When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.
I got the app. I paid for the subscription. The app only shows the first 10 comments. Comments are what I come for when visiting this site. And I do that almost daily. But I can't reply to the comments in the app, I can't even properly read them as there is no indented quoting, no font size adjustment, no hyperlinks, no option to quote, post, or whatever. Just to read the first 10 posts. The app is not for me.
The app is done somewhat nicely but sorely lacks of making it usable. It does do what it's advertised to do: reading the site without seeing any ads.. Truth be told, I never see the ads, due to ad blocking and always going straight to the forum, not the homepage.
But I do get the point of advertising. Seen a lot over my lifetime, but never actually bought something because I remembered the ad while shopping. Do people actually remember ads to begin with? Or is it all marketing, all needed to get the name of the brand out?
Even if I see a 'Google page' and it has an ad of a product I might want to learn about I simply copy/paste the URL or type in the domain name myself, just so the advertiser doesn't have to pay for the ad. I'm pathetic, aren't I?
I do exactly what you do with relation to ads, albeit with Yahoo!
Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.
Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.
I think we're ut of luck here: the app is at version 1.1, last update was from Jan 20, 2014 but the issues from buyers hadn't been addressed. Might explain the 6 up and 42 down votes
Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.
I think we're ut of luck here: the app is at version 1.1, last update was from Jan 20, 2014 but the issues from buyers hadn't been addressed. Might explain the 6 up and 42 down votes
When was the last time you were offline though, really?
When it really matters. Usually when I'm offline it's due to some sort of event when I really need my data the most. Sure it doesn't happen that often, but as they say all it take is one time when it really matters.
Assuming you are always going to have Internet is simply being delusional. I suppose if you are completely casual user and not being able to rely on getting to your apps or data at all times doesn't really matter then go for it. But as they say, crap happens. For critical data and applications, I will always have it local - thank you very much.
Just because some college kids slapped a cute label of cloud on something has caused people to completely loose their minds and embrace the modern equivalent of dumb terminals wedded to central computers - otherwise known as mainframes. Oh how the wheel has turned
And I love all the solutions for your Chromebook and offline - installing another OS? Doesn't that negate the whole premise of the Chromebook? That you even suggest it speaks volume about the entire premise.
I'll take an iPad over a Chromebook any day - thanks.
I'm not surprised and Adobe needs to be in this space.
There's a number of rather able web apps on the market already, Pixlr from Autodesk and Pics.io RAW editing com to mind.
There's also Magisto and WeVideo for web app video editing.
A lot of people don't like it... and say they'll never go subscription or cloud-based. But the old method isn't coming back, and I don't expect it to advance as fast as web-based and web-aware apps are currently. Actually because these web apps must be built almost from the ground up, they're far more efficient and probably more future-friendly than the old code bases are. Just my opinion and guess.
Why, I actually said this was going to happen a couple of times here. They were using Photoshop Express as a test bed. The ChromeBook is very quickly becoming a viable solution for those who don't want to mess around with OS's. This is truly plug'n play. I know they're a hard sell around here but those who have one really dig them and the amount of new models that have been released or are about to be is pretty substantial. There is no need for me to update my Pixel right now but I will defiantly be picking up a new ChromeBook once they start using Nvidia's new K1 64bit Denver chip. There are already a few with the 32bit variant but now that ChromeOS has gone 64bit we should be seeing a Denver model fairly soon. That sounds like an interesting platform to play around with, if not to just use it as an Arch Linux machine, mmmm ARM Linux. That and the K1 32bit is getting 14 hours of battery life when used in conjunction with ChromeOS. There are also a whole lot of new features that are about to dropped on the platform like being able to run Android apps, it can already run a few but that's just for testing purposes, the new update will allow pretty much the entire Android library to be used on a Chrome OS device, that's cool.
