"they're not rentals. You hold a personal viewing license that can be revoked at any time per the eula."
That is the truth, what jobs said at the top was a bold faced lie.
Maybe you should look up the word "rental." The file is your property. Are Apple fgoing to come andf delete it? IK don't see how it's possible for them to get you to "return" the rental to the store.
Photoshop is popular because it was the first photo editing application for Windows and Microsoft (uncharacteristically) hasn't competed with them yet.
For starters, I don't think this is even true. Photoshop was surely not the first phot editing application for Windows. It gained its success on the Mac, and tranformed the publishing and photographic industries. Secondly, what makes you think microsoft could possibly compete with Photoshop? They have very little experience in professional imaging. Microsoft does have image editing software, but it sucks.
And you established this incredible fact how exactly?
By observing hundreds of users over more than a decade. Most of them had little computer experience, and just wanted to edit photos. Very few had any difficulties.
How many of those 'average persons' would accept the price tag if getting it for free was not an option?
Well, I don't know, but that question is entirely irrelevant to the issue of how usable Photoshop is. On the cost, most of the people I have introduced, are university students who have access to a legal site license from their campus. Whether they buy Photoshop after they graduate or not, is another matter.
It's hard to decide who to feel the most pity for. The mobile phone owners for being conned, Motorola for being so dumb, or the people who discuss the issue on Slashdot...
Some good news for Linux is announced (often no BFD). And many posters here are screaming about how Linux is so inferior to msft.
Well, I certainly don't believe Linux is inferior. I have also read most of the posts up until yours, and I don't see single comment yet on MSFT being superior to Linux.
Frankly, I don't care what desktop you use. I don't care if you don't like Linux. But, it seems strange to me that this sort of news would make so many posters so angry.
I don't care what desktop or graphics program you use, either. I'm not angry. I just can't understand why the article had to use the over-the-top propaganda of "world's best graphics program" or the company has to use marketing gimmicks like "Xtreme." I'd like to see some company take graphics seriously. Adobe used to, it was the domain of the smart innovator in graphics, when Knoll was at the controls. these days, Adobe indulges in a lot of the stupid "lifestyle" marketing that is demonstrated by this slashdot article, and the Xara website.
Please, software companies, cut the bullshit. If you make a graphics program, talk about graphics. I don't really give a shit about "lifestyle marketing" or the politics of Open Source. I just want the most effective tools to create graphics.
Xara might be the best graphics program in the world, for all I know, but I find the marketing offensive, and just want answers. Indeed, Xara's marketing is not quite as obnoxious as Quark's, and probably not even as obnoxious as Adobe's. But I already use Adobe, I was convinced before they went all corporate-wanker-marketing. If I was a new customer to Adobe, I would also be turned off by their marketing zeal, just as I am by Xara's.
Well, I don't haver anything about Xara. My problem with the slashdot article, and the company's website, is that both reek of press-releases and marketdroid-speak. It would be nice if slashdot, or Xara would just cut to the chase, and tell us what the software is all about. I don't care for all the hubris of "world's best graphics program" from slashdot, nor the "you've never seen such an easy program!" dumbed-down shit from Xara's website.
A 3D program like Maya or Blender IS a vector drawing program. Not a raster based. Textures can be raster based.
That's a pretty silly comment. they are vector AND raster based. The vast majority of output from 3D programs is raster-based. Anyway, why the need for this stupid vector/raster semantic fascism? Both work well together, and all your screen output and printer output (unless you still use a pen-plotter) is rasterized anyway. It's not a game of which is "better" than the other. they are simply different, and complimentary. What decent artist would bother discriminating among tools like this? Use what you need to use.
The reason it has the potential is because XaraX is already a fantastic small, fast, stable offering from a programming house that's been developing graphics apps for decades.
With modern graphics requirements, multimedia, format support, colour management support, etc, it's a bit difficult for the "world's best" graphics application to be particularly small. After all, it could hardly be considered world's best, without addressing the most advanced users and professionals in the task that it is designed to do. What makes this software so good? I didn't bother looking much further after seeing the website, which was full of "Easy, fun! Enhance your photos!" marketing drivel.
