you can't get upgrades for it. So you're back to hitting up a student every time a new version comes out.
          • bxblox, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I typed this somewhere down there but il put it here too. In that case you could get an older (unregistered) version off ebay for cheaper and then buy the upgrade. That will save hundreds.
          • burningjonny, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You can upgrade a student license to a full commercial license from what I know. That's the only reason I even bought a CS3 student license.
      • jeriqo, on 03/28/2008, -23/+5Do you REALLY need the full version Photoshop ?
        Isn't Photoshop Elements enough ?
        $84 on Amazon.
        • shadeOfGrey, on 03/28/2008, -4/+13Yes
          No
        • Otto, on 03/28/2008, -4/+8PS Elements is not enough, and $84 is still too expensive, especially for a crippled and disabled piece of software.

          If the full version of PS cost about $60-70, then I would say pirating it would be wrong.
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4@Otto:

          [[If the full version of PS cost about $60-70, then I would say pirating it would be wrong.]]

          Why is the price of something at all related to whether or not it is acceptable to steal it? By that non-logic, it is more acceptable to steal a Ferrari than a Yugo.
          • Otto, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1Because copying != stealing.
          • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1@Otto:

            [[Because copying != stealing.]]

            First of all, that depends entirely on the license agreement.

            Secondly, that was obviously not even the point of argument here. Your statement was that if the price for a piece of software is low enough, pirating it is wrong, implying thereby that piracy becomes more acceptable in direct proportion to the increase in the price of the piece of software. The higher the price, then, the more justified the piracy.

            You have three choices now: 1) retract or clarify your statement, 2) argue in favor of moral relativism, or 3) admit you were wrong.
        • Audacitor, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1@mahdeang:
          PS CS3 is 650 dollars. I don't know about you, but I don't have 650 lying around, what with college, paying for gas, and my apartment's rent, and Photoshop is continually heralded by the Interwebz as a must have app. So pirate it, I will.
          • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1[[I don't know about you, but I don't have 650 lying around]]

            Boo-hoo!

            I don't have $2.5 million lying around. I guess I'll either have to do without that Learjet I've had my eye on, or I'll have to take one when nobody's looking.

            [[Photoshop is continually heralded by the Interwebz as a must have app]]

            What else does the "Interwebz" herald as a must-have? Will you steal that too? Because the "Interwebz" said you must have it? Is that really your argument?

            [[So pirate it, I will.]]

            Then a thief you will be. Congratulations!
      • Niceguy4186, on 03/28/2008, -5/+11Umm, do the math. Every single person would have to pay closer to 300 for them too break even. (assuming the $700).
        They are better off charging a very high price for people (or companies) that actually buy it, then lower hoping that everyone will buy it.
        • daridave, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1170$ IS cheap, but somthing like 140$-180$ makes perfect sense.
        • themoose, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2Break even? There's not that much costs in software..
          • awesty, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Adobe has to pay all their staff to develop their software, and pay for advertising etc..

            It would cost them a fortune to make it.
        • ZigVicious, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2@themoose
          yeah there is, photoshop takes a long time to develop. Time spent developing=time spent paying developers.
        • rigorious, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3@themoose by break even (s)he means to get the same profit from sold copies. Not the break even of profits and expenses. I don't think anyone of us, with all the respect, know photoshops budgets.
        • microchp, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4Break even? Are their numbers posted somewhere that we are refencing? I have not seen their operating expenses that they report to the SEC, but I would bet they broke even a long time ago and with the current burn rate in mind and assuming they know how to run their business and considering that PS is only one of many commercial products they offer; then I seriously doubt they have to charge that much. There are always ways to trim the cost of a product so that more people can reach it. Stalker did that with CommuniGate and it only helped them make more money and get their product name out there to more people. Also, nobody can make the argument about development costs. They add few few features every release and that is what... every 2 years?
      • IAmTheGuy, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Chances are a huge international corporation such as Adobe has some type of business team that has taken some form of a basic economics course. This would lead me to believe that they understand the concept of supply and demand, and thus have priced their product accordingly. Just a thought.
        • jcastillo81, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2LIAR!
          No, actually that makes sense... However, it seems software giants are so busy worrying about the pirates that the don't stop think that if they charged a much more affordable rate more people would by it. More users = more people buying upgrades, plug ins, other adobe software, etc. And with high speed internet becoming more commonplace people can just download the program thus decreasing production costs to virtually zero.
      • yunus, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2They could charge $1 for a legal download. People would still pirate. Many find it easier to find a torrent than to find a legal download and some just enjoy knowing they are doing something illegal.
        • tendonut, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5Option 1: Dig through our website to find what you are looking for. Please Login. Don't have an account? Create one! A
          confirmation has been sent to your e-mail. Click the link to activate account. Now start the download. Sorry, we have some ads to show first. OK, we've capped the download at 45kbps. OK, now install the program. OK, now you need a CD key. Put it in...ok now activate the program. Oh, sorry, our activation service is down once again, so call us. Oh, sorry, our lines are busy. Wait about 2 hours and we'll pick up. OK, I'll read off the numbers. Didn't work? Let me try again. And again, and again. Got it? Good. Now enter it at the prompt. OK, now start using it. Oh, you need to reformat? Well lets just start this whole process over again.

