The use of a red pill is an allusion to the use a similar device in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The Matrix movies commonly use references from this other work of fiction. For instance, when Morpheus offers the red pill to Neo, he says that by taking the red pill, he would show Neo "how deep the rabbit hole goes."
My choice of the word "allude" was an unfortunate one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton
I don't know that "red pill" can possibly allude to Carol's tale if there is no red pill in that story. However, as scottiB pointed out, this is a plot device in the Matrix. Perhaps you might want to peer into the looking-glass when you call people idiots.
The point I was trying to get across was what mmmdoughnuts comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmdoughnuts
Idiot! That was from Alice in Wonderland way before Keanu was a wet dream.
was absurd since scottiB's point
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottiB
I inferred it referred to The Matrix.
was that "redpill" refered to the Matrix. The fact that the Matrix is using a "similar plot device" (i.e. the rabbit who is late) to get Alice into Wonderland does not mean that "redpill" refers to Carol's tale. Obviously "allude" and "refer" are not synonyms, so perhaps this disagreement boils down to nothing more than semantics.
For the record, there is no red pill (at least no literal one) in Carol's tale. The complete text may be found at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/...wonderdir.html and anyone may do a text search themselves if they doubt this claim.
Since Encore DVD is pretty much a lame clone of DVD Studio Pro, that's where you should look at. As for $80, maybe a used copy of DVDSP will do, or iDVD.
Ah, but that was the amazing thing about DVD Lab (which probably still exists, but not for Mac). You were getting the software new, with all of the power and simplicity of a top of the line DVD authoring program, just without the price. The even more amazing thing was that (back in 2003 at least) the program was written basically by a single programmer.
If anyone wants to launch a Photoshop competitor, MWSF will be the absolute best time to do so in years.
You're right, I bet Macromedia could use this opportunity to design a Photoshop killer that would ... ahhhhhhh. Okay, who else .... hmmm ... Apple or Microsoft .... great! Either Apple further competes with one of its best partners or Microsoft gets bigger.
Just make it fast Adobe. After watching my studio misguidedly upgrade to Quark 7 and having everyone complain immediately that it was dog slow. Speed is the only thing I want from CS3.
Everything else will just be gravy.
I am interested to see how much integration the macromedia programs will get, and the possibilities of merging Flash and PDF are pretty exciting.
Does anyone know if the prices listed on Adobe's site now (for CS2) will likely be the same as the prices in May (for CS3)? In other words, does Adobe usually lower the price of their products as they grow long in the tooth or can I expect to pick up CS3 Academic for $399 come May?
I do find it hard to believe, though, that Adobe would just surrender Photoshop's market to Apple.
Could you imagine what would happen to Adobe's stock if that happened?
The final analysis is absurd though. It shows how little he understands just what PS is. It would be far more than trivial to match its functionality.
And then it would have to garner the support among third parties, and I don't mean simple plug-ins.
Adobe also has the entire suite which helps to keep the program on top. Apple has none of that. If he really thinks that Apple's old simplistic Macpaint qualifies them to rival a program such as PS, he is mistaken.
MS is Adobe's biggest challanger in this area. They have two programs that they have been showing around for about a year now, that might challange them. When, or even if, they come out is another question.
But, if it does, it will be a problem for Apple as well as for Adobe.
They will only work on Windows, possibly just in Vista, as I believe they require the new imaging model, and the new Direct X , or its replacement.
Adobe Systems is likely to launch its much-awaited Creative Suite 3.0 software bundle in May of 2007, one analyst says.
Ok, so adobe are slow to market, but part of this can be pinned on apple's extreme paranoid behaviour of announcing new products at the last minute... I admire what apple have done with final cut market, but in the graphic arts, they've always had to work with, not against adobe. Stupid to not give adobe much more advance warning about the platform shift, given how much of Apple's market is derived from graphic arts industry. On the other hand, isn't adobe being nice and slow, now it has no effective competition?
Any pros out there using apeture yet? Hows it working out?
The final analysis is absurd though. It shows how little he understands just what PS is. It would be far more than trivial to match its functionality.
And then it would have to garner the support among third parties, and I don't mean simple plug-ins.
