I?m not a Photoshop user so I?m curious how useful is that feature for actual users? It?s flashy, but I?d think that PS users would know which layers they are working on at a given time. Am I missing something? Does it have a real world usage within that app and on desktop versions?
He was using a projector rather than a mirrored display.
His hands got in the way.
As with any graphics app (even Photoshop), you can gain precision and granularity by zooming.
The UI, obviously. needs work..
It's a first baby step,
Now, Imagine sitting down at a desk about the size of the Surface where you pin whatever menus you need wherever you want on the large surface.
Instead of press-holding a key to change a small hard-to-find cursor into a hand, then dragging the display -- you merely touch where you want and drag where you want.
If you look at it from the perspective of what you are trying to accomplish, rather than how you do it today -- you may think of ways that things could be accomplished more efficiently with direct multitouch as opposed to double-indirect kb mouse actions.
But as a transition aid you could pin a virtual mouse and kb at the bottom of the display (wherever).
.
Well my intent wasn't to be so critical, and I knew it was a product demo, in fact I pointed that out in my post because some were thinking this was an actual app. I just said that I didn't find it amazing and that it had a lot of UI problems which I think is fair.
I don't see how Photoshop can ever "come to iOS" though so I was also trying to point out the erroneous thinking there as well. One of the central points of the new multi-touch platform is that it points out the inherent design flaws in "suites" of software and also of large "do-it-all" programs like Photoshop.
There is no way that photoshop as we know it now will ever work on a tablet in a multi-touch environment. It is however quite possible that some of the tasks we now do with photoshop will be accomplished by using apps on iOS that operate in a more focussed way. It will be interesting to see what happens and no one really knows how it will all shake out, but it's clear if you think about it that Photoshop itself as an editing suite, with panels and all e tools that we now expect, isn't going to happen at all.
Well my intent wasn't to be so critical, and I knew it was a product demo, in fact I pointed that out in my post because some were thinking this was an actual app. I just said that I didn't find it amazing and that it had a lot of UI problems which I think is fair.
I don't see how Photoshop can ever "come to iOS" though so I was also trying to point out the erroneous thinking there as well. One of the central points of the new multi-touch platform is that it points out the inherent design flaws in "suites" of software and also of large "do-it-all" programs like Photoshop.
There is no way that photoshop as we know it now will ever work on a tablet in a multi-touch environment. It is however quite possible that some of the tasks we now do with photoshop will be accomplished by using apps on iOS that operate in a more focussed way. It will be interesting to see what happens and no one really knows how it will all shake out, but it's clear if you think about it that Photoshop itself as an editing suite, with panels and all e tools that we now expect, isn't going to happen at all.
Exactly... at least for the iPad. For a Touch Screen computer -- some interesting possibilities.
My main computer is a 24" iMac with a 23" Cinema Display. When I do any heavy XCode, Photoshop, Final Cut or Blender I need all the screen real-estate I can get. Sometimes I just use the iPad as an [independent] 3rd display -- running stocks, mail and Safari.
He actually said that it was 'a concept of some technology we are looking at.' It might be a little premature to say this is an app under full development. It looked nice in the demo, but the UI was very clumsy, built entirely around pop menus. All the the code could be tied into a neater UI of course, but like I say, a little early to make any assumptions about this.
He was using a projector rather than a mirrored display.
His hands got in the way.
As with any graphics app (even Photoshop), you can gain precision and granularity by zooming.
The UI, obviously. needs work..
It's a first baby step,
Now, Imagine sitting down at a desk about the size of the Surface where you pin whatever menus you need wherever you want on the large surface.
Instead of press-holding a key to change a small hard-to-find cursor into a hand, then dragging the display -- you merely touch where you want and drag where you want.
If you look at it from the perspective of what you are trying to accomplish, rather than how you do it today -- you may think of ways that things could be accomplished more efficiently with direct multitouch as opposed to double-indirect kb mouse actions.
But as a transition aid you could pin a virtual mouse and kb at the bottom of the display (wherever).
.
I totally agree with you. The presenter stated that it was just a "concept", a work in progress. I commend Adobe for holding it for refinement instead of rushing it out the door.
He was using a projector rather than a mirrored display.
His hands got in the way.
As with any graphics app (even Photoshop), you can gain precision and granularity by zooming.
The UI, obviously. needs work..
It's a first baby step,
Now, Imagine sitting down at a desk about the size of the Surface where you pin whatever menus you need wherever you want on the large surface.
