Adobe has acquired 7 companies this past year, EchoSign, DemdeX, Typekit, Iridas, Nitobi, Auditude, and Efficient Frontier. Every major tech company uses acquisitions to improved their companies competitive edge--this includes Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft to name a few.
Adobe is situating itself to be a major digital player. We will see many changes and new programs coming in the months ahead. Now that Adobe and Apple have ended their Flash war with Adobe supporting HTML5, I think we all will benefit from Adobe's new business model.
You guys don't need to fight about this, just embrace it and each other.
just for reference CS5 came out approx May of 2010 that is pretty much 18 months between full versions (CS4). i estimate the CS6 PR machine may start up in January to March 2012 and make its debut around March/April/May 2012 making it roughly 22 months(ish) between.
rhyder wrote:
?? What? I guess you DON"T know that the incremental updates (those for accomodating new camera models) are FREE. The sky isn't falling here.
BTW...it's Than not then and it's Their not there. Its releases not release.
I guess you're the grammar police, so you might as well start correcting your own mess while you're at it...
It's "it's releases", not "Its releases"... Oh, you don't make mistakes or typos (which means typographical errors since you probably didn't know that), right?
You might also try learning to spell accomodating [sic] as accommodating since most of us speak English in this country. Not sure what it's like in your world.
Questions for you... Besides being a grammar cop, are you an apologist for Adobe on a part-time basis, or do you shill full time? It's Unpleasant either way, but it would be nice to know you get paid to spew this crap, otherwise it's just unseemly IMO.
rhyder wrote:
The next full upgrade will be CS6, that does not mean there will not be incremental upgrades. There will have to be incremental upgrades for the new cameras.
BTW. "Ignorant" means without knowledge.
I guess you are "ignorant" as to what and incremental upgrade is. A full upgrade is like...from 5.0 to 5.5 or 5.5 to 6.0. Between the major releases the are small "incremental" upgrades..like from 5.5 to 5.5.01 or 5.5.02 and so on. These are for bug fixes and to accomodate the new cameras the manufacturers create. Every news release I have seen is about the major upgrades. I hope this helps you understand how this all works. ...Show more →
How many times can one person be wrong in only a single page? I haven't found out yet because I'm not done reading but it could take me all night to address your post-to-mistake(s) ratio which is 1:2 or 1:3 so far. Life's too short to clean up what you've written, and I don't just mean the poor grammar and spelling.
You don't really understand what the OP was saying. Yes, those that buy a new (about to be released) camera are stuck either buying a useless upgrade now and then another one in 4-6 months, or just getting screwed for the full boat in 6 months when their camera of choice gets an ACR update. Either way, Adobe has hosed them.
You're wrong on what an incremental upgrade is and what a full release is. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand, but I guess for someone that's ignorant of the software development process (yet pretends to understand it), it's hard to grasp even the basics.
A "point" release, as in 5.5.01 is a GD (spell it out) bug fix. Period. If they decide to throw something else in there, that's extremely rare and only done because they screwed the pooch and missed an initial deadline or they're doing it to remain competitive, such as DW's HTML 5.0 update (not the 5.5 release). These are not real releases; the code branch changes and they don't want to go back, that's all.
You also claim that LR is a derivative - an inappropriate term - of Photoshop. You're wrong. It's not, or certainly wasn't when I met with LR's product manager. It's a completely new code base that uses some shared technology (ACR) and perhaps some Flash modules for the web stuff, etc.. Any functions, modules, routines, etc. that can be shared are shared if they fit the LR architecture and the design intent...
BTW - LR is inferior to Photoshop in almost ever way for those of us that know how to use it (PS), and use the features (and it seems you're claiming 20 years of usage). Who cares if you can modify your images in LR? I sure don't. I've owned every version of LR too (multiple installs) and it's a toy for me. I load it on my netbook as an after thought, but it's sure not going to do what many people need. Why do you think it goes on sale for $150, or even $99, or whatever? Because the competition can do nearly everything it can do for $50 and LR is over priced....
