Senbei said:
Do you understand the concept of established workflows? For many professional graphics houses, pieces of different software applications make up their entire process. Photoshop is normally one of those as it is a mature and time tested product that provides the necessary capabilities to fit in to these businesses environment. Additionally, you have individuals who have years of personal experience and knowledge with the software. As someone else said, Adobe has had years to build in this feedback. Much of this is functionality not seen or even used by the casual user. Apple would need to be able to respond to all those requirements and do so against a mature product which already works well enough in workflows in a cross platform environment. Ease of use is only part of the equation. Are you also going to expect these businesses to invest in re-training their people, reworking their workflow, and using an untested product which at best will be extremely disruptive when there is already a capable mature application on the market? If you don't think this will have any sort of economic impact, then I have a reasonably priced bridge that I would like to sell to you right now.
EXACTLY ! YES !! THIS IS IT !!! These are the arguments that the old timers make rather than realizing that these workflow's and ALL USE CASES for that matter are easily duplicated, once they are well demonstrated or MATURE, this is the nature of computing, and this is why everything even Photoshop becomes obsolete after MATURITY !!!
Part of my point is that Apple understands how to do this better then anyone else and that duplicating functionality while making it even easier is what Easy of Use is all about.
Need to agree. Unfortunately many others here are completely ignorant to the development process (and the development cycle) for large applications such as Photoshop and Office. It doesn't help when both companies are leveraging large amounts of older code as well as using an unsupported Metrowerks CodeWarrior to manage those projects. They both are having to sort all that out just to move to Xcode and then they have to modify/rewrite large pieces of code. Testing and profiling in order to achieve the best performance is also going to take time. Unfortunately, people who don't program but are excellent "armchair developers on a forum" have little idea how non-trivial these processes can be and think that it can be done quickly.
Actually, many software companies use the interim versions of products like shifting something like Photoshop over to a UB version and doing some strategic optimizing to give their employees a chance to get used to other platforms or compilers.
The reason Adobe can't do this is because they believe in their own DIETY, THEY THINK THEY ARE GODs IN THE PUBLIC EYE, and so they think they must dazzle their fans with every shipment but it would be better if they just got their heads out of the clouds and did a good job of supporting ALL their customers.
Apple does a good job of this and they have FAR more reason to believe in their own DIETY, yet they manage to avoid such silly presumptions.
But at the management level it is very HARD to justify interim versions because they can not be DOCUMENTED to make much money, customers that leave out of frustration do not announce their decisions, thus its all about greed really -- the more BIG features in a new version has the easier it is for management to sell it, or over sell it.
Your arguments about the develop cycles which I am VERY familiar with demonstrate how insiders loose their perspective and often ignore the alternative business aspects of a product.
Actually your argument shows ignorance about how these companies operate and about THIS KIND OF PROGRAMMING in general ...
1. Usually they use as few systems calls as they can get away with and they will spend MASSIVE programming hours to get code that is C++ only !
2. Since Xcode compiles C and C++, JUST LIKE METROWERKS, and they are BOTH ANSI compliant and they are both based on the GNU compiler for C and C++ your apprehension really HOLDS NO WATER
Actually I am sure what Adobe is wrestling with is the first thing I mentioned BIG NEW features, and the decision to use an OEM version of Virtual PC that MS will sell to developers that want to program with C sharp and ship that SAME version for the Mac, which would launch into a VPC kernel.
Or creating a new version that stays with C++ clean code and then is optimized alternate versions for the various platforms, and one of those might use Objective C and system calls.
They meant to do that on the previous version but the clean code version got dirty with so many things going on.
I HAVE NO INSIDE INFORMATION, I JUST KNOW HOW THESE THINGS WERK !!!
They won't ship a new Photoshop version until they get certain information about products from MS and they are very close to shipping those products, and THEN the Mac version will be developed.
In the mean time the Mac is the fastest PC !!!