Instead of press-holding a key to change a small hard-to-find cursor into a hand, then dragging the display -- you merely touch where you want and drag where you want.
If you look at it from the perspective of what you are trying to accomplish, rather than how you do it today -- you may think of ways that things could be accomplished more efficiently with direct multitouch as opposed to double-indirect kb mouse actions.
But as a transition aid you could pin a virtual mouse and kb at the bottom of the display (wherever).
.
100% agree, I've been saying this since I first saw an iPad. Defending a mouse and keyboard now is as silly as those that hated the Mac GIU and its mouse back in the day and claimed DOS would rule forever! People seem to have a lack of imagination and as you say seem unable to see past what they know and feel safe with and get quite defensive when change is in the air.
Well actually, our friends up in Redmond have a pretty cool demo from already a couple years back, with "Project Gustav". It shows what is "possible" with multi-touch and assorted handheld tools like brushes and stylus for the "creatives". On a "drafting table" setup this would be quite nice, and I do believe the future for creative applications.
I say possible because I doubt MS can get their act together to actually finish anything.
Also, while it's nice to see Adobe try to embrace iOS with the creation of tools and apps, I would rather see them focus on getting Flash buried and make a Web-standards tool to create HTML5 sites.
I'm also waiting for the guys at Pixelmator to come up with an App for iOS, considering that they already have a great OSX app and it's natively coded for Mac (not a Win-Port) and in the App Store already. It's also very "lite" in the resources and space requirement. I can't imagine the work involved in making it "touch enabled", but they definitely seem like an able and Dedicated-to-Mac bunch of devs.
IMHO, Adobe as well as MS, need different leadership if we are to expect anything from the talents hidden in those companies, coming to market... and working for the users that purchase their products.
The article mention Microsoft. Imo they should indeed make a mobile version on all OS out there. Would be a good way to still get some $$ even if windows is not taking off.
But then Apple should also port facetime to Android, webos, ... And on the subject I wonder how iwork would do on the android market.
I know co. try to promote there OS with exclusive apps, but some apps would benefit a lot from being available on all OS. Facetime being on the top of the list.
Regarding flash, with the CPU power on the ipad2 Apple should allow third party flash support. I am not saying it comes installed on ipads, but it should be allowed in some ways without a jailbreak. That would pretty much killed the arguments against the ipad. It would then be like saying ipads dont have SD card slot of USB port, they do... with the camera kit. Also you have people saying you must used Itunes (you dont with iphone explorer), then some people say ipads dont support mkv playback (they do, with the Airvideo app). We need an "app" to shut up people saying flash isnt supported.
The article mention Microsoft. Imo they should indeed make a mobile version on all OS out there. Would be a good way to still get some $$ even if windows is not taking off.
They're trying.. but trying to bring DOS and all of the old Windows baggage along for the ride. Summary: not working.
Quote:
But then Apple should also port facetime to Android, webos,
Facetime is already based on Open Source. Anybody can work with it to get it to work on their platform of choice. However: they may have to learn how to code first.
Quote:
... And on the subject I wonder how iwork would do on the android market.
About as well on the Mac platform, where truth be told, while Apple fans and small offices love it to death... anybody in the enterprise dislikes it because it's not "fully" compatible with MS-Office. MS has to step up to the plate here.
Quote:
I know co. try to promote there OS with exclusive apps, but some apps would benefit a lot from being available on all OS. Facetime being on the top of the list.
See above.
Quote:
Regarding flash, with the CPU power on the ipad2 Apple should allow third party flash support. I am not saying it comes installed on ipads, but it should be allowed in some ways without a jailbreak. That would pretty much killed the arguments against the ipad. It would then be like saying ipads dont have SD card slot of USB port, they do... with the camera kit. Also you have people saying you must used Itunes (you dont with iphone explorer), then some people say ipads dont support mkv playback (they do, with the Airvideo app). We need an "app" to shut up people saying flash isnt supported.
I'm in serious doubt whether Adobe will ever produce a Flash player that actually:
a) works well on mobile devices. 4 long years, and still nothing out of beta;
b) works well on any desktop unless specifically embedded in the kernel, like Google... or a whole department is kidnapped to write it specifically with hardware acceleration capabilities, among other things... like MS;
c) whether they have enough time left to wait for mobile devices to have dual quad-core processors, 8-gb standard RAM, and organic-thermal batteries with 30-day charges (you'll get 1-day with Flash though).
