Adobe the year 2009's most hacked software

[Galactus]

Whether you use it professionally or not, Photoshop is not worth how much it cost. The reason people pay for it is because they know they can turn right around and charge their customers for having it. The people that use it do so because of style over substance. They know that their clients want someone that uses Photoshop not GIMP or some other program they have never heard of.

People use Photoshop because they have to because it is the industry standard. It is a verb now. No one says photo edit, they say photoshop.

Paintshop Pro X2 is $55. Photoshop Elements is $75 which is a drop of $25 the last time I checked. The whole reason that Adobe came out with Elements is because they know Photoshop is way overpriced.

After the prodding of the folks here a few months back, I just buckled down and used GIMP. Haven't had one single thing that I have not been able to do.

[Marc]

Shaw wrote:

---

What happened when you attempted to recreate the problem on another system?

I assume when you talk about being a pain in the arse to support that you have more than one client using Adobe software. And that finding the root of the issue would be important enough to recreate the issue to find a solution that doesn't require toasting all your client's systems every time an issue with an application arises.

I find it both hard to believe and a little sad that Adobe products work so poorly on Windows. I was under the impression that Adobe considered the Windows platform quite important.

Fortunately I only had one client who used CS (he'sa laywer, lots of money, smart guy and liked to play with things) and basically all the stuff on his computer meant I that it wasn't possible to duplicate the setup of the system and when you come down the nuts and bolts of, how do you duplicate an error when it comes up with an error when you open the program and then crashes out.

Same when trying to deactivate. It was one of those tihngs where were a google search turns up numerous occurances but not much in the way of actual solutions.

I'd give you more details but it's been 12 months since I've worked hands on with that client's system (2 months+ without problems and 9 months since moved oversears).

[J. Allen]

Shaw wrote:

---

And not meant for everyone... something which seems to be continuously overlooked here.

No, I agree with you there. Just to make it clear, I don't support piracy either. If you can't afford it, don't get it. There are many alternatives to Photoshop.

Well, I think a better question has to be what does Paintshop Pro X2 offer that Photoshop Elements (at nearly the same price) doesn't?

The only people I know who use the full version of Photoshop are those who use it professionally (as in it is an important tool in how they make money). Everyone else I know uses Photoshop Elements because it does everything they need. Professional tools for professional people, hobby tools for those who just like to play around.

C'mon, now, the rolleyes is unnecessary. Anyhoo, I've used Photoshop Elements, and I much prefer PSP X2 over PSE any day. Probably more personal preference than anything, but the tool layouts are more intuitive with PSP, and for a scant $59 I have a lot of control and flexibility over my images.

Of course if Photoshop Elements were in Adobe's hands, the price would be triple what it is now with no added benefit. Lets hope that never happens.

Well, the reason I mentioned Cool Edit Pro 2 is because I owned that software back when it was being sold, and it was relatively inexpensive. Adobe buys the software, doesn't even change the features, doesn't even change the skin to match Adobe's layout, just tripled the price and started selling it. If you had bought Cool Edit Pro 2 the day before, you paid 1/3 of what you were the next day, and not a thing had changed. It's why I have issues with Adobe, not the least being most of their software is obscenely bloated (on the PC side anyway).

J.

[Shaw]

Well, lets make sure that we look at this post in the correct order...

Joy To The World wrote:

---

After the prodding of the folks here a few months back, I just buckled down and used GIMP. Haven't had one single thing that I have not been able to do.

Followed by...

Whether you use it professionally or not, Photoshop is not worth how much it cost. The reason people pay for it is because they know they can turn right around and charge their customers for having it. The people that use it do so because of style over substance. They know that their clients want someone that uses Photoshop not GIMP or some other program they have never heard of.

People use Photoshop because they have to because it is the industry standard. It is a verb now. No one says photo edit, they say photoshop.

Paintshop Pro X2 is $55. Photoshop Elements is $75 which is a drop of $25 the last time I checked. The whole reason that Adobe came out with Elements is because they know Photoshop is way overpriced.

The problem is that you don't have any experience in this area, so how would you know?

No one has ever asked me if I have Photoshop. And it paid for itself (in my case) back in 1997, and has been a valuable tool for making a living ever since.

No one asks any of my clients if they use Photoshop... why would they? There is nothing special about Photoshop that their clients would need to request. The only question about applications any of my clients get asked is if they are using InDesign or QuarkXPress, and that is for going to press/print and isn't asked by their clients.

But you were asking around a Trek forum about this only a few months ago... how would you know enough about what goes on in professional graphic design circles to make such a statement?

But I've said to many people that if they can't tell the difference between Photoshop and Photoshop Elements, then they really shouldn't be paying the difference. Of course I don't know many people who buy Photoshop by itself any more, most buy the whole creative suite (which was how QuarkXPress lost it's dominant position to InDesign). But they aren't the same, and I know from personal experience in helping people who only had Photoshop Elements (when I go to do something I normally do in Photoshop and it isn't there in Elements).

