I was looking at the pricing of Adobe DreamWeaver to update my site. I was shocked to learn that DW download costs 2.2 times as much on the Dutch site as it does on the US site ($399 vs €570). While us euros are painfully aware of pricing differentials in various products, this is outrageous.

I did some googling and stumbled upon an article with in-depth analysis, good comments and some useful responses from Adobe. The best Adobe reply is near the bottom - but it still leaves questions open for those who don't want a localized version of the software:


I'm tired of subsidizing features I don't need - ie. translation and support in a local language. It's as if the higher taxation we have to endure isn't bad enough, even companies have to squeeze extra margin from our hard-earned euros just because they can get away with it.

I wonder what would happen if I bought the download from the US site...

Might as well try. The worse that could happen is they do not let you. Then you could buy the retail version from B&H for 399

So, the price differential is about $450... Your American counterpart, however, will have to pay approximately that amount for, say, his medical insurance, and you do not.

In a free market economy, companies exist to maximize profit, and consumers try to minimize their cost. Companies are free to set whatever price they can get away with (as you rightly noticed), and consumers are free to buy or not to buy at that price, or to buy a competitive product. There is no such thing as a "just" price, hence there is not such thing as an outrageous price differential, nor there is a need to justify or explain pricing.

Seeing the effort Adobe invested in the activation and in clandestine communications, I guess you would have to use a US proxy, not only when activating but constantly.



What does this have to do with pricing? Even Adobe does not try such idiotic "arguments".

It's a global market. People have every right to be annoyed at large price differentials across countries when most software can be downloaded directly. I bought CS3 on ebay (CS2 with the update cd) for a fraction of the price in NZ. It registered with Adobe with no problems at all.
Adobe will probably not let you download direct, but check out other sources like ebay.
Look, the customer base for every business is varied in their needs, and the profit margins will always swing wildly. Even in a shop some customers will tie up a staff member for half an hour and some will be out in two minutes. Any pricing structure that doesn't average this out to some extent will be too open to abuse. David

If they want to get the (European) business from this customer they will have to justify the price differential. And by the sounds of googling the matter, there is plenty of outrage out there about this.

I agree there is no such thing as just price. And as said, I'm fully aware that companies charge what what they can get away with. Maybe I'm an idealist, but it would be nice if price discrimination worked both ways sometimes - ie. to not be forced to subsidize localized versions.

If enough people complain and inform Adobe that this is unacceptable, they will have to adjust their pricing.

Why beat your head against a brick wall? Fully legal retail versions of Dreamweaver CS3 are on ebay .com for around $US 375 including shipping to Europe.

Hey, thanks for the personal touch (the "idiotic" part of your comment). Just because you do not understand it, does not make it idiotic. As to what it has to do with pricing, you might want to check the income elasticity concept.

I did not say there is no outrage over price differentials... I said there is no such thing as outrageOUS price differential... like there is no "outrageous" gravity, for instance.



Complaining and informing will not get you there. Adobe is fully aware of the price discrimination policy, as they are doing it deliberately (and rightly so). So, bitching about it won't help... but not buying it (or buying a competitive product) would.

Here is another angle: buy Adobe stock. That way you will participate in their "outrageous" profits. And as a fringe benefit, it will change your perspective on their pricing strategy, turning you into a vocal supporter of the charge-as-much-as-you-can-get-away-with pricing.

The current exchange rate:


1.00 EUR = 1.53668 USD

and he is complaining?

You arn't paying $10.50 a gallon for gas. Wayne

[quote=slobodan56,Mar 10 2008, 05:03 AM]
So, the price differential is about $450... Your American counterpart, however, will have to pay approximately that amount for, say, his medical insurance, and you do not.



I was unaware you needed medical insurance to download Adobe products.

Kevin.

I'm sure my premiums are going up with the increased blood pressure...

When you see what the cost of a new Adobe product is, you may have a heart attack. You will have a drastic spike in stress hormones, at a minimum.

