I never paid for Adobe-Software. These Prices won't make me a costumer, either.
2799.- for Software?! They are crazy, I can get GIMP for free, and there isn't much it can't do what PS can.
GIMP does not compare to Photoshop. A professional user familiar with both programs would understand that. It is also quite illogical to compare GIMP to the $2,799 price tag, which bundles a hoard of excellent Adobe products used for a wide array of purposes. Best to stick to Photoshop vs. GIMP comparisons. That said, for someone using Photoshop professionally, the price tag attached to Photoshop is nothing horrible. It can easily be made up in a single job, or in two jobs for less established professionals. For these professionals, the benefits of Photoshop on the Intel platform will by far outweigh the costs. For other professionals, they may not, and they will do what they always do—skip a version of Adobe’s packages and upgrade on a future release. They don’t need to upgrade every single time.
The prices are steep from a home user’s perspective, but people don’t have to use Adobe products, nor do they have a right to as some pirates and computer users seem to believe they do. If a person wants Photoshop to edit their family photos and those funny graphics they upload to the internet they may be overshooting the cost vs. benefit ratio. They are buying a fancy expensive toy (which is fine if that’s what they like). If they are a professional the costs of Adobe products are often-times quite reasonable. People get to decide on a case by case basis.
And finally, I’ll draw a comparison. Final Cut Pro—a very expensive piece of software—is a marvelous bargain for what it does. It really is. Apple has taken prices in the video industry, in many areas, and thrown them to the curb as competition scrambles to compete with them. But Final Cut Pro is not the solution for someone who wants to edit their home movies (unless they enjoy a premium experience and don’t mind paying a premium price). For these folk, Apple has released iLife. For the Adobe folk, Adobe has released Photoshop Elements for $99.
I agree that big design firms can handle it, but solo freelance designers are going to seriously evaluate alternatives before forking out that much cash. And casual designers (ie, for hobbies, personal projects, nonprofits, etc.) who might have used Photoshop or Dreamweaver in the past are going to be much less likely to buy an Adobe product as the price climbs.
As for getting what you pay for, I very much disagree. Linux, Firefox, Apache, Asterisk, MySQL, PHP, SugarCRM, and so on and so on and so on are absolutely free and absolutely top-notch... Gimp just needs to get into these guys' league. And Adobe's rape-pricing is going to be a BIG help there.
Freelance designers can charge upwards of $100 an hour. If Photoshop can save them just 5 hours, over the 18 months until CS4, then Photoshop is more cost-effective than the GIMP. The much better designed Photoshop probably saves them 2 or 3 hours a day, given GIMP an opportunity cost of $75,000 or more over an 18 month period. $500 upgrade, or $75,000 in lost time... who will win?
More to the point, assuming they need even one feature that the GIMP doesn't have, like say, 16-bit color, then they need to use Photoshop instead.
Your logic is that of a high school student, not of a serious professional.
If it's a problem, then expect that a lot of CS2 for Windows users would probably hold back until CS4 unless it's a really compelling upgrade. Mac users are almost going to have to upgrade if they have Intel hardware, then they might want to wait until CS5 to upgrade.
But I'd think anyone that's seriously using this software can easily pay for it and it's easily justifiable, even the freelancers.
Hobbyists can find alternatives, and that's fine for hobbyist use. To me, none of the FOSS drawing tools mentioned in this thread are anywhere close, I've tried them and I think they generally need invasive surgery, and I'm not even much of a graphics guy. On my PC, I only have Photoshop 5 SE, on Mac, Elements 3 and for me, they are a lot better than the FOSS packages that I've tried.
Adobe is only in trouble when businesses quit buying their products because that's where the money really is. It's a drop in the bucket for pros of any stripe, amateurs really aren't their market anymore except with their Elements products.