Normal users don't need that stuff. They just crop photos, and print. Artists/Professionals/Hobbyists do need that stuff, 'cause Photoshop and the Gimp, like most decent applications are complex and *Gasp* not exactly like every other application.
Exactly. And cropping and printing is much simpler in photoshop than many applications. The crop tool is right there in the second row of the tool palette! It's much harder to find the crop tool in some "amateur" programs. Normal users don't need the "advanced tricks" to use Photoshop. But I haven't seen very many beginner users have trouble using the basics of Photoshop. Unlike many programs, the icons are well designed, and people get the idea of what a tool is, without really having to learn anything about the software. I've introduced hundreds of people to Photoshop, and most find it intuitive and easy.
but they are exactly the sort of thing that professionals use for their work (e.g., "Photoshop").
WTF? photoshop is popular in part because it is one of the most usable products on the planet. You can be a beginner or an expert, and it is still easy to use. Contrast that with most graphics programs, where even the ones aimed at "beginners" or "consumers" are harder to use than Photoshop. I don't know how the average person is supposed to make sense of the insane graphics editing software that comes for free with many digital cameras.
As for piracy, most urban centres in the USA etc will not have shops on the high street that deal in exclusively pirated material, as does China, Russia and many other places. These shops are downright common, and certainly in the cities I have visited have outnumbered bona fide outlets by maybe 10:1.
But why would Americans need such shops or street vendors? Most Americans have high-speed internet access, or can obtain their illegal software from the computers at work. In many other countries, they don't have the network access, or jobs, so they have to buy off the street.
I don't see what makes street vendors any more evil than other "pirates." I also don't see how the existence of street vending makes piracy a more serious problem than other methods, like Bittorrent.
but I would imagine that the piracy situation in countries where you can openly buy pirated material on the high street is going to be significantly bigger than in those aforementioned countries where the piracy market is somewhat underground.
Why? What is the logic behind this reasoning?
So in order to provide the right kind of incentive for the studios to press these new Chinese discs, China would have to clean up the piracy situation as it currently stands, and get a high penetration of their new players.
This doesn't make sense. China is issuing this format for its own citizens. Chinese companies will be pressing the discs. China doesn't need anyone's permission on this, and doesn't care what other countries think. Why should they? Most countries are highly dependent on China today.
American companies also don't give a shit about piracy. They only care about profits. Why would the existence of piracy prevent them from entering a profitable market? They're after money, not morality.
Fuck man, you are calling other people zealots, and you get into semantic arguments about the size of pockets? One would think that "pocket" in most people's minds, refers to an average sized pocket.
Your argument is like calling a Cray Supercomputer a "laptop" because it could possibly fit on a giant space alien's lap.
because there's no way the content producers are going to license that format anywhere that counts i.e North America, Japan or Europe and some other places.
Are you racist or something? What makes you think that China, India, or Indonesia "don't count"? They are massively important nations on the world stage, even if they have "rampant piracy."one day they will be much more important than the "nations that count" which you mention.
And, by the way, the USA and other "Western" nations have equally rampant piracy. Does that make them uncivilized barbarians who don't count, as you imply about some nations?
I'll definitely buy one, and so will every other academic, and probably a lot of business types as well.
I don't really understand the "academic" bit of your comment. Isn't showing a Powerpoint or Keynote presentation enough to permanently revoke your intellectual credentials? What "academic" would be caught dead with such a hucksterish and infantile way of presenting their ideas? They would look like a retard from business school.
"The original iPod changed the way you listen to music by putting thousands of songs in your pocket." As if nobody else put thousands of songs in your pocket? This seems to suggest that Apple's iPod was the first device to put thousands of songs in someone's pocket by using a hard drive?
