Adobe: Acknowledging Their Future

[PricelineNegotiator]

It's probably a good time to start thinking about our industry's massive reliance on Adobe, and how "if" they end up going down the drain, what happens to our billions of files and assets? It'd be good to work on an open-source alternative to Adobe and Affinity.

I just learned about this crazy issue we are having at our store with Adobe Acrobat (newer versions), where if you don't have a discrete graphics cards/tons of video RAM, you end up getting seizure inducing flickering when opening a PDF with a lot of vector graphics. There is no fix for this besides installing a 2021 version of Acrobat, and the bug posts have been around for years. Doesn't matter which OS you are on. It's been affecting everyone besides myself, only because I nabbed a cheap GTX 1060 when I built my desktop.

Tried to use the Adobe website yesterday and I was stuck in an infinite refresh loop and couldn't activate a font.

Day before that I tried to alter our CC plan and was met with an unknown error when at the last step.

You can't download versions of almost all Adobe programs more than 2 major releases back.

Obviously these are just my personal issues recently, and probably just the tip of the iceberg for what we collectively face.

Does this concern anyone else?

P.S. I don't care about Affinity. It's not open source. It was bought by Canva to mitigate their potential competition.

 

[G5MacMan]

Adobe Creative Suite. "Expensive and Terrible"
we have the same issue +
Constant daily nagging about " Are you sharing your account"
Acrobat using cash'd versions of the same file if you dont change the file name
i could go on, and on

 

[wonderings]

I personally don't want Adobe to go away or fade away. I remember the time before the Creative Suite when people were all using different versions of different software. It forced us to upgrade a few times because our client used a newer version than we did. With Adobe CC now it is not something I even think about, everyone is on the same version and I will say it is so much simpler that way. That being said Adobe seem slow to address small issues that are there for the modern printer. One that has bugged me for a long time is that Adobe does not give us the ability to make 100% K crop marks. For digital printing this is fine and preferred, especially if just printing a 1 colour black job so we don't get dinged with a full colour click charge. I understand the need for it for offset, but print has evolved and many shops are digital only now. Give us the choice. I am no software coder but I have trouble believing it would be that difficult to somehow implement custom colours for crop marks.

 

[jwheeler]

It'd be good to work on an open-source alternative to Adobe and Affinity.

I teach graphic design in an alternative education program, but many of my students can't afford to pay the monthly subscription for the Adobe Suite. Affinity is the closest alternative that I've personally used quite a bit and feel it's a great replacement. I did a brief write-up about it here.

However, since you mention open-source alternatives and want to stay away from Affinity, here is the list I give to my students of free design tools (besides Affinity/Canva) which also includes web-based software for students who may not own a PC or have a Chromebook and can't install certain software:

Photoshop Alternatives:

• Photopea (web-based, no need to install software)
• Gimp (Open-source computer-based software)

Illustrator Alternatives:

• Vectorpea (web-based, no need to install software)
• Inkscape (Open-source Computer-Based Software)

Adobe InDesign Alternatives:

• Scribus (Open-source Computer-Based Software)
• Google Docs (web-based, no need to install software)

 

[PricelineNegotiator]

(web-based, no need to install software)

Means you don't own it.

 

[Dov Isaacs]

…
Means you don't own it.

Regardless of whether you love or hate Adobe or any other software developer/vendor …

To be very clear, the vast majority of software we have installed on our systems is not nor has ever been an asset that “we own” in any way other than owning a license to use that software under conditions specified in those license agreements that appear on our screens when that software is first installed or invoked.

That includes operating systems (MacOS, iOS, Windows, etc.) and applications. Such applications may “bundled” with hardware (such as operating systems or RIP/DFE software) or licensed separately, such as utility programs, office applications, and graphic arts applications. In the former case, you are paying up-front for the software license as part of the cost of the hardware.

I continue to be amazed how some of us go crazy buying the latest and greatest computer hardware, cellphones, printing devices, etc. on a for beaucoup dollars/euros/shekels/whatever on a regular basis, yet cry crocodile tears when having to either pay license fees based on period of use (i.e. subscriptions) or for updates.

Just because software isn't particularly tangible (i.e., something physical like a computer, storage device, or printer) for which it is obvious that there is “cost” involved in the materials, assembly, integration, shipping, and maintenance, externally, software really looks puny, perhaps a bunch of lines of something called “code” in some obscure coded language keyed into a computer. How much cost is involved there?

As a professional who has been in the computer industry for over fifty years (starting on huge mainframes, progressing through minicomputers and then with microprocessor-based “personal” computers and output devices), let me assure you that software development and maintenance is not simple or easy in any way whatsoever, especially as the environment changes over time and customer expectations/demands increase over time. There is no degree of future-proofing that you can build into operating systems or application programs, no matter how good and disciplined you are as a software engineer. Proper software development, maintenance, and support is very, very expensive!