          Option 2: Go to www.isohunt.com and download easily the 40kb file. Drag it to uTorrent. Install with no activation required. Done.

          And they wonder why piracy is the best policy if you want to never be hassled.
      • Archer007, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand
    • elijahalcantara, on 03/28/2008, -3/+27No only that, the online store won't even let me purchase from my country
    • cougar618, on 03/28/2008, -35/+3And its so damn expensive b/c people pirate it.
      Catch 22

      This will probably go oin until there are only 5 legal copies for $5,000,000 dollars leach
      • shadeOfGrey, on 03/28/2008, -4/+4That sounds entirely plausible.
        • shadeOfGrey, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1That was sarcasm for the record.
      • Otto, on 03/28/2008, -2/+8Yes, because raising the price of a thing makes total sense when it costs too much for people to buy it instead of stealing it...

        You've got cause/effect backwards. Piracy does not increase prices.
      • MAGZine, on 04/22/2008, -1/+7Its expensive because Photoshop is commercial software intended for industry professionals.
    • Masticity, on 03/28/2008, -3/+63Yeah I ***** myself when I saw how much CS3 was.
      • MoofTheStoof, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6I paid about $1K for CS1 (photoshop, image ready, illustrator, indesign bundle) back in the day, and am still using it because my income dropped sharply not long after and when updates came I couldn't even justify the expense of the upgrades. CS1 is still rock solid, though, even after something like 5 years.
      • hexydes, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10That's gross.
      • rizla420, on 03/28/2008, -0/+32at least you can photoshop it out.
    • BionicPimp, on 03/28/2008, -7/+17It's not expensive at all...if you earn a living with it. Hell, in the USA, you can write off the entire price from your taxes as a cost of doing business. All this really indicates to me is that there is at least one amateur PS user for every pro PS user. I'm also guessing that there are at least 3 people for every 1 that actually admitted to pirating the software.
      • Devrdander, on 03/28/2008, -0/+9you are preaching to the wrong denomination my friend. Most diggers dont understand the economics you speak of. They havent seen the price tags on most professional photographers either... For what they get paid by the hour for, this software is chump change.
      • sgtpppr, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Except for the fact most people want to actually learn in their free time. You don't just go get a photography job, then learn photoshop there. If you're in college and decide to get into Web design, you're definitely not paying $900+ for their packages. After you pirate it numerous times, it just becomes standard practice. This site isn't even directed at professional photographers. It's targeted at hobbyists...exactly the people who can't afford to pay $900 for software for fun.
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3[[It's targeted at hobbyists...exactly the people who can't afford to pay $900 for software for fun.]]

          Sounds like they need a more affordable hobby then.
          • tendonut, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Like cracking anti-piracy measures built into software like Photoshop.
        • Devrdander, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5I would like to point out when I was in College i took 12 credit hours on photoshop, illustrator, and quark... Most community colleges offer similar classes you can take, and you get access to their computer lab or a cheap student copy...
      • blackjack75, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3Many people who use it do not make a living *ONLY* on this. It's just one of many tools. If you're a photographer and are making a good living then the price is reasonable.

