Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 74392 times)
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


« Reply #720 on: May 16, 2013, 05:38:40 PM »
ReplyReply

A tale comes to mind concerning footwear of an appropriate size and who may feel compelled to wear same.
Logged
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #721 on: May 16, 2013, 06:03:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Isaac, I'm not sure what your purpose is. 

Is it to remind people that capitalism is cruel and indifferent and that vendors can and do routinely break social compacts?  Is your point that wishing things to be otherwise is futile?  I think we all get that. 

The process being acted out here is a matter of social and moral regulation through dialectic.  Adobe stepped on our collective feet here and through socially coordinated action, there will be some consequences for their behavior.  Adobe's squandering of goodwill is something that will likely bear consequences for Adobe, and should serve as an object lesson for industry to study in the future. 

In the best of circumstances, we will be able to identify a new vendor and place our collective support behind the development of new and more capable tools that will serve our needs, and a new approach to customer relations that will engender the kind of goodwill that we depend upon for our day-to-day business affairs. 

If you need further therapy in this area, I'd suggest Strawson's "Freedom and Resentment." 
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #722 on: May 16, 2013, 06:21:02 PM »
ReplyReply

When all you've got is name-calling...

How strange that the Troll is always someone else ;-)
I don't throw the word lightly, but you wear it well.
Logged

Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


WWW
« Reply #723 on: May 16, 2013, 10:35:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Excellent summation, Luke.  I have no problem with the idea of debate, or with a spirited conversation, but when one party tries to dominate the dialogue with the same didactic response, repeated ad nauseam, it gets old fast.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2835


« Reply #724 on: May 17, 2013, 09:37:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Isaac, I'm not sure what your purpose is.

To learn what in this commentary is baseless gossip and what is sound information worthy of attention.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5951


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #725 on: May 17, 2013, 09:49:59 AM »
ReplyReply

To learn what in this commentary is baseless gossip and what is sound information worthy of attention.

And if you couldn't decide, by yourself and for yourself, which one is which after 37 pages, then only God could help you. Or Adobe.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2835


« Reply #726 on: May 17, 2013, 10:02:31 AM »
ReplyReply

And if you couldn't decide, by yourself and for yourself, ...

I'm willing to believe that others have better information than I do.

I'm willing to believe there was something I misunderstood and others understood.

So far it just seems that I expected less. When I pay to see a movie performance, I don't imagine that I have formed a relationship with the leading actress :-)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 10:21:49 AM by Isaac » Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 285


WWW
« Reply #727 on: May 17, 2013, 10:56:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I think this has been at least mentioned before and I thought it worth elaborating upon a little. Photoshop is a very mature product, and it may be that there isn't a lot left to improve about it or add to it. Certainly there are small improvements to be made and maybe a few more "wow" features could be dreamed up, but are there enough such things to keep people upgrading for, say, five more upgrade cycles? When the answer is "no" many products go into a maintenance mode, receiving updates only for new operating system requirements and security threats. The subscription model keeps a big stream of revenue flowing regardless of what Adobe does in the way of improvements, while removing much of the incentive for Adobe to come up with such improvements. Those who want or need to keep using their PSD files will eventually subscribe just in order to maintain compatibility with future operating systems and hardware even if Adobe makes no improvements at all.

This is at least food for thought. If it's true what's happening makes more sense.
Logged

- Dean
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2805



WWW
« Reply #728 on: May 17, 2013, 10:57:28 AM »
ReplyReply

When I pay to see a movie performance, I don't imagine that I have formed a relationship with the leading actress :-)
So you were only brushing away popcorn when they threw you out of the movie theatre?
Logged

Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


WWW
« Reply #729 on: May 17, 2013, 12:41:00 PM »
ReplyReply

So you were only brushing away popcorn when they threw you out of the movie theatre?

Now that is funny! Cheesy Cheesy
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164



WWW
« Reply #730 on: May 17, 2013, 12:55:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone actually signed up with the CC service here?