Seriously though, in many Asian countries, one can easily find bootlegs of every kind of software product for sale, all over the place. If I were a large software corporation, I'd think very hard about publishing versions in Asisan languages, knowing that I would actually sell very few copies, relative to the number of end users at least. I have no idea if the same thing happens in Europe, but it points out the fact that market conditions around the world vary greatly.

Another factor might be the risk of exposure to government interference. Look at what the EU has done to Microsoft lately. That would get my attention if I were attempting to sell software in Europe. What's to stop the EU from sueing Adobe for incorporationg noise reduction features for example, since that adversely impacts makers of noise reduction software? Pretty similar to the argument against Microsoft incorporating media features in Windows.

If you don't like the local price, don't buy the product. It's that simple. If Adobe's revenues start to dry up, they'll adjust their prices accordingly. No sense in complaining to anyone about it.

While living in Tokyo, I became friendly with several Oylmpus camera designers. They could not believe the prices for Olympus cameras in the US. Even with their Olympus employee discount, they were paying more for cameras than B&H was advertising them for in US camera magazines.

You should see the prices of new BMWs here in the US. A car my wife bought in 2001 for around $30k would cost at least $47k to replace today. So guess what - She's going to keep driving the old one until market conditions change, and pray she doesn't get in an accident.

When you distribute a product abroad you make certain deals with distributors and distributors with shops, all the inventory in European shops would not cost less because the Euro went up against the dollar. Generally speaking retail prices tend to be quite unresponsive (in the short term) to variations in the exchange rate. They will have to slowly adjust in the long run.

Also it is a marketing rule that it is much "harder" to raise prices than to lower them. You'd better stick with your prices rather than lowering and raising them according to the variations of the exchange rate, because you will lose more clients while raising than you would gain while lowering (and by lowering your product is perceived as "devalued", than when you raise the raise is perceived as unwarranted, you have to wait for the next version).

One of the reasons Adobe might not have quoted is that in Europe I suspect there is more piracy between individual uses, such as individual photographers. Programs are bought mainly by firms (whether huge or tiny) so there is a smaller client base.

If you are content with the US version you don't need to bear the extra-cost of the localized versions. The cost of the localized version is entirely on the shoulder of the clients who buy a localized version.

Any comparison between products in different country should take into account the fact that in Europe prices are always quoted with VAT included (unless otherwise stated) whereas in the US, where mostly there is no VAT, the price is net of taxes.

So the difference is not really that outrageous, and it is somehow "normal" if you consider how important and extensive is the documentation for such a program and how expensive professional documentation is.

Cheers
Fabrizio

I'd like to hear how you think income elasticity comes into the picture. Are you implying software has less (income) elasticity in Europe than in the US, so software is less susceptible to decrease in quantity demanded due to increase in prices?



Not buying it won't help, that is certain: companies don't know why there's less demand for their products unless consumers tell them. So "bitching" - as you so eloquently put it - does help.

Buying Adobe stock would mean that I'd have to be confident in the company's fundamentals. And I'm not, especially with the USian economy doing as bad as it is.

Funny how you lambaste me for using a judgment call when I used the word "outrageous," when in the same paragraph you use your own judgment call ("and rightly so"). But let's try to keep on the subject.

I am glad I provoked you to display your humorous side

No, you do not need medical insurance to buy Adobe products. But after you pay $12K a year for medical insurance (as I do), there is that much less of your income left at your disposal to buy other stuff, including Adobe software. And my European counterparts have that much more to spend on other stuff, therefore can afford to pay more for Adobe products. Adobe knows that and charges accordingly.

This example of course is extremely simplified, but since this is a photographic forum, I will refrain from going into detailed economic analysis of the multitude of factors that shape pricing in each market. Suffice to say that different markets will always have different size, different supply and demand, different uniformity (e.g., common language), different infrastructure, different price and income elasticity, different spending pattern, different taxation, etc., and, as a result, will always have different pricing even for the same product.

In other words, the pricing differential is quite normal, legitimate, and can not be labeled "outrageous". We do not consider the differential between day and night to be outrageous either, we just take it as it is.

Another reason I used the example with medical insurance is to point out to those complaining about price differentials that they should not cherry pick the object of complaint. They of course always find to complain about things that are more expensive in their markets, and never about things that are more expensive in other markets (like medical care).