        But if you are like many, someone who does a bit of everything, the price of each Adobe product is terribly high. Don't get me started on the suites. You get lower prices but you can't chose which program you want or don't.

        Making decent money in graphics is not easy, especially if you're a beginner. The full price is simply awfully high and yet you know that to integrate in the real world of graphics you have to use Adobe tools (try sending your InkSkape graphics to a printshop...).

        I assume that if you've been doing graphics for several years you can finally buy the products and that's what Adobe is counting on.
      • AngelaQ, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2That's absurd. I can't possibly afford it, so I have to make do with Paintshop Pro. I also have to use a different, cheaper flash software, better in some ways, but not compatible with anything like dreamweaver (which I also can't purchase). If it cost 1/3 what it costs, I'd have bought the whole suite when CS3 came out, and I'd have been able to make and sell a whole lot of stuff that I can't now.
    • Civil44, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6Exactly. I don't use photoshop nearly enough to justify purchasing it (CS2 for me). I'll pull it out maybe once every few months at most. And thats simply not worth the money their asking.
      • IEatEmoKids, on 03/28/2008, -2/+10"I'll pull it out maybe once every few months at most. And thats simply not worth the money their asking."
        Oh good god.
      • thatdiabeticguy, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2I'll pull it out maybe once every few months at most

        thats what she said
        • ZigVicious, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3when she's saying that, you have some problems...
      • EnvEngineer, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4I only use my golf clubs one or twice a year, that's why I just stole them.
        • xsidekick409, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2And yesterday I confused an apple for an orange, boy was my face red.
        • tendonut, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3You're a digger. You should know we don't consider software to be a physical object because software can still be sold to others whether or not we obtained it "illegally". Downloading software doesn't eliminate the company's ability to sell the software..they just didn't get a sale off us. Taking a picture of a painting isn't stealing if the owner of the painting can still turn around and sell the original anyways.
          • mahdaeng, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1[[Taking a picture of a painting isn't stealing if the owner of the painting can still turn around and sell the original anyways.]]

            Why not just steal the original painting? The artist can just make another one.
        • lendrick, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I only use my golf clubs twice a year, that's why I made an exact replica of my friend's golf clubs rather than purchasing them.
          • tendonut, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1That sounds fine to me. At least you didn't steal the original so the store owner is no longer able to sell them.
    • Devrdander, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9Note this site is for "aspiring hobbyists" I wouldnt expect most Hobbyists to be able to buy the full program..
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1Then they should get a more affordable hobby.
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Is that your new government job? Minister of assigning hobbies?
          • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1You're kidding right?

            Look, if I think that taking up golf is too expensive, I'll either save up some money to pay for it, or I just won't do it. I will not, however, moan and complain that it's too expensive and then expect everyone to sympathize with me when I steal some golf clubs because I can't afford my hobby.
    • reazal, on 03/28/2008, -8/+3Even American found Photoshop is very expensive. Now imagine people from the third world country in which their currency is not as strong as USD.
      • Ragarnok, on 03/28/2008, -2/+4Yeah try europe, american companies have the annoying tendency to pretend like the change rate is 1:1 (i.e. the ps3 was sold at 600$ in the US. and 600€ in europe) that's like paying for the stuff plus paying half of it more :/ (btw CS.3 is 1075€ in europe and 650$ in the U.S. ! that's almost 1000$ more!)
        • jatoskep, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Last time I checked Sony was not an American company.
      • themoose, on 03/28/2008, -2/+12Haha, USD strong...
        • ZigVicious, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8what a funny joke!
          A ***** from a starving african child is almost as strong as the USD these days.
      • Rulex, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Not just that, we get the software for a much higher price, even in the online store. As if it costs them more if i download it from a place other than the US. It is pretty feasible to think that if they make the software more affordable they would sell a lot more, *****, i would pay up to 400USD for it. $999USD is just too much.
    • kahrytan, on 03/28/2008, -3/+18hear that Adobe......LOWER YOUR PRICES OR PHOTOSHOP WILL KEEP BEING PIRATED.


