cgWerks

StrangeDays said:
Yeah except not really. They said they didn’t set out to make a cylinder and that it was the result of their functional design. They bet on parallel processing with dual GPUs and it didn’t pan out, industry didn’t go that way. That’s not ridiculous, that’s just what happens sometimes when you’re taking risks and doing things other people aren’t doing. Try it sometime. 

But, what possessed them to head that direction in the first place? They could have achieved the same goal in the 'cheese-grater' form factor without the downsides. The high end pros who complained the loudest don't need a small cylinder that looks fancy on their desks. The parallel processing GPU thing seems more like an after-thought excuse. Any pros I know either replace machines or upgrade GPUs. Even if the industry had gone that direction, it isn't like this was some kind of optimal machine to fit that situation.

It's a cool machine for someone like me. In fact if it were updated, I'd easily buy it over the iMac Pro. The problem wasn't that it failed to be cool and forward-thinking in some ways, etc. (TB2 to move things external, though a generation, at least, ahead of doing that well.) The failure was that it didn't match the wants/needs of the target customer.

Certainly the 2013 Mac Pro isn't a great deal anymore, even with the reduced pricing... especially for the higher cost models. Unless you don't want the single-use-display, you'd be nuts to buy a Mac Pro that costs the same or more as the iMac Pro. But, given that I've seen some refurb 4-core Mac Pros for as little as $1500 and 6-core starting around $2000... I wonder how those would compare if costs were considered? (i.e.: is the iMac Pro 3x the machine for 3x the price?)

I think the big things in Photoshop's camp are industry compatibility and all the various templates and such on the market (ex: Smart Objects). That kind of goes for the whole Adobe suite. If you want a job, you probably have to learn/use Adobe.

But, I wonder if that weren't the case, if many would use Adobe's stuff over some of these very powerful apps in each category? For example, if you built a toolkit with Pixelmator Pro, Final Cut Pro, Logic, etc. I'd think you would have a better toolset, you just wouldn't have compatibility and industry credentials.

It's been a similar story in CAD/3D, where I was using apps that allowed me to run circles around the AutoCAD people, but isn't as great on the resume or for file exchange.

StrangeDays said:
Further, you’re waging a lost battle.

Yes, yes, we realize that those of us with good taste in UI and design have lost the battle, blah, blah, blah. Does that mean we have to stop complaining? Just give in and accept the new mediocracy?

MicDorsey said:

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.

It would be neat to see a good comparison between Pixelmator Pro and Affinity Photo (and eventually Designer too if the Pixelmator folks get vectors going).

He's probably off to bigger things, full-time...
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

One thing to keep in mind in this debate, is that the policy was never law. So, if it had any impact, it just kept the telecoms scared that it might someday.
cf. 10m20s in https://congressionaldish.com/net-neutrality/

Soli said:
But that does affect users. It means that the costs are passed onto the users from Apple (an overall minor issue), and it means that corporations, like Apple, can afford to ink deals that push their services ahead of others, as well as squash smaller competitors (major issue for the free market).

I think we need some form of net neutrality (the principal), but w/o the baggage. But, first, we need to get control of our government so we can keep them from doing worse than the corporations. Also, whatever form it takes, it will have to include some kind of common-sense aspect. For example, companies like Netflix and Apple can afford and currently put systems in place that give them unfair advantages to any competing service I might want to startup. All content hasn't been treated equally for a long time.

To me, it's more about evaluating any collusion between a content producer and the distribution network. A content producer cutting some kind of deal with a particular content distribution mechanism is problematic. For example, if Disney wants to implement some kind of localized caching boxes to speed delivery of their content, they can't do so only with Comcast, or stuff like that.