The world and media providers are moving on without the need for Flash, which IMO is a good thing security-wise, and performance-wise.
It's only the small-shop designers and poor Adobe CS customers, that are screwed buying into Adobe's current "vision"... which would be best described, simply as: Tunnel = still dark.
This is pretty obviously a tech demo and not an app at all and it's doubtful whether they are even planning "Photoshop for iOS," or if it would be a useful app if they did. I see major interface problems with this app and it seemed quite confusing to use even for the person demoing it. If you listen carefully, the part where they swing around to show the layers is not actually part of the design, it's actually just necessary to explain to the audience what's going on in the demo. It was also kind of an ugly design with everything just stuck to a giant menu like that.
The thing that you really *need* when doing photoshop is precision and clarity. They're the key aspect of almost every photoshop operation. This demo on the other hand seemed terribly imprecise in every way and it was far from clear what was going on. I don't see any real UI innovation here at all, just a clunky demo.
I sort of agree. iPad is new and people need to try new things with it, but not everything is going to work out. Photoshop, like AutoCad, and other high end complex applications are never going to be very practical on wobbly handheld touch device. iPad is a nifty little piece of kit but a professional workstation it isn't.
Well my intent wasn't to be so critical, and I knew it was a product demo, in fact I pointed that out in my post because some were thinking this was an actual app. I just said that I didn't find it amazing and that it had a lot of UI problems which I think is fair.
I don't see how Photoshop can ever "come to iOS" though so I was also trying to point out the erroneous thinking there as well. One of the central points of the new multi-touch platform is that it points out the inherent design flaws in "suites" of software and also of large "do-it-all" programs like Photoshop.
There is no way that photoshop as we know it now will ever work on a tablet in a multi-touch environment. It is however quite possible that some of the tasks we now do with photoshop will be accomplished by using apps on iOS that operate in a more focussed way. It will be interesting to see what happens and no one really knows how it will all shake out, but it's clear if you think about it that Photoshop itself as an editing suite, with panels and all e tools that we now expect, isn't going to happen at all.
Maybe not PS, but I can't see any reason why Aperture and Lightroom can't make it over. If anyone here has ever used a big light table for transparencies, or moved test prints around on a table, you'll realize right away that it's your fingers you're using. That's a natural for a touch device. It's true that the iPad. It's small, but still, after doing photo work on it with a number of current apps, it seems very usable.
Much of the work done in those programs isn't pixel based the way so much is in PS. Even that that is isn't really a problem. Magnifying an image is simple and quick. So is moving it around. I'm excited at the prospect. Certainly, the power of this device is now more than powerful enough, and we're just at the beginning of the curve.
I sort of agree. iPad is new and people need to try new things with it, but not everything is going to work out. Photoshop, like AutoCad, and other high end complex applications are never going to be very practical on wobbly handheld touch device. iPad is a nifty little piece of kit but a professional workstation it isn't.
Look up Verto Studio 3D in the App Store. I have this, and it's surprisingly sophisticated.
Maybe not PS, but I can't see any reason why Aperture and Lightroom can't make it over. If anyone here has ever used a big light table for transparencies, or moved test prints around on a table, you'll realize right away that it's your fingers you're using. That's a natural for a touch device. It's true that the iPad. It's small, but still, after doing photo work on it with a number of current apps, it seems very usable.
Much of the work done in those programs isn't pixel based the way so much is in PS. Even that that is isn't really a problem. Magnifying an image is simple and quick. So is moving it around. I'm excited at the prospect. Certainly, the power of this device is now more than powerful enough, and we're just at the beginning of the curve.
Again... something useful that MS showed off a few years ago with the Surface. Too bad it was impossibly expensive, and even larger than the light table it could have replaced... and I have a HUGE light-table
A small note re: the power needs of certain "pro" software
I've been using Photoshop since version 1 in 1990, even when it was in beta. I still have version 3.5 here on an old Mac PowerPC 8100/80. It's about 1 mb, and for it's time, was quite powerful. I also have a Windows version of PS 7.0 in a CrossOver bottle (if ya know what that is) to do Fourier Transforms to remove dot patterns from scans. It's also only 1 mb.
What I'm getting at is, maybe some of the big software co.'s like Adobe, need to go back to some of their early 2000 archives, and rework some of that efficient code for these "new" low-power devices, rather than trying to port their mega-software titles like PS-CS5 (1.3 gb!!!)
