For me Topaz has a few good core abilities but has been looking for ways to continue revenue growth which is proving very difficult as with most other software companies. We’re in an environment where editing has never been easier, there’s less and less real innovation because most photographers have more than enough tools to edit leaving us with increasing subscription models by companies that don’t know what else to do. My concern is are Adobe going to stop refining existing tools and put more and more behind additional pay walls.
In my expeience, Adobe has been the primary source of excellence and innovation in editing software. Only Captue One and DXO are in the same league, and I much prefer Adobe's tools and of course its DAM. It is the primary professional software for good reasons.
If Adobe acquired Topaz, they probably wanted the intellectual property, which they will of course market and charge for. But I would expect they will support and develop it better than Topaz has been able to do.
Why do people object to paying for something that other people worked and spent money to produce? Do any of us work for free? If they aren't paid, they won't be able to produce anything. And no one is forced to buy it.
I don’t see anyone in this thread saying Topaz should be free.
chiron wrote:
In my expeience, Adobe has been the primary source of excellence and innovation in editing software. Only Captue One and DXO are in the same league, and I much prefer Adobe's tools and of course its DAM. It is the primary professional software for good reasons.
If Adobe acquired Topaz, they probably wanted the intellectual property, which they will of course market and charge for. But I would expect they will support and develop it better than Topaz has been able to do.
Why do people object to paying for something that other people worked and spent money to produce? Do any of us work for free? If they aren't paid, they won't be able to produce anything. And no one is forced to buy it....Show more →