On a more personal note, when I was living in Spain, I did not have a medical insurance (nor I needed one). After spending a week in hospital, following a complicated operation, I had to pay the "outrageous" amount of exactly O euros (zero, zilch, nada). I shudder to think how much would the same event cost me here in the States.

That argument is a snap to disprove: real income in the US is much higher than in most European countries.

http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/dp/DP120.pdf

Nice try. However, I was NOT speaking about ABSOLUTE amounts, I was speaking in RELATIVE terms: how different spending priorities result in a different percentage of one's disposable income spent on, say, software.

I do not have the exact numbers on income elasticity in different markets, so I can only assume it is so.

Well, in public forums, I try to refrain from personal comments, so my intention was not to lambaste you, nor anyone else personally, and if that came across as such, my apologies. Whatever emphasis in a debate I try to make, be it humor or sarcasm, or the use of certain terms, it is meant purely for rhetorical purposes.

As for "rightly so", I am not sure that constitutes a judgment call (in the sense of "value judgment"). I was using the word "rightly" in one of its two possible meanings, i.e., "correctly" or "with good reason". The other meaning implies a moral stand, and that was not my intention, although I can see how it can be interpreted otherwise.

Price discrimination is a method for maximizing profit that is legal, legitimate, widely used, and widely taught in business schools across the globe, hence my comment that it is "rightly so", i.e., correct. Whether it is morally right is a whole new discussion, of course.

But back to purely photographic subjects: I enjoyed your gallery and would be happy to buy you a drink if you ever come to Chicago (from whatever resources I have left after I pay my medical insurance ). Alternatively, we can always "go Dutch"

The only solution I see to these price differentials is for Adobe to subsidise the less profitable sections of their market by increasing the price of their products in the US. When US customers then complain about the price increase, it could be explained by Adobe that in order to keep global prices for their products the same, whether in Iceland, Norway or Australia, it's necessary for them to offset the less profitable sections of their market with the more profitable sections.

I'm sure US customers would understand this approach and accept the price rises willingly .

The fact is, the US is by far the largest single market in the world for expensive and sophisticated products. Since I was a little boy, this has always been the case, and as a consequence, most things in the US are cheaper than elsewhere due to the economies of scale.

For all the mutterings about elastic this and taxation that, there is a much simpler reason. Adobe charge what they do, because they can. They own the market when it comes to photography+design, there are competitors, but only Macromedia was any threat and they bought them.

I pay up to 90% more for Adobe products to purchase exactly the same product, from the very same server as an American, simply because I happen live in the UK.

As for the bollocks Adobe come out with about translation costs, that is completely is undermined as you can buy non-English versions in the US for the same price as the English version. It's price gouging and they also charge different prices across Europe, which is very iffy ground. I don't understand why the EU haven't taken them to court yet.

The fact that I can afford to fly to the States have a nice holiday and buy some software, declare purchase on my return, pay local taxes on it and still save money is absurd.

The very weak dollar and it's not exactly a short term thing, means Adobe make enormous amount of money from foreign sales, esp to the UK. There's a lot of ill will towards Adobe in the UK[and Europe] as a result. But it's not like you can simply change software brands, like you do you car makes. Few people would ever change brand of car, if you had to redo your driving lessons and take test again before changing car manufacturer. But with software, relearning another package can cost way more time/money than people want/can afford to pay, so you stick with what you know.

Which is fine when it comes to manufacturing and distributing say a physical product like a Mountain Bike, but when you are downloading data from the same server as an American, we should all pay the same price. It's not as if Adobe are paying for the transport of bytes aross the Atlantic. It's a completely new business model using the old pricing structure simply to rip off customers.
Set the price in dollars and let the punter pay the equivalemnt in his/her own currency. Other software I've abroad purchased works that way.

And you wonder why they charge more in Europe? Are you really thinking this through? Microsoft just got slammed with a gigantic fine by the EU. Do you really think any manager is going to expose his company to that kind of risk without getting something in return, like maybe higher profits?

