If you aren't prepared to buy a Mac so that you can develop for the iPhone, perhaps you aren't that serious about it? A bottom of the line MacBook and a developer membership are pretty cheap business expenses compared to many other industries. It does suck if you just want to experiment or tinker first, of course.
Premiere was axed in 2003 because it wasn't competing well with Apple's Final Cut Pro. In 2007, Adobe thought it was worthwhile releasing it again on the Mac.
You linked to Photoshop Elements; how big of a priority do you think that is for graphics professionals? Mac CS5 seems to be shipping at the same time as the Windows version, but I can't confirm.
You do realize Lightroom is an Adobe product too, right? In fact its full title is Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. It's a complementary product to photoshop, not a competitor or viable replacement.
Yes, of course. It's an example of a program that does some of the tasks that people would have previously relied on Photoshop for.
There's nothing that comes close to Photoshop for professionals, if Adobe stops releasing it on the Mac the will simply switch to PCs.
There's nothing right now. But if Photoshop goes, it will give people a reason to try and replace it. And people won't be switching in droves, not unless Adobe stops existing copies from working.
You would deny an app the chance to exist because it isn't aesthetically pleasing enough for you ? Because apps on a mobile platform must look more beautiful ?
I'd say the opposite. If a large amount of Flash apps run as native apps then that puts pressure on Apple to make sure all those apps stay working. It's then possible for Adobe to hinder Apple's development of iPhone OS. Not what Apple wants when they're trying to keep ahead of Android. If Adobe manages to release a decent version of Flash for the iPhone as a browser plug-in, then Apple can keep their control over the development of the OS while still allowing people to use Flash.
I doubt Adobe are silly enough to cut off their software to Apple users. It would be seen as a real dickhead move in the publishing industry, where most don't care about the Flash and iPhone fiasco.
If Adobe did such a thing, I wouldn't count on people leaving OS X for Windows. Rather, I'd count on another company finally getting a foothold into Adobe's market.
Apps like Photoshop might seem impossible to displace in the professional industry, but it can happen. With apps like Aperture (and Lightroom) taking the place of Photoshop for some tasks, changes in the way people have been using the product since it's original design, different approaches to media creation, Photoshop is ready for a replacement.
As for cutting off InDesign, that could simply push the industry back to QuarkXPress.
IMO it's quite arrogant to say that only native apps will ever give a high quality experience and that your multiplatform app is not allowed to have a consistent user experience because it must be customised to individual platforms. That's like websites that have banners saying "This page must be viewed at 1024x768 in Netscape Navigator 2.0+"
No it isn't. The OK/Cancel is a good example. In the Windows world, OK/Cancel may be OK, but it's not the way things are done on OS X. The buttons should be descriptive of the action; it's part of the interface guidelines and such consistency is partly why people buy Macs. If you develop specifically for OS X, you are more likely to know about such conventions and adhere to them than if you develop for a non-OS-specific framework. Even Firefox, one of the best cross-platform programs on OS X, has many problems that would unlikely exist if it had been written specifically for OS X.
Of course, we aren't really talking about OS X. Job's hasn't said anything about enforcing this on OS X. This is about mobile platforms, where performance is much more critical than it is on the desktop. I can see why many people here are concerned about Apple's new policy, but I think it makes sense for Apple to do it.
And what about when the OS changes? Will your non-native apps need to be updated? As for the whole OK or Cancel thing, that just shows that you're one of these lazy programmers. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that developing programs in such a way is always going to have its issues because the developer is developing for something they aren't even familiar with, and Apple doesn't want those issues.
The thing about market saturation is that it helps weed out all the crap. No more gold rush mentality of people paying to get certain functionality because it's the only app available, even if it's poorly made. Now you have many competing apps. Sucks if you aren't very good at designing applications or don't have many original ideas, I guess. Some saplings will grow into the biggest trees in the world.
Nobody machines consumer products out of solid blocks of metal except as a demo, of course.
My MacBook Pro begs to differ.
Also, even in modest volumes, you don't start with plain blocks of metal. You cast or forge a blank and machine off the excess.