      (*I use The Gimp now*)
      • JedicodeWarrior, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5I can't see say "the gimp" without pulp fiction flashbacks.
    • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -11/+4No. It's because very few people have integrity and morals any more.
      • solistus, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9Most people don't see software piracy as a moral issue. The only thing anyone else loses from it is their presumption of some right to your money based on an outdated business model.
        • solid12345, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6Selling software is an outdated business model?

          I find it amazing how the same douchebags who think music or software is too expensive have no problem paying 90 dollars for a sweater from Polo or Tommy Hilfiger, or 100 dollar Nike shoes.
          • solistus, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't buy the shoes or the sweater either.

            Selling software isn't entirely outdated. Selling software that comes on discs and has no long-term tie to company services (online functionality, frequent updates, etc.) is outdated. IT is about services now, not goods. When your entire profit model can be circumvented by some kid with a copy of Nero, you bet it's outdated.

            It's not a matter of being too expensive or not. I'm a college student; everything that isn't free is too expensive. If I have a choice between paying for something or getting the same thing for free, guess which one I'm gonna take. It's a question of common sense, not morality; morality only comes into play when another human being might be harmed.
          • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1[[When your entire profit model can be circumvented by some kid with a copy of Nero, you bet it's outdated.]]

            Let's take a trip back in time - back to the days of the Old West. You see, there were these big, metal things called trains. Sometimes those big metal things would carry smaller metal things (called safes) from one bank to another. These safes often contained some even smaller metal things, called gold bars. Sometimes, bad men would stop the train between banks and take the gold bars. These bad men were called train robbers. They were dishonest. At some point, some people may have argued that this transportation model was outdated. No one ever denied the fact that train robbers were dishonest, though.

            [[If I have a choice between paying for something or getting the same thing for free, guess which one I'm gonna take. It's a question of common sense, not morality; morality only comes into play when another human being might be harmed.]]

            Well, if you don't like the word, "morality", how about "honesty" or "integrity". It is dishonest to take someone else's goods or services in a way that contradicts their conditions for using those goods or services. If a software license prohibits you from freely copying a piece of software, it is dishonest to do so. You don't have to agree with the license, but no one is forcing you to use the software either. Play by the rules or don't play at all. Doing otherwise is dishonest.
        • Vorin, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4i don't wear any of those brands.
          can i pirate yet?
        • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1[[Most people don't see software piracy as a moral issue]]

          My point exactly.
    • crazyhorse13, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Frankly, I don't think Adobe cares very much. They could make PS cheaper, or they could gouge the honest customers. If they dropped the price 50%, they still wouldn't get most of those pirates to buy it.
    • Stavrosian, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3It's reasonably priced as a professional tool. I would expect a significant majority of pirates are amateurs and people trying to learn - for them it's a huge investment for something which is, essentially, a bit of fun.
      • regeya, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Agreed; as a professional specialized tool, it's priced about right. And I'm sure with a low number of paying customers (and I'm assuming it's pretty low) they're still making a profit.
      • solistus, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Look up some other professional software if you think PS is bad. SPSS, a major statistics / data analysis software package is $1699 for the 'basic' package, and some of the bundles cost over $10,000 with extra features and modules and whatnot. Compared to that, PS is a steal!
    • solid12345, on 03/28/2008, -4/+3CD prices are at their lowest ever and people downloading is even higher. Fact is Adobe is smart and realized most consumers are assholes who would not pay them a dime no matter what so they target only to legitimate business customers who don't need a software audit.
    • aerwin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2There's always the EDU discount. You don't even have to go to the college or university either.
      • solistus, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Using an educational discount you don't qualify for leaves you with an illegit copy of PS. Why not just pirate at that point? It still won't pass muster for a software audit.
    • ArkRaider1936, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Student discount for the win!
      I got Adobe Creative Suite for WAY cheaper than getting just Photoshop by itself. Although, now I do feel kinda like a sucker for spending even that much instead of acquiring it by other means. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like I have just wasted money because I use Photoshop pretty much every day for photo editing and correction, as well as just creating photoshopped images for fun.
      • AngelaQ, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3Read the license. It says that it's only supposed to be used for educational purposes. So if you're using it for anything else, you're violating the license.
    • regeya, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Well yeah--but it's that expensive to both recoup piracy "costs" and because professionals will pay that price.
      Though really, if you want to organize photos and do minor edits, and don't mind spending $100 or so, there are products available for that, one of them being Photoshop branded (Elements.)
    • jdeuel, on 03/29/2008, -3/+1and i don't suppose any of you have heard of the reasonabley priced Photoshop Elements, or even considered purchasing it before just going all out and stealing CS3
  • vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -17/+51Yaaaaaaaaaar!