I sure do like the idea of Lightroom (90mb)... also Aperture, but first things first: iPhoto (which weighs in already at 430mb) coming to the iPad.
You got me on the never. I slipped up since I'm on record here as quoting that expression to others.
I looked at the software but I can only judge it by the reviews, which are good, but what I think is a problem with many iOS software is that there is no 30 day evaluation version.The more complex the title is the more they need better ways to demo it. Maybe a video demonstrating the features would help. I still think that professional graphics programs, in particular, are less well suited to the iPad environment than many other classes of applications.
For complex apps, ergonomics play a big part. The more detailed and precise the controls are, the harder it is going to be to spend long periods of time working on a design, model or layout. That is where a proper desktop system is essential to productivity.
Again... something useful that MS showed off a few years ago with the Surface. Too bad it was impossibly expensive, and even larger than the light table it could have replaced... and I have a HUGE light-table
A small note re: the power needs of certain "pro" software
I've been using Photoshop since version 1 in 1990, even when it was in beta. I still have version 3.5 here on an old Mac PowerPC 8100/80. It's about 1 mb, and for it's time, was quite powerful. I also have a Windows version of PS 7.0 in a CrossOver bottle (if ya know what that is) to do Fourier Transforms to remove dot patterns from scans. It's also only 1 mb.
What I'm getting at is, maybe some of the big software co.'s like Adobe, need to go back to some of their early 2000 archives, and rework some of that efficient code for these "new" low-power devices, rather than trying to port their mega-software titles like PS-CS5 (1.3 gb!!!)
I sure do like the idea of Lightroom (90mb)... also Aperture, but first things first: iPhoto (which weighs in already at 430mb) coming to the iPad.
Update, January 6 at 6:37 a.m. PT: Microsoft and Samsung this morning issued a press release with additional details about this next generation of Surface:
• The Samsung SUR40 for Microsoft Surface will be available for business customers "later in 2011" in 23 countries. Early adopters will include Dassault Aviation, Fujifilm, Red Bull, Royal Bank of Canada, and Sheraton Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. The Surface systems are intended for commercial use: "The product is designed to meet the challenges of active usage in demanding locations such as retail, hospitality and education."
• Pricing for the Samsung SUR40 starts at $7,600.
• The underlying PixelSense technology allows an LCD screen to recognize more than 50 simultaneous touch points. PixelSense "gives LCD panels the power to see without the use of cameras," the companies said in the statement. PixelSense uses infrared sensors across the entire screen, and each pixel is a camera, Mike Angiulo, Microsoft's corporate VP of Windows Planning, Hardware & PC Ecosystem, said during last night's keynote.
• The 40-inch screen offers full HD 1080p, with a 16:9 aspect ratio and 1920x1080 resolution. The screen is 4 inches thick.
• The brains of the machinery is an embedded AMD Athlon II X2 Dual-Core Processor 2.9GHz, paired with AMD's Radeon HD 6700M Series GPU.
There are lots of demo videos -- just search for "surface 2 demo"
So, a 40" 1920x1280 LCD touch screen display / surface / light-table / graphics tablet -- whatever.
At the whopping price of $7,600 -- wow, that seems awfully high....
... or does it? Say, compare the Surface 2 for $7,600 2011 dollars -- to a LaserWriter for $7,000 1985 dollars (AIR, gas was less than $1 per gallon).
Mmm.. not so bad from that perspective.
Now, that's one "big-Assed" Tablet!
Seriously -- no one should underestimate the potential of a device like this for CAD, AV Post processing, Photoshopping, etc.,
And, there is room for lots of devices in between a 10" and 40" size.
Now to the other end of the scale -- I too have used Photoshop since the early days. Also Final Cut. (and Word and Excel on the original Mac, for that matter).
In each case the software was able to exploit the capabilities of the hardware and OS -- while respecting the limitations of the system.
It is always true that you could do much more with "bigger/fater" -- but that doesn't mean you can't do a worthwhile job (or even better) with what you have.
We humans have an amazing ability to adapt to the limitations placed upon us.
Developers should look at the iPad, realize what it is and isn't -- then exploit the hell out of it.
Comments
Old Eyes... Whitespace Rules.
Racist!
I?m not a Photoshop user so I?m curious how useful is that feature for actual users? It?s flashy, but I?d think that PS users would know which layers they are working on at a given time. Am I missing something? Does it have a real world usage within that app and on desktop versions?
