Adobe Backpedals on Commitment to Bring Metal to After Effects

[JawnVawka]

This reminds me of when EA came on stage and showed off Plants vs Zombie Garden Warfare for iPad and it was never release for iOS...

 

[Mainyehc]

No surprise—they've been neglecting bug fixes in all their apps for years. And yet....
Adobe Remains Firmly Committed to Charging Your Account Every Month Forever
[…]
Who thinks Adobe's going to be on stage next time?

I think that Affinity may make an appearance… They did at the ADA event already, even with Adobe on the Keynote, so that goes to show that as far as Apple's events are concerned, Adobe has no say about whether their competition gets stage time as well.

I avoid Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop like the plague because they are too slow. If they ever get their act together one day and speed things up, I'll consider coming back.

And here I was looking forward to a Metal-driven Lightroom.

The more I know about Adobe the less I like them. Using alternatives wherever I can.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt. May I suggest… Serif's Affinity? They may end up porting their current Creative Suite Design Standard (minus Acrobat) to Windows sooner rather than later, and all signs point to the development of a competitive DAM to fill in Aperture's void and go head-to-head with Lightroom… Keep your eyes on their forums for updates.

Being a regular visitor to Adobe's forum (and the very next poster after the one quoted from Todd Kopriva), I can say that there is a stark divide between the agendas of the development team and the executives that control the flow of product to the consumer. If you visit the forum, you will see countless posts concerning the problems us After Effects users have with the latest release of CC. Basically, After Effects, in its most current revision, is an unfinished work, guided by the release cycle deemed necessary by the higher entities at Adobe.

Ouch. More damning still. I had no idea CC was such a hunking pile of poo (though I did suspect it was, but having confirmation from someone who tried it is better than pure speculation).

But strangely, many of the development team devote a lot of time and effort into interacting with their user base, which is hardly something you could say about other software giants. On top of it all, there are less than 30 people responsible for actually developing After Effects, and I'd imagine if it were up to them, they'd have many multiples of that. Basically, Todd, nor the engineer on stage, are the ones you should be unhappy with at Adobe. It's the ones behind the golden curtain.

Hmm. I knew the devs were more decent and devoted to their jobs than the higher-ups, but had no idea they were that nice. Maybe it depends on the department? I once followed a thread were a helpful user criticized Photoshop's gradient engine and came up with a much better, alternative algorithm/model. Suffice to say, the developer was either colourblind, a moron, arrogant or any combination thereof, as he did not acknowledge any of the criticism and suggestions (which were, mind you, deemed valid by all bystanders) and felt attacked himself. The real losers here being the users, that still have to put up with the crappy output of said engine (not me, though; it's the first real-world use case where I actually always resort to Affinity, which features a much more accurate engine).

Serif's devs, on the other hand, take a constant beating in stride (seeing that their software is so new and still lacking basic features), and manage to come out on top with stellar updates and helpful, timely answers. And even though they've been kicking it lately, they're extremely humble by comparison. Maybe that's because they live in the UK?

I've started learning Blackmagic Fusion 8 . Nuff' said.

I've heard of that one, too… How steep is the learning curve for someone whose only experience with editing is FCS3? Nope, never did anything in AfterEffects or any other post production package, but it is a job in high demand in my market, so…

Adobe is firmly committed to performance because it accelerates creativity - Adobe is also firmly committed to the Mac platform. We share as much as we can about the directions we’re exploring and will continue to try and set realistic expectations about when specific advancements will come to market. When we demonstrated what was possible, we made a clear statement - which I repeat here: "Adobe is committed to bringing Metal to all of its Mac OS Creative Cloud applications, such as Illustrator and After Effects I showed you today, as well as Photoshop and Premiere Pro. We are very excited to see what Metal can do for our Creative Cloud users."

David McGavran
Director of Engineering
Adobe Professional Audio and Video

Oh, David, David… No matter how much PR fluff you try to appease us with, you collectively blew off both your feet with a shotgun the day you abolished perpetual licences (May 9th 2013, if I'm not mistaken) [Edit: You know you really screwed up when your users remember this kind of stuff by heart; the actual announcement took place on the 6th, but the first reactions started popping up on the media by the 9th: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriank...ative-cloud-move-causes-outcry-and-confusion/ ]. I know you are only doing your job (and at engineering, no less), but I must politely tell your company to go screw itself (more like… to keep doing it) and wish you personally the best of luck the day it hopefully folds. kthxbai

 

[adamneer]

Hmm. I knew the devs were more decent and devoted to their jobs than the higher-ups, but had no idea they were that nice. Maybe it depends on the department? I once followed a thread were a helpful user criticized Photoshop's gradient engine and came up with a much better, alternative algorithm/model. Suffice to say, the developer was either colourblind, a moron, arrogant or any combination thereof, as he did not acknowledge any of the criticism and suggestions (which were, mind you, deemed valid by all bystanders) and felt attacked himself. The real losers here being the users, that still have to put up with the crappy output of said engine (not me, though; it's the first real-world use case where I actually always resort to Affinity, which features a much more accurate engine).