No, it suggests that Apple put it in your pocket. Which is generally true, because nobody bought anybody else's HD-based players. theoretically, you could do it with someone else's player, but in reality, people did not do that. Anyway, the iPod was much smaller than previous HD-based players. the Archos and others were not pocket-sized. So it's probably true. the flash-based players could fit in a pocket, but they only held hundreds of songs, not thousands. Who made a pocket-sized MP3 player with 1000+ song storage before the iPod?
So much for Apple invented the MP3 player with a hard drive first, myth, and changed the way we listen to music.
But nobody has ever claimed Apple invented the HD-based MP3 player. Which makes this comment rather nonsensical:
Apple really needs to be more honest in their marketing.
Where's the dishonesty? You have accused them of making claims they haven't, and you expect more honesty from them? How about a little honesty yourself?
My desktop-replacement doesn't fit comfortably in the space I get in coach (and god help me if the seat in front of me reclines!), the laptop eats batteries too quickly to last thru a 2 or 3 flight day, travelling with kids forces me to choose between their shows and my needs for the laptop, etc.
Get a decent laptop, then! Spending a bit of time selecting a non-crappy laptop would probably save you the cost of a portable DVD player, and get you a better computing experience.
How so? I can use all my old lenses (manual or autofocus) on the latest Nikons. Canon are the ones who restricted lens availability, and made their customers' glass purchases worthless once they switched to autofocus. And I'm pretty sure there are a LOT more obscure lenses (fisheyes, PC-lenses, macro lenses, medical lenses) available for Canon than Nikon. I guess Canons are OK for amateurs, but not if you want a complete photography system.
This is rather OT, but since you ask: wider variety of choices in both lenses and bodies.
That's just not true. Nikons can use lenses going back the the 70s. Every pro photographer has at least a few Nikon lenses. They are widely available on the second-hand market. Given that Canon changed their lens mountwhen they went from MF to AF, how can you trust them not to do it again? On Slashdot, I thought backwards compatibility and trust would be important. Canon screwed their customers in a huge way. Nikon serves their customers much better, and is more responsive to feedback.
Oh, because the internet grew up and people got used to getting stuff for free.
We used to get a lot more stuff for free in the 80s. The 90s only looked like you were getting stuff for free. At the same time, quality and longevity of products declined. nobody bought copy-protected floppies in the 80s - because they were a major hassle to use. Instead, you would get a copy from a local hacker group (or your friend) because the pirated versions ran much better than the copy-protected originals. Just like pirated DVDs work better than legal, copy-protected DVDs today. The big difference is that it's much easier to copy stuff today (even with DRM) because we have super-large capacity HD and optical drives. But people spend a lot more on original, copy-protected stuff today, than they did ion the 80s. So, where are the cost savings? Today we buy DVDs, we pay monthly cellphone and broadband bills. In the 80s, internet or BBS access was totally free. No cellphone bills. No hidden costs. get what you pay for.
Stuff is "cheaper" now to buy up-front, but in the long run is more wasteful and expensive. Hardware, and even software doesn't last very long. Comes with more restrictions, and monthly fees or frequent upgrade costs.
Slashdot Mirror
The batter life is the Good Life.
"they're not rentals. You hold a personal viewing license that can be revoked at any time per the eula." That is the truth, what jobs said at the top was a bold faced lie. Maybe you should look up the word "rental." The file is your property. Are Apple fgoing to come andf delete it? IK don't see how it's possible for them to get you to "return" the rental to the store.
For starters, I don't think this is even true. Photoshop was surely not the first phot editing application for Windows. It gained its success on the Mac, and tranformed the publishing and photographic industries. Secondly, what makes you think microsoft could possibly compete with Photoshop? They have very little experience in professional imaging. Microsoft does have image editing software, but it sucks.
And you established this incredible fact how exactly?
By observing hundreds of users over more than a decade. Most of them had little computer experience, and just wanted to edit photos. Very few had any difficulties.
Well, I don't know, but that question is entirely irrelevant to the issue of how usable Photoshop is. On the cost, most of the people I have introduced, are university students who have access to a legal site license from their campus. Whether they buy Photoshop after they graduate or not, is another matter.
