AA3 Pricing outside USA

I know we've touched on this subject in the past, but has anyone actually managed to determine how Adobe justify their pricing policy, outside the USA?

To upgrade to AA3, I have to pay the equivalent of $145 - if I wanted the full version, it would be a whopping $511 .  That's before I shell out for IVA (VAT) - actually, I can get that bit back, but not everyone else is in that position.

It seems to me that Adobe simply charge €99 without any reference to current exchange rates.  They will only allow me to buy via the Spanish website, no options there, either.

I will probably end up paying the money - although this same policy was a definite contributing factor to my not buying AA2 - because it has some things which I like and are worth the price to me.  I just don't undrstand why I should have to pay the best part of a 50% premium?

This blatant ripping-off leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I am not a happy Adobe customer.

They can't justify it - they just do it. But isn't that typical American foreign policy? 

If Americans didn't  just "do it", then you'd be speaking German right now.

If Americans didn't  just "do it", then you'd be speaking German right now.

Without wishing to respond to that comment in itself, how is it justification for this pricing "policy"*?

Mind you, the one that amuses me is the way that buying the download in most EU countries costs more than buying the boxed product, because the VAT is determined by the country in which the supply is made, i.e. for the download, Eire, where the servers are, and which has a higher rate of VAT than most other EU countries.

Paul

* "quotes", because I suspect it's not a "policy", but laziness - not bothering to find out what the appropriate conversion might be.  It can't just be that they need the money to buy imports, as they did the same when the dollar was strong.

If Americans didn't  just "do it", then you'd be speaking German right now.

You might think that, because of the way American schools teach what they call 'history' - which tends to overlook all of the inconvenient bits, just as many American films do. Mainly this happens when those inconvenient bits don't happen to make the US look quite so wonderful, perhaps... All of the other combatants declared war against Germany in 1939, with all the evidence about why they should do this being available for the previous 6 years. It took a direct act of agression against American in 1941 before any practical US involvement took place at all. And despite about 10 months of warnings that the Pearl Harbour attack was planned, American authorities refused to believe it. I'm afraid that using WWII as an argument for America 'just doing it' doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny at all.

And you also presume that any alternative outcome would have lasted - which is, I think, incredibly unlikely.

I'm not trying to justify the pricing, just responding to Steve's wisecrack about American foreign policies.

 I have no idea how Adobe sets their prices, but I'm thinking it may have something to do with variable costs per region, or the old "whatever the market will bare." Last I heard they were a "for profit" company, not a non profit charity.

I'm not trying to justify the pricing, just responding to Steve's wisecrack about American foreign policies.

That wasn't a wisecrack, that was a factual comparison.

I have no idea how Adobe sets their prices, but I'm thinking it may have something to do with variable costs per region, or the old "whatever the market will bare." Last I heard they were a "for profit" company, not a non profit charity.

Well they are behaving more like a charity in the US than they are anywhere else in the world. I don't think that different regional costs come into this in the slightest - they have manufacturing plants and distribution all over the place, and currency exchange variations aren't that great from day to day. The product price in all regions other than America makes it appear to the rest of the world as though they are either discounting it heavily in the US, or ripping the rest of us off. You can have it either way; it makes no difference - but since we can all see what it costs everywhere, and can do exchange sums too, they can't really expect to get no comments about it, can they?

Sometimes it's impossible to figure out why large corporations do what they do. Maybe some bean counter somewhere said, "well, if we keep it priced at $99 US, we willl sell x number of units, at $140 we will sell y number of units, and we will gross more by selling for less.......either way it's a great deal for us because of the new features.

I am a little surprised at the $99 upgrade cost. But when you look at the whole picture, and look at what other programs the competition are making available in this price range...Adobe seems to be right on...the competition is fierce.

Sometimes it's impossible to figure out why large corporations do what they do. Maybe some bean counter somewhere said, "well, if we keep it priced at $99 US, we willl sell x number of units, at $140 we will sell y number of units, and we will gross more by selling for less.......either way it's a great deal for us because of the new features.

I am a little surprised at the $99 upgrade cost. But when you look at the whole picture, and look at what other programs the competition are making available in this price range...Adobe seems to be right on...the competition is fierce.

It's not the absolute price that there have been so many complaints about - in absolute terms it's not that great. It's the fact that it's been misconverted around the world, and that this is plainly visible for all to see.

But that's not the only part of Adobe's marketing that's dubious. What is actually worse is that they won't release bugfixes - they save them all up for a new version, and then sell them to you with a few new features to 'justify' it. And even that wouldn't be so bad if they'd actually fixed a few of them...

they won't release bugfixes - they save them all up for a new version, and then sell them to you with a few new features to 'justify' it. And even that wouldn't be so bad if they'd actually fixed a few of them...

That varies with product - Photoshop and Acrobat have both regularly got updates between releases (and Acrobat, being their flagship commercial package, continues to get updates for the previous release or two as well - Acrobat 6 got it's sixth update around the time Acrobat 8 was released).

Paul

[download]

... I'm thinking it may have something to do with variable costs per region

For a download?  Sorry, that won't wash at all.

Last I heard they were a "for profit" company, not a non profit charity.

I have no objection to them making a profit - if they didn't, then we wouldn't have the software at all.

What I do object to is them making a much bigger profit out of me than they do out of you.  At the very least, it's unfair - at worst, it's sharp practice.

Who says they are making a profit ?? They could very easily be losing money on the whole thing. Let's say after all is and and done, they sell a grand total of 1,000 upgrades at $99 a piece. That's  $99,000, I'm just guessing,  but let's there's five people involved in the development, each one drawing a $50,000 salary per year, that's $250,000. $150,000 short of total sales. Hopefully this is not the case, but it certainly could be. 

Who says they are making a profit ?? They could very easily be losing money on the whole thing. Let's say after all is and and done, they sell a grand total of 1,000 upgrades at $99 a piece...

I'm aware of one user (thier biggest Audition customer) who, on their own, will buy more upgrades than that. And of course, they are in a place where they'll have to pay the higher price. And that may well be significant in the worldwide pricing decisions...

That varies with product - Photoshop and Acrobat have both regularly got updates between releases (and Acrobat, being their flagship commercial package, continues to get updates for the previous release or two as well - Acrobat 6 got it's sixth update around the time Acrobat 8 was released).

That's simply what makes their behaviour with Audition all the more galling - they're not even consistent about their releases.

Who says they are making a profit ??

Whether or not they are making a profit is immaterial to the argument - although it's probably fair to assume they know what they are doing when they set the price of a product, they're hardly amateurs in this market.

The point is - why should they make more of a profit (or less of a loss, if you prefer) out of me than out of you?

It's not a ball-breaker - €99 is hardly going to force me into the bankruptcy court - it's more the principle behind this policy that I find unacceptable.  The fact of them not being amateurs merely compounds the felony, in my view - they're big enough to be able to handle exchange rates and stuff like that.

If you were sitting on this side of the pond, then you might be a little more understanding towards the feelings of non-USA supporters of this product.  Actually, I suspect there are a lot more of those than one might think.  If they all refused to pay the inflated price over here, then you might end up paying twice as much as now, in order to maintain Adobe's profit margin.

I'm aware of one user (thier biggest Audition customer) who, on their own, will buy more upgrades than that. And of course, they are in a place where they'll have to pay the higher price. And that may well be significant in the worldwide pricing decisions...

That's crazy!  But for some reason I would not be surprised if this was the motive behind the policy.