I don't think the price is unreasonable for professionals. There is this thing called inflation where prices go up on everything eventually. Compare these prices to what you paid for these products ten years ago (except PageMaker insted of InDesign) and it isn't that substantial compared to many other things (including what we charge for ads).
The only thing that sucks for me is that I really must have it on my MacBook Pro and convincing the boss to buy me two copies isn't eas. It is really high priced for me to buy personally. I guess when I know I am going to need it on my laptop, I can deactivate it on my work computer. That will get old really fast.
Freelance designers can charge upwards of $100 an hour. If Photoshop can save them just 5 hours, over the 18 months until CS4, then Photoshop is more cost-effective than the GIMP. The much better designed Photoshop probably saves them 2 or 3 hours a day, given GIMP an opportunity cost of $75,000 or more over an 18 month period. $500 upgrade, or $75,000 in lost time... who will win?
More to the point, assuming they need even one feature that the GIMP doesn't have, like say, 16-bit color, then they need to use Photoshop instead.
Your logic is that of a high school student, not of a serious professional.
exactly. i'm looking to upgrade to the design premium or whatever. if it's less than $500 it's a no brainer. i'll make it up in less than a day. if the upgrade prices are good i might go for a higher level bundle.
I don't think the price is unreasonable for professionals. There is this thing called inflation where prices go up on everything eventually. Compare these prices to what you paid for these products ten years ago (except PageMaker insted of InDesign) and it isn't that substantial compared to many other things (including what we charge for ads).
The only thing that sucks for me is that I really must have it on my MacBook Pro and convincing the boss to buy me two copies isn't eas. It is really high priced for me to buy personally. I guess when I know I am going to need it on my laptop, I can deactivate it on my work computer. That will get old really fast.
Unless they change the EULA you are allowed to install CS on two computers and use it on both as long as they are not being used simultaneously, or by different users. It was designed that way so that you could do exactly what you want to do: use it on a desktop and a laptop.
Check your EULA, it should say that this is a legal use of the software. This is a frequent topic on the Adobe forums BTW.
If it's a problem, then expect that a lot of CS2 for Windows users would probably hold back until CS4 unless it's a really compelling upgrade. Mac users are almost going to have to upgrade if they have Intel hardware, then they might want to wait until CS5 to upgrade.
But I'd think anyone that's seriously using this software can easily pay for it and it's easily justifiable, even the freelancers.
Hobbyists can find alternatives, and that's fine for hobbyist use. To me, none of the FOSS drawing tools mentioned in this thread are anywhere close, I've tried them and I think they generally need invasive surgery, and I'm not even much of a graphics guy. On my PC, I only have Photoshop 5 SE, on Mac, Elements 3 and for me, they are a lot better than the FOSS packages that I've tried.
Adobe is only in trouble when businesses quit buying their products because that's where the money really is. It's a drop in the bucket for pros of any stripe, amateurs really aren't their market anymore except with their Elements products.
Thing is though, that leaving an opening for consumers opens you up to being attacked from underneath.
While they own the market today by swallowing Macromedia, there are a number of tools out there that could scale fairly quickly to tackle the Adobe juggernaut.
Quark is still alive and innovating fast. Lineform has promise, even if it lacks a few features.
Apple's consumer focus with iPhoto and iWeb could convince them to add pro versions relatively quickly. Freeway is still out there.
It will be interesting to see the upgrade price of Photoshop next week. That, more than anything else, will say whether Adobe thinks it can get away with near-monopoly status, or if it will continue to keep prices low enough to squelch potential competition.
Thing is though, that leaving an opening for consumers opens you up to being attacked from underneath.
This isn't consumer software. Adobe does offer some fairly nice consumer level software at a very reasonable price, though some of it is Windows-only, Macs include rudimentary video authoring tools in the box. I'm guessing that students will probably still have very good discounts for the pro level software.
Quote:
While they own the market today by swallowing Macromedia, there are a number of tools out there that could scale fairly quickly to tackle the Adobe juggernaut.