Oh no you di-unt.
My daughter found a great case for the iPad 2.
New Leather Case Cover Pouch Stand For Apple iPad2 2nd
They are a little weird -- you can't specify the color and they say delivery is way out there.
She got hers in 1 week - 2 weeks before the posted delivery date!
It is very well made, and appears to offer the same front/rear/edge protection as the Apple Case for iPad 1.
But it is leather, and has a much better base for the vertical display in landscape -- it doesn't tip over easily.
It's only 11 bucks.
I just ordered 2.
I think you are being too critical.
This was a concept demo.
He was using a projector rather than a mirrored display.
His hands got in the way.
As with any graphics app (even Photoshop), you can gain precision and granularity by zooming.
The UI, obviously. needs work..
It's a first baby step,
Now, Imagine sitting down at a desk about the size of the Surface where you pin whatever menus you need wherever you want on the large surface.
Instead of press-holding a key to change a small hard-to-find cursor into a hand, then dragging the display -- you merely touch where you want and drag where you want.
If you look at it from the perspective of what you are trying to accomplish, rather than how you do it today -- you may think of ways that things could be accomplished more efficiently with direct multitouch as opposed to double-indirect kb mouse actions.
But as a transition aid you could pin a virtual mouse and kb at the bottom of the display (wherever).
.
Well my intent wasn't to be so critical, and I knew it was a product demo, in fact I pointed that out in my post because some were thinking this was an actual app. I just said that I didn't find it amazing and that it had a lot of UI problems which I think is fair.
I don't see how Photoshop can ever "come to iOS" though so I was also trying to point out the erroneous thinking there as well. One of the central points of the new multi-touch platform is that it points out the inherent design flaws in "suites" of software and also of large "do-it-all" programs like Photoshop.
There is no way that photoshop as we know it now will ever work on a tablet in a multi-touch environment. It is however quite possible that some of the tasks we now do with photoshop will be accomplished by using apps on iOS that operate in a more focussed way. It will be interesting to see what happens and no one really knows how it will all shake out, but it's clear if you think about it that Photoshop itself as an editing suite, with panels and all e tools that we now expect, isn't going to happen at all.
Racist!
Like Tonto said to the Lone Ranger while being chased by indians: "What do you mean "we're in trouble"... Paleface"?
... Though I never did understand the names -- The Lone Ranger and Foolish!
Well my intent wasn't to be so critical, and I knew it was a product demo, in fact I pointed that out in my post because some were thinking this was an actual app. I just said that I didn't find it amazing and that it had a lot of UI problems which I think is fair.
I don't see how Photoshop can ever "come to iOS" though so I was also trying to point out the erroneous thinking there as well. One of the central points of the new multi-touch platform is that it points out the inherent design flaws in "suites" of software and also of large "do-it-all" programs like Photoshop.
There is no way that photoshop as we know it now will ever work on a tablet in a multi-touch environment. It is however quite possible that some of the tasks we now do with photoshop will be accomplished by using apps on iOS that operate in a more focussed way. It will be interesting to see what happens and no one really knows how it will all shake out, but it's clear if you think about it that Photoshop itself as an editing suite, with panels and all e tools that we now expect, isn't going to happen at all.
Exactly... at least for the iPad. For a Touch Screen computer -- some interesting possibilities.
My main computer is a 24" iMac with a 23" Cinema Display. When I do any heavy XCode, Photoshop, Final Cut or Blender I need all the screen real-estate I can get. Sometimes I just use the iPad as an [independent] 3rd display -- running stocks, mail and Safari.
I think you are being too critical.
This was a concept demo.
He was using a projector rather than a mirrored display.
His hands got in the way.
As with any graphics app (even Photoshop), you can gain precision and granularity by zooming.
The UI, obviously. needs work..
It's a first baby step,
Now, Imagine sitting down at a desk about the size of the Surface where you pin whatever menus you need wherever you want on the large surface.
Instead of press-holding a key to change a small hard-to-find cursor into a hand, then dragging the display -- you merely touch where you want and drag where you want.
If you look at it from the perspective of what you are trying to accomplish, rather than how you do it today -- you may think of ways that things could be accomplished more efficiently with direct multitouch as opposed to double-indirect kb mouse actions.
But as a transition aid you could pin a virtual mouse and kb at the bottom of the display (wherever).
.
I totally agree with you. The presenter stated that it was just a "concept", a work in progress. I commend Adobe for holding it for refinement instead of rushing it out the door.