Oh yeah, do you even know what a socialist is, or is that too just another nonsense comment?
Mattski1 wrote:
I'm thinking quite seriously about moving from Lightroom to Aperture.
Don't do it. Aperture sucks! I was a corporate trainer for Apple for 6 years and helped test Aperture from version 1. Watched an entire team get fired because it sucks so bad.
OK it doesn't suck but its not great either. It is sloooooooooooowwwwwwww. Very slow. Even in a mac pro with 16 gigs of ram. Slow. Did I mention slow
James, based on reading many many posts on FM it seems you may be in the minority for people who don't consider LR a useful tool. Now I'm not arguing with you at all, everyone has their own workflow. Personally though I usuall use LR for 90% of the work. However, in cases where any extensive retouching needs to be done, or I want to do something that LR can't (there's not too many global edits that LR is incapable of) I use PS. Its a lot easier to do batch edits and RAW compares in LR than in PS. Of course this is all completely off topic, and as I said entirely dependent on an individual's workflow.
well, i have to say, and this is hard, this is one of the very few times i am in agreement with James. i am no fan of LR at all. i have it but rarely have any reason to use it.
KAJed wrote:
James, based on reading many many posts on FM it seems you may be in the minority for people who don't consider LR a useful tool. Now I'm not arguing with you at all, everyone has their own workflow. Personally though I usuall use LR for 90% of the work. However, in cases where any extensive retouching needs to be done, or I want to do something that LR can't (there's not too many global edits that LR is incapable of) I use PS. Its a lot easier to do batch edits and RAW compares in LR than in PS. Of course this is all completely off topic, and as I said entirely dependent on an individual's workflow. ...Show more →
No offensive meant, but it's OK if I was in a minority of one. I care about what works for me and my requirements, and LR doesn't rise to the occasion.
Perhaps I was a little too harsh calling LR a toy. It's fine for some things (always accessible history states, quick pseudo film/print looks, a great set of overlays in the crop mode), but beside those, what can I do in LR that I can't do in PS? The problem is that I've been using LR since 2007 and I'm not hooked. Given a single choice, it's going to PS 1,000% of the time. Bridge can easily sort, rank, and modify hundreds or thousands of images easily. I've done many other things such as book layout\Design in Indesign - which works with PS and Bridge, not LR. In short, LR is not enough of a tool for me.
Digression - I'd actually like to dump Adobe for good, especially after their BS upgrade policy. I'm not their target today - I have both a standalone PS CS5 Ext install as well as a full CS5 premium suite install, so I'll be allowed to upgrade - but we all could be their target soon. I'll never use their software on a subscription basis, and if I do go to CS6, it will be the last upgrade for me. I no longer like Adobe as a company and don't want to support them with my money. I'll either have to give up what I do or find other tools, but I expect to part ways with them. Of course they know they're going to lose customers like me that have grown disgusted but they're just a corporation that doesn't care about their customers, even those that have been with them for 12-13 years. They owe me nothing, but in turn, that's what they'll get from me.
rhyder wrote....... I'm niether apathetic (if I were I would have ignored your whinning) nor am I little. I have said nothing in my posts that I wouldn't say to you in person.
....and for the love of Mike...get a spell checker...everyone knows a-hole uses a hyphen.
Funny how some people think the, "I before E, except after C" memory rule applies to just about every word in the English language.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I've been told; so I must be low witted indeed.
Seriously though, life is too short to waste time bitching at one another. Peace and goodwill to all plus a merry Christmas to those who celebrate it.
James, no offence taken, that's why I said it's entirely up to personal preference. I could never get in to using Bridge because I find it to be the slowest piece of garbage I've EVER had the displeasure of using. I'm not sure if you're on a PC or Mac, but the PC version of Bridge was, and always will be, molasses in January.
I have tried on numerous occasions to use LR or Photoshop and can't get used to either of them, so i use Corel Photopaint and CaptureNX2. Just the way I happen to work, I guess.