Wow, Anonymous Coward just quit slashdot forever. This is good news!
It's hard to decide who to feel the most pity for. The mobile phone owners for being conned, Motorola for being so dumb, or the people who discuss the issue on Slashdot...
I don't think that Real is actually leasing their property to Microsoft.
Not true. In fact, I played a chicken song (Psycho Chicken by the Fools) in iTunes the other day, and it worked just fine.
Oh .... you said foul play. My mistake.
Well, I certainly don't believe Linux is inferior. I have also read most of the posts up until yours, and I don't see single comment yet on MSFT being superior to Linux.
Frankly, I don't care what desktop you use. I don't care if you don't like Linux. But, it seems strange to me that this sort of news would make so many posters so angry.
I don't care what desktop or graphics program you use, either. I'm not angry. I just can't understand why the article had to use the over-the-top propaganda of "world's best graphics program" or the company has to use marketing gimmicks like "Xtreme." I'd like to see some company take graphics seriously. Adobe used to, it was the domain of the smart innovator in graphics, when Knoll was at the controls. these days, Adobe indulges in a lot of the stupid "lifestyle" marketing that is demonstrated by this slashdot article, and the Xara website.
Please, software companies, cut the bullshit. If you make a graphics program, talk about graphics. I don't really give a shit about "lifestyle marketing" or the politics of Open Source. I just want the most effective tools to create graphics.
Xara might be the best graphics program in the world, for all I know, but I find the marketing offensive, and just want answers. Indeed, Xara's marketing is not quite as obnoxious as Quark's, and probably not even as obnoxious as Adobe's. But I already use Adobe, I was convinced before they went all corporate-wanker-marketing. If I was a new customer to Adobe, I would also be turned off by their marketing zeal, just as I am by Xara's.
That, and it uses the word "Xtreme."
That's a pretty silly comment. they are vector AND raster based. The vast majority of output from 3D programs is raster-based. Anyway, why the need for this stupid vector/raster semantic fascism? Both work well together, and all your screen output and printer output (unless you still use a pen-plotter) is rasterized anyway. It's not a game of which is "better" than the other. they are simply different, and complimentary. What decent artist would bother discriminating among tools like this? Use what you need to use.
With modern graphics requirements, multimedia, format support, colour management support, etc, it's a bit difficult for the "world's best" graphics application to be particularly small. After all, it could hardly be considered world's best, without addressing the most advanced users and professionals in the task that it is designed to do. What makes this software so good? I didn't bother looking much further after seeing the website, which was full of "Easy, fun! Enhance your photos!" marketing drivel.
Exactly. And cropping and printing is much simpler in photoshop than many applications. The crop tool is right there in the second row of the tool palette! It's much harder to find the crop tool in some "amateur" programs. Normal users don't need the "advanced tricks" to use Photoshop. But I haven't seen very many beginner users have trouble using the basics of Photoshop. Unlike many programs, the icons are well designed, and people get the idea of what a tool is, without really having to learn anything about the software. I've introduced hundreds of people to Photoshop, and most find it intuitive and easy.
WTF? photoshop is popular in part because it is one of the most usable products on the planet. You can be a beginner or an expert, and it is still easy to use. Contrast that with most graphics programs, where even the ones aimed at "beginners" or "consumers" are harder to use than Photoshop. I don't know how the average person is supposed to make sense of the insane graphics editing software that comes for free with many digital cameras.
But why would Americans need such shops or street vendors? Most Americans have high-speed internet access, or can obtain their illegal software from the computers at work. In many other countries, they don't have the network access, or jobs, so they have to buy off the street.
I don't see what makes street vendors any more evil than other "pirates." I also don't see how the existence of street vending makes piracy a more serious problem than other methods, like Bittorrent.
but I would imagine that the piracy situation in countries where you can openly buy pirated material on the high street is going to be significantly bigger than in those aforementioned countries where the piracy market is somewhat underground.
Why? What is the logic behind this reasoning?
