MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   MacNN Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/macnn-lounge/)
-   -   RIP Creative Suite (http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lounge/500407/rip-creative-suite/)

 
Thorzdad May 7, 2013 08:26 AM
RIP Creative Suite
It's official.
What a lot of us feared has been made real. CS6 will be the last stand-alone, buy-it-and-you-own-it package of Adobe apps. Adobe is switching to its Creative Cloud monthly-rental scheme from this point forward. There will be no CS7.
 
The Final Dakar May 7, 2013 09:07 AM
You should put this in the lounge.

I really don't like this market desire to get everything on a subscription model.
 
Doc HM May 7, 2013 09:41 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4229413)
You should put this in the lounge.

I really don't like this market desire to get everything on a subscription model.
You may not but sure as damn Adobe does.

PS is the most pirated software on the planet (apparently) and Adobe want that ended.

Luckily (as is oft pointed out on here) it's a free market and any other developer is more than welcome to step up and fill the gap, as long as they feel enough people won't want to subscribe to CC.

It's not as if your copy of CS4,5 or 6 will be stopping working any time soon (unless you need CameraRAW I guess) but I do fear for my CS3 suit, but that will be death from Apple not Adobe. IMHO Illustrator bit seriously jumped the shark after CS3
 
ajprice May 7, 2013 10:13 AM
I don't like the idea of having to pay per app or for everything. CS has different packages for design, web, production etc. Why can't there be a standard Cloud that gets you Indesign/Photoshop/Illustrator/Acrobat, then a Web Cloud package that adds Dreamweaver/Flash/Fireworks or a Production Cloud package that adds After Effects and Premiere etc. And not have to pay the full whack for everything when you're never going to use half of it.
 
The Final Dakar May 7, 2013 10:20 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Doc HM (Post 4229421)
You may not but sure as damn Adobe does.
No shit, Sherlock.

Quote, Originally Posted by Doc HM (Post 4229421)
PS is the most pirated software on the planet (apparently) and Adobe want that ended.
By whom, though? A bunch of high school and college students who pirate it aren't actually hurting Adobes bottom line.

Quote, Originally Posted by Doc HM (Post 4229421)
Luckily (as is oft pointed out on here) it's a free market and any other developer is more than welcome to step up and fill the gap, as long as they feel enough people won't want to subscribe to CC.
It was a free market with Windows in the 90s. It's stature and entrenchment within the industry made it an impossible nut to crack, however.
 
The Final Dakar May 7, 2013 10:27 AM
I imagine they'll keep stuff like PS Elements alive for the nonprofessionals and people who can't afford to shell out $50 a month for something they use a handful of times.
 
ort888 May 7, 2013 10:34 AM
This is really annoying for a lot of reasons.

We have about 10 licenses for the Creative Suite and we update about every 3 years. At 1300 a pop that's about 13,000 bucks every three years. 10 users at $50 bucks a month for 3 years is $18,000.

Sure, we're getting new versions of the software more often, but for the most part, you really don't need to be updating this stuff yearly. Usually updating causes more problems than it solves.

And this really screws the guy who wants Photoshop, but only needs it once or twice a month. In the past, you could pay a couple hundred bucks and have photoshop for years and years and not worry about it. Now it's going to be $50 bucks a month? What casual user is going to sign up for that?
 
andi*pandi May 7, 2013 10:37 AM
Casual users will make do with older software, or other software. there's a bunch of apps in the app store for light photo editing.

It sucks. No one was buying the cloud so they will force it on us. You'd need an always on internet to use the apps. I hate that idea.

As long as CS6 works we'll keep with it then. How long til it is incompatible with OSX?
 
The Final Dakar May 7, 2013 10:46 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by ort888 (Post 4229434)
We have about 10 licenses for the Creative Suite and we update about every 3 years. At 1300 a pop that's about 13,000 bucks every three years. 10 users at $50 bucks a month for 3 years is $18,000.
Which I think is the point. Much like OS X and other software, people only update when they feel a compelling reason or are forced to by circumstance. Given the diminishing need to thanks to lack of new features and general polish, this new strategy circumvents the problem.