As nice as that would be, I don't think it is very easy or fast.
The CS3 software aren't consumer programs. Adobe does offer some fairly nice consumer level software at a very reasonable price, though some of it is Windows-only, Macs include rudimentary video authoring tools in the package. I'm guessing that students will probably still have very good discounts for the pro level software.
As nice as that would be, I don't think it is very easy or fast.
I never said CS3 was geared to consumers. My point was that if the consumer market was left largely to others, Adobe could eventually suffer as those programs pushed into Pro territory.
Look at where iPhoto started and where it is now. After six years, Apple has to make a conscious effort to avoid trampling on Adobe's territory.
I think Quark, Freeway and Lineform, can scale much in the same way. None of those are tied to Adobe's single code solution, so they will make great strides every time Apple upgrades Mac OS.
And by fast, I don't mean months. Adobe's development schedule is 18 months, so we're always talking years in terms of competition.
For other professionals, they may not, and they will do what they always do?skip a version of Adobe?s packages and upgrade on a future release. They don?t need to upgrade every single time.
Except that current Adobe products and Macromedia products are really not much fun at all on Rosetta.
Leapfrogging software is often also done against leapfrogging computers, but now... buy a new Mac and you almost have to upgrade to CS3. If you're trying to be a serious designer.
Freelance designers can charge upwards of $100 an hour. If Photoshop can save them just 5 hours, over the 18 months until CS4, then Photoshop is more cost-effective than the GIMP. The much better designed Photoshop probably saves them 2 or 3 hours a day, given GIMP an opportunity cost of $75,000 or more over an 18 month period. $500 upgrade, or $75,000 in lost time... who will win?
More to the point, assuming they need even one feature that the GIMP doesn't have, like say, 16-bit color, then they need to use Photoshop instead.
Your logic is that of a high school student, not of a serious professional.
Not all freelance designers get $100/hour, nor do they all have a lot of hours of work. Temps get more like $15-20 an hour, before taxes. Those are the people trying to get their first gig, and they need good tools to be able to do it, and they most certainly do not have thousands to throw around. They can try to steal time, resources, and even software from the companies they're working for, but... that's not really cool.
So, yes... my logic is that of someone recently out of high school... that's the people I was describing, along with people who aren't professional designers. (But actually, I've was a graphics professional from System 7 to OS X. There's no reason to take that tone.)
By the way, for those who feel GIMP isn't up to the quality level of Photoshop... just a reminder that you don't have to be a programmer to contribute to an open source project.
In countries like China, graphic designers get paid way, way above average.
In other places with less commerce, there isn't graphic design. Period. Or electricity, or things of that nature.
Not quite. I'm talking about middle-Europe countries like Poland, Hungary or Czech Republic. These countries are still developing and to develop they need tools. Saying that in these countries there is no graphic design is some kind of ignorance. Sure there are companies that can afford this (I mean CS3) with no problem, but average salary in this industry is about $20-25 per hour. Now CS2 Premium (localized version) costs here about 1000 euro - and that's ok. I'm 22 and I'm starting in this business. Hardware and software for one designer/developer is 1 300 euro for a new iMac 20" and 1699 euro for CS3 Web Premium.
Besides you're in better position living in the US than in Europe. Everything form the US here is much more expensive.
Not all freelance designers get $100/hour, nor do they all have a lot of hours of work. Temps get more like $15-20 an hour, before taxes.
Temps aren't freelancers. They'll have Photoshop provided for them by the firm that hires them.
Quote:
Those are the people trying to get their first gig, and they need good tools to be able to do it, and they most certainly do not have thousands to throw around.
There's this thing called 'college.' And a corollary called 'academic discount.'
Photoshop is affordably priced for both professionals and for students.
But you're right?for someone looking for their first job, the GIMP and other free/cheap software packages are great ways to build a portfolio.
But if Adobe lowered Photoshop's price to please this fragment of the market, they'd likely price themselves out of business.