What's to keep the EU from tying up Adobe in a protracted legal suit over incorporating raw processing in their products, or any other little "anti-competitive" fault they suddenly find to be upsetting? If I were any large american software publisher, I'd probably charge double in Europe, just to build up a nice security cushion for exactly that kind of possibility. Based on recent events, wouldn't you?

I use quite a few programs that are not available in the shops, such as Vuescan, Qimage, Neat Image, Focus Magic etc. These programs seem to be only available through download and all support has to be through email or internet forums.

It seems that Adobe is in a different category, perhaps because it's an 800 LB gorilla with a big family to support. How would you feel as a U.K. resident having to speak to someone over in America every time you had a problem with one of Adobe's products? I mean, they don't even speak proper English over there, do they?

Uh, I think you haven't thought this through. You only get taken to court if you break the law. So breaking the law to make more money for when you get fined for breaking the law is not smart.
Besides I was not talking about anti competive behaviour [which is a different issue], I was talking about non-uniform prices across the EU. Imagine if a European software company charged all Americans 50-100% more than Europeans and also varied it by State. How would you feel about that.

Seeing as in the UK, you invariably speak to someone overseas when you ring any support line and usually to someone whose first language is certainly not English and has a very difficult accent to understand, I'd happily ring the US, as they do in fact speak correct English.

Besides Adobe is notoriously tightlipped about admitting to problems and pathetically slow at fixing them. The 'Fix' is usually to buy the next version, with fresh new bugs. As for the big family to support, how come Adobe always claims lack of resources when it come to fixing their software and small 1-2 man bands who produce brilliant and equally complex software, manage to update continually.

Would it be fair to assume that EU was too busy considering taking European companies to court first? For example:

"... In a survey of car prices within the EU, the commission said the pretax price of the Peugeot 307 could differ by 30 percent from the cheapest and most expensive markets... The price of the Volkswagen Golf differs by up to 34 percent ..." International Herald Tribune, July 18, 2002.

Or:

"... Dramatic price differences... have become rarer with the start of the euro currency zone in 2002, but people can still make big savings by going abroad to buy a car..." International Herald Tribune, January 29, 2008.

You're making my point. Thank you.

How do you know if you're "breaking the law" without paying for a legion of expensive, specialized lawyers? The EU has decided that Microsoft "broke the law" in some way, when whatever they did was apparently acceptable in the US. I read some of the details of that one, and it sounds like a lot of nonsense to me, but then I'm not a specialist in corporate law in the EU. So if a big software corporation is going to operate in Europe, they're going to have to charge more, to limit their exposure to a different set of laws. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Legal vulnerability is only one driver. Then there's the cost of maintaining offices, paying people to provide tech support in different languages, maintaining a local billing staff, etc. They sell far fewer copies of the software in the EU than they do in the US, so those costs have to be recovered with with higher per unit prices.

I have no idea why their products might be cheaper in different countries within the EU, but I'd suspect different costs of doing business in those countries. For example, it's a heck of a lot more expensive to staff an office in London (which is always at the top of the list of high-cost cities globally) than it is just about anywhere else.

Prices are not uniform accross the US either: Retail prices vary tremendously from place to place. If Adobe quotes a standard price for some product in the US, you can bet that's for something that will be distributed from a central location, and not something people will be picking up at each different retailer. Adobe has no control of what a specific retailer might charge anyway.

Now I'm not suggesting that I'm in love with Adobe's pricing policies. Most software vendors charge an initial price, and then a small amount for upgrades. Adobe's initial purchase costs are incredibly high, and the upgrade path has gotten extremely muddy lately. If I couldn't make use of the education discount, I would never have been able to afford any of their products, because I don't make money in the photo business. And even with that discount, I only upgrade at every other version. I have plenty of other software that I upgrade much more often.

On the other hand, Adobe's customer service is way better than most. The products tend to be a lot more stable and clean-running than I'm used to from many other companies (including Micrisoft). They're also pretty innovative, and responsive. Look how quickly they come up with raw converters for new cameras. Still, I think they'd make more money if they charged lower unti prices, because they'd increase the size of the customer base. Perhaps they have marketing studies that suggest otherwise.