I think you are being too critical.
This was a concept demo.
He was using a projector rather than a mirrored display.
His hands got in the way.
As with any graphics app (even Photoshop), you can gain precision and granularity by zooming.
The UI, obviously. needs work..
It's a first baby step,
Now, Imagine sitting down at a desk about the size of the Surface where you pin whatever menus you need wherever you want on the large surface.
Instead of press-holding a key to change a small hard-to-find cursor into a hand, then dragging the display -- you merely touch where you want and drag where you want.
If you look at it from the perspective of what you are trying to accomplish, rather than how you do it today -- you may think of ways that things could be accomplished more efficiently with direct multitouch as opposed to double-indirect kb mouse actions.
But as a transition aid you could pin a virtual mouse and kb at the bottom of the display (wherever).
.
100% agree, I've been saying this since I first saw an iPad. Defending a mouse and keyboard now is as silly as those that hated the Mac GIU and its mouse back in the day and claimed DOS would rule forever! People seem to have a lack of imagination and as you say seem unable to see past what they know and feel safe with and get quite defensive when change is in the air.
SOT
What's SOT?
They are a little weird -- you can't specify the color
From the eBay listing
?.please leave a note in paypal payment or send message on ebay to tell us the color you like.
But it is leather..
Again, from the listing:
Package content:
1x artificial leather case for apple ipad 2
What's SOT?
From the eBay listing
Again, from the listing:
SOT == Somewhat Off Topic
The URL is:
Leather iPad 2 Case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-q...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ssWw...layer_embedded
I say possible because I doubt MS can get their act together to actually finish anything.
Also, while it's nice to see Adobe try to embrace iOS with the creation of tools and apps, I would rather see them focus on getting Flash buried and make a Web-standards tool to create HTML5 sites.
I'm also waiting for the guys at Pixelmator to come up with an App for iOS, considering that they already have a great OSX app and it's natively coded for Mac (not a Win-Port) and in the App Store already. It's also very "lite" in the resources and space requirement. I can't imagine the work involved in making it "touch enabled", but they definitely seem like an able and Dedicated-to-Mac bunch of devs.
IMHO, Adobe as well as MS, need different leadership if we are to expect anything from the talents hidden in those companies, coming to market... and working for the users that purchase their products.
But then Apple should also port facetime to Android, webos, ... And on the subject I wonder how iwork would do on the android market.
I know co. try to promote there OS with exclusive apps, but some apps would benefit a lot from being available on all OS. Facetime being on the top of the list.
Regarding flash, with the CPU power on the ipad2 Apple should allow third party flash support. I am not saying it comes installed on ipads, but it should be allowed in some ways without a jailbreak. That would pretty much killed the arguments against the ipad. It would then be like saying ipads dont have SD card slot of USB port, they do... with the camera kit. Also you have people saying you must used Itunes (you dont with iphone explorer), then some people say ipads dont support mkv playback (they do, with the Airvideo app). We need an "app" to shut up people saying flash isnt supported.
The article mention Microsoft. Imo they should indeed make a mobile version on all OS out there. Would be a good way to still get some $$ even if windows is not taking off.
They're trying.. but trying to bring DOS and all of the old Windows baggage along for the ride. Summary: not working.
But then Apple should also port facetime to Android, webos,
Facetime is already based on Open Source. Anybody can work with it to get it to work on their platform of choice. However: they may have to learn how to code first.
... And on the subject I wonder how iwork would do on the android market.
About as well on the Mac platform, where truth be told, while Apple fans and small offices love it to death... anybody in the enterprise dislikes it because it's not "fully" compatible with MS-Office. MS has to step up to the plate here.
I know co. try to promote there OS with exclusive apps, but some apps would benefit a lot from being available on all OS. Facetime being on the top of the list.
See above.
Regarding flash, with the CPU power on the ipad2 Apple should allow third party flash support. I am not saying it comes installed on ipads, but it should be allowed in some ways without a jailbreak. That would pretty much killed the arguments against the ipad. It would then be like saying ipads dont have SD card slot of USB port, they do... with the camera kit. Also you have people saying you must used Itunes (you dont with iphone explorer), then some people say ipads dont support mkv playback (they do, with the Airvideo app). We need an "app" to shut up people saying flash isnt supported.
I'm in serious doubt whether Adobe will ever produce a Flash player that actually:The world and media providers are moving on without the need for Flash, which IMO is a good thing security-wise, and performance-wise.