Adobe also has the entire suite which helps to keep the program on top. Apple has none of that. If he really thinks that Apple's old simplistic Macpaint qualifies them to rival a program such as PS, he is mistaken.
You are right that he's downplaying the work of building a PS competitor from scratch, but that only applies to everyone except Apple.
Should Apple decide to go for Adobe's jugular, they bring to the table every bit of expertise that Adobe has access to. Probably more. Apple has almost all of Photoshop feature set currently built into various frameworks and applications.
Currently, Aperture garners most of the attention, and Core Image gets the rest.
But most people forget this little thing called ColorSync, which Apple has been refining since what, 1993?
Apple implemented system wide colour integration before anyone else, and I'm sure if Apple combined Aperture, Core Image and ColorSync the results would be fast and spectacular.
Jobs covers his bases better than anyone else in the industry, witness how long Mac OS X on Intel was kept under wraps until needed. I guarantee you he didn't launch Aperture without a game plan for what to do if Adobe pulled Photoshop.
Whether it will see the light of day, is another story.
The final analysis is absurd though. It shows how little he understands just what PS is. It would be far more than trivial to match its functionality.
Actually, it's not the functionality that is the problem. Get any good Comp Sci graphics graduate to implement almost any arbitrary function in photoshop, and they'll be able to code it in a week. Give em two, and they'll optimise it. Give em three, though, they'll probably ruin it. Most photoshop style features have an easily accessible codebase such as Foley, Van Dam, Feiner & Hughs; Proceedings of SigGraph; Sneek-peaks at GIMP (it is GPL, not LGPL or BSDL after all). The problem lies in integrating all those hundreds of little features in photoshop into one tight little package, with sound colour management (GIMP is a good example of failure in these respects...). Apple has the colorsync goons on staff. Project managers and architects, they're the things that apple has the potential to choke on. Hell, I'd love to be hired by apple to work on this one (I wanna do the Image=>adjustments submenu. Adobe messed up alot of the ops in that one... especially the brightness/contrast bit... it's real bad). But none of it is anywhere near as difficult to do as even a basic OS, for sure. Of course adobe might notice if apple went on a hiring spree...
But that's all just me geeking. As a pro user of PS and a CS grad, I just wanna recode half of it.
MS is Adobe's biggest challanger in this area. They have two programs that they have been showing around for about a year now, that might challange them. When, or even if, they come out is another question.
But, if it does, it will be a problem for Apple as well as for Adobe.
They will only work on Windows, possibly just in Vista, as I believe they require the new imaging model, and the new Direct X , or its replacement.
No, I don't remember the names.
Yeah, MS has been showboating a few impressive things from their graphics researchers... although given previous forrays into image editing (WMFs, Office anything, Imaging, Paint, FrontPage) all signs that MS may not be up to the task. But then you read the MS FontBlog, and you realise they have a genius group of typographic developers... that they don't seem to integrate into the product development as well as they should. MS word typesetting is still terrible.
As to if and when MS jumps into this arena? Apart from MS Excel and .NET, can you think of any MS app that has been developed to a 'pro' level? Nah, if they do come out with an actual product, it's gonna be aimed at the family digital camera users, and power-point executives, not publishing or pro graphics. No threat to anything other than iPhoto, and PSE.
Not to add that Adobe now sit pretty sweet: The CS2 suite has ALL the tools to get the job done. The workflow is all bundled, and all adobe. PS, InDesign (now that it's almost killed quark), Illustrator (No more freehand), and Acrobat. Just imagine if a new competitor came along and said "replace PS with our product". Well that'd mess up my nice and compatible adobe workflow. And I'd still buy Creative Suite for all the other pieces. That's why there is appeture. Photographers are the one market that'll buy photoshop, but nothing else in the suite.
You're right, I bet Macromedia could use this opportunity to design a Photoshop killer that would ... ahhhhhhh. Okay, who else .... hmmm ... Apple or Microsoft .... great! Either Apple further competes with one of its best partners or Microsoft gets bigger.
Microsoft is already developing software to compete with Adobe in the creative market space.
I do find it hard to believe, though, that Adobe would just surrender Photoshop's market to Apple.
Could you imagine what would happen to Adobe's stock if that happened?