Bad example. MS has been brought to court in several states in the US on anti-competitive practices, with varying degrees of success.

Ray I think you'll find the "European" market is in fact bigger than the US market, europe isn't only the UK, Germany and France anymore, it's huge. Wayne

Sure... it also has 27 different languages (give or take a few), 27 different legislations, multiple currencies (only 15 of 27 have euro). In other words, extremely simple to deal with as a single market.

Not for the same issue as this last EU fine. You aren't suggesting US corporations have no need to maintain a special legal staff for understanding EU law, are you?

That's my point. Europe is not the US. The legal, business, and market conditions are drastically different. That implies that simply selling a product designed for the US market in Europe, without any modification or careful (read expensive) planning is neither wise, nor even possible.

I wasn't suggesting that, just commenting that Europe is certainly not the only legislation where MS has been found guilty of anti-competitive practices.

I wasn't making your point actually.
Briefly -

You don't need to be a lawyer to know that you are breaking laws by huge EU price differentials - it's effing obvious. Companies do it because they gamble that they can make more money than the fines may cost.

London offices, translations blah, blah not relevant if I download from Adobe Server and it costs the same for a Spanish version if bought in the US. I simply get charged more because of my billing address. I've never used the London Offices, so wouldn't care if they weren't there.

Adobe products stable!! - tell that to those suffering from the P.o.S that Bridge is currently for many or those that endured the 'printing from PS' cock up. That's on both Mac + the PC BTW.

Australia has a fairly small population, yet Adobe Systems is listed in my local telephone directory with separate numbers for Installation & Warranty Support and Technical Support. They have an office in NSW.

Since Americans actually do speak English quite well , I'd be happy to download Adobe software from the internet, as I do with many other programs, and just pay a standard license fee. I'm a great believer in the potential of the internet to increase business efficiency.

The only time I recall phoning Adobe in Australia was fairly recently when I was trying to work out what additional features CS3E had over CS3 that might be useful for me. As it happened, I got better information from this forum on that topic.

However, if I was running a business where time is money, and using a variety of Adobe products, I might think it worth paying the initial extra cost of the software in order to be able to speak to someone in my own country any time of the day, if I were having installation or technical problems.

I'd also be a bit concerned about those users who either don't speak (or understand) English or speak it poorly. From a 'user pays' perspective, the higher price of Adobe products in their native language, necessary to cover the costs of development and associated support in their native language, might make the products unviable.

In other words, people in English speaking countries such as the U.K and Australia, could probably get by without any local Adobe support, but what about France, Italy and Spain, to mention just a few countries where English is not widely spoken?

In terms of sales for most companies, the US market is larger than the entire EU market. We're talking in terms of dollars here.

Note, if it were broken out as a separate country, California's economy would be the fourth largest in the WORLD, from what I recall. So the EU has a ways to go to match the US in overall sales.

Most software companies I've worked at sold about 60% of their stuff in the US, 30% in the EU, and 10% in AsiaPac.

Ok. Got it. You're right. There's nothing to consider when establishing a market presence halfway around the world. No issue at all. Just charge everybody the same and let the chips fall where they may. Same exact costs to deal with Americans next door as Finns, Poles, Thais, and Tajiks 12 time zones from home. Right. And you guys like to say we're naive...

I've never downloaded an Adobe product from the net myself. Patches and updates sure, but I get my major releases shrinkwrapped, usually with multiple DVDs and a couple of books. I don't really think I would prefer to pull all that in over the net, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I've had no printing problems with Photoshop, although I prefer Qimage. No crashes here either. Sorry.

Look, if you think Adobe is an evil corporate monster, and you don't like its products, I suggest you not buy them. But you seem to simply be declaring that you want to pay less, or you'll call mommy government to go beat up Adobe if you don't get your way. Good luck with that.

Yeah, but it's sort of like prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion. It might work to some limited extent in the short run, but only because you lack the means or the will to go after the real problem. The EU suit, and the other assorted legal attacks over bundled browsers and media players is just silly. Oh yeah, all those other O/S superpowers were locked out of the martketplace by Microsoft's nefarious Media Player and it's hyper-fantastic web browser. We could all be running Amiga DOS 10.9 by now, or happily processing our photos on CP/M machines, but that darned Microsoft had to go and set their own search tool as default in their web browser! What tremendous corruption!

