Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#111

Post by jfengel »

axiolite wrote: post #67
AdamN wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses want multiple revenue streams at different layers of the stack with different cycles. Charging developers, printers, consumable producers, hardware makers, etc... means Pantone can make money at every level and they can increase/decrease the price as those different layers as more or less spending capacity is available at that period in the cycle for that layer.

> Pantone can make money at every level Yes, but there's something to be said of the "First one's free, kid" business model. Making it frictionless to get into your ecosystem usually results in many more sales in the end. Fewer graphics designers using pantone colors means fewer products going out with pantone colors, which means fewer sales of pantone dyes.

Pantone is what the printers use. If you want to get the most accurate representation of your colors, you use Pantone. Pantone doesn't need to get you addicted; its target market already needs them.

You can care less about your colors, but for some categories of graphic designers, that's not an option.

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#112

Post by cthalupa »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #10
captainmuon wrote: post #7

I wonder why they don't just charge more for the dyes (or the dye licenses, I think they are not making them themselves). I think it is bizarre that you should need a license to write down in a file "use this-and-that tube of color for printing this shape". If anything, they should be paying Adobe for including their colors. Maybe this is a possible evolution? Third party ink producers create photoshop add-ins allowi…

They charge designers $X000 for a book or a set of paint chips with swatches of all the colors, so I assume they are trying to continue that revenue stream in a subscription-based way.

The most common are the Pantone formula guide or bridge books, and those are closer to $300

It's still quite a bit, but even the FHI chip books are under $1k. You have to be doing something a bit nuts like getting the full plastic chip carousels to get up into the thousands.

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#113

Post by TechBro8615 »

aliqot wrote: post #110
TechBro8615 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed they didn't pay for any of this stuff and the vendors give them products to make a video about them.

In the Pantone video in question they say they paid thousands for it

Yeah I saw that. I assumed it was a lie. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, lol

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#114

Post by moolcool »

brudgers wrote: post #109
moolcool wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Photoshop give a warning when you're about to use a professional feature? "You're about to use a B2B feature. Please note that this functionality can be removed on a whim. Do you wish to continue?" Why should I, a normal consumer, expect my psd files to stop working if I had the gall to use a pantone shade I knew I liked?

Photoshop is also designed as a B2B/professional product.

This shouldn't matter

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#115

Post by Hamcha »

aliqot wrote: post #100
postpawl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus tech tips did a video on this recently: https://youtu.be/JF8UziDHqZo The one they got was more like $10k.

That channel sure loves to waste money for the sake of "OMG LOOK $$$ WE GOT IT". Just stick to the tech and stay in your lane. This isn't what we meant when we said 'more RGB stuff'.

They're probably spending that money setting stuff up for their LTTStore stuff (see backpack, screwdrivers etc) so they might as well do a video about those things. I'm sure other manufacturers don't get the luxury of making money out of every business expense.

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#116

Post by cptskippy »

moolcool wrote: post #91
noirscape wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data corruption usually refers to actual data loss. The "data is still there but you just can't view it" isn't corruption, it just means your tools aren't up to the task. You can still download older versions of Adobes apps, it's right there in the ARS article even (Creative Cloud lets you download older versions of PS, InDesign and the like), so your second argument about cloud bullshit doesn't go up there either. A…

I'm sorry, but this is just mental gymnastics to justify dark patterns in modern software development and distribution. If I create a file on Photoshop on Monday, I should be able to open it on Friday. Period. Even if I used a feature I used "wasn't meant for me", as if that matters. This is like pushing a firmware update to DVD players that makes certain disks unreadable. "Actually Grandma, your DVDs aren't corrupte…

How should Adobe handle it?

Pantone support is a neglected feature that Adobe thinks most people should not be using.

* Do you pop up a UI saying "hey you're using it wrong, convert it" then run the risk that a user needs Pantone support and accidentally converts their files from Pantone and doesn't have a back up?

* Do you automatically convert their files and run the risk of getting sued when the user discovers the change?

* Do you automatically charge their Adobe account $10 and render the colors using Pantone?

* Do you eat the $10 for each user on the off chance they need Pantone?

* Do you eat the $10 only if a user ever opens a Pantone format file? The following week Pantone releases some asset free to everyone in Pantone format to boost their quarterly revenue?

They chose an option that makes it apparent to the user that there's a problem they need to resolve without embedding any controversy in their App or potentially harming user's file.

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#117

Post by HelloNurse »

noirscape wrote: post #74
moolcool wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this is a very obtuse way to look at this problem. "Oh, the data is still there. You just don't have any way to read it". Like that's fantastic if you're a massive pedant, but if you actually want to use your files using with tools you used to create them, it's functionally identical to the file being corrupted. Doubly so if the application is some cloud bullshit that you can't keep old/functional vers…

Data corruption usually refers to actual data loss. The "data is still there but you just can't view it" isn't corruption, it just means your tools aren't up to the task. You can still download older versions of Adobes apps, it's right there in the ARS article even (Creative Cloud lets you download older versions of PS, InDesign and the like), so your second argument about cloud bullshit doesn't go up there either. A…

The affected pictures are barely recoverable, with inconvenient emergency procedures, risking permanent damage, if you are a power user armed with special software: exactly the same situation as, say, precious files in a FAT filesystem on an accidentally reformatted but not overwritten disk.

How can you say that Adobe deliberately making Photoshop stop working "means your tools aren't up to the task"? This is, frankly, victim-shaming.

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#118

Post by moolcool »

cptskippy wrote: post #116
moolcool wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this is just mental gymnastics to justify dark patterns in modern software development and distribution. If I create a file on Photoshop on Monday, I should be able to open it on Friday. Period. Even if I used a feature I used "wasn't meant for me", as if that matters. This is like pushing a firmware update to DVD players that makes certain disks unreadable. "Actually Grandma, your DVDs aren't corrupte…

How should Adobe handle it? Pantone support is a neglected feature that Adobe thinks most people should not be using. * Do you pop up a UI saying "hey you're using it wrong, convert it" then run the risk that a user needs Pantone support and accidentally converts their files from Pantone and doesn't have a back up? * Do you automatically convert their files and run the risk of getting sued when the user discovers the…

They could simply not offer features which count on variable third party licensing terms.

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#119

Post by pxx »

chrisseaton wrote: post #69
pxx wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last sentence is just wrong. Pantone encodes thousands of colors. RGB/CMYK can encode references to as many (within-gamut, but you can also hack around this) colors as you want, typically millions, often billions. Sure, you might not get Pantone 123 if somebody asks for #ffc72b. But if somebody says "use Pantone colors only" and specifies #ffc72b, you're going to get Pantone 123.

> Your last sentence is just wrong. How do you express metallic gold 817 using RGB. Which of those components gives you how metallic it is? It's not even 1-1 as it depends on the paper used! Their own books show how lossy it is - they show the corresponding CMYK and it often barely matches. > within-gamut Ah so you already knew it wasn't true.

The cardinality of one set is much bigger than the cardinality of the other one. Pantone 871 is mapped to #84754e. If you see #84754e and also get the instruction "use only Pantone colors", it is not ambiguous!

Re: Adobe no longer licenses Pantone colors to be used freely Photoshop

#120

Post by chrisseaton »

pxx wrote: post #119
chrisseaton wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your last sentence is just wrong. How do you express metallic gold 817 using RGB. Which of those components gives you how metallic it is? It's not even 1-1 as it depends on the paper used! Their own books show how lossy it is - they show the corresponding CMYK and it often barely matches. > within-gamut Ah so you already knew it wasn't true.

The cardinality of one set is much bigger than the cardinality of the other one. Pantone 871 is mapped to #84754e. If you see #84754e and also get the instruction "use only Pantone colors", it is not ambiguous!

Someone needs a lookup table to map those back - that’s what you’re paying for. They aren’t claiming to ‘own’ the colours.
Post reply on HN