The author of that article has no clue, just some journalist counting words to create an article. I have been using Photoshop and Aperture pretty much from the beginning of each app and find the article to be joke.
-Photoshop is an awesome graphics editing app that has no peer. Nothing even close, or reasonably likely to get close. Not Aperture, and certainly nothing Microsoft could ever kludge up; what was the last real app anyone saw MS create?
-Aperture is (so far) the killer app in the pro DSLR image capture review/manage/edit space. Not the same space as Photoshop, even though they overlap. Lightroom is a toy compared to Aperture, which is a true pro app, IMO a mandatory tool for pro DSLR photogs like me.
The pro DSLR image capture review/manage/edit space is a new market space that Adobe had a huge head start on by virtue of Photoshop's supremacy in graphics editing. However Adobe has been (so far) rapidly losing the new space to Aperture because Aperture is a far superior product by anyone knowledgeable's reckoning.
Adobe still owns the (old) graphics editing space and no new app, including Aperture, is attacking it in any meaningful way. Adobe is not "surrendering Photoshop's market to Apple."
The fact that both Apple (Aperture) and Adobe (Lightroom) are competing for the same new space just makes them competitors, not some kind of arch enemies like some folks above suggest.
Adobe Systems is likely to launch its much-awaited Creative Suite 3.0 software bundle in May of 2007, one analyst says...
It was months ago that Adobe's CEO announced that CS3 would be delivered approx. 2007 April. It is common knowledge in the press as well as in the Photoshop user community.
Actually, it's not the functionality that is the problem. Get any good Comp Sci graphics graduate to implement almost any arbitrary function in photoshop, and they'll be able to code it in a week. Give em two, and they'll optimise it. Give em three, though, they'll probably ruin it. Most photoshop style features have an easily accessible codebase such as Foley, Van Dam, Feiner & Hughs; Proceedings of SigGraph; Sneek-peaks at GIMP (it is GPL, not LGPL or BSDL after all). The problem lies in integrating all those hundreds of little features in photoshop into one tight little package, with sound colour management (GIMP is a good example of failure in these respects...). Apple has the colorsync goons on staff. Project managers and architects, they're the things that apple has the potential to choke on. Hell, I'd love to be hired by apple to work on this one (I wanna do the Image=>adjustments submenu. Adobe messed up alot of the ops in that one... especially the brightness/contrast bit... it's real bad). But none of it is anywhere near as difficult to do as even a basic OS, for sure. Of course adobe might notice if apple went on a hiring spree...
But that's all just me geeking. As a pro user of PS and a CS grad, I just wanna recode half of it.
-t
Your statement is about as absurd as his.
According to you then, Adobe should have had CS3 available in about 3 months.
Yeah, MS has been showboating a few impressive things from their graphics researchers... although given previous forrays into image editing (WMFs, Office anything, Imaging, Paint, FrontPage) all signs that MS may not be up to the task. But then you read the MS FontBlog, and you realise they have a genius group of typographic developers... that they don't seem to integrate into the product development as well as they should. MS word typesetting is still terrible.
As to if and when MS jumps into this arena? Apart from MS Excel and .NET, can you think of any MS app that has been developed to a 'pro' level? Nah, if they do come out with an actual product, it's gonna be aimed at the family digital camera users, and power-point executives, not publishing or pro graphics. No threat to anything other than iPhoto, and PSE.
Not to add that Adobe now sit pretty sweet: The CS2 suite has ALL the tools to get the job done. The workflow is all bundled, and all adobe. PS, InDesign (now that it's almost killed quark), Illustrator (No more freehand), and Acrobat. Just imagine if a new competitor came along and said "replace PS with our product". Well that'd mess up my nice and compatible adobe workflow. And I'd still buy Creative Suite for all the other pieces. That's why there is appeture. Photographers are the one market that'll buy photoshop, but nothing else in the suite.
-t
This is some of what they are working on. There are a couple of other things that I can't talk about right now.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill
The use of a red pill is an allusion to the use a similar device in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The Matrix movies commonly use references from this other work of fiction. For instance, when Morpheus offers the red pill to Neo, he says that by taking the red pill, he would show Neo "how deep the rabbit hole goes."