Quote, Originally Posted by ort888 (Post 4229434)
And this really screws the guy who wants Photoshop, but only needs it once or twice a month. In the past, you could pay a couple hundred bucks and have photoshop for years and years and not worry about it. Now it's going to be $50 bucks a month? What casual user is going to sign up for that?
That's what I'm saying.


Quote, Originally Posted by andi*pandi (Post 4229437)
It sucks. No one was buying the cloud so they will force it on us. You'd need an always on internet to use the apps. I hate that idea.
Is that for certain? I could see it only requiring daily or weekly online certification to run.
 
andi*pandi May 7, 2013 10:52 AM
but that means I won't be able to use Indesign CC to create my manifesto posters from within my underground off-the-grid concrete bunker.
 
Doc HM May 7, 2013 11:06 AM
from what I gather you can sign up for CC and you get some limited stuff for free (but not any of the CC apps) however if you stop paying for PS, AI etc then your apps just stop working. If you start paying again six months down the line they start working again, so actually, ideal for the casual user.

Also, yes it is supposed to work without a live internet connection. It only verifies every so often (not sure how often but often enough that you can use it on the train , or way from your desk)
 
Phileas May 7, 2013 11:23 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by andi*pandi (Post 4229437)
No one was buying the cloud so they will force it on us.
Hate to disagree, but not really. One of the reasons they got the confidence to go ahead with this is that the uptake has been exceeding expectations - according to Adobe, of course.

We switched over as soon as we got the invite and I am happy with the result. It works really well. We have one license power different apps installed on different computers.

Also, you only need to verify account ownership once every six months - everything works just fine offline. You don't need to be online for the apps to work.
 
ort888 May 7, 2013 11:24 AM
I think I read that it checks once a month. Not 100% on that.
 
Phileas May 7, 2013 11:28 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by ort888 (Post 4229455)
I think I read that it checks once a month. Not 100% on that.
You can use the product for 180 days offline.
Adobe Creative Cloud – FAQ
 
subego May 7, 2013 11:41 AM
As a consumer user, this would suck. As a business user, $600 a year to keep my main axe polished is fine.
 
exca1ibur May 7, 2013 12:14 PM
I don't care for this subscription sh*t, I got enough monthly bills as it is. Time to get my Pixelmator skills up to par.
 
subego May 8, 2013 07:00 AM
I think the biggest hit Adobe is going to take are from people who would have pirated it when they were broke, and bought it when their skills with the pirated software earns them a job.

Free CS2 will help, but not as much as pirates did.
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 07:36 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by exca1ibur (Post 4229473)
I don't care for this subscription sh*t, I got enough monthly bills as it is. Time to get my Pixelmator skills up to par.
I hear good things about Acorn.
 
shifuimam May 8, 2013 01:03 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4229641)
I think the biggest hit Adobe is going to take are from people who would have pirated it when they were broke, and bought it when their skills with the pirated software earns them a job.
This right here.

I feel as though companies like Adobe and EA are so far removed from what customers actually want and need that they're just making various decisions based on nothing more than bottom lines and maximizing revenue.

I get that they're businesses, so of course that's what they care about most. However, with this change, it's possible and maybe even likely that more people are going to move away from Photoshop toward other options. If businesses start showing interest in The GIMP (like what has happened with both Firefox and Ubuntu), it could very easily become a usable consumer replacement for Photoshop.

Right now, the biggest reason why I don't use the GIMP isn't because it lacks features. In fact, it seems like it can do everything Photoshop can do. The problems are that (a) it's unstable in Windows, and (b) it kills my productivity because none of the Photoshop shortcuts I use (keyboard and otherwise) work. If GIMP can get past those flaws, it could be a serious competitor for Photoshop.

I also don't see how you can pay for a month, stop paying, then pick up again later. All the plans listed on Adobe's website appear to require a one-year contract.
 
Thorzdad May 8, 2013 01:28 PM
The GIMP is a non-starter due to its lack of CMYK. It's a good tool if all you ever do is web work, but most professional designers are still doing a great deal of print, and need CMYK.
 
shifuimam May 8, 2013 02:01 PM
I guess one of the things I'm getting at is that if Photoshop starts slipping as the has-no-competition only option for professionals, the GIMP or other software like it can focus on being actual competition for Photoshop.