KAJed wrote:
James, no offence taken, that's why I said it's entirely up to personal preference. I could never get in to using Bridge because I find it to be the slowest piece of garbage I've EVER had the displeasure of using. I'm not sure if you're on a PC or Mac, but the PC version of Bridge was, and always will be, molasses in January.
jamesf99 wrote:
How many times can one person be wrong in only a single page? I haven't found out yet because I'm not done reading but it could take me all night to address your post-to-mistake(s) ratio which is 1:2 or 1:3 so far. Life's too short to clean up what you've written, and I don't just mean the poor grammar and spelling.
You don't really understand what the OP was saying. Yes, those that buy a new (about to be released) camera are stuck either buying a useless upgrade now and then another one in 4-6 months, or just getting screwed for the full boat in 6 months when their camera of choice gets an ACR update. Either way, Adobe has hosed them.
You're wrong on what an incremental upgrade is and what a full release is. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand, but I guess for someone that's ignorant of the software development process (yet pretends to understand it), it's hard to grasp even the basics.
A "point" release, as in 5.5.01 is a GD (spell it out) bug fix. Period. If they decide to throw something else in there, that's extremely rare and only done because they screwed the pooch and missed an initial deadline or they're doing it to remain competitive, such as DW's HTML 5.0 update (not the 5.5 release). These are not real releases; the code branch changes and they don't want to go back, that's all.
You also claim that LR is a derivative - an inappropriate term - of Photoshop. You're wrong. It's not, or certainly wasn't when I met with LR's product manager. It's a completely new code base that uses some shared technology (ACR) and perhaps some Flash modules for the web stuff, etc.. Any functions, modules, routines, etc. that can be shared are shared if they fit the LR architecture and the design intent...
BTW - LR is inferior to Photoshop in almost ever way for those of us that know how to use it (PS), and use the features (and it seems you're claiming 20 years of usage). Who cares if you can modify your images in LR? I sure don't. I've owned every version of LR too (multiple installs) and it's a toy for me. I load it on my netbook as an after thought, but it's sure not going to do what many people need. Why do you think it goes on sale for $150, or even $99, or whatever? Because the competition can do nearly everything it can do for $50 and LR is over priced....
Oh yeah, do you even know what a socialist is, or is that too just another nonsense comment?...Show more →
Aw, Jeeze. Or is it Geeze? I don't know which, but you seem to as big a grammer/spelling cop as Rhyder. Anyway JEEZE, looks like we've got another IT expert with a camera wieghing in here. A point fix is can be a bug fix, but they can also be updates that take care of code changes when manufacturers launch a new camera (which is part of the topic here). I looked back through the posts and I couldn't find where anyone said LR was a derivative of PS. It is derived in the sense that the edit engine is the same engine as ACR, which is PS. As far as it being inferior to PS "in almost ever way", that's a riduculus statement. I think what is truly inferior here is your understanding of what LR can do. You say you've owned every version, to bad you didn't learn how to use it.
No offensive meant, but it's OK if I was in a minority of one. I care about what works for me and my requirements, and LR doesn't rise to the occasion.
Perhaps I was a little too harsh calling LR a toy. It's fine for some things (always accessible history states, quick pseudo film/print looks, a great set of overlays in the crop mode), but beside those, what can I do in LR that I can't do in PS? The problem is that I've been using LR since 2007 and I'm not hooked. Given a single choice, it's going to PS 1,000% of the time. Bridge can easily sort, rank, and modify hundreds or thousands of images easily. I've done many other things such as book layout\Design in Indesign - which works with PS and Bridge, not LR. In short, LR is not enough of a tool for me.
