Adobe releases free public beta of Photoshop CS6

2

Comments

  • prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Adobe late on Wednesday released a public beta of its first major update to Photoshop in two years, touting new 3D editing capabilities ...



    What a load of crap. Why does an image editor need "3D editing capabilities"?



    Adobe already makes about fifty completely similar products, why not just make some crap 3D/image editor monstrosity for those few game designers that might need it and call it something else? Why junk up Photoshop with this stuff when 99% of the users won't need or want it?
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 810member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post


    Adobe... Adobe... Sounds familiar.



    Oh, right. They make the suite of programs that I use every single day, that are buggy, expensive, bloated, confusing, and did I mention expensive?



    I'm not one of those people who complains when an iPhone app is two bucks instead of one or free, but after paying over and over and over to their well-organized extortion pyramid for decades, I look forward to their downfall.



    There's a lot of up and comers out there, many in the app store, that might just do the job.



    I'm with you all the way, but last I checked the only capable pixel editors in the app store were really Elements competition, no PS. Nearly all, even the good ones, don't even deal with 16 bit images (if you open a 16 bit TIFF it immediately gets slammed down to 8 bits, and who knows if it's even doing that in the least harmfull manner).



    I might have missed something, but I never see that anything has popped up on the radar at DPR or places like that. I would surely look into one if it did, but I've done enough checking out of hopeful alternatives even for just 75% of the load and I've never found one, even that I would replace Elements with.
  • dualiedualie Posts: 330member
    Yay! More pointless and unnecessary changes simply to keep Adobe's new yearly cycle of mandatory (for many) upgrades. Way to milk that user base Adobe! May there one day be real competition.
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 810member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frogbat View Post




    Performance is ridiculous... They should tap into apple's Apis more eff the pc version. Pixelmator runs rings round pshops in certain functions.



    Someone else will know the reality (I'm not a programmer, I just play one on the net (as Robert Young used to say in commercials), but I'm not sure if that would mean writing whole hog for Core Image and then only making parts available. From what I can see in Pixelmator, etc, the apps that are written using the Apple hooks use them as much as they can. IIRC from (either the Acorn or Pixelmator can't remember) user forum, some of the things that simply couldn't be upgraded without total rewrites in the program had to do with its reliance on the Apple hooks.



    Plus, if they did, it would make it a totally different app than the Windows version, which can't use them.



    One of the downsides to a program using Apple hooks for a thing like graphics or audio is that it's a bit like Apple giving a bunch of chefs the exact same ingredients. Though not impossible, it's harder to differentiate your program from the other guy's except with things that really aren't the critical ones. That's why, to my jaded and lazy mind at least, when I see an app like Image Tricks appear in the App Store I don't even want to bother with the trial when I read that it's written for Core Image. Not at all that any Core Image app couldn't be great (as Apple's programs all are), but when used by companies other than Apple it's generally for quality filters with programming convenience at the expense of the other side of the coin. Pixelmator gets great performance, but to me that's its highest attribute and there are so many other factors for an app to gain a place on a Mac. (Haven't used it in a year, maybe something has changed there, but...)



    Much as I detest Adobe I don't think this would be a good idea for PS as a way to cut its bloat.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,891member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac Write View Post


    "The software Adobe Photoshop CS6 requires Runtime Java" Big fail. The only reason I will be upgrading is, if I don't I loose my upgrade eligibility for future versions (CS3 user here).







    Die in a fire. I refuse to have that extra trash on my computer when it isn't actually necessary for the software to run. Guess I'll be tinkering with my installs to get around this.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frogbat View Post


    Performance is ridiculous... They should tap into apple's Apis more eff the pc version.



    Are you kidding? that would require Adobe to actually WRITE Mac software, and you know they'll never do that.



    Heaven forbid Adobe actually take the time to write software designed for the OS that is the reason the company exists at all.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    What a load of crap. Why does an image editor need "3D editing capabilities"?



    Adobe already makes about fifty completely similar products, why not just make some crap 3D/image editor monstrosity for those few game designers that might need it and call it something else? Why junk up Photoshop with this stuff when 99% of the users won't need or want it?



    CS Design Standard has the regular Photoshop without the 3D.



    People who don't work professionally in the design business do not need CS of any flavor. You can use Pages, Pixilmator, Opacity, etc. All available on the Mac App Store. Personally I think Adobe make absolutely the best professional design software on the planet and I have always made a lot of money using their applications. I couldn't live without them. Use it everyday all day long.
  • applezillaapplezilla Posts: 941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    I'm with you all the way, but last I checked the only capable pixel editors in the app store were really Elements competition, no PS. Nearly all, even the good ones, don't even deal with 16 bit images (if you open a 16 bit TIFF it immediately gets slammed down to 8 bits, and who knows if it's even doing that in the least harmfull manner).