It's just streaming for now. You can do anything with streaming:
[VIDEO]
There's sometimes lag though and saving things to the cloud directly is slow. If your network goes out, it interrupts what you're doing. It's better than not having access to the apps at all of course but I'd take native Photoshop over server-based. I don't want my naked photoshopped selfies on a server somewhere (not the originals anyway).
It's just streaming for now. You can do anything with streaming:
There's sometimes lag though and saving things to the cloud directly is slow. If your network goes out, it interrupts what you're doing. It's better than not having access to the apps at all of course but I'd take native Photoshop over server-based. I don't want my naked photoshopped selfies on a server somewhere (not the originals anyway).
I'm not yet sold on Creative Cloud (sticking with 6 for awhile longer) myself but don't your files get stored "in the cloud" by default even on the desktop with the same interruptions if you lose your data connection? Not entirely sure as I've not been interested enough to spend much time looking at it.
Anyway like you (I assume) I don't think keeping essential/original docs only in a cloud account to be wise.
I'm not yet sold on Creative Cloud (sticking with 6 for awhile longer) myself but don't your files get stored "in the cloud" by default even on the desktop with the same interruptions if you lose your data connection? Not entirely sure as I've not been interested enough to spend much time looking at it.
Nope, that would be crazy as it would mean uploading hundreds of MBs on every save for large files. Working with video would be impossible. It works the same as before. Cloud storage is for file syncing and online viewing:
Nope, that would be crazy as it would mean uploading hundreds of MBs on every save for large files. Working with video would be impossible. It works the same as before. Cloud storage is for file syncing and online viewing:
[VIDEO]
Your talking as if you have a slow connection, I upload 2GB plus files all the time to Adobe Cloud, takes like 6 minutes, Adobe Cloud also comes with storage and I'm sure they'll increase that size and offer more space at a reasonable price. What you're also missing here is server side processing, encoding or processing effects might take seconds where it would take say your MacBook 10 minutes to do for the same file. I for one see a huge cut in compiling times when I use my cloud IDEs, even when I get the dialog box that says our servers are currently being utilized by a large amount of users, compiling times might be affected, it's still at least 4 times faster then if I was doing it locally on my MacBook Air. So even if I had a local copy of Premiere I would still want to use their servers to encode. I'm sure there will be some people who would want to use this service, check out Pixrl's web app online, it's very similar to PhotoShop, and it will give you an idea of what it would be like with Adobe's offering, after you check it out, it's not bad is it?
This solution will probably not fly with graphic houses but for the pro-sumer and if Adobe offers this all cloud solution for half of what they charge for the installed version I could see it become fairly popular.
I upload 2GB plus files all the time to Adobe Cloud, takes like 6 minutes
I save 2GB files to my SSD, takes like 5 seconds. What's the point in moving to SSDs if you push things through a few MB/s upload? 1Gbit/s uploads are needed to replace local usage for heavy data apps.
What you're also missing here is server side processing, encoding or processing effects might take seconds where it would take say your MacBook 10 minutes to do for the same file. I for one see a huge cut in compiling times when I use my cloud IDEs, even when I get the dialog box that says our servers are currently being utilized by a large amount of users, compiling times might be affected, it's still at least 4 times faster then if I was doing it locally on my MacBook Air. So even if I had a local copy of Premiere I would still want to use their servers to encode.
With Premiere, you could have 100GB of source footage. It doesn't matter if it's faster to encode an hour of footage if it takes 5 hours to upload it first. Images are small but so are the processing requirements.
For code compilation, that's a decent usage for cloud services as the files are very small but that's not Photoshop we're talking about. Creative software works better offline.
I save 2GB files to my SSD, takes like 5 sehiuses What's the point in moving to SSDs if you push things through a few MB/s upload?dodon't it/s uploads are needed to replace local usage for heavy data apps.
With Premiere, you could have 100GB of source footage. It doesn't matter if it's faster to encode an hour of footage if it takes 5 hours to upload it Images are small but so are the processing requirements.