Well I sort of inadvertently ended up signing up, entering my date of birth and agreeing to Adobe marketing by phone, mail or email just trying to download the trial version of CS6 after discovering my options with LR4 due to no other download options available on Adobe's site.

Now I have a new app on my system called AAM (Adobe Application Manager) permanently on my Mac system which now controls BOTH CC subscription apps (I'm not using) and perpetual licenses of existing Adobe apps.

I found the link below to an Adobe forum discussion about issues with this AAM answered by an Adobe Staff member and it doesn't look good for those who have perpetual licenses with regard to removing AAM from the system if you use Adobe apps...

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4719208

The reason I'm posting is that the downloading interface has changed where you can't see the size and length of time of the download within the AAM. There's no instructions for what you're getting into. You just end up going headlong into the download sequence one step at a time. By the time you find out what you've done the AAM is on your system. I found out by accident the download size is listed in your "Signed In" Adobe "My Account" dropdown menu within the CC app web page. Very Google-ish way of doing things.

I had to stop the download because it was taking WAY TOO long. CS6 is a 2GB download just to try it out.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 12:58:07 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #731 on: May 17, 2013, 01:15:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Stuff that obviously isn't ready for prime time. One would have thought with these massive changes taking place the senior management of the company would have insisted that EVERYTHING to do with download management, licensing and installation would be working flawlessly before publishing. One can imagine, a huge task given the number of applications, permutations and combinations of customer choices, customer computing environments, etc., but they did bring all this on themselves. Perhaps one reaches a point where the KISS principle becomes inoperative; one wonders.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #732 on: May 17, 2013, 01:26:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Has anyone actually signed up with the CC service here?

Well I sort of inadvertently ended up signing up, entering my date of birth and agreeing to Adobe marketing by phone, mail or email just trying to download the trial version of CS6 after discovering my options with LR4 due to no other download options available on Adobe's site.

Now I have a new app on my system called AAM (Adobe Application Manager) permanently on my Mac system which now controls BOTH CC subscription apps (I'm not using) and perpetual licenses of existing Adobe apps.


I actually signed up for a CC app -- Muse. I had it as a beta and first release. Decided to see what it would be like if I "rented" the software for a year, since my .muse files I'd created would obviously not open. A slight disaster -- not straight forward signing up. It took about 15-20 minutes to sort thought everything and --finally -- download. Except that the download "appeared" to take 24-hours! The program never said complete", finished" or anything, just some silly bars continually filling. The next morning I quit the download/installation. The program asked, "Are you sure". Bloody well right I'm sure. Then I double-clicked the program icon, and it did launch the latest version. Stupid, frigging stupid is all I can say. As someone said, this is the wonderfulness of cloud softaware. Adobe needs it's act together before forcing everyone into their footsteps. Muse is a decent program, though limited. I have two other programs that do the job about as well.

Nemo
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #733 on: May 17, 2013, 01:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm willing to believe that others have better information than I do.

I'm willing to believe there was something I misunderstood and others understood.

So far it just seems that I expected less. When I pay to see a movie performance, I don't imagine that I have formed a relationship with the leading actress :-)

Adobe wants you to think they are the prima-donna.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Adobe was never more vulnerable to people like us.  Pay attention to the man behind the curtain, and the illusion of authority.

While you might give others the benefit of the doubt, as often as not, they are wrong, and banking on your willingness to invest false trust in their authority.
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #734 on: May 17, 2013, 02:00:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this has been at least mentioned before and I thought it worth elaborating upon a little. Photoshop is a very mature product, and it may be that there isn't a lot left to improve about it or add to it. Certainly there are small improvements to be made and maybe a few more "wow" features could be dreamed up, but are there enough such things to keep people upgrading for, say, five more upgrade cycles? When the answer is "no" many products go into a maintenance mode, receiving updates only for new operating system requirements and security threats. The subscription model keeps a big stream of revenue flowing regardless of what Adobe does in the way of improvements, while removing much of the incentive for Adobe to come up with such improvements. Those who want or need to keep using their PSD files will eventually subscribe just in order to maintain compatibility with future operating systems and hardware even if Adobe makes no improvements at all.