That's pretty much what happened with Ubuntu. That project turned Linux from a hobbyist OS for nerds into something that anyone can install and start using with minimal effort or research.
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 02:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by shifuimam (Post 4229692)
That's pretty much what happened with Ubuntu. That project turned Linux from a hobbyist OS for nerds into something that anyone can install and start using with minimal effort or research.
Except virtually nobody actually does, though, do they?

The only people I know who run Ubuntu are those who never had trouble running any other Linux distro, anyway.

Or have the usage stats changes lately?
 
ajprice May 8, 2013 02:22 PM
The site where I read it is down at the moment, but Fireworks won't be in CC. There's a petition for Adobe to make it open source so that it can continue to be developed by others.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 04:39 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4229694)
Except virtually nobody actually does, though, do they?

The only people I know who run Ubuntu are those who never had trouble running any other Linux distro, anyway.

Or have the usage stats changes lately?

Things can change quickly with the right circumstances though. Look at how quickly Android surpassed iOS.
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 05:17 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4229725)
Things can change quickly with the right circumstances though. Look at how quickly Android surpassed iOS.
Android did not take over a market that belonged to iOS; it and iOS together took over a market that belonged to traditional cellphones.

This was a fundamental shift in one of the biggest technology markets, and Android made it possible for key industry players to build products for the new market with a minimum of effort.

There is no such shift here.

Note that I'm not saying that it isn't possible that people might finally hunker down and turn GIMP into a usable industry tool; I'm just saying that claiming that this is likely because it's happened before is invalid, because in the one example, it didn't happen, and in yours, that's not what happened.
 
Thorzdad May 8, 2013 05:36 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty confident in predicting there won't be a massive wave of creative professionals installing any flavor of Linux any time in the near future.

On another board I frequent, in the discussion of this move by Adobe, we of the creative caste were read the riot act by FOSS acolytes over the whole GIMP/CMYK thing. Their opinion was that we should all learn to code and then join the team and write CMYK into GIMP. That, or donate buckets of cash in the hope that someday, someone might write CMYK into GIMP.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 05:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4229729)
Android did not take over a market that belonged to iOS; it and iOS together took over a market that belonged to traditional cellphones.

This was a fundamental shift in one of the biggest technology markets, and Android made it possible for key industry players to build products for the new market with a minimum of effort.

There is no such shift here.

Note that I'm not saying that it isn't possible that people might finally hunker down and turn GIMP into a usable industry tool; I'm just saying that claiming that this is likely because it's happened before is invalid, because in the one example, it didn't happen, and in yours, that's not what happened.

They didn't take it over, they redefined it, they changed its scope, and their vision "won" in terms of total penetration.

It's all about the opportunity that exists, the vision, and the execution and negotiation of politics. Could somebody stick a fork into Adobe using the GIMP? Sure... Why not? Many people used to say that normal people would never use a Linux derived product, but they are now with the Android phones and the myriad of cloud services that run on Linux.

Just about any tech product can be transformed into something that eventually dominates the market with the right strategy and resources.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 05:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Thorzdad (Post 4229734)
Yeah, I'm pretty confident in predicting there won't be a massive wave of creative professionals installing any flavor of Linux any time in the near future.

On another board I frequent, in the discussion of this move by Adobe, we of the creative caste were read the riot act by FOSS acolytes over the whole GIMP/CMYK thing. Their opinion was that we should all learn to code and then join the team and write CMYK into GIMP. That, or donate buckets of cash in the hope that someday, someone might write CMYK into GIMP.

Why would they have to install Linux to run GIMP?
 
Thorzdad May 8, 2013 05:50 PM
You brought up installing Linux.
Obviously, they wouldn't need to, but I couldn't think of any other reason Adobe-using pros would install Linux.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 05:51 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Thorzdad (Post 4229740)
You brought up installing Linux.
Obviously, they wouldn't need to, but I couldn't think of any other reason Adobe-using pros would install Linux.

No I didn't. The first thing I wrote to this thread was "Things can change quickly with the right circumstances though. Look at how quickly Android surpassed iOS."
 
Thorzdad May 8, 2013 05:59 PM
I took your comment in relation to SH's assertion about few people running Linux. Your comment seemed to imply that this could change very quickly. I disagree.

