adobe sacks workforce

If they didn't charge around TWICE as much in Europe it might have made a difference as well. In times of recession people cut back on luxury items, upgrading for the latest version is nice, but it has to be said theres not much new in CS4 to justify the large price, about the "new" bit I have used is the content aware scaling, nice but I can live without it if feeding my familys a priority. Wayne
 
waiting for a 50% sale so i can buy web premium package, lol i could be waiting some time ehh
 
I'm sure if they made it harder to pirate their sofware they would make more, CS4 etc are pro tools, there are cheaper options available, no one seems to moan at the price of a D3 or 1D which are also pro tools...
 
oh great, sounds like more "testing on the users" affair now then
 
Actually if you look to some of the more heavily protected software products you'll see these are just as widely pirated. Usually because the heavily protected ones are the most desirable in the first place....

Individuals don't generally remove/subvert software protection, they simply aquire copies that have already been stripped of their protection.
 
hmm, i think adobe need to re-think their products. why do we constantly have to buy NEW adobe products, instead of recieving upgrades for our old ones. Its such a shame that companies doing care about their existing customers, its just a constant turnaround so they become new customers again.

basically there should be discounts for people who have already bought an adobe package. Plus if they were a bit kinder, they would probably find they had a much more loyal customer basis, and therefore less pirating would occur
 
Some might say that the secret of Photoshop's success is down to piracy.
 
The difference between photoshop and paint shop pro, is fairly minimal, the price difference on the other hand is huge! Adobe are running the risk of pricing themselves out of the market.
A point worth thinking about, if adobe are laying off staff, how safe are your DNG files in the long term?? I hope you kept the cameras RAW as well. Wayne
 
I'm going to be pedantic now, because it something that the news media do all the time and it gets right on my nerves.
motz.gif


Adobe are not SACKING anybody they are making them REDUNDANT , there is a huge difference.
 
feeb said:
hmm, i think adobe need to re-think their products. why do we constantly have to buy NEW adobe products, instead of recieving upgrades for our old ones. Its such a shame that companies doing care about their existing customers, its just a constant turnaround so they become new customers again.

basically there should be discounts for people who have already bought an adobe package. Plus if they were a bit kinder, they would probably find they had a much more loyal customer basis, and therefore less pirating would occur
Click to expand...

I don't know about Photoshop/Creative Suite (can't afford them :lol:) but it is significantly cheaper to upgrade from Lightroom 1.4 to 2.0 than it is to buy 2.0 straight off...
 
welly said:
Some might say that the secret of Photoshop's success is down to piracy.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt that true.

swanseamale47 said:
, if adobe are laying off staff, how safe are your DNG files in the long term?? I hope you kept the cameras RAW as well. Wayne
Click to expand...

One reason I never use DNG, I just don't trust Adobe long term, look at camera raw, you want the latest update then you'll have to update CS too.

Look at the .pdf file format, it has changed several times, as new versions of Adobe Acrobat were released. There have been eight versions of PDF with corresponding Acrobat releases
 
It costs exactly the same to upgrade to a new release of Gimp as it does to buy it in the first place.
 
whiteflyer said:
Adobe are not SACKING anybody they are making them REDUNDANT , there is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Okay, try explaining that to the 600 people who just lost their jobs in the middle of a huge recession.

i would say they feel pretty sacked

and regardless of that, it means adobe are feeling the strain and thats not good for further applications

no need to be a pedant, unless there is a point ;)
 
feeb said:
Okay, try explaining that to the 600 people who just lost their jobs in the middle of a huge recession.

i would say they feel pretty sacked

and regardless of that, it means adobe are feeling the strain and thats not good for further applications

no need to be a pedant, unless there is a point ;)
Click to expand...

Go to another employer and tell them you were sacked and see the differences in chance of get the job from saying I was made redundant.

When your sacked you do not get redundancy payments.
 
I doubt any of the designers at Adobe will find it difficult to find work again! after all they are pretty good at what they do (albeit really expensive!)

i am just not too sure it matters that much, people have lost their jobs and they are a bit upset about it. Understandable i reckon!
 
Nikon NX gets an upgrade to NX2 for just a few quid....great piece of editing software too. OK, you can't take grandma's head off and put a hippo in its place.....but that isn't the purpose of it. For editing your pictures it is brilliant, a bit of enhancement and tweaking, but not manipulation. Even at new price it isn't expensive at £130, not compared to Photoshop at £500+
 
I heard a while ago that pro photographer organizations were boycotting new CS releases in protest at Adobe's UK pricing policy. Perhaps it's worked!
Andy.
 