________________

Santa Claus wrote:

---

C'mon, now, the rolleyes is unnecessary.

Sure it was... you're just taking it WAY too personally.

Lighten up.

Anyhoo, I've used Photoshop Elements, and I much prefer PSP X2 over PSE any day. Probably more personal preference than anything, but the tool layouts are more intuitive with PSP, and for a scant $59 I have a lot of control and flexibility over my images.

Personal preferences are a perfectly good reason to use any software. And don't ever let anyone tell you differently.

I have (and know how to use quite well) InDesign, QuarkXPress, PageMaker and FrameMaker... and yet when I want to throw together a document I turn to Create (an application made by a friend of mine). I also have (and know how to use quite well) Illustrator and CorelDraw... and yet when I want to draw some illustrations I turn to Create (again). I have (and know how to use quite well) GoLive and Dreamweaver (along with a ton of other HTML editors)... and yet when I want to throw together a quick page I turn to Create (again).

If I have to do professional stuff, I'll break out the professional tools... but for most daily stuff I can get along quite well within two applications, Photoshop and Create. For me Photoshop was paid for more than a decade ago, I only upgrade in extreme cases (I'm currently using Photoshop CS because I haven't needed more), and Create was paid for 8 years ago and I get free upgrades for life.

________________

So I don't see any reason why people should just use what they want to use (as those are the tools that are the most useful). But at the same time I find people saying no one needs Photoshop (or any other application for that matter) just because they personally don't need/use it to be rather bizarre.

Software shouldn't be a popularity contest people. Use what works for you and stop worrying about what your next door neighbor is using. These aren't sports teams, these are tools... and not every tool is the right fit for every person.



And don't pirate software and don't do drugs!

[Gep Malakai]

Shaw wrote:

---

And don't pirate software and don't do drugs!

Fine. But I refuse to drink my milk.

[Arrqh]

I can't use the GIMP for a few reasons, one of which is my work flow is so hinged on Photoshop's way of doing things that I can't migrate. In terms of usability there are many areas where GIMP just can't compete in. If you're working on your own projects, then fine, but in a professional environment it really does matter.

That said, as far as I can tell aside from a poor but usable implementation of 32bit floating point images the only thing Adobe has added in each successive version since CS is more bloat and harmful UI tweaks. It's a bit like Office, really.

The reason people pay for it is because they know they can turn right around and charge their customers for having it. The people that use it do so because of style over substance. They know that their clients want someone that uses Photoshop not GIMP or some other program they have never heard of.

This is absolutely not true. Our customers have no idea what software we use to make our products. Why should we tell them? What would they care? We use Photoshop because... and you have no idea how much it pains me to say this... it's the best tool for the job. They simply have no viable competition that can do the things that they do. I can't stand Photoshop (and generally have a great deal of ire for anything Adobe spits out) but it's simply the best that there is. Unfortunately.

[Ar-Pharazon]

doublegoodprole wrote:

---

Hahahahaha....oh, you were serious.

Serious as a dog star. Here at work, I usually refer to our tech support as the "help" desk or just plain helpless.

And most online tech support is just as bad going right into the "reinstall" mantra. If they'd make shit that knew how to properly install itself, especially when Windows tends to screw up installs, we'd hardly ever need the support.

This kind of thing is why I had no problem buying 2 copies of the OEM versions of Win7. Half the price of a "full" version, loads and updates the same, but no support.

[Galactus]

You know Photoshop is not only used by graphic designers. I am sure the rest of us are not using it to its full awesome potential. And I was asking around here about GIMP not Photoshop. And we are talking about Photoshop not the CS which the average person doesn't even know about or want.

So it may be true that none of your clients ask if you use photoshop, mine do and everyone else I know also. But again I am not a graphic designer.

I am just a little bit more than the average Joe. I am not a computer, graphics, or engineer wiz. I don't have and friends that work at Adobe or that create programs that I use. I will go out on a limb and say the average person doesn't either, not even the professionals that use this stuff. I also don't have the time or patience to learn a bunch of different software packages just for the heck of it, especially when I will never use them. Why would a person do that anyway?

[Robert Maxwell]

Joy To The World wrote:

---

You know Photoshop is not only used by graphic designers. I am sure the rest of us are not using it to its full awesome potential. And I was asking around here about GIMP not Photoshop. And we are talking about Photoshop not the CS which the average person doesn't even know about or want.

So it may be true that none of your clients ask if you use photoshop, mine do and everyone else I know also. But again I am not a graphic designer.

I am just a little bit more than the average Joe. I am not a computer, graphics, or engineer wiz. I don't have and friends that work at Adobe or that create programs that I use. I will go out on a limb and say the average person doesn't either, not even the professionals that use this stuff. I also don't have the time or patience to learn a bunch of different software packages just for the heck of it, especially when I will never use them. Why would a person do that anyway?

