Should companies be allowed to make money?

sportyaccordy · Jun 25, 2017

To some, this may seem like a ridiculous question. But the outrage over Adobe finding financial success in its subscription model has me wondering. Surely the folks apopleptic over the latest Adobe news must be on to something?

Similarly I regularly hear people suggest camera ideas that would surely result in failure. "Make a fully manual camera with no video. Hell, take the screen away! Just a viewfinder" "Give me an F/1.2 lens, sharp corner to corner, for $200" Etc. Again, on the face of it, ridiculous requests. But I hear them so frequently, I'm starting to wonder if I am just off base.

So whats the deal? Should companies in the photography business do away with profitability and classic metrics of solvency?

NowHearThis · Jun 25, 2017

sportyaccordy said:
To some, this may seem like a ridiculous question. But the outrage over Adobe finding financial success in its subscription model has me wondering. Surely the folks apopleptic over the latest Adobe news must be on to something?

Similarly I regularly hear people suggest camera ideas that would surely result in failure. "Make a fully manual camera with no video. Hell, take the screen away! Just a viewfinder" "Give me an F/1.2 lens, sharp corner to corner, for $200" Etc. Again, on the face of it, ridiculous requests. But I hear them so frequently, I'm starting to wonder if I am just off base.

So whats the deal? Should companies in the photography business do away with profitability and classic metrics of solvency?

no. Instead, encourage competition in the market place and remove barriers that prevent competition.

i am using Affinity now for some of my editing. I'm still learning it but this may completely replace other photo editing programs I have. $40 one time and all upgrade are free is a great deal.

sportyaccordy said:
--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

--
NHT
//life motto
if (sad() == true) {
sad().stop();
beAwesome();
}

J A C S · Jun 25, 2017

You know, this has been tried before and a few isolated experiments are still running in some places in the world... no much success.

sportyaccordy · Jun 25, 2017

NowHearThis said:
sportyaccordy said:

To some, this may seem like a ridiculous question. But the outrage over Adobe finding financial success in its subscription model has me wondering. Surely the folks apopleptic over the latest Adobe news must be on to something?

Similarly I regularly hear people suggest camera ideas that would surely result in failure. "Make a fully manual camera with no video. Hell, take the screen away! Just a viewfinder" "Give me an F/1.2 lens, sharp corner to corner, for $200" Etc. Again, on the face of it, ridiculous requests. But I hear them so frequently, I'm starting to wonder if I am just off base.

So whats the deal? Should companies in the photography business do away with profitability and classic metrics of solvency?

Click to expand...

no. Instead, encourage competition in the market place and remove barriers that prevent competition.

i am using Affinity now for some of my editing. I'm still learning it but this may completely replace other photo editing programs I have. $40 one time and all upgrade are free is a great deal.

NowHearThis · Jun 25, 2017

sportyaccordy said:
NowHearThis said:

sportyaccordy said:

To some, this may seem like a ridiculous question. But the outrage over Adobe finding financial success in its subscription model has me wondering. Surely the folks apopleptic over the latest Adobe news must be on to something?

Similarly I regularly hear people suggest camera ideas that would surely result in failure. "Make a fully manual camera with no video. Hell, take the screen away! Just a viewfinder" "Give me an F/1.2 lens, sharp corner to corner, for $200" Etc. Again, on the face of it, ridiculous requests. But I hear them so frequently, I'm starting to wonder if I am just off base.

So whats the deal? Should companies in the photography business do away with profitability and classic metrics of solvency?

Click to expand...

no. Instead, encourage competition in the market place and remove barriers that prevent competition.

i am using Affinity now for some of my editing. I'm still learning it but this may completely replace other photo editing programs I have. $40 one time and all upgrade are free is a great deal.

sportyaccordy said:

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

Click to expand...

--
NHT
//life motto
if (sad() == true) {
sad().stop();
beAwesome();
}

Click to expand...

What barriers to competition would make a fully manual, no video camera a good idea, or are helping Adobe's subscription model?

I was mainly answering you last question, "Should companies in the photography business do away with profitability and classic metrics of solvency?", to which my answer was: no.

To answer you latest question, I don't know. But that's not the question I was initially answering either.

sportyaccordy said:
--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

--
NHT
//life motto
if (sad() == true) {
sad().stop();
beAwesome();
}

Jonathan Brady · Jun 25, 2017

I think most people don't have a problem with companies making a profit, they just don't want them to make "too much", especially at their expense. The issue is, MOST people have NO CLUE how much it costs to run a business and they also don't seem to grasp the concept that not every product turns a profit so the perceived excessive profits on one product can help mitigate the smaller than normal profits from some products (or even losses - yes, a lot of products on the market do NOT turn a profit, especially in my industry - pharmaceuticals).