For code compilation, that's a decent usage for cloud services as the files are very small but that's not Photoshop we're talking about. Creative software works better offline.
That's why I put in the cover me claus in my last post, probably not a good idea for graphic houses that are pushing large amounts of data through their software but for those who don't use Creative Cloud as their source of income might be more inclined to go with this solution if it means paying less for it, I know I would. I just use PhotoShop to touch up my photos and Premiere to cut home movies, I dont see a problem with at least trying it out. I'm intrigued.
I don't know how accurate [URL=http://www.omgchrome.com/chromebooks-50-percent-education-share-us/]this[/URL] article is, it claims that ChromeBooks now secure 50% of the educational market. Even if it was only 30%, that's still pretty impressive. Apple may want to think about releasing a special education version of the iPad, maybe use the same plastic material as the iPhone 5c and even though the new IPad will have an A8, keep using the A7 for this special version to keep the price as low as possible and definitely also include a keyboard dock.
I don't know how accurate this article is, it claims that ChromeBooks now secure 50% of the educational market. Even if it was only 30%, that's still pretty impressive. Apple may want to think about releasing a special education version of the iPad, maybe use the same plastic material as the iPhone 5c and even though the new IPad will have an A8, keep using the A7 for this special version to keep the price as low as possible and definitely also include a keyboard dock.
It was Sundar Pichai, a Google SVP that said that here at 2:13:50, 'probably nearing 50% of the education market over the last 18 months':
[VIDEO]
Direct education purchases are quite small overall. According to the same site above, Chromebooks only account for 4.5% of PCs in the back-to-school period (not all necessarily purchases for students of course):
So if they made a 45% share and that's 85% of 5.2m units, that means the entire US education market would be just under 10m units. Apple sells over 70m iPads in a year and sold 10m to schools worldwide (at least 4.5m to the US) and they'll have sold some Macs to them too:
I don't think they need to compromise the iPad design for such a small market. Older students work faster with a keyboard and mouse so they need to use laptops. Younger students (under 10 years old) would be engaged better with iPads than laptops.
I'd never write a long document on an iPad because of the need to jump between apps like a browser so much for reference. All that zooming in and out would get annoying and copy/paste would be frustrating and slow. The iPad is great if you primarily stick to one app. A split screen might help a bit (very useful for referencing) but there really just needs to be a way to instantly jump from one app to another the way the Dock works in OS X.
Maybe an Exposé view or something but it can just be a shortlist of recently used apps and not every app that's listed as being open. I can switch an app in under 1 second in OS X, that needs to be the same in iOS. Something like 3 finger swipe left or swipe in from the right moves the apps into a stack like a fanned out deck of cards (it can mainly just be vertical splits showing a portion of each UI but with a shadow). It would show a maximum of say 5 on a small screen and you'd be able to scroll left for more. Tapping one just moves the others out the way. The portion of the UI shown of each app would be wherever the crop was based on its position in the stack (this helps muscle memory) so when you select it, there's no translation needed, the other cards can just fade out and enabling it would be a fade-in. Like this:
Copy/paste could be faster too:
[VIDEO]
Tap-hold to bring up the selector, drag the handles and then click to copy all while the popup obscures the text. The menu would probably be better out of the way. You can see how at 1:56 he tries to drag over an area and the selector automatically tries to snap to the whole paragraph and then changes its mind and so he tries to select the top again and the menu is in the way so he misses out the top line. Android used to be terrible but has at least improved the menu by moving it out the way but it uses the same kind of selectors.
The way to work like a mouse would be to have your finger act as a marker and not have a selector box keeping changing as you move it. The iOS one changes between text selection and a box. You'd have a quick access toolbox that you'd enable a copy action and you'd just drag your finger over anything like a magic marker:
This allows you to put breaks in between selections. Because single fingers are used for scrolling, it might be best to have either double finger scroll while single finger selects or there can be a corner icon that has to be enabled that switches to selection mode. You'd hardly ever select partial words so by default, it would select entire words. Pictures would be selected just by tapping them.