My choice of the word "allude" was an unfortunate one:
I don't know that "red pill" can possibly allude to Carol's tale if there is no red pill in that story. However, as scottiB pointed out, this is a plot device in the Matrix. Perhaps you might want to peer into the looking-glass when you call people idiots.
The point I was trying to get across was what mmmdoughnuts comment
Idiot! That was from Alice in Wonderland way before Keanu was a wet dream.
was absurd since scottiB's point
I inferred it referred to The Matrix.
was that "redpill" refered to the Matrix. The fact that the Matrix is using a "similar plot device" (i.e. the rabbit who is late) to get Alice into Wonderland does not mean that "redpill" refers to Carol's tale. Obviously "allude" and "refer" are not synonyms, so perhaps this disagreement boils down to nothing more than semantics.
For the record, there is no red pill (at least no literal one) in Carol's tale. The complete text may be found at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/metastuff/...wonderdir.html and anyone may do a text search themselves if they doubt this claim.
I may simply have forgotten the presence of such a pill).
Actually, she is already in the wonderland when she has the decision to take one of two pills. One makes her big and one makes her small.
Since Encore DVD is pretty much a lame clone of DVD Studio Pro, that's where you should look at. As for $80, maybe a used copy of DVDSP will do, or iDVD.
Ah, but that was the amazing thing about DVD Lab (which probably still exists, but not for Mac). You were getting the software new, with all of the power and simplicity of a top of the line DVD authoring program, just without the price. The even more amazing thing was that (back in 2003 at least) the program was written basically by a single programmer.
Well there it is.
If anyone wants to launch a Photoshop competitor, MWSF will be the absolute best time to do so in years.
You're right, I bet Macromedia could use this opportunity to design a Photoshop killer that would ... ahhhhhhh. Okay, who else .... hmmm ... Apple or Microsoft .... great! Either Apple further competes with one of its best partners or Microsoft gets bigger.
Everything else will just be gravy.
I am interested to see how much integration the macromedia programs will get, and the possibilities of merging Flash and PDF are pretty exciting.
Does anyone know if the prices listed on Adobe's site now (for CS2) will likely be the same as the prices in May (for CS3)? In other words, does Adobe usually lower the price of their products as they grow long in the tooth or can I expect to pick up CS3 Academic for $399 come May?
Stupid question, is Acrobat 8 (due November) universal?
Sure is
Well, this is interesting.
I do find it hard to believe, though, that Adobe would just surrender Photoshop's market to Apple.
Could you imagine what would happen to Adobe's stock if that happened?
The final analysis is absurd though. It shows how little he understands just what PS is. It would be far more than trivial to match its functionality.
And then it would have to garner the support among third parties, and I don't mean simple plug-ins.
Adobe also has the entire suite which helps to keep the program on top. Apple has none of that. If he really thinks that Apple's old simplistic Macpaint qualifies them to rival a program such as PS, he is mistaken.
Also the fact that when Apple was dying many people were jumping ship.
Not really. I can tell you from the perspective of one in the industry that few were jumping ship.
What was happening was that many new start-ups, or individual users, went with Windows from the beginning.
Some of them began to move back again, but I don't keep track of the numbers since we sold our company.
But, if it does, it will be a problem for Apple as well as for Adobe.
They will only work on Windows, possibly just in Vista, as I believe they require the new imaging model, and the new Direct X , or its replacement.
No, I don't remember the names.
Adobe Systems is likely to launch its much-awaited Creative Suite 3.0 software bundle in May of 2007, one analyst says.
Ok, so adobe are slow to market, but part of this can be pinned on apple's extreme paranoid behaviour of announcing new products at the last minute... I admire what apple have done with final cut market, but in the graphic arts, they've always had to work with, not against adobe. Stupid to not give adobe much more advance warning about the platform shift, given how much of Apple's market is derived from graphic arts industry. On the other hand, isn't adobe being nice and slow, now it has no effective competition?
Any pros out there using apeture yet? Hows it working out?
-t
The final analysis is absurd though. It shows how little he understands just what PS is. It would be far more than trivial to match its functionality.
And then it would have to garner the support among third parties, and I don't mean simple plug-ins.
