Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In response to UTClassof89....

right from this article: We all create Pixelmator — the best image editor for the rest of us. And all of us love what we do very much.

That about sums up what I was saying... the "rest of us"... meaning the 75%+ people who are not professionals... they have a HUGE target audience, much larder than Adobe.... which is whats making them so successful.

My laugh was in response to his "it looks like Adobe is in trouble" comment.

From Pixelmator and Pages?

Seriously?

(had to be one of the most inane pronouncements I've ever read on MR, and I've read some really, really inane pronouncements in the last year...)
 
Pixelmator is an awesome program - I bought it off the App Store as well, and it more than meets my simple needs.

But saying that Adobe is in trouble is like saying Microsoft is in trouble because AbiWord is much lighter, faster and smooth than Microsoft Word. That's completely aside the point - they are two different products aimed to different audiences that might have some overlaps. That's all.
 
Congratulations to the Pixelmator team! For the curious seeking a review and brief PS comparison, here is a MacWorld review of version 1.64 from August 2010. This is the same version that is for sale in MAS as I write this.

For me personally, Pixelmator was not an ideal fit, but I like that it is written for the Mac and offers some performance advantages over the alternatives. It's a product that deserves to succeed IMO. I will be watching to see what future versions have to offer.

Mostly, I use clumsy GIMP with X11, and occasionally iPhoto and Acorn. Though GIMP runs worst of all on Mac (compared to Windows 7, *nix), it has been 100% stable for me. I like Acorn for its simplicity.
 
Its weird how everyone mentions how fast Pixelmator is.. It certainly isn't faster than PS for a lot of uses.

Anyone looking at doing digital illustration/sketching/painting may be better off looking at autodesk sketchbook pro, Artrage or(/and?).. Photoshop. ASBP is also at an AppStore crazy price, and just as great as pixelmator but for different stuff.

I'm tempted to make some CS5 vs Pixelmator speed comparison videos out of curiosity. Pixelmators orignal big selling point for me was its gpu rendering, but PS has that now too.
 
For those, admittedly few, commenters on this thread stating 'its maxed out, who needs it?' - since the publicity it is now number 2 most grossing in the USA.

Only aperture is ahead.
 
Thats quite impressive, I wonder how it compares to their revenue before the app store.

That would be interesting. Needless to say, quite an accomplishment for a small outfit.

Oh great here comes the tidal wave of "SEE SEE???? PIXELMATOR IS BETTER THAN PHOTOSHOP!!!! I TOLD YOU SO!!!"

Anytime Adobe is mentioned, there will be the usual MR bashing to follow

Since when is 30 dollars high priced? I think some of us are in the iOS distortion field...

Yeah some of these successful applications appear to have had much more invested into their development. They can't give this stuff away

I just use Photoshop CS5.. Really nothing even comes close.

Also when it comes to Gaussian Blur they are not all the same. Photoshop has the most extensive script for its GB to make it more accurate and less defective and that is one of the reasons why it takes more CPU and RAM to complete. Gaussian Blur in PS is unparalleled, especially when working with big 300dpi images, and its one of few filters that gets major updates with each release.

I too have been very satisfied with CS5 and LR. Nothing from Apple or AppStore offerings have been compelling

Adobe is already making a killing from their creative suite product line. They don't need the App store.

I cringed when I laid out the cash but it's well worth it

My laugh was in response to his "it looks like Adobe is in trouble" comment.

From Pixelmator and Pages?

Seriously?

(had to be one of the most inane pronouncements I've ever read on MR, and I've read some really, really inane pronouncements in the last year...)

Indeed. This may steal Photoshop Elements sales but not much more.
 
My laugh was in response to his "it looks like Adobe is in trouble" comment.

From Pixelmator and Pages?

Seriously?

(had to be one of the most inane pronouncements I've ever read on MR, and I've read some really, really inane pronouncements in the last year...)

I am not surprised. Delusional posts are commonplace here.
 
Yes, there is a difference between 30% of $1 million (gross revenue) and 30% of $700,000 (profit, if you go by your ridiculous assumption that the developers are not incorporated and had no additional costs.) :rolleyes:

Since some people don't get the gist of the point (well they never do really and want to argue just to argue) and want to play actual number games, Apple gets 30% of gross revenue, not net. The actual tax rate for the remaining income (if it were profit) is 35%, not 30% and ignoring deductions and the like for now, that means you owe them $245,000.00. So your net profit margin is actually 45.5%, not 49%. Thus the actual sharing would be 30%, 24.5% and 45.5% rather than 33.3% x 3 as I was implying to make my point (a point that was clearly lost on certain people).

So we are talking 49% net profit margins which is amazing in pretty much any market. Even with your biased assumptions.

Biased assumptions? What makes my assumptions "biased" ? Again, you seem to be confusing a relative point about unfair distribution to specific examples. In other words, you missed the point (as usual).

For comparison, Microsoft's net margins are around 30% and Apple's are around 20%.