When it comes to text input, I don't think a keyboard is needed but there should be a new way to input text without a virtual keyboard taking up a significant part of the screen. It shouldn't need more than a single line of gesture input on say a smart cover to get a full keyboard. Even just one section of the smart cover would be enough. There are things like laser keyboards:
Comments
[video[
1. Lol at that video. Funny song to boot.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/appleinsider/id578462575?mt=8
When I see a paywall on a website, I pretty much close it immediately but if I have to pay $0.99 for an app or buy an inexpensive IAP, it doesn't have the same effect. The problem taking that to the web is that people tend to jump between sites a lot so having each site contained in an app makes that harder. Advertising is an unavoidable business model when it comes to young people because they don't have money to spend online.
I got the app. I paid for the subscription. The app only shows the first 10 comments. Comments are what I come for when visiting this site. And I do that almost daily. But I can't reply to the comments in the app, I can't even properly read them as there is no indented quoting, no font size adjustment, no hyperlinks, no option to quote, post, or whatever. Just to read the first 10 posts. The app is not for me.
The app is done somewhat nicely but sorely lacks of making it usable. It does do what it's advertised to do: reading the site without seeing any ads.. Truth be told, I never see the ads, due to ad blocking and always going straight to the forum, not the homepage.
But I do get the point of advertising. Seen a lot over my lifetime, but never actually bought something because I remembered the ad while shopping. Do people actually remember ads to begin with? Or is it all marketing, all needed to get the name of the brand out?
Even if I see a 'Google page' and it has an ad of a product I might want to learn about I simply copy/paste the URL or type in the domain name myself, just so the advertiser doesn't have to pay for the ad. I'm pathetic, aren't I?
I do exactly what you do with relation to ads, albeit with Yahoo!
Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.
I think we're ut of luck here: the app is at version 1.1, last update was from Jan 20, 2014 but the issues from buyers hadn't been addressed. Might explain the 6 up and 42 down votes
Yes, the AI app I find useful on the iPhone, but on the iPad, it's pretty useless. I don't understand why it's so limited. Maybe it's a halfway house whilst they do a major overhaul which we will be blessed with one day.
I think we're ut of luck here: the app is at version 1.1, last update was from Jan 20, 2014 but the issues from buyers hadn't been addressed. Might explain the 6 up and 42 down votes
I like your signature.
Perhaps they just don't have the money.
When it really matters. Usually when I'm offline it's due to some sort of event when I really need my data the most. Sure it doesn't happen that often, but as they say all it take is one time when it really matters.
Assuming you are always going to have Internet is simply being delusional. I suppose if you are completely casual user and not being able to rely on getting to your apps or data at all times doesn't really matter then go for it. But as they say, crap happens. For critical data and applications, I will always have it local - thank you very much.
Just because some college kids slapped a cute label of cloud on something has caused people to completely loose their minds and embrace the modern equivalent of dumb terminals wedded to central computers - otherwise known as mainframes. Oh how the wheel has turned
And I love all the solutions for your Chromebook and offline - installing another OS? Doesn't that negate the whole premise of the Chromebook? That you even suggest it speaks volume about the entire premise.
I'll take an iPad over a Chromebook any day - thanks.
I found this pretty surprising: Adobe is bringing Photoshop Creative Cloud to Chromebooks.
http://chrome.blogspot.ca/2014/09/adobe-joins-chromebook-party-starting.html
I'm not surprised and Adobe needs to be in this space.
There's a number of rather able web apps on the market already, Pixlr from Autodesk and Pics.io RAW editing com to mind.
There's also Magisto and WeVideo for web app video editing.
A lot of people don't like it... and say they'll never go subscription or cloud-based. But the old method isn't coming back, and I don't expect it to advance as fast as web-based and web-aware apps are currently. Actually because these web apps must be built almost from the ground up, they're far more efficient and probably more future-friendly than the old code bases are. Just my opinion and guess.