Not all the time. Not all parts can be forged that much to make it worthwhile and casting is out of the question if you're using something like 6061 aluminium alloy.
It's a pity they don't use the system spell check. OS X has a really good spell checker, but Firefox insists on using its own, which isn't very good and doesn't make use of my customisations in the system dictionary. I'm still using Firefox for now, but it won't take much for me to switch to Safari, or Chrome.
I don't see how you can say for sure that the organ creates the function and not the other way around. Why does one have to come before the other?
How common would it have been to come back from oxygen deprivation before modern medicine?
Re:Pound and a half and its too heavy?
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
When I read a heavy book, I can rest the top if it on my leg or the desk in front of me. Why can't the same be done with the iPad, exactly?
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
An SD card reader is already on the accessory list. Plenty of 3rd party hardware will be developed for it (have you heard of the iPhone?).
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
Fancy graphic designers and such that like Apple products also need Flash because thats what they develop for and is the de facto standard. But there's no support for Flash or any of the Adobe products. Therefore it's useless for that group too.
Most graphic designers don't use Flash. This should be evident by the small (yet still unfortunate) number of full Flash sites compared to HTML sites.
Apple's marketing alone isn't that good. Look at Sony -- another player that understands marketing, yet they haven't done very well compared to the iPod and the iPhone. I still remember the "iPod killer" a while back that Sony released. It couldn't even remember where you last were in the music library menu. The iPod got such basic functionality correct right from day one. Such things are often overlooked by techies because they like mucking about with their gadgets.
Note: Someone who needs a high-end Wacom tablet is not going to be able to make do with a capacitive touchscreen and a finger. Not saying some kind of solution won't be developed, such as a special stylus. Just that many people don't seem to understand the difference. A high-end Wacom tablet has a very high screen resolution, pressure sensitivity, and tilt sensitivity. If you rely on those features, your average tablet is not going to work very well.
If you just want a basic drawing app there are already plenty for the iPhone so there will surely be many for the iPad. They also have the advantage of being less bloated than Photoshop and designed specifically for the task of drawing. Using Photoshop on a low-power device with a small screen sounds like a real chore, especially if you want multi-tasking.
I've installed a few distros of Linux and BSD; taught myself web development and made a few DB intensive applications with them; used AutoCAD and 3D modeling and animation software, and found it fun. I've taken apart digital cameras to remove the IR blocking filter and successfully got them working again; taken apart a couple of Canon lens and reassembled them in working order. I like to fly RC helis, and take them apart, and play around with the advanced settings on modern RC equipment. I guess I'm a pretty technically inclined, geeky person.
I also think the iPhone is the best smartphone out there for most people and for myself. The iPad is the first tablet device that has caught my attention. Why? Because often I just want to get things done, not tinker. Poorly designed devices annoy me at those times; I'd rather have something that does less and does it well.
I don't expect most geeks are like this, but I'd say there's a sizable minority -- a minority that shares a lot with the majority of people.
Hope it has some kind of stand otherwise it's going to be a real pain in the ass to get a good viewing angle without also getting it too near to messy ingredients while cooking.
You can get a case that works as a stand (it's mentioned on Apple's site). The viewing angle should be pretty good since it has an IPS LCD (also featured prominently on their site); how many netbooks have that? Also, keyboards and ingredients don't mix well (or too well, one could say) unless you like those plastic keyboard covers, whereas a single piece of glass can easily be wiped clean. Most people don't want to use a keyboard when they're cooking; they'll want all the instructions up and only the need to scroll. The keyboard would just waste space and be a target for spills.
Most end users don't know what they want and some think they want something they don't. CSS allows people with design experience to make something that works better than what most people would make if they had to do it themselves. And the great thing about CSS is that if you come across a bad design, you can switch it off or even apply you own CSS, because a good designer does only use HTML for what it was designed for.
Slashdot Mirror
If you aren't prepared to buy a Mac so that you can develop for the iPhone, perhaps you aren't that serious about it? A bottom of the line MacBook and a developer membership are pretty cheap business expenses compared to many other industries. It does suck if you just want to experiment or tinker first, of course.