    But I don't pirate. Not because I think it is unethical but becuase I prefer FOSS.
    • gen2ux, on 03/28/2008, -1/+13I dug you up....but you had to of known you'll get slammed for this comment.
      • vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Like I am commenting for getting dugg. I am not going to be some cow in the cattle... jeez...
      • Ataxia2008, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8"'m soooo alternative, I don't give a ***** about what my fellow diggers think of me. I use Open Source applications, and Linux. I don't even use a conventional toilet, I just prefer to take a dump in a spare Subway wrapper and throw it out the window at people listening to their iPods."
        • TheFuzzyOne, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Are we supposed to care what other diggers think? Cuz uh... I don't.
        • PatNolan, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2So your the prick that ***** up my iPod.
    • nallelcm, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5Ninja's are way cooler
    • blackjack75, on 03/28/2008, -0/+12Yes, FOSS is cooler. That's why all the hip guys in ad agencies uses The Gimp.
      • yetAnotherCroc, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3And why would we want to be like them? I say its all the more reason to not use it.
      • vincentweber, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2FOSS is about freedom and sharing. Everyone can create new stuff and contribute. You just don't seem to get this. Bashing the Gimp is unfair, because, and I bet you didn't knew that, Gimp takes so long to get more features because Adobe patented the crap out of what they made so the Gimp devs need to work around all patents. If software patents didn't exist the Gimp would be so much better than it is now.
    • vault, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3There's no FOSS alternative for all its functionality, just some of it.
    • BitBurner, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2What about http://a.viary.com/ it isn't FOSS but it is almost as good as adobes *****.
  • Llanowar, on 03/28/2008, -4/+426I honestly thought it to be more like 80-90%
    • Ajajadude, on 03/28/2008, -3/+11Me too, given the insanely high cost of the software. That price just isn't worth it to most people who want to be able to do comprehensive photo editing.
      • Llanowar, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3Like I say with a lot of such software. Companies and professionals who make money with it are the only ones who should pay.
        Most people can't easily afford the expenses of stuff like photoshop. Certainly not the kids. Let them pirate it and expand your userbase. And make money with those making money with your software.
        • BCModder1, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2are you speaking words?
        • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2[[Companies and professionals who make money with it are the only ones who should pay.]]

          I don't make money flying planes, but I really, really like them. Why should I have to pay for my own plane if I don't make money with one? They should just let me steal one. After all, with all the exposure to flying, I just may buy a plane someday.
          • awesty, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2That is entirely different. It costs nothing to upload a photoshop installer and crack onto the internet for someone else to download. You can't download a plane. It costs money to make the new one.
          • mahdaeng, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1@awesty:

            [[You can't download a plane. It costs money to make the new one.]]

            Oh, I see. So, software development is free now? I'll have to keep that in mind the next time I bill my clients - or better yet, the next time a contractor asks me for his pay check.

            You fail at morals.
      • RationalXubrnce, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2 It's probably more like 60% of the copies they know of are pirated.
    • RomanThommassen, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11well... it was a poll on the blog members, most professional photographers, but with the average guy, who shops like 1 image a month, the pirate rate will be 100%. also i think the members of the blog were afraid to admit it, I bet they thought the gov would track their names or something
      • mahdaeng, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3It would not be 100% (unless you're rounding up), because I (even if I am evidently the only one in the entire world) do not use a pirated copy of Photoshop.
    • solistus, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6Self-reporting on illegal activities is always much lower than the actual rate.
    • procopio, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8That chart was photoshoped!
    • moush, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Schools + buisnesses use it too.
  • Chris1974, on 03/28/2008, -11/+4Uh... Dur
  • matthewdestroys, on 03/28/2008, -7/+132i'm currently at work using my 'trial' version of cs3.
    • Light11, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2401330-1455-9505-9239-2041-4849
    • th3heretic, on 03/28/2008, -5/+1On your monolith of a PC right?
    • KSUdesigner, on 03/28/2008, -1/+28Convince your boss to buy a copy for work. You can then legally take that copy home and install it on your own computer.