It's only the small-shop designers and poor Adobe CS customers, that are screwed buying into Adobe's current "vision"... which would be best described, simply as: Tunnel = still dark.
I had the exact opposite reaction.
This is pretty obviously a tech demo and not an app at all and it's doubtful whether they are even planning "Photoshop for iOS," or if it would be a useful app if they did. I see major interface problems with this app and it seemed quite confusing to use even for the person demoing it. If you listen carefully, the part where they swing around to show the layers is not actually part of the design, it's actually just necessary to explain to the audience what's going on in the demo. It was also kind of an ugly design with everything just stuck to a giant menu like that.
The thing that you really *need* when doing photoshop is precision and clarity. They're the key aspect of almost every photoshop operation. This demo on the other hand seemed terribly imprecise in every way and it was far from clear what was going on. I don't see any real UI innovation here at all, just a clunky demo.
I sort of agree. iPad is new and people need to try new things with it, but not everything is going to work out. Photoshop, like AutoCad, and other high end complex applications are never going to be very practical on wobbly handheld touch device. iPad is a nifty little piece of kit but a professional workstation it isn't.
Well my intent wasn't to be so critical, and I knew it was a product demo, in fact I pointed that out in my post because some were thinking this was an actual app. I just said that I didn't find it amazing and that it had a lot of UI problems which I think is fair.
I don't see how Photoshop can ever "come to iOS" though so I was also trying to point out the erroneous thinking there as well. One of the central points of the new multi-touch platform is that it points out the inherent design flaws in "suites" of software and also of large "do-it-all" programs like Photoshop.
There is no way that photoshop as we know it now will ever work on a tablet in a multi-touch environment. It is however quite possible that some of the tasks we now do with photoshop will be accomplished by using apps on iOS that operate in a more focussed way. It will be interesting to see what happens and no one really knows how it will all shake out, but it's clear if you think about it that Photoshop itself as an editing suite, with panels and all e tools that we now expect, isn't going to happen at all.
Maybe not PS, but I can't see any reason why Aperture and Lightroom can't make it over. If anyone here has ever used a big light table for transparencies, or moved test prints around on a table, you'll realize right away that it's your fingers you're using. That's a natural for a touch device. It's true that the iPad. It's small, but still, after doing photo work on it with a number of current apps, it seems very usable.
Much of the work done in those programs isn't pixel based the way so much is in PS. Even that that is isn't really a problem. Magnifying an image is simple and quick. So is moving it around. I'm excited at the prospect. Certainly, the power of this device is now more than powerful enough, and we're just at the beginning of the curve.
I sort of agree. iPad is new and people need to try new things with it, but not everything is going to work out. Photoshop, like AutoCad, and other high end complex applications are never going to be very practical on wobbly handheld touch device. iPad is a nifty little piece of kit but a professional workstation it isn't.
Look up Verto Studio 3D in the App Store. I have this, and it's surprisingly sophisticated.
http://www.vertostudio.com/
As the expression goes: Never say never.
Maybe not PS, but I can't see any reason why Aperture and Lightroom can't make it over. If anyone here has ever used a big light table for transparencies, or moved test prints around on a table, you'll realize right away that it's your fingers you're using. That's a natural for a touch device. It's true that the iPad. It's small, but still, after doing photo work on it with a number of current apps, it seems very usable.
Much of the work done in those programs isn't pixel based the way so much is in PS. Even that that is isn't really a problem. Magnifying an image is simple and quick. So is moving it around. I'm excited at the prospect. Certainly, the power of this device is now more than powerful enough, and we're just at the beginning of the curve.
Again... something useful that MS showed off a few years ago with the Surface. Too bad it was impossibly expensive, and even larger than the light table it could have replaced... and I have a HUGE light-table
A small note re: the power needs of certain "pro" software
I've been using Photoshop since version 1 in 1990, even when it was in beta. I still have version 3.5 here on an old Mac PowerPC 8100/80. It's about 1 mb, and for it's time, was quite powerful. I also have a Windows version of PS 7.0 in a CrossOver bottle (if ya know what that is) to do Fourier Transforms to remove dot patterns from scans. It's also only 1 mb.
What I'm getting at is, maybe some of the big software co.'s like Adobe, need to go back to some of their early 2000 archives, and rework some of that efficient code for these "new" low-power devices, rather than trying to port their mega-software titles like PS-CS5 (1.3 gb!!!)