Because Adobe would have to be moronic to treat a large number of it's professional users as pawns in a game that has nothing to do with them.
Premiere was axed in 2003 because it wasn't competing well with Apple's Final Cut Pro. In 2007, Adobe thought it was worthwhile releasing it again on the Mac.
You linked to Photoshop Elements; how big of a priority do you think that is for graphics professionals? Mac CS5 seems to be shipping at the same time as the Windows version, but I can't confirm.
You do realize Lightroom is an Adobe product too, right? In fact its full title is Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. It's a complementary product to photoshop, not a competitor or viable replacement.
Yes, of course. It's an example of a program that does some of the tasks that people would have previously relied on Photoshop for.
There's nothing that comes close to Photoshop for professionals, if Adobe stops releasing it on the Mac the will simply switch to PCs.
There's nothing right now. But if Photoshop goes, it will give people a reason to try and replace it. And people won't be switching in droves, not unless Adobe stops existing copies from working.
You would deny an app the chance to exist because it isn't aesthetically pleasing enough for you ? Because apps on a mobile platform must look more beautiful ?
What has any of this got to do with aesthetics?
I'd say the opposite. If a large amount of Flash apps run as native apps then that puts pressure on Apple to make sure all those apps stay working. It's then possible for Adobe to hinder Apple's development of iPhone OS. Not what Apple wants when they're trying to keep ahead of Android. If Adobe manages to release a decent version of Flash for the iPhone as a browser plug-in, then Apple can keep their control over the development of the OS while still allowing people to use Flash.
I doubt Adobe are silly enough to cut off their software to Apple users. It would be seen as a real dickhead move in the publishing industry, where most don't care about the Flash and iPhone fiasco.
If Adobe did such a thing, I wouldn't count on people leaving OS X for Windows. Rather, I'd count on another company finally getting a foothold into Adobe's market.
Apps like Photoshop might seem impossible to displace in the professional industry, but it can happen. With apps like Aperture (and Lightroom) taking the place of Photoshop for some tasks, changes in the way people have been using the product since it's original design, different approaches to media creation, Photoshop is ready for a replacement.
As for cutting off InDesign, that could simply push the industry back to QuarkXPress.
Or use a 2nd monitor; that's where all the pallets go.
IMO it's quite arrogant to say that only native apps will ever give a high quality experience and that your multiplatform app is not allowed to have a consistent user experience because it must be customised to individual platforms. That's like websites that have banners saying "This page must be viewed at 1024x768 in Netscape Navigator 2.0+"
No it isn't. The OK/Cancel is a good example. In the Windows world, OK/Cancel may be OK, but it's not the way things are done on OS X. The buttons should be descriptive of the action; it's part of the interface guidelines and such consistency is partly why people buy Macs. If you develop specifically for OS X, you are more likely to know about such conventions and adhere to them than if you develop for a non-OS-specific framework. Even Firefox, one of the best cross-platform programs on OS X, has many problems that would unlikely exist if it had been written specifically for OS X.
Of course, we aren't really talking about OS X. Job's hasn't said anything about enforcing this on OS X. This is about mobile platforms, where performance is much more critical than it is on the desktop. I can see why many people here are concerned about Apple's new policy, but I think it makes sense for Apple to do it.
Why can't I enjoy both types of films?
And what about when the OS changes? Will your non-native apps need to be updated? As for the whole OK or Cancel thing, that just shows that you're one of these lazy programmers. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that developing programs in such a way is always going to have its issues because the developer is developing for something they aren't even familiar with, and Apple doesn't want those issues.
The thing about market saturation is that it helps weed out all the crap. No more gold rush mentality of people paying to get certain functionality because it's the only app available, even if it's poorly made. Now you have many competing apps. Sucks if you aren't very good at designing applications or don't have many original ideas, I guess. Some saplings will grow into the biggest trees in the world.
Nobody machines consumer products out of solid blocks of metal except as a demo, of course.
My MacBook Pro begs to differ.
Also, even in modest volumes, you don't start with plain blocks of metal. You cast or forge a blank and machine off the excess.