If someone really wanted to keep Microsoft from becoming the gorilla it is now, the time was back when huge buyers, like the US government and large corporations, signed massive flat-rate deals with suppliers for standard spec workstations bundled with Windows and Office in the late 80s to early 90s. That's what really allowed them to take control of the market. The whining about Explorer and Media Player came long after that, after they'd already become the biggest player.

Have you noticed that the lawsuits are no longer the big news they were a few years ago? You know what's changed? Bill Gates used to completely ignore the political chattering in DC. Not so any more. Microsoft is just as comitted to buttering up the politicians as every other huge corporation now. Plenty of campaign contributions get spread around on all sides now.

Ironically, they appear to be losing market share now, but for reasons completely unrelated to the punishment inflicted by the legal attacks. I would not have predicted that Vista would be so slow to take off. Sure, it was buggy and clunky at first, but no more so than Windows 3.0 or 95 were. Don't even get me started on Windows 2 - a truly useless nightmare of a DOS shell, yet people still bought.

If Adobe would ever build a LINUX version of Photoshop, I might be able to finally cut Microsoft loose completely. That's what you guys should really be complaining to Adobe about.

Grow up, in the UK it is very common for us to have to pay more simply as it's the UK when there is no actual economic reason to. Apple have been censured for it with iTunes for example, the UK paid more than Europe. Companies do it because they can get away with it, I and many others are fed up with that corporate thieving attitude. The commonly used term here in UK is 'Rip off Britain'. Apart from anything else, there is a huge variance in the extra % amount demanded for an Adobe product destined for a UK address.

So you've never downloaded software, well that's of no relevence to those of us who have and maybe if it saved you $2,000 dollars you would. Also, just because you haven't had software problems doesn't mean everyone else is OK too. Would you tell those who bought faulty Canons of late that they were talking nonsense, if say yours worked fine?

Can you really justify Brits paying up to 100% more for an identical product that has no extra shipping/production costs. IIRC, you also get more support/aftersales service help in US than here too.

Just came across this comment from John Nack [PS Senior Product Manager]
"A tip on Photoshop Mac stability [March 11th]

According to an Adobe tech note, it's possible that the Adobe Version Cue CS3 3.1.0 update won't get installed correctly, leading to a damaged framework file that can cause Photoshop to crash. To fix the problem, you can download this small updater and run it. If you're not able to run the script (e.g. you don't have admin privileges on your machine), you can go into Photoshop preferences (Cmd-K), then go into File Handling and uncheck "Enable Version Cue." The tech note mentions other Adobe CS3 apps, but I've tried the fix only with Photoshop. In any event running the updater is a good idea."

So obviously there are crashes and John Nack has also talked at length about the CS3 printing problems. And I think I'd take his word over yours anyday.

Ok, take whatever word you want. I'm just saying that I haven't had any problems: I never said nobody else has. My original statement was that perhaps Adobe tests their products a bit more completely than some of the other vendors, and that might lead to higher costs. In my experience, I typically have far fewer problems with new Adobe releases than many others. If you want to see reports of problems with a new photo ap, go take a look at the DXO forums.

For about the 5th time, now, if you hate the stuff because it's so unreliable, why do you buy it?

Alright, you win. There is absolutlely no reason anything from a US corporation ought to cost a penny more there than it does in the US. It's just a huge conspiracy to deprive unwitting Limeys of their hard-earned pence.

I must finally reveal the truth. Adobe hates the UK. They've singled you out for special mistreatment. It all stems from a bitter, ongoing hatred of the way you spell the word "colour." Just gets under their skin.

And, by the way, my new Canon had one unexplained failure to start up in the last 6 months. I must insist the every single other buyer on the planet will have exactly my experience. If they don't, they're insane.

And what does that have to do with charging differening amounts according to your billing address, oh yes nothing. At all.
Besides judging by the deluge of complaints for CS3, they aren't testing well enough. The fact you haven't got a problem does not mean others don't. That's the point you are missing. And if you use Qimage, you may not have encountered the PS printing issues. And they deliberately broke the PC printing paradigm to match the stupid Mac one and also cocked up the Mac printing as well. Round of applause to Adobe.