I sure do like the idea of Lightroom (90mb)... also Aperture, but first things first: iPhoto (which weighs in already at 430mb) coming to the iPad.
Look up Verto Studio 3D in the App Store. I have this, and it's surprisingly sophisticated.
http://www.vertostudio.com/
As the expression goes: Never say never.
You got me on the never. I slipped up since I'm on record here as quoting that expression to others.
I looked at the software but I can only judge it by the reviews, which are good, but what I think is a problem with many iOS software is that there is no 30 day evaluation version.The more complex the title is the more they need better ways to demo it. Maybe a video demonstrating the features would help. I still think that professional graphics programs, in particular, are less well suited to the iPad environment than many other classes of applications.
For complex apps, ergonomics play a big part. The more detailed and precise the controls are, the harder it is going to be to spend long periods of time working on a design, model or layout. That is where a proper desktop system is essential to productivity.
Again... something useful that MS showed off a few years ago with the Surface. Too bad it was impossibly expensive, and even larger than the light table it could have replaced... and I have a HUGE light-table
A small note re: the power needs of certain "pro" software
I've been using Photoshop since version 1 in 1990, even when it was in beta. I still have version 3.5 here on an old Mac PowerPC 8100/80. It's about 1 mb, and for it's time, was quite powerful. I also have a Windows version of PS 7.0 in a CrossOver bottle (if ya know what that is) to do Fourier Transforms to remove dot patterns from scans. It's also only 1 mb.
What I'm getting at is, maybe some of the big software co.'s like Adobe, need to go back to some of their early 2000 archives, and rework some of that efficient code for these "new" low-power devices, rather than trying to port their mega-software titles like PS-CS5 (1.3 gb!!!)
I sure do like the idea of Lightroom (90mb)... also Aperture, but first things first: iPhoto (which weighs in already at 430mb) coming to the iPad.
Ya' know...
I've been thinking along the same lines...
First the Surface:
Quoted Below
Update, January 6 at 6:37 a.m. PT: Microsoft and Samsung this morning issued a press release with additional details about this next generation of Surface:
• The Samsung SUR40 for Microsoft Surface will be available for business customers "later in 2011" in 23 countries. Early adopters will include Dassault Aviation, Fujifilm, Red Bull, Royal Bank of Canada, and Sheraton Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. The Surface systems are intended for commercial use: "The product is designed to meet the challenges of active usage in demanding locations such as retail, hospitality and education."
• Pricing for the Samsung SUR40 starts at $7,600.
• The underlying PixelSense technology allows an LCD screen to recognize more than 50 simultaneous touch points. PixelSense "gives LCD panels the power to see without the use of cameras," the companies said in the statement. PixelSense uses infrared sensors across the entire screen, and each pixel is a camera, Mike Angiulo, Microsoft's corporate VP of Windows Planning, Hardware & PC Ecosystem, said during last night's keynote.
• The 40-inch screen offers full HD 1080p, with a 16:9 aspect ratio and 1920x1080 resolution. The screen is 4 inches thick.
• The brains of the machinery is an embedded AMD Athlon II X2 Dual-Core Processor 2.9GHz, paired with AMD's Radeon HD 6700M Series GPU.
There are lots of demo videos -- just search for "surface 2 demo"
So, a 40" 1920x1280 LCD touch screen display / surface / light-table / graphics tablet -- whatever.
At the whopping price of $7,600 -- wow, that seems awfully high....
... or does it? Say, compare the Surface 2 for $7,600 2011 dollars -- to a LaserWriter for $7,000 1985 dollars (AIR, gas was less than $1 per gallon).
Mmm.. not so bad from that perspective.
Now, that's one "big-Assed" Tablet!
Seriously -- no one should underestimate the potential of a device like this for CAD, AV Post processing, Photoshopping, etc.,
And, there is room for lots of devices in between a 10" and 40" size.
Now to the other end of the scale -- I too have used Photoshop since the early days. Also Final Cut. (and Word and Excel on the original Mac, for that matter).
In each case the software was able to exploit the capabilities of the hardware and OS -- while respecting the limitations of the system.
It is always true that you could do much more with "bigger/fater" -- but that doesn't mean you can't do a worthwhile job (or even better) with what you have.
We humans have an amazing ability to adapt to the limitations placed upon us.
Developers should look at the iPad, realize what it is and isn't -- then exploit the hell out of it.