[atoav]

I think you are overlooking the fact that Adobe is offering a subscription service. And one of the downsides of doing that is that organizations that license stuff to you (like Pantone) have a bigger leverage over you, because eevoking the license will remove their IP from all of the users, not just the ones with new versions of the software.

Whithout having put any research into this at all, it would not surprise me if Pantone tried to use that lever.

[masswerk]

The problem isn't really related to subscriptions. Adobe Soundbooth, the precursor to Audition, was a paid for product with a perpetual license, but still they pulled major features for failing to license some crucial libraries. Notably, this happened to installed programs. A few years later, the program wouldn't start at all (still the same installation).

[samwillis]

I’m sure that did, as any of us would in their position.

Adobe should have anticipated this and ensures they had perpetual licensing in place. It’s ridiculous that the largest graphics technology company in the world have managed this so badly.

Frankly I don't know why Adobe haven’t either acquired Pantone at some point in the past or developed their own alternative standard. It’s such a blind sport for them.

[Kye]

The company that owns Pantone is worth about $90 billion. It's more likely to go the other way.

[samwillis]

Danaher, their patent, is many times larger (and significantly more diverse) than Pantone which was acquired for $180m in 2007. Adobe should have acquired them then. Assuming no growth they would be worth around $250m now. Well within the reach of Adobe.

[Kye]

I'm referring to Danaher. My point is it's too late. They're not going to sell something that commands $10k for spindles of plastic chips. It prints money.

[prvit]

Why is it too late?

[Kye]

Why would Danaher sell it? It's more likely Danaher would buy Adobe for the same reason it bought Pantone. Synergy!