- Last Active
My first Mac, a IIci, came with System 7.
When I hear people complain about the cost of Apple computers and devices today, I have to laugh. The cost of entry to become a desktop publisher in 1991:
Mac IIci: $4,095 (5MB RAM, 200MB hard drive)
Keytronic keyboard: $139
Microtek 600ZS color scanner: $1,469
Apple Laserwriter: $1,799
Ikegami 20" color monitor: $1,990
NET INVOICE $9,570
Now, keep in mind those were 1991 dollars…
I understand that this is a Pixelmator review and as such does not attempt to bring any other software into the conversation. HOWEVER, I wouldn't think of buying Pixelmator until working with the trial version of Affinity Photo. For those professionals, like myself, who have been held at gunpoint by Adobe far too long, Affinity software (both Photo and Designer) rides to the rescue. I'm not affiliated with Affinity but, boy, I would love to see greedy Adobe on the receiving end of karma.
The latest Mac OS update killed Photoshop for me (CS 6). Illustrator was painfully slow and wonky, as well. The new Affinity Photo and Designer apps for Mac, both v. 1.7, appear to be mature, well-thought-out alternatives to Greedy Adobe products. Affinity has them discounted right now for $40 each. Considering the quality of the software (in some cases with superior features to PS and AI), the price is a steal. FWIW, I'm a graphic designer and have used PS and AI since the early 90s. Is there a learning curve with the Affinity products? Absolutely. Their free video tutorials are outstanding, however, and help the process along. Yeah, it's equal parts invigorating and PITA, but ultimately worth it to give the one-finger salute to Adobe.
As a longtime graphic designer, I am keenly aware of issues related to company branding. Logo creation is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking. When a company's brand becomes associated with attributes such as success, quality goods and services, and strong reputation, defending that branding becomes critical both commercially and legally.Just as important, a fledgling company must create a brand that distinguishes it from others, regardless of how similar or dissimilar the companies may be. In its endeavor to stand apart, the nascent company must be free to adopt a compelling design while taking great care not to create confusion in the marketplace.In this case, I would say Apple is being heavy handed and not at all reasonable. Apple's case has nothing to do with the likelihood of product confusion or diminution of company value. It simply comes down to getting pissy simply because another company has dared to represent itself with a minimalist piece of fruit.I would love to see this dispute go to trial, with Apple being liable for Prepear's total accumulated legal expenses, plus some punitive damages.
fumi said:Lots of woke Snowflakes at Apple and all these tech companies. They need to see what other people have to endure to make a living.
I suppose this is what you get when a generation or two have been deprived of exposure to world history, not to mention the concept of gratitude.
"Instead of bringing a product called Windows 10X to market in 2021 like we originally intended, we are leveraging learnings from our journey thus far and accelerating the integration of key foundational 10X technology into other parts of Windows and products at the company…"
Where can I get me a gobbledegook dictionary?
Latko said:seanismorris said:This is just weird...
Apple must have to much money to know what to do with.
You can get classes at regular Apple Stores...
If you want to attract customers through education, why not give lectures at a university campus.