[jfengel]

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.

[axiolite]

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

For many more, it IS an option. If it's trivial for them to select pantone colors for their designs, they probably will use them. If they don't have easy access to pantone colors, they'll just select an approximate shade they like.

In the former (frictionless) case, more pantone dyes may get used. In the later (current reality) case, they certainly will not. It's not a stretch to think that pantone may be cutting themselves off from a potential growth market, in exchange for a rather small amount of cash up-front.

[jfengel]

Pantone isn't a startup; it's not really a "growth market". Print shops expect to be told Pantone colors. If you tell them something else, you're going to get the best match they can figure out.

Many designers won't care that their banners look slightly different from their tee-shirts and both are slightly different from their business cards. For others, though, they think the variation looks tacky and cheap.

Those are the ones who will pay. It's a very small fraction of their commission on a work.

What's a bad look for Pantone is how many people had been using their colors without really needing to, and still getting cut off. They would usually be fine with a "close enough" shade. I can't tell if that's Adobe's fault, Pantone's, or (probably) both.