You're right you didn't bring up Linux. My bad.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 06:06 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Thorzdad (Post 4229743)
I took your comment in relation to SH's assertion about few people running Linux. Your comment seemed to imply that this could change very quickly. I disagree.

You're right you didn't bring up Linux. My bad.

Desktop Linux as we know it today has no future, but I also think it is wrong to look at it this way.

There is no "Linux Desktop", Linux is a kernel coupled with a bunch of components. Many people erroneously think that an operating system is its GUI, which is debatable. If such an opportunity existed, any company could build their own OS off of Linux using a GUI unlike anything that has been seen before, and with the right strategy it could very well succeed. That's why I qualify what I say with "as we know it today".

For example, I've said this a bazillion times, but I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility for Google to develop a version of Android for the Desktop. I know they sort of have this with Chrome OS, but I'm talking about more of an Android-derived/inspired port for the Desktop - sort of the reverse of iOS's OS X lineage. I don't know if Google would ever do this, but it would be foolish to say that this would be impossible and that this could never succeed.

If it did, if it remained running on a Linux kernel could you say that it is Linux? Maybe... Is an OS its kernel? Its GUI? If the latter, like I said, there is no Linux GUI.
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 06:22 PM
Quite possibly.

Shif was saying that Ubuntu "turned Linux from a hobbyist OS for nerds into something that anyone can install and start using with minimal effort or research".

My impression is that Ubuntu is a hobbyist OS for nerds.

Sure Google could create an Android- (and thus Linux-)derived OS for "traditional" computers. But given the raving success of their own Chrome OS and the shrinking "traditional" market, isn't it more sensible to concede that market to Microsoft and Apple and concentrate on the future?


To steer this back on topic once again, I think it's quite possible that there is actual interest for people to code vital features into GIMP now.

But the people who need it aren't going to be the ones coding or funding coders, and the ones coding aren't those in need of features such as CMYK, or clean-cut workflows.

I've seen calculations that imply that the new subscription model works out equivalent or cheaper for professional production outfits, so what's going to die is the hobbyist and "prosumer" (I hate that word) Photoshoppers, as well as those using various Adobe tools occasionally, while not actually using most of the functions. Those will be looking at alternatives.

But will they be driving GIMP development?
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 06:29 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4229751)
Quite possibly.

Shif was saying that Ubuntu "turned Linux from a hobbyist OS for nerds into something that anyone can install and start using with minimal effort or research".

My impression is that Ubuntu is a hobbyist OS for nerds.
I would disagree with Shif that Ubuntu is suitable for the mainstream.

Quote
To steer this back on topic once again, I think it's quite possible that there is actual interest for people to code vital features into GIMP now.

But the people who need it aren't going to be the ones coding or funding coders, and the ones coding aren't those in need of features such as CMYK, or clean-cut workflows.

I've seen calculations that imply that the new subscription model works out equivalent or cheaper for professional production outfits, so what's going to die is the hobbyist and "prosumer" (I hate that word) Photoshoppers, as well as those using various Adobe tools occasionally, while not actually using most of the functions. Those will be looking at alternatives.

But will they be driving GIMP development?

What if Google was interested in making a Google web app out of GIMP derived code, or some company wanted to make a Photoshop clone for iOS or Android using GIMP derived code? If there is money to be had, somebody will eventually at least try to follow that money trail, and they may succeed at it.

It might be more technically accurate to call that product something other than the GIMP if it is a commercial fork of it, but if the product is 80 or 90% GIMP stuff and 10% proprietary stuff, it still is basically the GIMP.
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 06:34 PM
We can all assume that Google would develop it, get a bunch of hobbyists and prosumers dependent upon it, and then decide three years down the road that it wasn't generating any core revenue streams and kill it with two weeks' notice.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 06:36 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4229754)
We can all assume that Google would develop it, get a bunch of hobbyists and prosumers dependent upon it, and then decide three years down the road that it wasn't generating any core revenue streams and kill it with two weeks' notice.
Google Drive/Apps has been around for a long time, it seems to be doing just fine. Why do you speak of them so dismissively? There are a *ton* of people dependent on the Google Drive suite (which GMail is a part of). If Google Drive is hobbyist/prosumer, what does that make iCloud?
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 06:41 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4229755)
Google Drive/Apps has been around for a long time, it seems to be doing just fine. Why do you speak of them so dismissively? There are a *ton* of people dependent on the Google Drive suite (which GMail is a part of). If Google Drive is hobbyist/prosumer, what does that make iCloud?
*ahem*
Google Keep? It'll probably be with us until March 2017 - on average | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Did you miss the Google Reader shutdown and hoo-hah that ensued?
Sure you can pick out a single service that happens to still be around.