Not all the time. Not all parts can be forged that much to make it worthwhile and casting is out of the question if you're using something like 6061 aluminium alloy.
It's a pity they don't use the system spell check. OS X has a really good spell checker, but Firefox insists on using its own, which isn't very good and doesn't make use of my customisations in the system dictionary. I'm still using Firefox for now, but it won't take much for me to switch to Safari, or Chrome.
I don't see how you can say for sure that the organ creates the function and not the other way around. Why does one have to come before the other?
How common would it have been to come back from oxygen deprivation before modern medicine?
When I read a heavy book, I can rest the top if it on my leg or the desk in front of me. Why can't the same be done with the iPad, exactly?
An SD card reader is already on the accessory list. Plenty of 3rd party hardware will be developed for it (have you heard of the iPhone?).
Fancy graphic designers and such that like Apple products also need Flash because thats what they develop for and is the de facto standard. But there's no support for Flash or any of the Adobe products. Therefore it's useless for that group too.
Most graphic designers don't use Flash. This should be evident by the small (yet still unfortunate) number of full Flash sites compared to HTML sites.
Find me laptop that weights the same as an iPad and can run a desktop OS without feeling even slightly sluggish and you might have a point.
The average user often has more than one thing open at a time.
And how often is that because they forgot to close it or don't want to close it because the program is slow to load and doesn't save state on exit?
Apple's marketing alone isn't that good. Look at Sony -- another player that understands marketing, yet they haven't done very well compared to the iPod and the iPhone. I still remember the "iPod killer" a while back that Sony released. It couldn't even remember where you last were in the music library menu. The iPod got such basic functionality correct right from day one. Such things are often overlooked by techies because they like mucking about with their gadgets.
Note: Someone who needs a high-end Wacom tablet is not going to be able to make do with a capacitive touchscreen and a finger. Not saying some kind of solution won't be developed, such as a special stylus. Just that many people don't seem to understand the difference. A high-end Wacom tablet has a very high screen resolution, pressure sensitivity, and tilt sensitivity. If you rely on those features, your average tablet is not going to work very well.
If you just want a basic drawing app there are already plenty for the iPhone so there will surely be many for the iPad. They also have the advantage of being less bloated than Photoshop and designed specifically for the task of drawing. Using Photoshop on a low-power device with a small screen sounds like a real chore, especially if you want multi-tasking.
I've installed a few distros of Linux and BSD; taught myself web development and made a few DB intensive applications with them; used AutoCAD and 3D modeling and animation software, and found it fun. I've taken apart digital cameras to remove the IR blocking filter and successfully got them working again; taken apart a couple of Canon lens and reassembled them in working order. I like to fly RC helis, and take them apart, and play around with the advanced settings on modern RC equipment. I guess I'm a pretty technically inclined, geeky person.
I also think the iPhone is the best smartphone out there for most people and for myself. The iPad is the first tablet device that has caught my attention. Why? Because often I just want to get things done, not tinker. Poorly designed devices annoy me at those times; I'd rather have something that does less and does it well.
I don't expect most geeks are like this, but I'd say there's a sizable minority -- a minority that shares a lot with the majority of people.
Hope it has some kind of stand otherwise it's going to be a real pain in the ass to get a good viewing angle without also getting it too near to messy ingredients while cooking.
You can get a case that works as a stand (it's mentioned on Apple's site). The viewing angle should be pretty good since it has an IPS LCD (also featured prominently on their site); how many netbooks have that? Also, keyboards and ingredients don't mix well (or too well, one could say) unless you like those plastic keyboard covers, whereas a single piece of glass can easily be wiped clean. Most people don't want to use a keyboard when they're cooking; they'll want all the instructions up and only the need to scroll. The keyboard would just waste space and be a target for spills.
Most end users don't know what they want and some think they want something they don't. CSS allows people with design experience to make something that works better than what most people would make if they had to do it themselves. And the great thing about CSS is that if you come across a bad design, you can switch it off or even apply you own CSS, because a good designer does only use HTML for what it was designed for.