Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug writes: > How long will that $600 worth of software > be usable? Forever. Software doesn't wear out. > A year, maybe two, before "upgrades" become > nessesary? Upgrades are never necessary. That's a myth that software publishers like to propagate. Software publishers need upgrades; their customers do not. > And where did you get the idea that "most" > of us spend 3-4 times as much for each of > several lenses? A full version of Photoshop costs about $600. > My most expensive lens was about twice > the cost of Photoshop. Ah, so you have more than one lens? More than one body, too? My point is that anyone who can afford to invest in Leica gear can afford a full version of Photoshop, so trying to say that it costs too much just isn't very convincing. If you don't want to buy it, that's fine, but trying to say that it's not affordable isn't really going to wash. > Amortized over 21 years (so far), the annualized > cost of my lenses is much less that the typical > annualized cost of using the full version of Photoshop. Not if you use Photoshop for 21 years. And, unlike photo equipment, Photoshop will never require a CLA. > I don't have a problem with people finding ways > to reduce the cost of stuff that depreciates > as rapidly as software does. Depreciation is only important if you are buying with the intention of reselling. Hardly anyone resells software, though. And unlike physical equipment, software doesn't wear out over time, so it will still work just as well 100 years after you buy it as it did on the day of purchase. Even Leica equipment can't boast a record like that. > We're not all wealthy. You don't have to be wealthy to buy software. In fact, it takes a lot less money to buy software than it does to buy Leica gear. If you don't want Photoshop, just say so, but don't try to claim that it costs too much. Of all places to say something like that, a Leica group is probably about the most incongruous.