Adobe also has the entire suite which helps to keep the program on top. Apple has none of that. If he really thinks that Apple's old simplistic Macpaint qualifies them to rival a program such as PS, he is mistaken.
You are right that he's downplaying the work of building a PS competitor from scratch, but that only applies to everyone except Apple.
Should Apple decide to go for Adobe's jugular, they bring to the table every bit of expertise that Adobe has access to. Probably more. Apple has almost all of Photoshop feature set currently built into various frameworks and applications.
Currently, Aperture garners most of the attention, and Core Image gets the rest.
But most people forget this little thing called ColorSync, which Apple has been refining since what, 1993?
Apple implemented system wide colour integration before anyone else, and I'm sure if Apple combined Aperture, Core Image and ColorSync the results would be fast and spectacular.
Jobs covers his bases better than anyone else in the industry, witness how long Mac OS X on Intel was kept under wraps until needed. I guarantee you he didn't launch Aperture without a game plan for what to do if Adobe pulled Photoshop.
Whether it will see the light of day, is another story.
The final analysis is absurd though. It shows how little he understands just what PS is. It would be far more than trivial to match its functionality.
Actually, it's not the functionality that is the problem. Get any good Comp Sci graphics graduate to implement almost any arbitrary function in photoshop, and they'll be able to code it in a week. Give em two, and they'll optimise it. Give em three, though, they'll probably ruin it. Most photoshop style features have an easily accessible codebase such as Foley, Van Dam, Feiner & Hughs; Proceedings of SigGraph; Sneek-peaks at GIMP (it is GPL, not LGPL or BSDL after all). The problem lies in integrating all those hundreds of little features in photoshop into one tight little package, with sound colour management (GIMP is a good example of failure in these respects...). Apple has the colorsync goons on staff. Project managers and architects, they're the things that apple has the potential to choke on. Hell, I'd love to be hired by apple to work on this one (I wanna do the Image=>adjustments submenu. Adobe messed up alot of the ops in that one... especially the brightness/contrast bit... it's real bad). But none of it is anywhere near as difficult to do as even a basic OS, for sure. Of course adobe might notice if apple went on a hiring spree...
But that's all just me geeking. As a pro user of PS and a CS grad, I just wanna recode half of it.
-t
MS is Adobe's biggest challanger in this area. They have two programs that they have been showing around for about a year now, that might challange them. When, or even if, they come out is another question.
But, if it does, it will be a problem for Apple as well as for Adobe.
They will only work on Windows, possibly just in Vista, as I believe they require the new imaging model, and the new Direct X , or its replacement.
No, I don't remember the names.
Yeah, MS has been showboating a few impressive things from their graphics researchers... although given previous forrays into image editing (WMFs, Office anything, Imaging, Paint, FrontPage) all signs that MS may not be up to the task. But then you read the MS FontBlog, and you realise they have a genius group of typographic developers... that they don't seem to integrate into the product development as well as they should. MS word typesetting is still terrible.
As to if and when MS jumps into this arena? Apart from MS Excel and .NET, can you think of any MS app that has been developed to a 'pro' level? Nah, if they do come out with an actual product, it's gonna be aimed at the family digital camera users, and power-point executives, not publishing or pro graphics. No threat to anything other than iPhoto, and PSE.
Not to add that Adobe now sit pretty sweet: The CS2 suite has ALL the tools to get the job done. The workflow is all bundled, and all adobe. PS, InDesign (now that it's almost killed quark), Illustrator (No more freehand), and Acrobat. Just imagine if a new competitor came along and said "replace PS with our product". Well that'd mess up my nice and compatible adobe workflow. And I'd still buy Creative Suite for all the other pieces. That's why there is appeture. Photographers are the one market that'll buy photoshop, but nothing else in the suite.
-t
You're right, I bet Macromedia could use this opportunity to design a Photoshop killer that would ... ahhhhhhh. Okay, who else .... hmmm ... Apple or Microsoft .... great! Either Apple further competes with one of its best partners or Microsoft gets bigger.
Microsoft is already developing software to compete with Adobe in the creative market space.
Well, this is interesting.