      From Adobe's EULA:

      "Portable or Home Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer."
  • kidneyd08, on 03/28/2008, -13/+3NO WAY...pirating software? who would do such a thing...?
    • dougs55, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2:-)
    • Bobo44, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Thank you for writing almost the exact same thing as the very first comment..
  • PhoneGuy, on 03/28/2008, -8/+44I surprised that number is so low.
  • AngryAngryBrian, on 03/28/2008, -9/+4Hmm... I thought it would have been something a little higher.
  • diizy, on 03/28/2008, -14/+35Well, I went from Pirated PS to GIMP. Either work well.
    • InsaneOni, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I can't describe how much I hate GIMP. Worst editor I've ever used. Sorry Guys, I'd love to embrace the free alternative...it's just...bad.
  • jeremiah, on 03/28/2008, -7/+1Not really, someone 'shopped those patches in there.
  • namelessXsilent, on 03/28/2008, -16/+539Photoshop isnt free?
    • 00monkey, on 03/28/2008, -11/+5exactly what i was thinking
    • Jobo50, on 03/28/2008, -2/+17I lol'd :)
    • maisteri, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1Obligatory comment is obligatory
    • RaiderWolf, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1No but you can download one with a crack and install it illegally. Which of course isn't exactly "pirating". Pirating would be downloading the image, making a bunch of copies, and selling them to anyone you can sell them to.
  • bsdboy, on 03/28/2008, -6/+14360% of the people that post UFO pics are Photoshop users too... Think it's related?
    • xyu1, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2ahahaha, nice one.
    • J0415, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1100% of people who post UFO pics are pirates!!!
      or.... 100% of pirates post UFO pictures!!!
  • Kalchus, on 03/28/2008, -8/+300Does that make the other 40% ninjas?
    • oinker262, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11rich, artistically gifted ninjas.
      hell yes.
    • ninepointfive, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3ohh *****, ya beat me to it!
    • falstaff, on 03/29/2008, -0/+14Nope. Ninjas use The GIMP. Think about it, have you ever actually seen a ninja? Have you ever seen a GIMP user? Coincidence?
    • antflyers13, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2genius dude. genius.
    • AlMightyBob90, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Majority rules.
  • arjie, on 03/28/2008, -2/+33Ah, I've always wondered how people who couldn't string together coherent sentences on internet forums dedicated to photoshop tutorials managed to find the few hundred dollars to buy Photoshop. Nah, who am I kidding? I've never wondered. It was obvious.
  • gametavern, on 03/28/2008, -8/+290How else are you going to LEARN to use it? Sure not going to pay $800 to teach myself.

    Once you get really good and want to use it for your business, buy the copy.
    • jeriqo, on 03/28/2008, -13/+5So, did you buy it?
      That's what i thought.
    • nmc9, on 03/28/2008, -0/+30Yep, I bet a good chunk of people who pirate don't use it to produce things that they will sell. I think if you're making money off of it though, it should be bought (eventually...?).
    • N00F, on 03/28/2008, -10/+5Imagine how much money Adobe would be making if their Photo$hop software was affordably priced?
      One sale @ $800 or 800 sales at $1? (for example)
      • hexydes, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5Right, but you'll never convert at that ratio. It's more like one sale at $800, or 127 sales at $1.

        That's just how it is. I think Adobe knows that too, which is why you never really hear them complain.
      • MsArtGeek, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3if the math REALLY worked like that and it was a simple matter of dropping the price to the same as a bottle of soda, Adobe would have done that by now.

        This is not a bottle of soda. It's a tool that professionals (read: people who make money, and therefore don't have to be such miserly skinflints) use.

