Why is that?
They used to be really close with Apple? What happened?
If it has anything to do with flash - i think it's kind of childish.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Retina Display Support Coming to Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 in 'Coming Months' [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why is that?
They used to be really close with Apple? What happened?
If it has anything to do with flash - i think it's kind of childish.
I don't think I'd really say they were ever really close with Apple. I'm sure Apple hates them for not following the Human Interface Guidelines (not that Apple follows them themselves but they expect others to).
Do you understand what depreciated means? Even if they had shipped with Leopard, they would have eventually been dropped or not updated to match Cocoa. It would have only delayed the inevitable. We are now in 2012 and many are migrating to Mountain Lion if not already on Mountain Lion and Apple released Snow Leopard and Lion since Leopard. So it was years ago.
To put it in laymen's terms, depreciated means, "do not use" for future releases as they are not guaranteed to exist some day or might not reflect the latest functionality.
As an individual user at $50/mo(600/yr) it will take over 4 years of payments before I break the threshold of the current price to buy the master collection outright. If I bought cs6 outright 4 years down the road I would still have CS6, however with creative cloud I will be on CS8/CS9 whatever is out then.
As a video-focused user staying with the latest version often makes sense because of performance/workflow improvements, so pay $2600 then $525 every year to upgrade with an indefinite license, or pay $600/yr with no initial lump sum knowing that the license isn't indefinite? So if we assume prices stay the same and you upgrade every year, it would take 35 years before buying outright saves you money over creative cloud.
adobe said up front you would get more perks withe creative cloud, it's the flagship product. you weren't mislead, the stated "creative cloud members will always have the most up to date version of the creative suite we offer.
before the creative cloud all these updates would of sat on the shelf until the *.5 release, as you say you pay more with the creative cloud, but you get more, isn't that fair?
----------
aperture is a product to compete against lightroom
I hope Adobe moves away from Flash. They gotta just let it die or rewrite/improve it. I doubt they're going to improve it. Just keeping that half-dead, laggy format is hurting us all.
It sounds like you lived through the 90s, and yet you're woefully uninformed. I wonder why that is.
Here's a quote from someone who interviewed me at a hiring fair in 1997. I wrote it down several hours later so it is not absolute verbatim but it's close enough:
"We're never going to hire another Mac engineer. Macs are dying and the faster we can make that happen the better off everyone will be. You know that we now get almost half of our revenues from Windows? Windows NT is going to kill the Mac and if you are looking to get a real job you'd better get some experience with it.
And that was the prevalent attitude at Adobe. I actually laughed in the man's face: they were saying that they hated the platform that generated half their revenue and were never going to hire any more people to support it. Even if Apple were going to die, that's still insane. It's throwing away money.
Ever since that time, Macs have been second-class citizens where Adobe is concerned. And the bugginess of their software (the ONLY pieces of software that I use that crash on me regularly are Photoshop Elements and Adobe AIR) and the slowness of releases on the Mac platform just shows exactly how much respect they have for us. I have known a couple of people who worked at Adobe on the Mac team, and they both left because they didn't feel like they were being permitted to make decent software. (And don't even get me started about the guy I knew who worked on the QA team. I feel so sorry for that team. Report a thousand bugs, they fix a dozen, and half of the fixes don't actually fix the problem...)
And with this little press release they've just basically said, flat out, that Photoshop Elements isn't even one of the packages that they're considering making Retina compatible anytime in the near future. Which means that they will be happily silently selling consumers software that will not work with their computers, without warning them does it say 'except for Retina' on the package? No? And it NEVER WILL for the foreseeable future. Which almost certainly means years, given the pace at which Adobe moves.
Mind you, this is hardly rare: they were selling several software packages that just flat did not work when 10.3 came out, and they continued to sell them for months afterwards with no fix and no warning.
No, it's far more childish than that.
Adobe has spent the last fifteen years being sorry that Apple never died.
...It crashes randomly (about 1/15 times) when I open it. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do differently.
Their excuse wasn't an excuse in that case...it was a reason. Apple pulled a fast one and cancelled development of 64-bit Carbon after releasing a beta to developers in 2007. If they were going to completely scrap Carbon 64, why release a beta? It made sense that Adobe was caught off guard, and since they have their own internal cross-platform APIs that have to play nicely with the OS's APIs, it makes sense that it would be a big deal for them to get half-way through developing their 64-bit codebase for Carbon, and then have to stop and start over with Cocoa, which they had avoided completely up until that point.