For example, how many times has Apple made dramatic changes to the Macintosh ranging from the processor base (Motorola 680x0 to PowerPC to Intel to Apple-customized ARM)? Forgetting the processor base, how compatible has MacOS been going back to 1984 in terms of operating system services, system calls, etc.? And what about peripherals? And new and incompatibly-modified operating system facilities over time? Add to that external file formats that change over time (sometimes not intentionally) and interoperability issues with other applications that may not be necessarily following the specifications?

It is very easy to be snarky and attribute new software licensing schemes to greed on the part of software developers, but it simply doesn't work that way. You have two basic choices — sell upgrades to accommodate new hardware and/or new underlying software as well as new features or sell subscriptions so that you have a recurring revenue stream to pay for updating the software for those purposes.

No one would go into the software development business if they had to guarantee that an upfront one-time “purchase” would forever meet the ongoing hardware and software environment changes, not to mention adding new or extended features. (BTW, since most of you aren't familiar with this, one of the problems of offering “free” upgrades to existing software versions is that tax laws prohibit this unless you reserve a major chunk of the original software licensing fee to cover future costs – that was a major hit to the bottom line of software developers and why Adobe and others were forced to sell new versions as upgrades or go onto a subscription scheme!)

And then a software developer needs to support the software product, something that is often much more complex and intangible than supporting hardware which is tangible.

Bottom line is that if you needed to own the software, you would be paying an awful lot more and probably dealing with software that you would continually need to pay someone to update and fix as the environment and your needs change.

- Dov

 

[PricelineNegotiator]

Regardless of whether you love or hate Adobe or any other software developer/vendor …

To be very clear, the vast majority of software we have installed on our systems is not nor has ever been an asset that “we own” in any way other than owning a license to use that software under conditions specified in those license agreements that appear on our screens when that software is first installed or invoked.

That includes operating systems (MacOS, iOS, Windows, etc.) and applications. Such applications may “bundled” with hardware (such as operating systems or RIP/DFE software) or licensed separately, such as utility programs, office applications, and graphic arts applications. In the former case, you are paying up-front for the software license as part of the cost of the hardware.

I continue to be amazed how some of us go crazy buying the latest and greatest computer hardware, cellphones, printing devices, etc. on a for beaucoup dollars/euros/shekels/whatever on a regular basis, yet cry crocodile tears when having to either pay license fees based on period of use (i.e. subscriptions) or for updates.

Just because software isn't particularly tangible (i.e., something physical like a computer, storage device, or printer) for which it is obvious that there is “cost” involved in the materials, assembly, integration, shipping, and maintenance, externally, software really looks puny, perhaps a bunch of lines of something called “code” in some obscure coded language keyed into a computer. How much cost is involved there?

As a professional who has been in the computer industry for over fifty years (starting on huge mainframes, progressing through minicomputers and then with microprocessor-based “personal” computers and output devices), let me assure you that software development and maintenance is not simple or easy in any way whatsoever, especially as the environment changes over time and customer expectations/demands increase over time. There is no degree of future-proofing that you can build into operating systems or application programs, no matter how good and disciplined you are as a software engineer. Proper software development, maintenance, and support is very, very expensive!

For example, how many times has Apple made dramatic changes to the Macintosh ranging from the processor base (Motorola 680x0 to PowerPC to Intel to Apple-customized ARM)? Forgetting the processor base, how compatible has MacOS been going back to 1984 in terms of operating system services, system calls, etc.? And what about peripherals? And new and incompatibly-modified operating system facilities over time? Add to that external file formats that change over time (sometimes not intentionally) and interoperability issues with other applications that may not be necessarily following the specifications?

It is very easy to be snarky and attribute new software licensing schemes to greed on the part of software developers, but it simply doesn't work that way. You have two basic choices — sell upgrades to accommodate new hardware and/or new underlying software as well as new features or sell subscriptions so that you have a recurring revenue stream to pay for updating the software for those purposes.

No one would go into the software development business if they had to guarantee that an upfront one-time “purchase” would forever meet the ongoing hardware and software environment changes, not to mention adding new or extended features. (BTW, since most of you aren't familiar with this, one of the problems of offering “free” upgrades to existing software versions is that tax laws prohibit this unless you reserve a major chunk of the original software licensing fee to cover future costs – that was a major hit to the bottom line of software developers and why Adobe and others were forced to sell new versions as upgrades or go onto a subscription scheme!)

And then a software developer needs to support the software product, something that is often much more complex and intangible than supporting hardware which is tangible.

Bottom line is that if you needed to own the software, you would be paying an awful lot more and probably dealing with software that you would continually need to pay someone to update and fix as the environment and your needs change.

- Dov

The future of computing involves throwing away the rotting foundation and owning your software. Just because you wrote an essay on "we did it this way because" doesn't mean it was impossible to do it a different way.

"Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcomes"

Yes, sometimes you have to do the very hard thing which you are not incentivized to do. But it will eventually pay off.

Sadly, Adobe's fate is sealed and none of us can change that. We have to prepare for what comes next, and not repeat the mistakes of those before us.