Quote:
So, yes... my logic is that of someone recently out of high school... that's the people I was describing, along with people who aren't professional designers. (But actually, I've was a graphics professional from System 7 to OS X. There's no reason to take that tone.)
Sorry, I didn't mean it insultingly, but often high school students don't understand concepts like opportunity costs.
Not quite. I'm talking about middle-Europe countries like Poland, Hungary or Czech Republic. These countries are still developing and to develop they need tools. Saying that in these countries there is no graphic design is some kind of ignorance. Sure there are companies that can afford this (I mean CS3) with no problem, but average salary in this industry is about $20-25 per hour. Now CS2 Premium (localized version) costs here about 1000 euro - and that's ok. I'm 22 and I'm starting in this business. Hardware and software for one designer/developer is 1 300 euro for a new iMac 20" and 1699 euro for CS3 Web Premium.
$20-25 is exactly what the starting salary is here for graphic design, although I don't know if you meant US dollars or not. It goes up to maybe $30-40, but only really good designers will go any higher. You're not that worse off from us.
Quote:
Besides you're in better position living in the US than in Europe. Everything form the US here is much more expensive.
That's mostly because of VATs. We have taxes too, we just add them to the price, rather then including them in the price. For example, a product that is advertised as $1,000 will be sold for between $1,050 and $1,100 depending on the sales tax in your state.
It's not Adobe's fault that European countries charge 15-25% on VATs
Comments
I never paid for Adobe-Software. These Prices won't make me a costumer, either.
2799.- for Software?! They are crazy, I can get GIMP for free, and there isn't much it can't do what PS can.
GIMP does not compare to Photoshop. A professional user familiar with both programs would understand that. It is also quite illogical to compare GIMP to the $2,799 price tag, which bundles a hoard of excellent Adobe products used for a wide array of purposes. Best to stick to Photoshop vs. GIMP comparisons. That said, for someone using Photoshop professionally, the price tag attached to Photoshop is nothing horrible. It can easily be made up in a single job, or in two jobs for less established professionals. For these professionals, the benefits of Photoshop on the Intel platform will by far outweigh the costs. For other professionals, they may not, and they will do what they always do—skip a version of Adobe’s packages and upgrade on a future release. They don’t need to upgrade every single time.
The prices are steep from a home user’s perspective, but people don’t have to use Adobe products, nor do they have a right to as some pirates and computer users seem to believe they do. If a person wants Photoshop to edit their family photos and those funny graphics they upload to the internet they may be overshooting the cost vs. benefit ratio. They are buying a fancy expensive toy (which is fine if that’s what they like). If they are a professional the costs of Adobe products are often-times quite reasonable. People get to decide on a case by case basis.
And finally, I’ll draw a comparison. Final Cut Pro—a very expensive piece of software—is a marvelous bargain for what it does. It really is. Apple has taken prices in the video industry, in many areas, and thrown them to the curb as competition scrambles to compete with them. But Final Cut Pro is not the solution for someone who wants to edit their home movies (unless they enjoy a premium experience and don’t mind paying a premium price). For these folk, Apple has released iLife. For the Adobe folk, Adobe has released Photoshop Elements for $99.
I agree that big design firms can handle it, but solo freelance designers are going to seriously evaluate alternatives before forking out that much cash. And casual designers (ie, for hobbies, personal projects, nonprofits, etc.) who might have used Photoshop or Dreamweaver in the past are going to be much less likely to buy an Adobe product as the price climbs.
As for getting what you pay for, I very much disagree. Linux, Firefox, Apache, Asterisk, MySQL, PHP, SugarCRM, and so on and so on and so on are absolutely free and absolutely top-notch... Gimp just needs to get into these guys' league. And Adobe's rape-pricing is going to be a BIG help there.