It was as big of a deal for Adobe to switch that engine mid-stream as it was for Apple to switch to Intel processors. Honestly I think Adobe did a good job in a pretty short amount of time if you consider the situation.
I'm just bummed that there is no talk of InDesign Retina support coming any time soon.
----------
If that were the case, then Apple wouldn't have made the Carbon64 beta and sent it out to Adobe, et al.
Never had that problem on my rig or with my projects. Try reinstalling? Either way, Premiere Pro and Final Cut Express aren't in the same ballpark at all.
So? Isn't this true for everyone? Why does Adobe feel they need to point this out? They are a software company. Writing software is what they do. Yes, it is a significan't amount of work. I don't doubt it, but they play this card every time they have to write any kind of code. You write software! That's your job!
I'm sure there are people with new MacBook Pros looking forward to a Retina update. But for most people, I doubt it's a high priority anyway.
Adobe feels the need to point it out every time because they do what everyone else does but make a big press show out of it. Then people on sites like this act like what they did was somehow a bigger deal than what every other developer has had to do. As you can see there are people in here defending Adobe taking forever to bother going 64-bit when in reality they had several years to make it happen but chose to keep going on their current path when every one else changed. Others knew it would be better to change things now than continue on but Adobe said screw that, we'll just go until we hit that dead end, then we can have a press release about how it's such a big project to redo things and people will be cool with it.
I'll see your load of excuses, and raise you a Final Cut by Macromedia, and Aldus Pagemaker, and QuarkXPress. Besides, you know who else was great in the 90s? Billy Ray Cyrus and Hootie and the Blowfish. That doesn't mean they aren't horrible now.
I think it's mostly adobe has seemed to have gotten complacent with being the king of the hill, they are so far on the top they really don't have to do much to stay there. we should count our blessings we get any updates at all.
For those wondering about how photoshop handles current image files: it pixel doubles.
So a 600px x 600px is shown at 600px x 600px using 1440x900 retina and uses 1200x1200 real pixels. 1920x1200 looks closer to retina though.
This creates a slight blocky effect on all images. Scaling an image to 50% doesn't show the image at a retina level. It's still pixel doubled.
For most day to day web design work it's still very workable. I just get into a mindset that I'm are viewing in a draft mode. I should also point out that if you are working with an external display and you drag across (assuming PS doesn't glitch out and crash from the move) the pixel size on the external actually makes you feel like image isn't at it's best quality anyway. Retina does that.
I wouldn't attempt any fine detail photo manipulation work on the retina screen at the moment though. Move to external for that.
Illustrator is worse as the pixel doubling affects user input more. Which is weird as you'd think vectors would display perfectly on retina. Can any devs explain this?
A useful feature would be a hidpi mode in the image size settings allowing us to work at hidpi at output scale (so if i say 600x600 with hi dpi checked it reports the doc as 600x600 with a 1200x1200 canvas). Also save for web export options that spit out hidpi and low res versions. But I'll take a retina update first.
So a 600px x 600px is shown at 600px x 600px using 1440x900 retina and uses 1200x1200 real pixels. 1920x1200 looks closer to retina though.
This creates a slight blocky effect on all images. Scaling an image to 50% doesn't show the image at a retina level. It's still pixel doubled.
For most day to day web design work it's still very workable. I just get into a mindset that I'm are viewing in a draft mode. I should also point out that if you are working with an external display and you drag across (assuming PS doesn't glitch out and crash from the move) the pixel size on the external actually makes you feel like image isn't at it's best quality anyway. Retina does that.
I wouldn't attempt any fine detail photo manipulation work on the retina screen at the moment though. Move to external for that.
Illustrator is worse as the pixel doubling affects user input more. Which is weird as you'd think vectors would display perfectly on retina. Can any devs explain this?
A useful feature would be a hidpi mode in the image size settings allowing us to work at hidpi at output scale (so if i say 600x600 with hi dpi checked it reports the doc as 600x600 with a 1200x1200 canvas). Also save for web export options that spit out hidpi and low res versions. But I'll take a retina update first.
This is not true. They had to suddenly rewrite their apps for apple transition to intel and deprecation of carbon.