(also, has anyone argued that iCloud is anything but a consumer service? They can't even make real sense of Photo Stream device syncing! Thankfully, they're not marketing iCloud as anything other than a consumer service.)
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 06:49 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot (Post 4229756)
*ahem*
Google Keep? It'll probably be with us until March 2017 - on average | Technology | guardian.co.uk

Did you miss the Google Reader shutdown and hoo-hah that ensued?
Sure you can pick out a single service that happens to still be around.

(also, has anyone argued that iCloud is anything but a consumer service? They can't even make real sense of Photo Stream device syncing! Thankfully, they're not marketing iCloud as anything other than a consumer service.)

I guess I don't understand your point.

Apple has killed things off too either directly or indirectly. Is your point that Google is more prone to kill off things? You could make that argument, but this is generally only with products that do not make money. Google Drive is not just some random experimental product, it is probably Google's #2 source of revenue. This whole discussion is built around the notion that the company that builds this product will do a good job at executing and it will make money. If you want to argue that Google cannot make money with this product, fair enough, but there is no way to rationalize that they'll kill off a money making product for the fun of it.

Besides, in this particular instance would it be a disaster if this product only lasts for 5 years? What is the alternative? Do you see Adobe lasting 5 years benefiting solely from the profits of CS? I kind of have a hard time seeing that, my point being that the future of this part of the market is rather murky now anyway for a number of reasons (one of them being whether an iPad version of Photoshop would ever be a thing).

Moreover, when and if the death of this Google thing happens, I'm sure those files will be openable in some other product, and people will just switch to that new thing. People are capable of changing, as tricky as it is.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 06:53 PM
If people based their decisions on what might not be around 5 years from now, why have these free email services flourished? Switching email is a PITA.
 
besson3c May 8, 2013 06:59 PM
SH, maybe I'm misunderstanding you...

Is your argument not that a product like I'm describing couldn't succeed, but as an analyst you wouldn't see it lasting for very long? If so, I'd like to hear why... I'm honestly undecided on whether the idea would work out in the long run, my main point is that it simply isn't impossible for something like this to happen and for there to be a successful outcome. Perhaps we agree on that?
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 07:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4229757)
I guess I don't understand your point.

Apple has killed things off too either directly or indirectly. Is your point that Google is more prone to kill off things? You could make that argument, but this is generally only with products that do not make money. Google Drive is not just some random experimental product, it is probably Google's #2 source of revenue. This whole discussion is built around the notion that the company that builds this product will do a good job at executing and it will make money. If you want to argue that Google cannot make money with this product, fair enough, but there is no way to rationalize that they'll kill off a money making product for the fun of it.
We are not talking about Google Drive.

We are talking about taking an existing mess of functionality and horrific interface and turning it into an industry-grade professional tool, and then possibly selling it AS A SERVICE (because Google doesn't sell products) to what amounts to ambitioned hobbyists and occasional professionals.

OF COURSE we can postulate that Google could kill this service at any time even if it were making money. It would simply need to not make ENOUGH money, or it might at some point be deemed to not align with the brand identity or its core interests. They do it all the time, after an average of four years (as per the link I posted above). Check out the list of dead services at the end of this link: List of Google products - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare this to Adobe. Yes, Fireworks appears to have been cancelled. But the basic stuff isn't just another service that they're offering on top of 46 other, completely unrelated services, for the hell of it: It's been their core business ever since the company has existed.

Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4229757)
Besides, in this particular instance would it be a disaster if this product only lasts for 5 years? What is the alternative? Do you see Adobe lasting 5 years benefiting solely from the profits of CS? I kind of have a hard time seeing that, my point being that the future of this part of the market is rather murky now anyway for a number of reasons (one of them being whether an iPad version of Photoshop would ever be a thing).
Seriously?