 

[scotts]

Maybe the bigger issue is not the software and the costs to operate it. Maybe it's that Adobe has become so big that they forget the reasons why/how they got there. Unlike Dov, I've only been at this for about 35 years, working with computers and graphic design.

I still remember Aldus PageMaker and Freehand. And back then, they were the main players for design work. Then came Adobe with Photoshop and Illustrator. And soon Aldus was purchased by Adobe. And along came Quark, the PageMaker killer. And Quark then ruled the world. Adobe saw an opportunity, so they rewrote PageMaker into InDesign. And a few years later, InDesign started to rule the world, and still does. Time for a new player?

Maybe it's like Quark and all their Xtensions. We all loved it, but then it started to get bloated. And InDesign was slim, worked great with Illustrator and Photoshop. So a change happened. And we used Photoshop for photos, Illustrator for illustrations, and InDesign for page layout. It now seems that, even though we get all the Adobe products as part of Creative Cloud, InDesign is doing more and more of everything that Illustrator and Photoshop do. Maybe not everything, but a whole lot. Almost to the point of, why have Illustrator and Photoshop to some degree? Maybe the better complaint to Adobe is, bring back InDesign 2.0 style. Slim, fast, stable, and let the accompanying software do what it does best, and use InDesign to combine all parts into one.

No matter what happens, all of us will complain about it, but we will learn the new software ( or let the new generation take over ). And convert our old files to the new system when needed. Maybe then, MarkzWare will come out with a file converter for us, like they always do.

 

[MailGuru]

The future of computing involves throwing away the rotting foundation and owning your software.

Trust me. You DO NOT want this.

I've been a programmer for a little longer than Dov.

The first program I wrote was with a soldering iron and jumper wires. From there it was IBM Fortran on an IBM Fortran 1130. Then it was COBOL on the old IBM mainframes (360/370). Then it was RPG on the IBM System 32, then RPG II on the 34's and 36's then on to RPG III, RPG IV/ILE on the 38's. Then to the PC's using QBasic, XBasic, Business Basic, dBase, dBase II, III, etc. then to FoxPro.

In the beginning, you DID own your software (application software, not operating system software). It was EXTREMELY expensive (150K & up). It was also the biggest complex mess you ever want to be involved in. Just maintaining it for multiple clients was a cluster-xxxx. Then, someone else would come in and modify the code after you, and when you went back to put in upgrades and patches it would reverse changes you had made months ago. I finally had to remove my source code and only leave the compiled (machine language) version with the client.

Then, most of the time when you had to install/upgrade the OS system, or, the base application system, all your changes and modifications would disappear. If you didn't keep good programming documentation and back-ups you were in for a long, long shift (sometime 48 to 72 hours without sleep) to have it up and running as soon as possible.

If you owned your own software, all of this madness would be your own responsibility. Not the vendor.

 

[Dov Isaacs]

A few additional “factoids” …

When Adobe acquired Aldus, Adobe didn't “rewrite” PageMaker into InDesign. Adobe acquired Aldus primarily for an in-progress development effort that ultimately yielded InDesign. There was really no code in common between PageMaker and InDesign. InDesign used a totally different document paradigm than PageMaker – it was very “frame”-oriented (not the Frame company which Adobe also acquired) and much better suited for the emerging OpenType font format supporting dramatically advanced typography, ICC color management, and the PDF imaging model that was already in active and continual development within Adobe.

There was a plan at one point within Adobe to merge FrameMaker into InDesign or at least its features (I personally was pushing for that). The table features of InDesign were not in the earliest releases of InDesign, but were added to InDesign based on the functionality of FrameMaker. Other features of FrameMaker including XML, SGML, DITA, mathematics/equations, robust variable support, etc. would all be quite welcome in InDesign and its users. And vice versa, FrameMaker sorely lacks the graphics and text features of InDesign. Why did the integration of FrameMaker into InDesign not occur? Internal politics to be quite honest – the simple truth is that FrameMaker was under development by a different group within Adobe than InDesign and that the group developing/supporting FrameMaker didn't want to “lose” their product and their raison d'être! Subsequent marketing wonks justified this mishagoss by making the absolutely absurd claim that FrameMaker users were a totally different market segment (primarily tech writers) than InDesign users (creative professionals). Ultimately both legacy FrameMaker and InDesign users lost out due to these politics.

“Ownership” of software is not a simple issue, partly because of the tangled relationship between hardware and software. We tend to think of hardware and software as distinct categories. No, not really! Virtually every “processor” and “controller” chip in our all our technology includes one or more levels of software, commonly referred to as firmware. When Intel or Apple / ARM “update” their currently-released processors, they are not modifying the silicon chips themselves (the internal transistors, connectors, and memory), but rather, are replacing the “firmware” of the chip, the software that translates what we believe to be the processors' instruction sets into the actual low level instructions. If you own the processor, do you own firmware in the chip? Or do you have the legal rights to do your own modifications to that firmware? I doubt that any lawyer or court would support that! Anyway, ownership of technology is not a simple legal or economic issue.