I do find it hard to believe, though, that Adobe would just surrender Photoshop's market to Apple.
Could you imagine what would happen to Adobe's stock if that happened?
The author of that article has no clue, just some journalist counting words to create an article. I have been using Photoshop and Aperture pretty much from the beginning of each app and find the article to be joke.
-Photoshop is an awesome graphics editing app that has no peer. Nothing even close, or reasonably likely to get close. Not Aperture, and certainly nothing Microsoft could ever kludge up; what was the last real app anyone saw MS create?
-Aperture is (so far) the killer app in the pro DSLR image capture review/manage/edit space. Not the same space as Photoshop, even though they overlap. Lightroom is a toy compared to Aperture, which is a true pro app, IMO a mandatory tool for pro DSLR photogs like me.
The pro DSLR image capture review/manage/edit space is a new market space that Adobe had a huge head start on by virtue of Photoshop's supremacy in graphics editing. However Adobe has been (so far) rapidly losing the new space to Aperture because Aperture is a far superior product by anyone knowledgeable's reckoning.
Adobe still owns the (old) graphics editing space and no new app, including Aperture, is attacking it in any meaningful way. Adobe is not "surrendering Photoshop's market to Apple."
The fact that both Apple (Aperture) and Adobe (Lightroom) are competing for the same new space just makes them competitors, not some kind of arch enemies like some folks above suggest.
-Allen Wicks
Adobe Systems is likely to launch its much-awaited Creative Suite 3.0 software bundle in May of 2007, one analyst says...
It was months ago that Adobe's CEO announced that CS3 would be delivered approx. 2007 April. It is common knowledge in the press as well as in the Photoshop user community.
-Allen Wicks
Actually, it's not the functionality that is the problem. Get any good Comp Sci graphics graduate to implement almost any arbitrary function in photoshop, and they'll be able to code it in a week. Give em two, and they'll optimise it. Give em three, though, they'll probably ruin it. Most photoshop style features have an easily accessible codebase such as Foley, Van Dam, Feiner & Hughs; Proceedings of SigGraph; Sneek-peaks at GIMP (it is GPL, not LGPL or BSDL after all). The problem lies in integrating all those hundreds of little features in photoshop into one tight little package, with sound colour management (GIMP is a good example of failure in these respects...). Apple has the colorsync goons on staff. Project managers and architects, they're the things that apple has the potential to choke on. Hell, I'd love to be hired by apple to work on this one (I wanna do the Image=>adjustments submenu. Adobe messed up alot of the ops in that one... especially the brightness/contrast bit... it's real bad). But none of it is anywhere near as difficult to do as even a basic OS, for sure. Of course adobe might notice if apple went on a hiring spree...
But that's all just me geeking. As a pro user of PS and a CS grad, I just wanna recode half of it.
-t
Your statement is about as absurd as his.
According to you then, Adobe should have had CS3 available in about 3 months.
Give me a break!
Yeah, MS has been showboating a few impressive things from their graphics researchers... although given previous forrays into image editing (WMFs, Office anything, Imaging, Paint, FrontPage) all signs that MS may not be up to the task. But then you read the MS FontBlog, and you realise they have a genius group of typographic developers... that they don't seem to integrate into the product development as well as they should. MS word typesetting is still terrible.
As to if and when MS jumps into this arena? Apart from MS Excel and .NET, can you think of any MS app that has been developed to a 'pro' level? Nah, if they do come out with an actual product, it's gonna be aimed at the family digital camera users, and power-point executives, not publishing or pro graphics. No threat to anything other than iPhoto, and PSE.
Not to add that Adobe now sit pretty sweet: The CS2 suite has ALL the tools to get the job done. The workflow is all bundled, and all adobe. PS, InDesign (now that it's almost killed quark), Illustrator (No more freehand), and Acrobat. Just imagine if a new competitor came along and said "replace PS with our product". Well that'd mess up my nice and compatible adobe workflow. And I'd still buy Creative Suite for all the other pieces. That's why there is appeture. Photographers are the one market that'll buy photoshop, but nothing else in the suite.
-t
This is some of what they are working on. There are a couple of other things that I can't talk about right now.
http://www.microsoft.com/products/ex...n/default.mspx