        Seriously, y'all don't really get the numbers of this, you just want something for next to nothing, if you think other people can't tell, well, you're wrong. Just call it like it is, for once.
      • Edan25, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2Adobe's market is aimed at businesses, therefore it's not meant to be cheap.
    • sfury, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7trial versions come to mind
    • jtxx000, on 03/28/2008, -2/+11By this logic, guitars should be free unless you're a professional musician, saws and hammers should be free unless you're a carpenter, and cameras should be free unless you're a paid photographer. Just because you don't make money from your tools doesn't mean they shouldn't cost you anything.

      Photoshop is a tool targeted toward professionals. There are many cheaper photo editing tools which are aimed at home users such as Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, the GIMP, etc, just as there are Squire guitars vs. Gretsch guitars, simple vs. fancy hammers, and point-and-click vs. professional digital cameras. Just because something is expensive doesn't justify using it without paying for it.
      • cryptoki, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2as long as ppl are willing to pay the price it will stay up there. eventually.. most will ever upgrade again. no need.
      • caleb4mj, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2"Just because something is expensive doesn't justify using it without paying for it."

        But it does justify competing it out of existence. Just because something is expensive is a good reason to recommend alternatives like the GIMP. Sometimes mind share is more important than profits.
      • joegibes, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3A $100 electric guitar from Wal-Mart will still play the same music as a $3000 Taylor Solidbody (wish I could afford one).

        Sure, it won't sound as good or last as long, but it's not the same thing as MS Paint vs Photoshop CS3.
        • jtxx000, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1It might play the same music, but it definitely won't feel as good to play it. Most things you can do in photoshop (especially the type of things home users do), you can do in the GIMP.
      • gALEXy, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I don't think thats the best analogy, By that logic all guitar makers would suffer a measurable loss for each free guitar they had to give out, how much money does Adobe lose per pirated copy of photoshop? While they will lose some potential sales, there is nothing potential about the cost of manufacturing each individual guitar that is given away
    • Chongo, on 03/28/2008, -0/+10Actually you are right. I attended an adobe / mac conference while I was in college and I talked to an adobe rep about software pirating. Of course they are aware of it, hell they can even see PS phoneing home, but they really dont mind.

      The rep actually told that they look at it as an investment in their future. If people pirate the software to learn it, then maybe when they become professionals they will actually buy it because thats all they know how to use.

      Now, this was about 5 years ago mind you but I think it still applies.
      • MagicBobert, on 03/28/2008, -0/+3I've heard the same thing from the 3DS Max guys, and it absolutely makes sense.

        You want your program to become an industry standard? Make sure everyone in the industry knows how to use it. When they get a job where they're in the position to purchase software for the companies they're working for, guess which software they're going to purchase... the stuff they know.

        Only now do you see other companies figuring it out. Microsoft just recently figured it out and is trying to get a lot of people to get cozy with their development platform through the free express editions and free software for students. Lots of people developing for Windows means lots of people buying Windows licenses.

        It all makes perfect business sense.
      • imaginelove, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Absolutely - and if they really gave a damn, they'd have to change their name to AutoCAD.
    • metik, on 03/28/2008, -0/+12 companies i worked for bought a copy because i needed photoshop.

      I learned photoshop with the "trial" version.

      So technically me using that version got Adobe 2 sales.
    • wibambau, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2There it is Bob. There it is.
  • gavin422, on 03/28/2008, -9/+60The poll only reflects votes on their blog. Buried for being unscientific and likely inaccurate.
    • TonyLocNE, on 03/28/2008, -4/+22It was a blog poll! Of course its unscientific, were you expecting Frank Luntz?

      ***** YOU FRANK
      • CarzorStelatis, on 03/28/2008, -0/+8Burying it as inaccurate is correct. The title says "60% of Photoshop Users are PIRATES!' when in fact all the poll provides proof of is '60% of a self-selecting sample on a blog poll, claimed to be using a pirated version of Photoshop'
    • jdeuel, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1judging by the amount of moronic diggers who have admitted to stealing it, i don't think it could be that far off

      then again, when have diggers ever respected someone elses work?
  • jimonastick, on 03/28/2008, -9/+37Umm...yeah, cause I'm really going to