Why, I actually said this was going to happen a couple of times here. They were using Photoshop Express as a test bed. The ChromeBook is very quickly becoming a viable solution for those who don't want to mess around with OS's. This is truly plug'n play. I know they're a hard sell around here but those who have one really dig them and the amount of new models that have been released or are about to be is pretty substantial. There is no need for me to update my Pixel right now but I will defiantly be picking up a new ChromeBook once they start using Nvidia's new K1 64bit Denver chip. There are already a few with the 32bit variant but now that ChromeOS has gone 64bit we should be seeing a Denver model fairly soon. That sounds like an interesting platform to play around with, if not to just use it as an Arch Linux machine, mmmm ARM Linux. That and the K1 32bit is getting 14 hours of battery life when used in conjunction with ChromeOS. There are also a whole lot of new features that are about to dropped on the platform like being able to run Android apps, it can already run a few but that's just for testing purposes, the new update will allow pretty much the entire Android library to be used on a Chrome OS device, that's cool.
It's just streaming for now. You can do anything with streaming:
[VIDEO]
There's sometimes lag though and saving things to the cloud directly is slow. If your network goes out, it interrupts what you're doing. It's better than not having access to the apps at all of course but I'd take native Photoshop over server-based. I don't want my naked photoshopped selfies on a server somewhere (not the originals anyway).
I'm not yet sold on Creative Cloud (sticking with 6 for awhile longer) myself but don't your files get stored "in the cloud" by default even on the desktop with the same interruptions if you lose your data connection? Not entirely sure as I've not been interested enough to spend much time looking at it.
Anyway like you (I assume) I don't think keeping essential/original docs only in a cloud account to be wise.
EDIT: and for reasons like this
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/182570/latest-ios-8-bug-reportedly-causes-unwanted-deletion-of-icloud-drive-documents#post_2609730
Good timing.
Nope, that would be crazy as it would mean uploading hundreds of MBs on every save for large files. Working with video would be impossible. It works the same as before. Cloud storage is for file syncing and online viewing:
[VIDEO]
Well crazy doesn't mean Adobe wouldn't do it.
Your talking as if you have a slow connection, I upload 2GB plus files all the time to Adobe Cloud, takes like 6 minutes, Adobe Cloud also comes with storage and I'm sure they'll increase that size and offer more space at a reasonable price. What you're also missing here is server side processing, encoding or processing effects might take seconds where it would take say your MacBook 10 minutes to do for the same file. I for one see a huge cut in compiling times when I use my cloud IDEs, even when I get the dialog box that says our servers are currently being utilized by a large amount of users, compiling times might be affected, it's still at least 4 times faster then if I was doing it locally on my MacBook Air. So even if I had a local copy of Premiere I would still want to use their servers to encode. I'm sure there will be some people who would want to use this service, check out Pixrl's web app online, it's very similar to PhotoShop, and it will give you an idea of what it would be like with Adobe's offering, after you check it out, it's not bad is it?
This solution will probably not fly with graphic houses but for the pro-sumer and if Adobe offers this all cloud solution for half of what they charge for the installed version I could see it become fairly popular.
I save 2GB files to my SSD, takes like 5 seconds. What's the point in moving to SSDs if you push things through a few MB/s upload? 1Gbit/s uploads are needed to replace local usage for heavy data apps.
With Premiere, you could have 100GB of source footage. It doesn't matter if it's faster to encode an hour of footage if it takes 5 hours to upload it first. Images are small but so are the processing requirements.
For code compilation, that's a decent usage for cloud services as the files are very small but that's not Photoshop we're talking about. Creative software works better offline.
I save 2GB files to my SSD, takes like 5 sehiuses What's the point in moving to SSDs if you push things through a few MB/s upload?dodon't it/s uploads are needed to replace local usage for heavy data apps.