This is at least food for thought. If it's true what's happening makes more sense.

This is an important point.  Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense.  All that is left for Adobe is to keep manipulating the market to generate ongoing dependency.  In reality, the market is ripe for disruption, as ripe as it will ever be.
Logged

Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 796



WWW
« Reply #735 on: May 17, 2013, 02:06:13 PM »
ReplyReply

After almost three days the Adobe Cloud service is still not 100% functional. Unbelievable.

http://status.creativecloud.com/
Logged

~ CB
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #736 on: May 17, 2013, 02:12:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense. 

This is a very broad, sweeping, unsupported swipe at one of the deepest and most sophisticated imaging applications ever devised by mankind. Could you please substantiate what you are saying? And who is providing equivalent functionality in a manner that is less "obsolete"? Note that I do not work for Adobe, I have no particular relationship with Adobe except as a user of their software, but when I see comments of this ilk it leaves me kind of breathless.

Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5951


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #737 on: May 17, 2013, 02:37:34 PM »
ReplyReply

...Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense...

-1
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 831


« Reply #738 on: May 17, 2013, 02:44:55 PM »
ReplyReply

This is a very broad, sweeping, unsupported swipe at one of the deepest and most sophisticated imaging applications ever devised by mankind. Could you please substantiate what you are saying? And who is providing equivalent functionality in a manner that is less "obsolete"? Note that I do not work for Adobe, I have no particular relationship with Adobe except as a user of their software, but when I see comments of this ilk it leaves me kind of breathless.

While I might think your assessment was at least as sweeping as mine, I agree your question deserves an answer.

Photoshop uses a one-dimensional dataflow architecture known as "layers" -- perhaps one and a half dimensions when you count things like masks.  Compare this with an N-dimensional dataflow architecture such as Nuke.  Compare with respect to a common task, such as compositing.

Compositing is inherently an N-dimensional process.  Several sources, each processed differently, must be brought together into one image, with integration occurring potentially at different stages in processing for each source.  

- In photoshop, it is necessary to "bake in" intermediate results in order to align them to a one-dimensional flow.  There is no going back to revise parts of your composited image, all of which might have required extensive independent treatments, as well as a level of /coordination/.  

- In Nuke, as with any N-dimensional dataflow (or "node based" editing if you prefer), it is possible to do several things:

(1) You can import and/or retain the entire processing history of the multiple sources and revise at will at late stages in the project.
(2) One source file can be used in multiple stages of the dataflow for entirely different purposes without duplication or baking in.

- Using an N-dimensional dataflow machine, you can devise many different kinds of user interfaces at the level above, and that includes a photoshop compatibility layer, as well as other things for various different purposes.

- In photoshop, several hacks have been devised in order to accommodate different needs, such as "Apply Image..." which is completely unnecessary in an N-dimensional dataflow architecture.  

And that's just a start.  Thanks for the question though.  I'm thinking of teaching a course on this over the summer.  It's a timely topic.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #739 on: May 17, 2013, 03:05:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Nuke is a compositing application for the film industry. Not clear to me whether you're comparing apples with apples. Is it truly appropriate to cherry-pick technologies developed for different purposes and then dump on Photoshop for not using them? A whole architecture and structure of a multi-purpose application is at play, so I wonder about that - I have no reason to say you are incorrect, but I wonder.

Are you so sure an "N-dimensional data workflow" would work in Photoshop? I'd like to hear from the professional digital imaging engineers on that one, because somehow I would think if this were so much better, those guys at Adobe would have been on top of it long ago.

I also don't understand why you say that anything needs to be "baked-in" when compositing with Photoshop. Everything can be done with layers and adjustment layers and people who know what they are about in that application can reverse anything they do. Have you every since how Bert Monroy, perhaps one of the great masters of all compositors, uses Photoshop? There is quite an education there about intricate, reversible workflows.

And yes, my statement about Photoshop may have been a bit *sweeping*, but find me another comparably-purposed application that does all what Photoshop does, and as well, and I'll take it back.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad