Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

someone76543 t1_j1vx1x5 wrote

Reply to comment by dmazzoni in ELI5: How is that Pantone colors don't have direct RGB counterparts? by ExternalUserError

Having a widely supported standard is important.

Pantone is that standard, they have basically a monopoly on professional colour definitions. Everyone competent who is using colour professionally will understand a Pantone colour. Designers have lots of existing designs using Pantone colours. Manufacturers know how to produce all kinds of plastics, fabrics, paints, or anything else, to whatever Pantone colour you want.

Introducing a new standard would be very hard. All designs would need updating. All manufacturers would have to invest extra money in supporting it. Someone will have to produce the definitive colour samples that define the colours, and designers and manufacturers would have to buy them.

And there is little incentive for anyone to invest that time and money. The designers will still need Pantone to deal with the vast majority of manufacturers. The manufacturers will still need Pantone to deal with the vast majority of designers. It's extra cost for no benefit.

10

RandomNumsandLetters t1_j1w78bf wrote

No benefit except you don't have to pay for pantone...?

5

dravik t1_j1wdkn3 wrote

This gets into a cost benefit question. Pantone air carefully calibrate their prices to keep them just below where it's worthwhile to switch.

Eventually they will get too greedy, but that may take decades.

6

dmazzoni t1_j1y3emh wrote

Don't you think that the current kerfuffle with Adobe shows they erred a bit on the greedy side?

1

dravik t1_j1yqgk4 wrote

Are they charging more than it costs to change? I don't think so. I think the industry will complain, but they will pay because it's easier, faster, and cheaper.

1

someone76543 t1_j1xdzoh wrote

Pantone is used for communication between different people. If you're not communicating with someone else, then you do you and use whatever colours you like.

Usually it is for communication between a designer and a manufacturer. The designer chooses a Pantone colour, and the manufacturer makes the thing be exactly that Pantone colour.

The designer and manufacturer are usually different companies, often in different countries.

So if you are a manufacturer, you DO have to keep paying for Pantone because that is what most of your customers will be using. And if you stop accepting designs that use Pantone colours, or if you just get the Pantone colours wrong, then the customers will go to a different manufacturer.

If you are a designer, you DO have to keep paying for Pantone because that is what most of your manufacturers will be using. Unless you have the luxury of only selecting manufacturers that support <alternate colour system>, but in that case either:

  1. you're a huge company, that can dictate standards to their supplier. Huge companies will have a huge existing library of designs, and the cost of switching will likely dwarf the cost of Pantone. OR
  2. you're a tiny hobbyist or small business. Hobbyists & small businesses who care enough to use ANY colour system are a niche market. So most manufacturers aren't going to implement a whole separate colour system just for "hobbyists & small businesses who care about exact colours but can't or won't pay for Pantone". Those people don't have much money to spend getting things manufactured - if they had lots of money they could buy Pantone.

The only way you can stop paying for Pantone is AFTER the whole industry starts supporting the new colour system. And for the reasons listed above, that is unlikely to happen.

So any competing colour system is doomed.

It's a classic chicken/egg problem.

3