Digression - I'd actually like to dump Adobe for good, especially after their BS upgrade policy. I'm not their target today - I have both a standalone PS CS5 Ext install as well as a full CS5 premium suite install, so I'll be allowed to upgrade - but we all could be their target soon. I'll never use their software on a subscription basis, and if I do go to CS6, it will be the last upgrade for me. I no longer like Adobe as a company and don't want to support them with my money. I'll either have to give up what I do or find other tools, but I expect to part ways with them. Of course they know they're going to lose customers like me that have grown disgusted but they're just a corporation that doesn't care about their customers, even those that have been with them for 12-13 years. They owe me nothing, but in turn, that's what they'll get from me. ...Show more →
You contradict yourself here. You say Adobe doesn't owe you anything, yet the rest of your post infers that they do. Quit yer cryin', you'll short out your keyboard. Did the big bad corporation hurt your feelings? Try Gimp wimp. I can tell you're an amateur, because the pro's have already found a work around. There are several easy ones. It's a shame someone of your obvious intellect (sorry for the sarcasm this close to Christmas)hasn't figured it out yet. Maybe it's because your too busy feeling sorry for yourself. Its Elemental really. Or you could start an Occupy Adobe movement. Or get a new hobby.
I'm not really pro Adobe. I'm anti cry baby poseurs, whining that they didn't get their way on the playground. Sorry but here are a lot bigger problems out there than you having to pay for software up-dates.
Feel free to spell check my posts, I'll admit I don't spell well AND on top of that, I'm a terrible typist!!
The bottom line is while it hurts that Adobe is upping the price point for upgrades and not offering a discount there currently are a lot of options out there.
I've been using DXO optics for NEF conversions for over a year now and I'm pretty pleased with the results. I've been on their newsletter for years and they're always offering discounts for upgrades and heck the product is under $200 anyway.
More painful is seeing FredMiranda devolve into constant bickering.
Well here's the deal, Apple charges every OS upgrade. And very few people complain. Because they sell it like "new features" even though it might be just bug fixes they should of done the first time. A $250 or so product and you get $50 per year tribute on something already sold to you. (Granted nobody pays$250 for OS X. But if by some magical reason you needed to buy it that's what it costs)
Its a software manufacturer's dream for that to happen. So Adobe definitely took that into consideration. As it stands at this Very moment. Adobe really wants $420 USD for photoshop alone CS Standard about $780 and Premium $1120 by their Yearly subscription thing.
So if you do the math it ends up being about the same buying it outright then subscribing. Lets keep only Photoshop Standard in this. $700+200 = $900 For First edition + Upgrade SO if adobe keeps a yearly update schedule that's what it'll look like. So its the $420 or so they want per year. If you somehow start with 6.0 you and Skip 6.5 you can bring that cost down to maybe $300 a year.
As consumers the only thing you can do is complain. If its really loud enough they'll relent. But I seriously doubt it though as they've already relented on the SUBSCRIPTION ONLY roadmap. So you can still use the "older" version without it not starting.
As far as the other product having cheaper upgrades. You have to break it down by percentage and them fighting for market share. Unless Adobe loses share they are less willing to budge.
Osai wrote:
Aw, Jeeze. Or is it Geeze? I don't know which, but you seem to as big a grammer/spelling cop as Rhyder. Anyway JEEZE, looks like we've got another IT expert with a camera wieghing in here. A point fix is can be a bug fix, but they can also be updates that take care of code changes when manufacturers launch a new camera (which is part of the topic here). I looked back through the posts and I couldn't find where anyone said LR was a derivative of PS. It is derived in the sense that the edit engine is the same engine as ACR, which is PS. As far as it being inferior to PS "in almost ever way", that's a riduculus statement. I think what is truly inferior here is your understanding of what LR can do. You say you've owned every version, to bad you didn't learn how to use it....Show more →
Geeze, Jeeze, or whatever...I guess either works because I know what you meant.
Seriously Osai, I could respond in kind, but that's not why I'm here. My response to Rhyder was simply because there were too many rapid-fire, moronic and offensive posts in a row. He bullies people, but I wonder, does he post anything that's not of that ilk?
You and I may agree or disagree on some things, and I'd be happy to debate Adobe (no, I don't like them) with you because I don't think you know as much as you "think" you do, but I don't have the time to debate them right now. In the mean time, please tell everyone what the "non-Adobe" answer is, because millions of people want to know....