So in order to provide the right kind of incentive for the studios to press these new Chinese discs, China would have to clean up the piracy situation as it currently stands, and get a high penetration of their new players.
This doesn't make sense. China is issuing this format for its own citizens. Chinese companies will be pressing the discs. China doesn't need anyone's permission on this, and doesn't care what other countries think. Why should they? Most countries are highly dependent on China today.
American companies also don't give a shit about piracy. They only care about profits. Why would the existence of piracy prevent them from entering a profitable market? They're after money, not morality.
Your argument is like calling a Cray Supercomputer a "laptop" because it could possibly fit on a giant space alien's lap.
I think you need psychological counselling.
Are you racist or something? What makes you think that China, India, or Indonesia "don't count"? They are massively important nations on the world stage, even if they have "rampant piracy."one day they will be much more important than the "nations that count" which you mention.
And, by the way, the USA and other "Western" nations have equally rampant piracy. Does that make them uncivilized barbarians who don't count, as you imply about some nations?
Not half as scary as using Slashdot as a news source.
I don't really understand the "academic" bit of your comment. Isn't showing a Powerpoint or Keynote presentation enough to permanently revoke your intellectual credentials? What "academic" would be caught dead with such a hucksterish and infantile way of presenting their ideas? They would look like a retard from business school.
No, it suggests that Apple put it in your pocket. Which is generally true, because nobody bought anybody else's HD-based players. theoretically, you could do it with someone else's player, but in reality, people did not do that. Anyway, the iPod was much smaller than previous HD-based players. the Archos and others were not pocket-sized. So it's probably true. the flash-based players could fit in a pocket, but they only held hundreds of songs, not thousands. Who made a pocket-sized MP3 player with 1000+ song storage before the iPod?
So much for Apple invented the MP3 player with a hard drive first, myth, and changed the way we listen to music.
But nobody has ever claimed Apple invented the HD-based MP3 player. Which makes this comment rather nonsensical:
Apple really needs to be more honest in their marketing.
Where's the dishonesty? You have accused them of making claims they haven't, and you expect more honesty from them? How about a little honesty yourself?
Get a decent laptop, then! Spending a bit of time selecting a non-crappy laptop would probably save you the cost of a portable DVD player, and get you a better computing experience.
Then you obviously isolate yourself from society at large.
How so? I can use all my old lenses (manual or autofocus) on the latest Nikons. Canon are the ones who restricted lens availability, and made their customers' glass purchases worthless once they switched to autofocus. And I'm pretty sure there are a LOT more obscure lenses (fisheyes, PC-lenses, macro lenses, medical lenses) available for Canon than Nikon. I guess Canons are OK for amateurs, but not if you want a complete photography system.
That's just not true. Nikons can use lenses going back the the 70s. Every pro photographer has at least a few Nikon lenses. They are widely available on the second-hand market. Given that Canon changed their lens mountwhen they went from MF to AF, how can you trust them not to do it again? On Slashdot, I thought backwards compatibility and trust would be important. Canon screwed their customers in a huge way. Nikon serves their customers much better, and is more responsive to feedback.
We used to get a lot more stuff for free in the 80s. The 90s only looked like you were getting stuff for free. At the same time, quality and longevity of products declined. nobody bought copy-protected floppies in the 80s - because they were a major hassle to use. Instead, you would get a copy from a local hacker group (or your friend) because the pirated versions ran much better than the copy-protected originals. Just like pirated DVDs work better than legal, copy-protected DVDs today. The big difference is that it's much easier to copy stuff today (even with DRM) because we have super-large capacity HD and optical drives. But people spend a lot more on original, copy-protected stuff today, than they did ion the 80s. So, where are the cost savings? Today we buy DVDs, we pay monthly cellphone and broadband bills. In the 80s, internet or BBS access was totally free. No cellphone bills. No hidden costs. get what you pay for.
Stuff is "cheaper" now to buy up-front, but in the long run is more wasteful and expensive. Hardware, and even software doesn't last very long. Comes with more restrictions, and monthly fees or frequent upgrade costs.