With Premiere, you could have 100GB of source footage. It doesn't matter if it's faster to encode an hour of footage if it takes 5 hours to upload it Images are small but so are the processing requirements.
For code compilation, that's a decent usage for cloud services as the files are very small but that's not Photoshop we're talking about. Creative software works better offline.
That's why I put in the cover me claus in my last post, probably not a good idea for graphic houses that are pushing large amounts of data through their software but for those who don't use Creative Cloud as their source of income might be more inclined to go with this solution if it means paying less for it, I know I would. I just use PhotoShop to touch up my photos and Premiere to cut home movies, I dont see a problem with at least trying it out. I'm intrigued.
It was Sundar Pichai, a Google SVP that said that here at 2:13:50, 'probably nearing 50% of the education market over the last 18 months':
[VIDEO]
Direct education purchases are quite small overall. According to the same site above, Chromebooks only account for 4.5% of PCs in the back-to-school period (not all necessarily purchases for students of course):
http://www.omgchrome.com/chromebook-sales-37-percent-back-school-2014/
According to Gartner, as much as 85% of total Chromebook sales are education purchases:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819917
So if they made a 45% share and that's 85% of 5.2m units, that means the entire US education market would be just under 10m units. Apple sells over 70m iPads in a year and sold 10m to schools worldwide (at least 4.5m to the US) and they'll have sold some Macs to them too:
https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/06/19Apple-Awarded-30-Million-iPad-Deal-From-LA-Unified-School-District.html
I don't think they need to compromise the iPad design for such a small market. Older students work faster with a keyboard and mouse so they need to use laptops. Younger students (under 10 years old) would be engaged better with iPads than laptops.
I'd never write a long document on an iPad because of the need to jump between apps like a browser so much for reference. All that zooming in and out would get annoying and copy/paste would be frustrating and slow. The iPad is great if you primarily stick to one app. A split screen might help a bit (very useful for referencing) but there really just needs to be a way to instantly jump from one app to another the way the Dock works in OS X.
Maybe an Exposé view or something but it can just be a shortlist of recently used apps and not every app that's listed as being open. I can switch an app in under 1 second in OS X, that needs to be the same in iOS. Something like 3 finger swipe left or swipe in from the right moves the apps into a stack like a fanned out deck of cards (it can mainly just be vertical splits showing a portion of each UI but with a shadow). It would show a maximum of say 5 on a small screen and you'd be able to scroll left for more. Tapping one just moves the others out the way. The portion of the UI shown of each app would be wherever the crop was based on its position in the stack (this helps muscle memory) so when you select it, there's no translation needed, the other cards can just fade out and enabling it would be a fade-in. Like this:
Copy/paste could be faster too:
[VIDEO]
Tap-hold to bring up the selector, drag the handles and then click to copy all while the popup obscures the text. The menu would probably be better out of the way. You can see how at 1:56 he tries to drag over an area and the selector automatically tries to snap to the whole paragraph and then changes its mind and so he tries to select the top again and the menu is in the way so he misses out the top line. Android used to be terrible but has at least improved the menu by moving it out the way but it uses the same kind of selectors.
The way to work like a mouse would be to have your finger act as a marker and not have a selector box keeping changing as you move it. The iOS one changes between text selection and a box. You'd have a quick access toolbox that you'd enable a copy action and you'd just drag your finger over anything like a magic marker:
This allows you to put breaks in between selections. Because single fingers are used for scrolling, it might be best to have either double finger scroll while single finger selects or there can be a corner icon that has to be enabled that switches to selection mode. You'd hardly ever select partial words so by default, it would select entire words. Pictures would be selected just by tapping them.
When it comes to text input, I don't think a keyboard is needed but there should be a new way to input text without a virtual keyboard taking up a significant part of the screen. It shouldn't need more than a single line of gesture input on say a smart cover to get a full keyboard. Even just one section of the smart cover would be enough. There are things like laser keyboards:
[VIDEO]
but I prefer things like the following:
[VIDEO]