Freelance designers can charge upwards of $100 an hour. If Photoshop can save them just 5 hours, over the 18 months until CS4, then Photoshop is more cost-effective than the GIMP. The much better designed Photoshop probably saves them 2 or 3 hours a day, given GIMP an opportunity cost of $75,000 or more over an 18 month period. $500 upgrade, or $75,000 in lost time... who will win?
More to the point, assuming they need even one feature that the GIMP doesn't have, like say, 16-bit color, then they need to use Photoshop instead.
Your logic is that of a high school student, not of a serious professional.
If it's a problem, then expect that a lot of CS2 for Windows users would probably hold back until CS4 unless it's a really compelling upgrade. Mac users are almost going to have to upgrade if they have Intel hardware, then they might want to wait until CS5 to upgrade.
But I'd think anyone that's seriously using this software can easily pay for it and it's easily justifiable, even the freelancers.
Hobbyists can find alternatives, and that's fine for hobbyist use. To me, none of the FOSS drawing tools mentioned in this thread are anywhere close, I've tried them and I think they generally need invasive surgery, and I'm not even much of a graphics guy. On my PC, I only have Photoshop 5 SE, on Mac, Elements 3 and for me, they are a lot better than the FOSS packages that I've tried.
Adobe is only in trouble when businesses quit buying their products because that's where the money really is. It's a drop in the bucket for pros of any stripe, amateurs really aren't their market anymore except with their Elements products.
The only thing that sucks for me is that I really must have it on my MacBook Pro and convincing the boss to buy me two copies isn't eas. It is really high priced for me to buy personally. I guess when I know I am going to need it on my laptop, I can deactivate it on my work computer. That will get old really fast.
Freelance designers can charge upwards of $100 an hour. If Photoshop can save them just 5 hours, over the 18 months until CS4, then Photoshop is more cost-effective than the GIMP. The much better designed Photoshop probably saves them 2 or 3 hours a day, given GIMP an opportunity cost of $75,000 or more over an 18 month period. $500 upgrade, or $75,000 in lost time... who will win?
More to the point, assuming they need even one feature that the GIMP doesn't have, like say, 16-bit color, then they need to use Photoshop instead.
Your logic is that of a high school student, not of a serious professional.
exactly. i'm looking to upgrade to the design premium or whatever. if it's less than $500 it's a no brainer. i'll make it up in less than a day. if the upgrade prices are good i might go for a higher level bundle.
I don't think the price is unreasonable for professionals. There is this thing called inflation where prices go up on everything eventually. Compare these prices to what you paid for these products ten years ago (except PageMaker insted of InDesign) and it isn't that substantial compared to many other things (including what we charge for ads).
The only thing that sucks for me is that I really must have it on my MacBook Pro and convincing the boss to buy me two copies isn't eas. It is really high priced for me to buy personally. I guess when I know I am going to need it on my laptop, I can deactivate it on my work computer. That will get old really fast.
Unless they change the EULA you are allowed to install CS on two computers and use it on both as long as they are not being used simultaneously, or by different users. It was designed that way so that you could do exactly what you want to do: use it on a desktop and a laptop.
Check your EULA, it should say that this is a legal use of the software. This is a frequent topic on the Adobe forums BTW.
That is a lot of money, but then again, it isn't.
If it's a problem, then expect that a lot of CS2 for Windows users would probably hold back until CS4 unless it's a really compelling upgrade. Mac users are almost going to have to upgrade if they have Intel hardware, then they might want to wait until CS5 to upgrade.
But I'd think anyone that's seriously using this software can easily pay for it and it's easily justifiable, even the freelancers.
Hobbyists can find alternatives, and that's fine for hobbyist use. To me, none of the FOSS drawing tools mentioned in this thread are anywhere close, I've tried them and I think they generally need invasive surgery, and I'm not even much of a graphics guy. On my PC, I only have Photoshop 5 SE, on Mac, Elements 3 and for me, they are a lot better than the FOSS packages that I've tried.
