[earthnail]

Yes, but Pantone colours is more specialised software and its price shouldn’t be compared to that of software for a wide audience. If you really need Pantone colours, it’s an expense easily worth it.

I understand the outcry but TBH I think it’s a bit exaggerated. That being said I‘m also not sure whether it’s really worth it for Pantone to charge for their digital stuff. I can’t imagine it being a huge part of their revenue.

[iLoveOncall]

> Yes, but Pantone colours is more specialised software

Pantone has nothing to do with software.

The "software" here is a mapping of color names to hex. It's literally a text file.

[earthnail]

When you buy a coffee for $4, you also don't care that the beans in it cost $0.01. Cost of manufacturing and customer pricing are far more decoupled than most people think.

Or, for a digital analogy, think of the good old discussion of the cost of distributing an mp3 vs the cost of creating the music (esp. back in the iTunes days when the mp3 cost $0.99).

In this case, Pantone prices the verified digital access to their colours. Almost nobody needs that, UNLESS you deal with Pantone colours in the physical world - and there they have real value.

I'm personally questioning the decision of making designers pay for the digital colours as well; I think it hurts adoption in the long run. But I also think the outcry is over the top: if you design products that require standardised colours in the manufacturing process, the cost of that tiny subscription is completely negligible. Also, because it's negligible, I can't imagine it being a huge part of Pantone's revenue, so this move might have done them more harm than good, but well...

Either way, it seems to me that there's tons of people complaining about this price, but pretty much no-one ever really worked with Pantone colours. That's why I think the internet is overreacting.