Well, Photoshop is a different story. I've found many of the contributors to the PS board, devs or non, to be quite ill-mannered and set in their ways. It would appear that the Photoshop user base is considerably more arrogant than I have seen from the After Effects forum. And Todd Kopriva can, and often will come across a bit blunt and at times lacks empathy for the commoners, but then, I see new posts every day by idiots that have no clue what they're doing, hoping to receive direct instructions from the forum for whatever effect they want to copy from a YouTube video they saw... So the fact that he sticks around and continues to chime in on a regular basis is enough for me to appreciate his dedication.

 

[Mainyehc]

Well, Photoshop is a different story. I've found many of the contributors to the PS board, devs or non, to be quite ill-mannered and set in their ways. It would appear that the Photoshop user base is considerably more arrogant than I have seen from the After Effects forum.

I don't know about Todd Kopriva (though, by your description, he does sound like a decent fella… such a shame that he has to stick around in such a lousily managed company), but why don't you check the post I was alluding to?

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/photoshops_gradient_editor_needs_an_overhaul

The original poster seemed pretty reasonable (I mean, “a few improvements” may be an euphemism, but using euphemisms is kind of polite, amirite? [Edit: It's funny that the title reads “a few improvements” and the URL reads “an overhaul”… I wonder who edited it and when? Perhaps the original poster, sensing that he might have struck a nerve? Considering that, you may be onto something, actually…]), and backed up his suggestion with actual research and hard evidence (nicely put or not, facts are facts). And it all went downhill from there, as the dev felt attacked. I mean, that's probably the psychology of it; the dev felt in some way that his authority was “threatened”, instead of actually admitting that their algorithm was, in fact, inferior and, you know, regaining it on the spot.

 

[adamneer]

I don't know about Todd Kopriva (though, by your description, he does sound like a decent fella… such a shame that he has to stick around in such a lousily managed company), but why don't you check the post I was alluding to?

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/photoshops_gradient_editor_needs_an_overhaul

The original poster seemed pretty reasonable (I mean, “a few improvements” may be an euphemism, but using euphemisms is kind of polite, amirite? [Edit: It's funny that the title reads “a few improvements” and the URL reads “an overhaul”… I wonder who edited it and when? Perhaps the original poster, sensing that he might have struck a nerve? Considering that, you may be onto something, actually…]), and backed up his suggestion with actual research and hard evidence (nicely put or not, facts are facts). And it all went downhill from there, as the dev felt attacked. I mean, that's probably the psychology of it; the dev felt in some way that his authority was “threatened”, instead of actually admitting that their algorithm was, in fact, inferior and, you know, regaining it on the spot.

Also remember though, their development teams are FAR smaller than people imagine, so there's another point for the developers and another negative point for the corporate greed of Adobe. Just imagine, an industry standard software like After Effects, which is used the world over and who's utility can be witnessed in multi-million dollar films, is coded by so few people that you could actually learn all of their first and last names within a few days.

 

[Mainyehc]

Also remember though, their development teams are FAR smaller than people imagine, so there's another point for the developers and another negative point for the corporate greed of Adobe. Just imagine, an industry standard software like After Effects, which is used the world over and who's utility can be witnessed in multi-million dollar films, is coded by so few people that you could actually learn all of their first and last names within a few days.

Another interesting – and shocking – point of data, thanks! Call me naïve, but I never suspected there were so few of them in the AE team.

Do you reckon there are more small-ish teams working on other CC apps? Maybe that (besides the obvious feature bloat and spaghetti code) partially explains why Serif is giving them a run for their money (not yet, if ever, in the post-production market, but definitely in DTP) with so few developers and a 4-year-alpha + 1-year-beta development cycle.

Considering that, I wonder how big the impact of only a few key Adobe devs defecting would be…

 

[iMcLovin]

While I can understand that Adobe needs to make a proper decision so that they don't make wrong choices (like the AE Cuda failure)....It has always baffled my how slow things are moving in that office. Ok if they wont use Metal, they want to use something else, then theres Vulkan I guess. If none of them are ok, then we are talking about waiting for how long to see if something else pops up? We all know Metal is supported by Apple and will therefore not become outdated for quite a while. Also it will support ALL Macs, in contrary to what CUDA did. Also, from what I understand, porting things over to Metal API isnt that much of work....Instead Adobe wants to sit on the fence, making touch gesture and stupid dozens apps hardly any CC members needs or wants Great use of my money Adobe!

 

[macs4nw]

Christ Adobe.... get it together. Seriously.

Maybe they need a Balmer/Nadella style transition?

 

[MacGizmo]

It's been YEARS and Adobe still doesn't support Apple's full screen feature. This latest B.S. doesn't surprise me.

 

[MacBH928]

but if it s faster and better, why not do it?