Adobe is only in trouble when businesses quit buying their products because that's where the money really is. It's a drop in the bucket for pros of any stripe, amateurs really aren't their market anymore except with their Elements products.
Thing is though, that leaving an opening for consumers opens you up to being attacked from underneath.
While they own the market today by swallowing Macromedia, there are a number of tools out there that could scale fairly quickly to tackle the Adobe juggernaut.
Quark is still alive and innovating fast. Lineform has promise, even if it lacks a few features.
Apple's consumer focus with iPhoto and iWeb could convince them to add pro versions relatively quickly. Freeway is still out there.
It will be interesting to see the upgrade price of Photoshop next week. That, more than anything else, will say whether Adobe thinks it can get away with near-monopoly status, or if it will continue to keep prices low enough to squelch potential competition.
Thing is though, that leaving an opening for consumers opens you up to being attacked from underneath.
This isn't consumer software. Adobe does offer some fairly nice consumer level software at a very reasonable price, though some of it is Windows-only, Macs include rudimentary video authoring tools in the box. I'm guessing that students will probably still have very good discounts for the pro level software.
While they own the market today by swallowing Macromedia, there are a number of tools out there that could scale fairly quickly to tackle the Adobe juggernaut.
As nice as that would be, I don't think it is very easy or fast.
The CS3 software aren't consumer programs. Adobe does offer some fairly nice consumer level software at a very reasonable price, though some of it is Windows-only, Macs include rudimentary video authoring tools in the package. I'm guessing that students will probably still have very good discounts for the pro level software.
As nice as that would be, I don't think it is very easy or fast.
I never said CS3 was geared to consumers. My point was that if the consumer market was left largely to others, Adobe could eventually suffer as those programs pushed into Pro territory.
Look at where iPhoto started and where it is now. After six years, Apple has to make a conscious effort to avoid trampling on Adobe's territory.
I think Quark, Freeway and Lineform, can scale much in the same way. None of those are tied to Adobe's single code solution, so they will make great strides every time Apple upgrades Mac OS.
And by fast, I don't mean months. Adobe's development schedule is 18 months, so we're always talking years in terms of competition.
Freelance designers can charge upwards of $100 an hour.
Yeah, right. What about countries where reaching such earnings is practically impossible and average salary is about $930?
For other professionals, they may not, and they will do what they always do?skip a version of Adobe?s packages and upgrade on a future release. They don?t need to upgrade every single time.
Except that current Adobe products and Macromedia products are really not much fun at all on Rosetta.
Leapfrogging software is often also done against leapfrogging computers, but now... buy a new Mac and you almost have to upgrade to CS3. If you're trying to be a serious designer.
Freelance designers can charge upwards of $100 an hour. If Photoshop can save them just 5 hours, over the 18 months until CS4, then Photoshop is more cost-effective than the GIMP. The much better designed Photoshop probably saves them 2 or 3 hours a day, given GIMP an opportunity cost of $75,000 or more over an 18 month period. $500 upgrade, or $75,000 in lost time... who will win?
More to the point, assuming they need even one feature that the GIMP doesn't have, like say, 16-bit color, then they need to use Photoshop instead.
Your logic is that of a high school student, not of a serious professional.
Not all freelance designers get $100/hour, nor do they all have a lot of hours of work. Temps get more like $15-20 an hour, before taxes. Those are the people trying to get their first gig, and they need good tools to be able to do it, and they most certainly do not have thousands to throw around. They can try to steal time, resources, and even software from the companies they're working for, but... that's not really cool.
So, yes... my logic is that of someone recently out of high school... that's the people I was describing, along with people who aren't professional designers. (But actually, I've was a graphics professional from System 7 to OS X. There's no reason to take that tone.)
buy a new Mac and you almost have to upgrade to CS3. If you're trying to be a serious designer.
I'm in exact position. Now what? It seems I was an idiot because I bought a mac?