    I might have missed something, but I never see that anything has popped up on the radar at DPR or places like that. I would surely look into one if it did, but I've done enough checking out of hopeful alternatives even for just 75% of the load and I've never found one, even that I would replace Elements with.



    Yep. And that's why I did not cite any specific apps. But it's only a matter of time before one of these sub-$100 apps gets up to speed fully for print, web, and mobile.
  • sf_dudesf_dude Posts: 14member
    Please update your target. Time to recalibrate. Adobe makes great software. It's a lot more intuitive and useful when anything Apple has come up with lately in that arena.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,891member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sf_dude View Post


    Please update your target. Time to recalibrate. Adobe makes great software. It's a lot more intuitive and useful when anything Apple has come up with lately in that arena.







    Adobe software. Intuitive. Holy crap, that's funny.
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 810member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post






    Adobe software. Intuitive. Holy crap, that's funny.



    Apple has some of the LEAST intuitive software out there. I can honestly say I've gone down far more detours using recent Apple software, and finding out how to change some poorly described radio button function, than with Adobe software.
  • jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,324member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


    What DRM would that be? Apple were the ones who pushed music companies to drop DRM. Movie and TV studios are the current holdouts in this area. Apple has never been a DRM proponent. As far as I'm aware, none of their applications have DRM, though I might be mistaken.



    Apple implements DRM on software, movies, and audio books. To be consistant you would also hate Apple due them do implementing it.
  • dualiedualie Posts: 330member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sf_dude View Post


    Please update your target. Time to recalibrate. Adobe makes great software. It's a lot more intuitive and useful when anything Apple has come up with lately in that arena.



    It would liked a lot more by professionals if they would stop fiddling with it and updating EVERY YEAR.
  • asciiascii Posts: 5,363member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diddy View Post


    Adobe is simply not going to cede 30% of it's profits to Apple when they already have their own dedicated sales (and distribution) channels that they need to have to sell their Windows Apps. And thats assuming it's even possible to sell their apps in the MAS (which I doubt is possible given Apple's rules). There is also volume purchasing for business to consider. Simply put, the MAS is incompatible with Adobe's business models.



    Second - Last I heard the default is not MAS only, rather the default is signed apps.



    They don't have to have to cede any profit, they can simply put the price up to cover the difference. And I would argue they are likely to sell more copies, and therefore make *more* profit, if they use the MAS.



    And I know MAS-only is not the default, hence why I said it's an "optional" setting which "I intend to turn on."
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,891member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    They don't have to have to cede any profit, they can simply put the price up to cover the difference. And I would argue they are likely to sell more copies, and therefore make *more* profit, if they use the MAS.



    They'd be rejected instantaneously and in perpetuity unless they actually rewrite their applications to take advantage of OS X.



    And good for Apple for doing that.



    Oh, does anyone think that Apple would let Bridge keep existing? Or the Adobe Application Manager and its tagalong tripe?
  • chris vchris v Posts: 457member
    Here's the list of minor additions & changes. Seems pretty substantive to me. (still reading through it)



    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4223572#4223572
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    They don't have to have to cede any profit, they can simply put the price up to cover the difference.



    No they can't. You cannot sell the same app for less on another site according to Apple's rules. Also Adobe sells Windows and Mac versions at the same price.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,891member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    No they can't. You cannot sell the same app for less on another site according to Apple's rules.



    I don't think you understand Adobe. They'd just jack up the price across the board without a second thought.
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 810member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dualie View Post


    It would liked a lot more by professionals if they would stop fiddling with it and updating EVERY YEAR.



    Substitute "Apple" and read all the defending. Adobe is just doing what Apple does, which is work the profit to the breaking point for people who like or need the product enough to not leave it.



    For all the bitching about PS and Adobe (and I do plenty, and this isn't throwing it back at you dualie : ) just a general comment) no one has a gun to their head. Don't upgrade. Switch to something else. Use Aperture by itself. If a user can't do it than Adobe is succeeding at their job. not failing. They're just failing at giving away cheap professional tools. The fact that no one has, in all these years, released a marginally successful PS alternative in the face of all the people who would love to desert Adobe speaks volumes.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I don't think you understand Adobe. They'd just jack up the price across the board without a second thought.



    Photoshop 1.07 = $1,000 (1990)



    Photoshop CS5 = $699 (2012)



    30% savings plus a lot more features. What's to complain about?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,891member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    What's to complain about?



    They've lost their roots and they don't pay attention to half their user base.
Sign In or Register to comment.