Adobe has spent the past 25 years making themselves inescapable, eliminating competition and becoming effectively an industry monopoly that has whole markets completely by the balls, and you see them not lasting five years on that?

Even if Google were to pick up GIMP and run with it (why on earth would they? how is this relevant to their interests? This sounds a lot like "Apple should by Adobe because, um, they can. And secure a market, or something.") it would take years for them to get it up to snuff.

In the meantime, the hobbyists and prosumers can use the Google solution until it no longer sucks, but Google is supposed to somehow make money off them. How?

Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4229757)
Moreover, when and if the death of this Google thing happens, I'm sure those files will be openable in some other product, and people will just switch to that new thing. People are capable of changing, as tricky as it is.
"Some other product" presumably being an Adobe product, leaving everybody exactly where they started, except with five years' worth of growing pains, incomplete products, and stress.
 
Spheric Harlot May 8, 2013 07:36 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4229758)
If people based their decisions on what might not be around 5 years from now, why have these free email services flourished? Switching email is a PITA.
Free email services have a viable business model. Gmail's, for example, is perfectly aligned with the absolute core of Google's business.

But that really isn't relevant to the discussion at hand, especially since e-mail is much less important in day-to-day communication, having been supplanted by chat and facebook messaging.
 
PB2K May 9, 2013 03:16 AM
I need adobe acrobat 11 (st/pro) to sign documents, i considered docusign as it seems cheaper.. but then I see docusigns license model, which is 20$ a month per user. Which is awkward enough not to buy it.
So i will buy acrobat 11 standard (275$) until i have a need for professional, then i upgrade for 300$ more.
 
ajprice May 9, 2013 04:01 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by ajprice (Post 4229696)
The site where I read it is down at the moment, but Fireworks won't be in CC. There's a petition for Adobe to make it open source so that it can continue to be developed by others.
Fireworks petition: Petition calls on Adobe to open-source Fireworks | Adobe | Creative Bloq
 
subego May 9, 2013 11:34 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by PB2K (Post 4229806)
I need adobe acrobat 11 (st/pro) to sign documents, i considered docusign as it seems cheaper.. but then I see docusigns license model, which is 20$ a month per user. Which is awkward enough not to buy it.
So i will buy acrobat 11 standard (275$) until i have a need for professional, then i upgrade for 300$ more.
PDFPen? I own it. It's good shit.

PDFpen: Mac PDF Editor - Edit, Sign, and Correct PDFs
 
Doc HM May 9, 2013 02:48 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ajprice (Post 4229807)
Oh yes. Why not ask the Freehand guys how they made out with their petition.

Adobe isn't listening/interested
 
P May 9, 2013 03:05 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Thorzdad (Post 4229734)
On another board I frequent, in the discussion of this move by Adobe, we of the creative caste were read the riot act by FOSS acolytes over the whole GIMP/CMYK thing. Their opinion was that we should all learn to code and then join the team and write CMYK into GIMP. That, or donate buckets of cash in the hope that someday, someone might write CMYK into GIMP.
This attitude is why FOSS still hasn't made any inroads on the desktop.
 
Phileas May 9, 2013 03:14 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4229859)
PDFPen? I own it. It's good shit.

PDFpen: Mac PDF Editor - Edit, Sign, and Correct PDFs
There's an iPad app that does that for free. Not saying PDFPen isn't good, just that signing pdfs isn't a big issue anymore.
 
Phileas May 9, 2013 03:20 PM
GIMP is going nowhere. Pixelmator on the other hand, and similar offerings, already do what 90% of all casual users need to do. For $14.99.
I'd wager that for those who really NEED Adobe's big guns, price is not an issue.
 
Phileas May 9, 2013 03:22 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4229755)
Google Drive/Apps has been around for a long time, it seems to be doing just fine. Why do you speak of them so dismissively? There are a *ton* of people dependent on the Google Drive suite (which GMail is a part of). If Google Drive is hobbyist/prosumer, what does that make iCloud?
If you trust google to supply mission critical services then you're making a huge mistake. With google you never know what offering will fall out of favour next.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2