Here's how you can help the gimp:
http://gimp.org/develop/
I'm in exact position. Now what? It seems I was an idiot because I bought a mac?
Vista users are in much the same position: CS 2 is not supported on Vista. If you want Vista and Adobe CS apps you must upgrade to CS 3.
Adobe gets us all this time around...unless you're using a pre-Intel Mac or are content to stay with Win XP.
So they get my money.
And as far as this freelance illustrator goes, $100/hour sounds great! You can pay me that anytime you want.
Yeah, right. What about countries where reaching such earnings is practically impossible and average salary is about $930?
You aren't serious, are you?
In countries like China, graphic designers get paid way, way above average.
In other places with less commerce, there isn't graphic design. Period. Or electricity, or things of that nature.
You aren't serious, are you?
In countries like China, graphic designers get paid way, way above average.
In other places with less commerce, there isn't graphic design. Period. Or electricity, or things of that nature.
Not quite. I'm talking about middle-Europe countries like Poland, Hungary or Czech Republic. These countries are still developing and to develop they need tools. Saying that in these countries there is no graphic design is some kind of ignorance. Sure there are companies that can afford this (I mean CS3) with no problem, but average salary in this industry is about $20-25 per hour. Now CS2 Premium (localized version) costs here about 1000 euro - and that's ok. I'm 22 and I'm starting in this business. Hardware and software for one designer/developer is 1 300 euro for a new iMac 20" and 1699 euro for CS3 Web Premium.
Besides you're in better position living in the US than in Europe. Everything form the US here is much more expensive.
Not all freelance designers get $100/hour, nor do they all have a lot of hours of work. Temps get more like $15-20 an hour, before taxes.
Temps aren't freelancers. They'll have Photoshop provided for them by the firm that hires them.
Those are the people trying to get their first gig, and they need good tools to be able to do it, and they most certainly do not have thousands to throw around.
There's this thing called 'college.' And a corollary called 'academic discount.'
Photoshop is affordably priced for both professionals and for students.
But you're right?for someone looking for their first job, the GIMP and other free/cheap software packages are great ways to build a portfolio.
But if Adobe lowered Photoshop's price to please this fragment of the market, they'd likely price themselves out of business.
So, yes... my logic is that of someone recently out of high school... that's the people I was describing, along with people who aren't professional designers. (But actually, I've was a graphics professional from System 7 to OS X. There's no reason to take that tone.)
Sorry, I didn't mean it insultingly, but often high school students don't understand concepts like opportunity costs.
Not quite. I'm talking about middle-Europe countries like Poland, Hungary or Czech Republic. These countries are still developing and to develop they need tools. Saying that in these countries there is no graphic design is some kind of ignorance. Sure there are companies that can afford this (I mean CS3) with no problem, but average salary in this industry is about $20-25 per hour. Now CS2 Premium (localized version) costs here about 1000 euro - and that's ok. I'm 22 and I'm starting in this business. Hardware and software for one designer/developer is 1 300 euro for a new iMac 20" and 1699 euro for CS3 Web Premium.
$20-25 is exactly what the starting salary is here for graphic design, although I don't know if you meant US dollars or not. It goes up to maybe $30-40, but only really good designers will go any higher. You're not that worse off from us.
Besides you're in better position living in the US than in Europe. Everything form the US here is much more expensive.
That's mostly because of VATs. We have taxes too, we just add them to the price, rather then including them in the price. For example, a product that is advertised as $1,000 will be sold for between $1,050 and $1,100 depending on the sales tax in your state.
It's not Adobe's fault that European countries charge 15-25% on VATs
CS3 premium is 200 euros more expensive than before but you got Photoshop Extended, Flash and Dreamweaver.
As you guys know, US prices are much lower for software and hardware than we get here, in the EU. (Before TAX that is)
So expect pricing will be about the same as it was or a little increased for more bundled software.
Can't wait.