Apple is primarily a hardware company. Comparing hardware to software is stupid since the overhead is completely different. In fact, following my "stupid assumptions" earlier, there is no overhead in the example so thus comparing it to companies that do have significant overhead (i.e. Apple is running everything from stores to hardware manufacturing to data centers and corporate headquarters. The "average" app developer (taking into account ALL app developers, not just corporations making apps) is an individual, not a corporation and thus I fail to see how my assumptions are "stupid" in that regard. In fact, the entire exercise was meant to simply point out that Apple's revenue share of 30% is too high for simply providing a monopolized store environment (as in developers have no other distribution channel/method/outlet save hacking). Slight exaggeration is in order to make that point, not a detailed breakdown of a specific developer's actual net profits. I thus used lower tax rates, but simplified assumptions about revenue because 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 illustrates the point better than 30%, 24.5% and 45.5%. I'm sure a pie chart would illustrate the point very well, but I didn't feel like making one.

But the idea that 45.5% is an "amazing" rate is clearly just your own personal opinion since the overwhelming prevailing consensus among polled app developers is against you.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/11/eighty_per_cent_of_devs_think_apple_revenue_split_unfair/

In other words, the real point of my message is in agreement with most app developers feelings whereas your point is to prop up Apple as usual. You keep telling me you're not a fanboy and don't support Apple on everything, but every post you make to me keeps telling me you are indeed a fanboy. I haven't seen you disagree with Apple once...ever. :rolleyes:
 
Since some people don't get the gist of the point (well they never do really and want to argue just to argue) and want to play actual number games, Apple gets 30% of gross revenue, not net. The actual tax rate for the remaining income (if it were profit) is 35%, not 30% and ignoring deductions and the like for now, that means you owe them $245,000.00. So your net profit margin is actually 45.5%, not 49%. Thus the actual sharing would be 30%, 24.5% and 45.5% rather than 33.3% x 3 as I was implying to make my point (a point that was clearly lost on certain people).

I understood your point. I just pointed out that your math was horrible. Since you've corrected it here, not a big deal. Although I'm not sure why you would assume a 35% tax rate.

Biased assumptions? What makes my assumptions "biased" ? Again, you seem to be confusing a relative point about unfair distribution to specific examples. In other words, you missed the point (as usual).

I suppose it was a coincidence that you made a $200,000 error that better supported your argument. I apologize for the insinuation that it may have been in the back of your mind to err in a favorable direction. :rolleyes:


Apple is primarily a hardware company. Comparing hardware to software is stupid since the overhead is completely different. In fact, following my "stupid assumptions" earlier, there is no overhead in the example so thus comparing it to companies that do have significant overhead (i.e. Apple is running everything from stores to hardware manufacturing to data centers and corporate headquarters. The "average" app developer (taking into account ALL app developers, not just corporations making apps) is an individual, not a corporation and thus I fail to see how my assumptions are "stupid" in that regard. In fact, the entire exercise was meant to simply point out that Apple's revenue share of 30% is too high for simply providing a monopolized store environment (as in developers have no other distribution channel/method/outlet save hacking). Slight exaggeration is in order to make that point, not a detailed breakdown of a specific developer's actual net profits. I thus used lower tax rates, but simplified assumptions about revenue because 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 illustrates the point better than 30%, 24.5% and 45.5%. I'm sure a pie chart would illustrate the point very well, but I didn't feel like making one.

I like how you ignored that I also included Micosoft whose revenue comes primarily from software.

And how you ranted about a "monopolized store environment" even though we are talking about the Mac App Store.

But the idea that 45.5% is an "amazing" rate is clearly just your own personal opinion

Sure it's an opinion. But I'd like to know what major companies that you know of that have profit margins over 45%. It's not too common.

since the overwhelming prevailing consensus among polled app developers is against you.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/11/eighty_per_cent_of_devs_think_apple_revenue_split_unfair/

That's pretty funny. :D

The Register? When a purported news article refers to a company as a cult in the second paragraph, you can assume there is some bias involved.

Developers want a larger cut of revenue! News at 11:00!

But there is this "Virtually all of the best known app stores have fallen in line directly with the 30 / 70 revenue split that Apple introduced." It's the industry standard split!

In other words, the real point of my message is in agreement with most app developers feelings whereas your point is to prop up Apple as usual. You keep telling me you're not a fanboy and don't support Apple on everything, but every post you make to me keeps telling me you are indeed a fanboy. I haven't seen you disagree with Apple once...ever. :rolleyes:

Please avoid the personal insults. I don't feel the need to bitch about Apple. I think they are a good company that makes good decisions. Their success supports that position. Those decisions are not always to my own personal benefit. But I don't think that makes them idiots or control freaks or any other slur that you throw about.

For the record, I disagreed about the cameras on the iPod touch, the "non-approval" of Google Voice, the amount of RAM on the iPad, and the half-hearted job they did on the latest version of iPhoto. And a bunch of other stuff. Can we move on without the stereotyping now and stick to the topic at hand? Or do you need a longer list?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.