 

[alvindarkness]

In an age where DX12 is Windows only, Metal is OS X/iOS only and Vulkan is cross-platform AND Linux I'd say bye-bye to both DX and Metal. Thank you AMD for kick-starting all this with Mantle.

Sadly at a recent Valve presentation where they touched upon Vulkan, they showed its cross platform combatibility but it didnt include OSX in the list (see below). So I'm left wondering if Vulkan will even be an option on OSX any time soon (especially now that they are pushing Metal), and if it isnt, it is one gigantic stupid move by Apple or whatever forces have decided to not make it so.

I really dont know enough about whats required by the graphics card manufacturers or OS writers to allow Vulkan, but if someone does and knows whats going on, I would like to hear all about it.

 

[spotlight07]

This is why subscription software is a horrible idea. There's no impetus to improve your software. With pro software like After Effects there's already little competition and now they don't even have to compete with last year's product. We pay them regardless.

If I had Apple's money I'd buy Adobe just so I could fire this guy.

 

[winston1236]

The Adobe forums are littered with false statements by Todd Kopriva, I wouldn't hold his word to count for much.

 

[snebes]

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/13886/halo ?

 

[naughtilus]

Backpedal to the Metal!

 

[skellener]

And Adobe wonders why there is so much hate towards them in the Mac community...

 

[applepuree]

Sounds like BS to me as the speeches are rehearsed to the second for timing. The script must have been approved with Apple as well.

Maybe they just wanted free advertising and agreed with everything knowing damed well they had no intension of delivering.

 

[bergert]

We only support Flash!

is this really news - LOL !

 

[nvmls]

I love Adobe!

/sarcasm

 

[Makosuke]

So, Adobe's Director of Engineering figured out that there was a software modification that could provide a substantial--sometimes massive--speed and productivity boost to multiple Adobe Apps. It's feasible enough to implement that a public demo was created. And the guy, who one assumes a relatively high-up person on the tech chain, made an extremely public demo of it showing off how awesome it is.

And the follow up is to walk back that promise and claim that you're not committing to do anything at all.

Unless Adobe has some other-than-Metal technology that's even better sitting there on the shelf, explain why they're not falling over themselves to get this working? And if they do have some even-better technology available, why haven't they implemented it already?

 

[Makosuke]

No surprise—they've been neglecting bug fixes in all their apps for years. And yet....

Adobe Remains Firmly Committed to Charging Your Account Every Month Forever

That right there is the reason that the non-subscription version of CS I own is the last Adobe product I'm ever buying, and what's gone so fundamentally wrong with the company.

They ran out of feature improvements sufficient to drive a regular update cycle for an extremely expensive suite of software a while ago, and their solution was (unsurprisingly) to just make you pay a monthly fee to use it, and that way they make their money whether they ever improve anything or not. It's a great system for everyone, if you define "everyone" as "Adobe and people who religiously upgrade thousand-dollar software every version number bump regardless of benefit".

 

[Markoth]

From a strategic standpoint, why doesn't Apple buy Adobe? They would then own the tech, could rejigger the teams/remove bad apples, and would insure that their hardware would have pro-level software to run in perpetuity. Seems like they are allowing a problem that vexed Steve Jobs for years to fester: letting the whims of another company impact the speed/power/utility of Apple's hardware (e.g. Flash). Why not lance this boil and move on already?

You people act like there's some sort of marketplace out there for businesses where you can just name a price and purchase one. Adobe probably doesn't want to sell itself.

 

[jshbckr]

Confirmation that Adobe will continue to support CUDA with Nvidia products and ignore the fact that they could get fast performance out of other GPUs without CUDA...

 

[Makosuke]

You people act like there's some sort of marketplace out there for businesses where you can just name a price and purchase one. Adobe probably doesn't want to sell itself.

Technically, there is. It's called the stock market.

Any company that is publicly traded, and has at least 50% of its stock on the open market, could theoretically be purchased in a hostile takeover by just buying enough stock. This of course only works if at least 50% of the shares are actually sold to you, so almost by definition will drive the price up to a significant premium. Which is why when publicly held companies are purchased, it's almost never done this way, and hostile takeovers are rare--usually you talk the board into selling the company at a modest premium, so existing stockholders will willingly go along with it for their own financial gain.

At a $42B market cap, Apple probably could buy Adobe if they really wanted to--the company has almost unfathomable amounts of cash--but the price would be twenty times higher than the largest company they've ever purchased to date, Beats. It would be a huge purchase, with highly questionable benefit to Apple--the chances of them getting as much out of the purchase as they'd have to put into it are slim.

Even three years ago, when Adobe had a market cap of "only" $11B, it would still have been an uncharacteristically huge purchase for Apple

 

[sudo1996]

How to speed up your Adobe software: Downgrade to CS3
Seriously, I don't know what they did to increase VRAM usage by 1500% and RAM usage by something similar. Like I actually don't know what the new features are. I use new and old versions, and they work the same. Maybe they should revert then build from there. I love their tools' functionality, but they could be much leaner... also, screw the Creative Cloud crap.