06-19-2011, 06:41 PM
I think this bit of pricing difference is back once again. I just got an email about a discount to Studio 64. 15% off if I use the discount code. So I got to looking.
Right now, the base version is $40 (rounded). Studio is $60 and Studio 64 is $120. Looks like the upgrade price is $70. That isn't very good if one paid $60 and then the $70 to upgrade, seeing how you could have bought it for $10 less.
So enter in the 15% savings, which would get rid of the $10.
I understand the whole dynamics of this pricing structure and if one way to the Studio 64 version was better than people would do that to save money. That makes sense.
What doesn't seem right is that everyone, Admin included, seem to fixated on Studio 64 being able to handle unlimited size files, but 18mp files are not an issue with the regular Studio version. So what is the benefit of the 64 bit version? Really?
The comparison page says you get unlimited file size and 64 bit version is optimized for 64 bit OS. So? Does that mean it is 2 times faster? 10x faster? Anything? If no one wants to give numbers or theoretical increases in performance, what good is the 64 bit version to 90% of the users? Nothing?
There is a $20 difference between the base and the Studio version, and there is a world of difference in them For the extra $20 you get to read RAW and DNG files. Read and write 48-bit TIFF's. Batch process. Get the PS plug-in and work with differing color spaces.
A person would be "crazy" to not get the Studio version for the difference in price. It is only $20. A bargain. But for $60 more you get what? To work on larger files, that most don't even have?
Yeah, some will say that it is chicken feed, since you will get that money back in a day or a shoot, if you're a professional. Just because professional is in the name, doesn't mean you have to be one to use it. And everyone looks for a bargain. None of you professionals have had a bride (or groom) want to take your image to Wal-Mart to make copies to save a few dollars? I have.
Right now, the base version is $40 (rounded). Studio is $60 and Studio 64 is $120. Looks like the upgrade price is $70. That isn't very good if one paid $60 and then the $70 to upgrade, seeing how you could have bought it for $10 less.
So enter in the 15% savings, which would get rid of the $10.
I understand the whole dynamics of this pricing structure and if one way to the Studio 64 version was better than people would do that to save money. That makes sense.
What doesn't seem right is that everyone, Admin included, seem to fixated on Studio 64 being able to handle unlimited size files, but 18mp files are not an issue with the regular Studio version. So what is the benefit of the 64 bit version? Really?
The comparison page says you get unlimited file size and 64 bit version is optimized for 64 bit OS. So? Does that mean it is 2 times faster? 10x faster? Anything? If no one wants to give numbers or theoretical increases in performance, what good is the 64 bit version to 90% of the users? Nothing?
There is a $20 difference between the base and the Studio version, and there is a world of difference in them For the extra $20 you get to read RAW and DNG files. Read and write 48-bit TIFF's. Batch process. Get the PS plug-in and work with differing color spaces.
A person would be "crazy" to not get the Studio version for the difference in price. It is only $20. A bargain. But for $60 more you get what? To work on larger files, that most don't even have?
Yeah, some will say that it is chicken feed, since you will get that money back in a day or a shoot, if you're a professional. Just because professional is in the name, doesn't mean you have to be one to use it. And everyone looks for a bargain. None of you professionals have had a bride (or groom) want to take your image to Wal-Mart to make copies to save a few dollars? I have.