These big company's really p*** me off. Are they making a loss? er no. Only this year (June) Adobe posted an unexpected 41% rise in sales outside the US in the 2nd/q. They are still making over $200m profit each quarter yet they 'need' to lay off people. What a load of sh*te.

How about actually taking a hit on 'profits' for once instead of trying to suck up to the shareholders and find ways to beat last years figures in a bearish market!

There should be laws that stop mass-layoffs unless a company forecast dictates that it won't be profitable in the next three years or something. Whilst it's in profit then anything less is just greed.
 
kalibre said:
These big company's really p*** me off. Are they making a loss? er no. Only this year (June) Adobe posted an unexpected 41% rise in sales outside the US in the 2nd/q. They are still making over $200m profit each quarter yet they 'need' to lay off people. What a load of sh*te.

How about actually taking a hit on 'profits' for once instead of trying to suck up to the shareholders and find ways to beat last years figures in a bearish market!

There should be laws that stop mass-layoffs unless a company forecast dictates that it won't be profitable in the next three years or something. Whilst it's in profit then anything less is just greed.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that in business people are not there to "employ others" people are in it to make money.

The people who started Adobe didn't think "I know lets go and start a business to employ lots of people"..

In a recession a business owner is going to do what it takes to save their business, if that involves cutting costs (which includes staff) then that is what people will do.

We always seem to think that business owners should run their own business/living into the ground before getting rid of staff.


It is just the way things are and is also why anyone working for my companies are on a self employed freelance basis.
 
PsiFox said:
You have to remember that in business people are not there to "employ others" people are in it to make money.

The people who started Adobe didn't think "I know lets go and start a business to employ lots of people"..

In a recession a business owner is going to do what it takes to save their business, if that involves cutting costs (which includes staff) then that is what people will do.

We always seem to think that business owners should run their own business/living into the ground before getting rid of staff.


It is just the way things are and is also why anyone working for my companies are on a self employed freelance basis.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that at all, but when a company is making $xxxm profit a year then I think they should be willing (or made) to take a little pain before ousting people. It's like Tesco 'only' making 2.1 billion profit instead of 2.3 or whatever it is, oh dear business must be 'bad'.

Don't get me wrong, we are all capitalists, and I'm probably the worst because I'm freelance myself, but large companies have this mantra type thirst for bigger and better figures no matter what the climate. The bigger they get the worse they get.
 
feeb said:
[..]

basically there should be discounts for people who have already bought an adobe package. Plus if they were a bit kinder, they would probably find they had a much more loyal customer basis, and therefore less pirating would occur
Click to expand...

Upgrading Photoshop from a previous version is considerably cheaper than buying it fresh.

The fact that UK pricing of either upgrade or buy-new is much higher than in the US is another matter of course...

Anthony.
 
kalibre said:
[..]

How about actually taking a hit on 'profits' for once instead of trying to suck up to the shareholders and find ways to beat last years figures in a bearish market!

There should be laws that stop mass-layoffs unless a company forecast dictates that it won't be profitable in the next three years or something. Whilst it's in profit then anything less is just greed.
Click to expand...

Whilst an altruistic point of view, profit is not just for shareholders pockets, but represents the finance for future investment in the organisation for capital equipment, expansion, increased employment, etc.

And speaking to your first point, shareholders often have reductions in dividends during difficult times as well as seeing a reduction in the capital value of their shares (just look at the FTSE and the reduction in the value of pension funds).

Anthony.
 
Thnaks for the input Anthony. Of course profit is used for a variety of things and I wouldn't suggest that the future of the company or even modest expansion plans should be harmed by a severe reduction in profit. However, there are numerous cases (Tesco being one) of the level of operating profit being so high that it cannot be justified as 'needed' for anything in the short to medium term, it's purely profitering. In these cases it's clear that they have an option of when to 'pull the trigger' on certain staff, but often they choose to er on the side of maximum profit.

What I'm trying to say is that everyone should have to feel the pain of a recession equally, but unfortunately quite often it's maintaining the bottom line that wins out over the decent thing to do, when in reality the companies don't actually have to take that route.

For some reason I'm in a ranting mood today. No idea why....... :bat:
 
whiteflyer said:
I'm going to be pedantic now, because it something that the news media do all the time and it gets right on my nerves.
motz.gif


Adobe are not SACKING anybody they are making them REDUNDANT , there is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Yes your right it's far worse, sacking means getting rid of staff, redundant means those JOBS have gone for good as well as the staff. Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top