But here's the thing (that OP clearly understands but many forum users don't seem to), when you remove the motivation of profit maximization, you impact (negatively) the motivation to invent and improve. This, of course - as societal examples have shown, leads to a system of stagnation and even regression.

Personally, I'm all for companies making as much money as they can (legally). Profits lead to greater motivation which leads to greater inventions (assuming fairness) which benefits society.

Vlad S · Jun 25, 2017

sportyaccordy said:
So whats the deal? Should companies in the photography business do away with profitability and classic metrics of solvency?

You are only looking at one participant of the market – the seller. You can't have a market without a buyer, and if the seller seeks to maximize the profit, the buyer is looking to minimize the expense and find a product that suits them. So it is completely logical that there is an outcry when the price goes up, or requests for something that no seller offers.

And I would like to understand why you consider buyer's input in any way inappropriate .

Vlad

justmeMN · Jun 25, 2017

sportyaccordy said:
sportyaccordy wrote: Should companies in the photography business do away with profitability ...

Olympus' camera-imaging division used that business model for years.

(They finally managed to eek out a small profit.)

bikinchris · Jun 25, 2017

Jonathan Brady said:
I think most people don't have a problem with companies making a profit, they just don't want them to make "too much", especially at their expense. The issue is, MOST people have NO CLUE how much it costs to run a business and they also don't seem to grasp the concept that not every product turns a profit so the perceived excessive profits on one product can help mitigate the smaller than normal profits from some products (or even losses - yes, a lot of products on the market do NOT turn a profit, especially in my industry - pharmaceuticals).

But here's the thing (that OP clearly understands but many forum users don't seem to), when you remove the motivation of profit maximization,

Profit maximization is the phrase people have a problem with. That phrase (to them) means outsourcing jobs to maximize profit. It means things here in the home country closing down and jobs disappearing.

The problem with that is that there is eventually going to be fewer people who can actually buy the product to begin with.

So obscene profit reports ring bells in people's minds. Some people feel that companies should be a little better at being community minded.

Jonathan Brady said:
you impact (negatively) the motivation to invent and improve. This, of course - as societal examples have shown, leads to a system of stagnation and even regression.

Personally, I'm all for companies making as much money as they can (legally). Profits lead to greater motivation which leads to greater inventions (assuming fairness) which benefits society.

Jonathan Brady · Jun 25, 2017

bikinchris said:
Jonathan Brady said:

I think most people don't have a problem with companies making a profit, they just don't want them to make "too much", especially at their expense. The issue is, MOST people have NO CLUE how much it costs to run a business and they also don't seem to grasp the concept that not every product turns a profit so the perceived excessive profits on one product can help mitigate the smaller than normal profits from some products (or even losses - yes, a lot of products on the market do NOT turn a profit, especially in my industry - pharmaceuticals).

But here's the thing (that OP clearly understands but many forum users don't seem to), when you remove the motivation of profit maximization,

Click to expand...

Profit maximization is the phrase people have a problem with. That phrase (to them) means outsourcing jobs to maximize profit. It means things here in the home country closing down and jobs disappearing.

The problem with that is that there is eventually going to be fewer people who can actually buy the product to begin with.

So obscene profit reports ring bells in people's minds. Some people feel that companies should be a little better at being community minded.

Define "obscene".

bikinchris said:
bikinchris said:

you impact (negatively) the motivation to invent and improve. This, of course - as societal examples have shown, leads to a system of stagnation and even regression.

Personally, I'm all for companies making as much money as they can (legally). Profits lead to greater motivation which leads to greater inventions (assuming fairness) which benefits society.

Click to expand...

--
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid."
Jane Austin

bikinchris · Jun 25, 2017

Jonathan Brady said:
bikinchris said:

Jonathan Brady said:

I think most people don't have a problem with companies making a profit, they just don't want them to make "too much", especially at their expense. The issue is, MOST people have NO CLUE how much it costs to run a business and they also don't seem to grasp the concept that not every product turns a profit so the perceived excessive profits on one product can help mitigate the smaller than normal profits from some products (or even losses - yes, a lot of products on the market do NOT turn a profit, especially in my industry - pharmaceuticals).

But here's the thing (that OP clearly understands but many forum users don't seem to), when you remove the motivation of profit maximization,

Click to expand...

Profit maximization is the phrase people have a problem with. That phrase (to them) means outsourcing jobs to maximize profit. It means things here in the home country closing down and jobs disappearing.

The problem with that is that there is eventually going to be fewer people who can actually buy the product to begin with.