ACR cannot be upgraded without buying CS3 so you are forced to upgrade when you may not want to. Besides the alternative to PS is....???
I don't hate the software, I resent being ripped off, there's a difference.
If you lived here and were being finacially screwed, you wouldn't be so smug.



Adobe do not hate the UK, they love it. The strength of our currency versus the weedy dollar, means they make loads more money without doing anything.

And you appear to be an complete arse [translation ass]

Excuse me, but I define ass as a person who refuses to read what others have written, and then attacks them for things they never wrote.

1. I've had very few problems with the stability of Adobe products, so I don't mind paying a little more for them. I've paid lots of money for other things that don't work nearly as well (like DXO). I never said nobody else had any problems, not even once. I can only speak from my own experience. Why is that so difficult to get through to you?

2. I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect a foreign company to charge you the same prices they charge in their own country. You disagree. What else can be said? I believe there are legitimate reasons why it would cost them more to provide those products, especially in the UK. I've been there pal, and I'm astounded by how expensive everything is, from food, to housing, you name it. I wouldn't buy Photoshop there, but then I wouldn't buy anything else either, because the cost are outlandish. I don't know why you put up with it, but I should think Adobe is the least of your worries. Things seem more reasonable in other EU countries, but still higher than we're used to here. Sorry.

3. Now that you've descended to sophomoric name-calling, I see no point in continuing the discussion. You don't like the price of Adobe products, and you're hell bent on shooting down any potential explanation of why they might be more expensive where you live. Fine. Got it. End of discussion.

No actual economic reason? Yes, there is: it is simply known in Economics 101 as DEMAND. As long as you folks in UK do keep buying at those "outrageous" prices, there is the demand, and the companies would be crazy to sell you for less. Free-market solution: stop buying and open up the market for competition. Socialistic solution: cry mommy, run under her (the government's) big skirt, and continue blaming everybody else but yourself (and her).

You finally got one thing right. And they can get away with not because they have not been caught by your Big Mommy yet, but because you keep buying at those "outrageous" prices.

What you call "thieving", I, as an investor in those corporations, applaud as a smart business practice, increasing their profit and my investment return.

First of all, there is no reason to justify prices in a free market: producers are free to come up with whatever price they want, and the market will tell them if they were wrong; if they can sell at such a price (like in UK), they were obviously right.

But, since you seem to prefer the Big Mommy approach, I will try to offer an explanation (not justification): Selling identical product at different prices is known in Economics 101 as Price Discrimination. Contrary to popular belief based on the use of the word "discrimination", it is not illegal to price discriminate. On the contrary, it is widely in use and also taught in every business school as a preferred weapon of choice in maximizing profit. Two conditions for price discrimination to work: proper customer segmentation (i.e., defining customer groups willing to pay more, e.g. UK customers, or business travelers) and ability to put up barriers between those groups.

UK companies price discriminate inside UK every day. When was the last time you flew and all the passengers on the same plane, departing from the same airport and arriving to the same airport, paid the same price? Among the economy class passengers, the airline will discriminate based on the proximity of the ticket purchase to the flight date, for instance. As for the business class... when you flew it, did you really feel that the service you got is 10x better than the service a coach traveller is getting? And yet you paid 10x more for the service that is perhaps marginally better (sure, you get metal fork vs. plastic). Why? Because the airline was able to segment you as a business (or affluent) customer, i.e., capable (or willing) to pay more. For some (affluent) the metal fork is the [price discrimination] barrier, for most others it is the required Saturday night stay.

Alternatively, forget Photoshop, switch to GIMP (a free clone). Ooops... I almost forgot: you do not want the lowly clone, you want the real deal, the best product on this planet the mankind has come up with, and you want it at the price YOU consider right... and of course you want the Big Mommy to force Adobe to sell it to you at that price.

Or how about this: come up with your own (i.e., UK or EU) Photoshop equivalent at an "outrageously" lower price, and I will be happy to buy it from you (even if you price it higher for the US market, but below the current Adobe price). Oh, no..., I forgot again: you prefer to invest your time in dragging foreign companies to court, rather than investing in research and development of your own.

Good post, Slobodan. Mostly spot on, except the U.K consumer might be the victim here of both Adobe's pricing policies and the U.K government's taxing policies.

When the market is truly free in a global economy, the consumer is at liberty to shop around for the best price. I do, but Australia has a pretty fair system. We have a 10% GST that applies to almost everything. However, if the GST on a personally imported item is less than $50, the Australian government has very sensibly deemed that it is not administratively efficient to collect it.

That means I can order any physical product on the internet, and provided the total cost, including freight or postage, is not more than $500, I pay no additional fees or taxes. Nor do I have to pay any taxes when buying downloadable programs on the internet.

I am therefore a little aggrieved after downloading a trial version of CS3E (for example) and being offered by Adobe the option of buying a license, to find that Adobe refuses to sell me the license at the price quoted on their US website.

Now, I can appreciate the reasons for such a policy. If Adobe allows everyone to buy a license from their US website at US prices, then how can they maintain their profit margin without increasing US prices? Who is going to pay for the costs of maintaining Adobe offices and technical support in London, Sydney, Paris and Rome?

I think they would have to close down such offices. It would be interesting to hear from people who use and rely upon Adobe products in their businesses, to generate revenue. Would it be of concern to them if there was no local Adobe support?

You convieniently ignored why I said one had to buy the new version of PS. ACR is a critical part of the workflow and Adobe made sure you couldn't use CS2 and ACR4, so upgrade was necessary. And there is no real competition to PS, so that's not an option either. So one has no option but to buy at rip off prices. Not having a choice is not how I define free market. CS3 was not even worth the upgrade [for me] and that's the first time I've ever said that about PS.

Not by choice and many people simply got a cheap flight to NY and got their copy there along with a holiday they could claim tax releif for.


Sorry I should have said thieving on your behalf. No wonder you're so keen to defend them.

Adobe have a near monopoly on design software for web and imaging and it is also prohibitively expensive to retrain on other software, when say you have years of experience in say Photoshop. So again , no choice in matter really.

Preventing free trade is certainly a good barrier.

You are paying for different things, so obviously you pay differently. I'm paying for the exact same thing, not a different object or different service.  Different prices depending on when you book for a limited availability, timed event are not comparable to something on sale for nearly two years at a set price.

No, I resent paying way more for the exact same product, purchased from the exact same American server at the same exact cost to Adobe as an American.
Adobe lied about the reasons it cost more, like translation costs and that's what annoyed me most. PR bullshit is BS no matter who spouts it.


The courts and any software engineers are completely separate entities and have nothing to do with each other. So that's a pathetic comment really.

Duh! How can nobody understand we only pay, because we usually have no choice. It's not as if I think, "Ooh the milk's a bit pricey at Waitrose, I'll just pop to NY to get my groceries". Companies love to exploit that fact, Adobe included.
Buying elsewhere, even via the internet is very hard as many companies stop legitimate shops from selling to us. And then there's also warranty concerns, which tends to force you to buy locally. Just bought a brand new car, turned out to have damaged paint and needs a respray, which would be impossible to sort out had we bought it in say Europe, which in theory we can do.
If I have to replace kit whilst abroad due to say theft, Canon for example would not repair anything under warranty that then had faults of their making. Just so they can keep their British prices high. It's funny how multinationals like to keep pricing so very local.
Warranties with software is not relevant as if it's buggy as hell, you're expected to wait for a patch. With Adobe that may be the next upgrade.

One of the chaps at the local Apple store said he was buying his next laptop whilst holidaying in the States, as it was cheaper than buying in the UK even with staff discount. Doing your Christmas shopping for say clothes and perfume in NY is seen as a sensible thing these days, not a flash thing.

Already addressed this point. No.
Most 'support' in the UK is anything but local and usually has a stong accent that can make comprehension really difficult. So speaking to Americans would be no problem.
Plus, it's not like they can fix any bugs in the software anyway.