They have no reason to, of course, unless they intend to get into that business.

Fact: Photoshop is priced for professionals, not average users.

[Galactus]

Well I said it is priced for people that can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I know artist will pay thousands for a single brush.

So software experts tell me, is Photoshop priced correctly based on the amount of work that went into it?

[Robert Maxwell]

Joy To The World wrote:

---

Well I said it is priced for people that can afford it and are willing to pay for it. I know artist will pay thousands for a single brush.

So software experts tell me, is Photoshop priced correctly based on the amount of work that went into it?

That's irrelevant.

Since software can be duplicated an infinite number of times at virtually no cost, all that matters is how much you can get away with charging for it in order to maximize the number of paying customers.

Clearly, the high price of Photoshop is not enough of a deterrent to hurt Adobe's finances, so it must be worth the price to those who are paying.

[CorporalClegg]

Arrqh wrote:

---

I can't use the GIMP for a few reasons, one of which is my work flow is so hinged on Photoshop's way of doing things that I can't migrate. In terms of usability there are many areas where GIMP just can't compete in.

And herein lies the problem.

This really just the same old, "Well, I'm not used to using it and don't know how to all of its tools, therefore it's not as usable/efficient and thus not as good." That's nonsense.

Though I don't blame you. Part of the problem is a lack of knowledge. While there's certainly a wealth of information: FAQs, HOW-TOs, etc. on GIMP across the web, it isn't always the most accessible. Nor do they usually (if ever) go into full detail. There's also a severe lack of literature on the subject--go into a bookstore and be lucky to find a single book.

The thing of it is, though, since it's open source, with a little know-how, one can figure it to be as usable and efficient and he needs it to be. There are also several builds out there (like five or six) that have been designed to function more like Photoshop.

There's also the CLI functionality that, once a person learns how to use properly, will wonder how he ever got by without it.

[Galactus]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

That's irrelevant.

Since software can be duplicated an infinite number of times at virtually no cost, all that matters is how much you can get away with charging for it in order to maximize the number of paying customers.

Clearly, the high price of Photoshop is not enough of a deterrent to hurt Adobe's finances, so it must be worth the price to those who are paying.

It must have hurt it somewhat or else they would have never came out with Elements. They were trying to do something to seem the tide of pirated software.

[Robert Maxwell]

Joy To The World wrote:

---

It must have hurt it somewhat or else they would have never came out with Elements. They were trying to do something to seem the tide of pirated software.

They were trying to tap a more budget-conscious, hobbyist demographic. That's a good business strategy. They haven't dropped the price of PS itself, have they?

[Shaw]

Joy To The World wrote:

---

I am just a little bit more than the average Joe. I am not a computer, graphics, or engineer wiz. I don't have and friends that work at Adobe or that create programs that I use. I will go out on a limb and say the average person doesn't either, not even the professionals that use this stuff. I also don't have the time or patience to learn a bunch of different software packages just for the heck of it, especially when I will never use them. Why would a person do that anyway?

I'm sorry... are you asking why I learned all the things that I've learned?

Joy To The World wrote:

---

It must have hurt it somewhat or else they would have never came out with Elements. They were trying to do something to seem the tide of pirated software.

Do you know the history of Photoshop Elements? Before it became it's own product in 2001 it started life as Photoshop LE (the first version that I can recall was Photoshop LE 3.0, which was a limited version of Photoshop 3.0, released around 1995). While the LE version was generally priced the same as Elements is today, the goal of the product wasn't to stop piracy, it was to have a version of Photoshop that could be bundled with things like scanners, printers and cameras.

While a lot of these things may seem new to you, most of it has been going on for years. The piracy issue only became significant with the increase in band width of the net for the average user. Prior to that Adobe's biggest problem was design firms buying a single copy and installing it on multiple systems.

There is no need to guess at motives if you know about this... which is why it is helpful to know about this stuff.

So why are you arguing this anyways? Are you trying to prove that what was the best choice for you must be the best solution for all?

You are arguing about things you don't seem to have a good grasp on and are (apparently) arguing for a one size fits all solution (as long as it is the one that worked for you).

I'm glad GIMP works for you. I like GIMP and have been using it for almost 10 years (on my Silicon Graphics systems where the newest version of Photoshop for them is version 3.0.1). It is not (and the makers of GIMP have said as much) a replacement for Photoshop for professional users.

I have another friend who made an application that competed with Photoshop call TIFFany. I've used it on a number of my systems (NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody systems where there is no version of Photoshop) and used it a little in Mac OS X back before Adobe made a native version. It is very nice and very powerful software... but I'd rather use Photoshop. The same was true for most Mac users, and he ended up selling the software to Apple (who used it in Mac OS X for the Core Image APIs). I use Photoshop because it is the best solution for me.

But even when my friend was still selling his software (though you can still buy it here), you had the choice of two versions... basic and professional. And the two versions had different prices... $222 and $444. Why? Because not everyone needs all the professional tools.