Messages - vlastimil [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 62next
16
Perhaps we are concentrating too much on the present. The difference between the Adobe cloud solution and the classic boxed program is not so big now, but it may increase in the future. The subscription model will actually enable Adobe to be more flexible and lower development costs.

For example, they do not need to worry too much about backward compatibility, because paying users always have the latest version. New PSD files may be saved in compatibility mode so that they can be open in older Photoshops. Since there will not be older Photoshops (that matter) in a few years, backward compatibility won't be an issue for Adobe anymore.

A cloud solution also allows Adobe to be closer to the customers. Users will not have an option to not upgrade anymore and they will be forced to learn new things (and get feedback to Adobe). This may seem like a bad thing, but it is not. A community of users, who are frozen and refuse to learn anything new, is a big obstacle of innovation and is probably holding Adobe back right now.

17
A cloud solution has its benefits, especially when you are working on the same project from multiple devices or when multiple people must cooperate. But a cloud owned and managed by one company is no real cloud in my eyes. I am still waiting for the right cloud solution to emerge. A proper cloud should be distributed, kind of like freenet, but also fast. There should be multiple independent service providers selling disk space to backup and speed up access to your stored data. Setting up such a service should be a matter of installing an open source package on a computer with good internet connectivity. Data should be cached on end-user computers and the caching should be intelligent enough to predict what data the user would likely need next and download it from the cloud in advance. The cloud should work even if the connection to the whole internet is severed and only connections to local computers remain. If the data is on any of the local computers, it should be accessible.

When someone builds such cloud, I'll be a happy user and I'll integrate direct access to that could into all my software. No current solution comes close, not Dropbox, not Google Drive, not Adobe's cloud. They'll all become obsolete if/when this clouds becomes reality.

18
Well, let's hope that this move of Adobe will make the photo-retouching and image-editing segment less monotonous. It should be easier for Adobe competitors to convince people to switch when they can argue with saved money. Up until now, it was almost impossible to convince a Photoshop owner to switch, because he or she has already invested hundreds of dollars into Photoshop and switching meant more expenses. So,  :up:

Adobe likely realizes this, but they are either very self-confident or they see other benefits this change may bring them. Like lock-in in their cloud or much lower maintenance expenses. It must be a nightmare to support multiple versions of their software. After the switch, everyone is either using the latest version (or can be told to upgrade to fix a problem) or they are not a paying customer and not eligible to receive support.

19
... and being able to open/save vectors in a format that is acceptable for professional use ...

I assume you mean .pdf or .ps ? Or am I wrong?

20
Not sure how seriously you were actually asking. But in case that was not sarcasm, then the answer is yes. Tucows is probably the worst of them as they only offer links to the crapware. Softonic's big download buttons lead to crapware, but they also have a much smaller links to the original sources. CNET does the same as Softonic, but if the software developer asks them, they will block the crapware for the developer's software titles. A slight improvement, but most of the software titles are still dangerous.

Download servers are not worth it for software developers anymore. I do not submit my new or updated software to any download servers (except portablefreeware.com) and I am considering stopping updating the PAD files. It is just not worth it. New software developers without established web site may even shoot themselves in the foot by adding their software to a big download site. A title on cnet's download.com may actually outrank the developers own web site in Google and who would a user, who just downloaded a crapware, blame? CNET or the actual developer?

Pages: prev1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 62next
Go to full version