So obscene profit reports ring bells in people's minds. Some people feel that companies should be a little better at being community minded.

Click to expand...

Define "obscene".

Obviously that means different things to different people. To some, it's when a company reduces services and support, then triples bottom line profit.

To others? Who knows? Perception is reality.

Jonathan Brady said:
Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

you impact (negatively) the motivation to invent and improve. This, of course - as societal examples have shown, leads to a system of stagnation and even regression.

Personally, I'm all for companies making as much money as they can (legally). Profits lead to greater motivation which leads to greater inventions (assuming fairness) which benefits society.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

bosjohn21 · Jun 25, 2017

it is in the very nature of our somewhat watered down Capitalism for manufactures to make a profit and for the consumer to bit-ch and moan about the high prices and lust for the perfect camera for one hundred bucks us

NickZ2016 · Jun 25, 2017

Some of this is not understanding what things cost and what don't.

The people wanting no video will say "We don't want to pay for video" What they don't understand is taking away video and making a niche product will likely raise prices.

Adobe to a certain extent does have barriers protecting it. People today don't edit photos they photoshop them. Having a large customer base also makes it easier to roll out upgrades. It ends up being a self fulfilling steamroller. Saying anybody can enter the market is naive.

If you look at video editing there are now two free products trying to compete with Premiere. Not products put out by kids in a garage either.

J A C S · Jun 25, 2017

NickZ2016 said:
Some of this is not understanding what things cost and what don't.

The people wanting no video will say "We don't want to pay for video" What they don't understand is taking away video and making a niche product will likely raise prices.

Well, taking away 4K in the 6D2 did not raise its price... As for HD, they (we) understand that.

NickZ2016 · Jun 25, 2017

How do you know? If they'd included 4K what would the price have been?

Mackiesback · Jun 25, 2017

Jonathan Brady said:
bikinchris said:

Jonathan Brady said:

I think most people don't have a problem with companies making a profit, they just don't want them to make "too much", especially at their expense. The issue is, MOST people have NO CLUE how much it costs to run a business and they also don't seem to grasp the concept that not every product turns a profit so the perceived excessive profits on one product can help mitigate the smaller than normal profits from some products (or even losses - yes, a lot of products on the market do NOT turn a profit, especially in my industry - pharmaceuticals).

But here's the thing (that OP clearly understands but many forum users don't seem to), when you remove the motivation of profit maximization,

Click to expand...

Profit maximization is the phrase people have a problem with. That phrase (to them) means outsourcing jobs to maximize profit. It means things here in the home country closing down and jobs disappearing.

The problem with that is that there is eventually going to be fewer people who can actually buy the product to begin with.

So obscene profit reports ring bells in people's minds. Some people feel that companies should be a little better at being community minded.

Click to expand...

Define "obscene".

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

you impact (negatively) the motivation to invent and improve. This, of course - as societal examples have shown, leads to a system of stagnation and even regression.

Personally, I'm all for companies making as much money as they can (legally). Profits lead to greater motivation which leads to greater inventions (assuming fairness) which benefits society.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

J A C S · Jun 25, 2017

NickZ2016 said:
How do you know?

I know because the 6D2 will start at a price $100 lower than the 6D a few years ago.

NickZ2016 said:
If they'd included 4K what would the price have been?

This is a different question.

NickZ2016 · Jun 25, 2017

No it's not. The fact it's cheaper then the older version just means it's cheaper then the older version.

J A C S · Jun 25, 2017

NickZ2016 said:
No it's not. The fact it's cheaper then the older version just means it's cheaper then the older version.

NickZ2016 said:

What they don't understand is taking away video and making a niche product will likely raise prices.

Click to expand...

I gave an example showing the statement in green to be wrong (replacing video with 4k video), feel free to spin it further.

If you do not agree, you have to prove that the 6D2 with 4k would have been offered for less that $1,999. Have a proof?

Jonathan Brady · Jun 26, 2017

Mackiesback said:
Jonathan Brady said:

Define "obscene".

Click to expand...

Mackiesback said:
$600 epi pens

I think what Mylan has done is despicable, and the same goes *but even more so) for companies like Turing, but look at Mylan's net income, it's almost 50% of what it was 2 fiscal years ago (well before the EpiPen price hike). Like I said earlier, profit from one product can help ameliorate the smaller than normal profits (or the losses) from other products. Pharmaceuticals, especially, are an example of where not all products turn a profit. In fact, only 30% of products turn a profit in their PATENT LIFETIME, which is a figure which has held steady for almost ten years that I've been keeping up with it (and was probably true prior to that).

Should companies be allowed to make money?

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts