4 ms·

There's more going on here. Figma targets collaboration. Canva tackles ease of use. Nothing was stopping Adobe improving in that department. Photoshop already

There's more going on here. Figma targets collaboration. Canva tackles ease of use. Nothing was stopping Adobe improving in that department. Photoshop already has a cheap monthly subscription. Why not do a similar price point with a new collaboration and ease of use layer slapped on Illustrator?

wlesieutre 6y ago
Cheap is relative, would I rather have Photoshop for 2.5 months or a permanent license of Affinity Photo? I'm taking into account a current 50% discount, but I think that's fair since Adobe products no longer go on sale. But even without the sale, it's 5 months of Photoshop versus a permanent license.
staysaasy 6y ago
The main thing that was stopping them from improving in the collaboration / usability department was the fact that Adobe's products are extremely comprehensive – that's how they differentiate. But that comprehensiveness comes at the expense of complexity, makes it harder to have a really tight interface and add things like collaboration features. The comprehensiveness is what allowed them to win in the enterprise, but it came at a high price. If Figma wants to become an enterprise solution they'll probably end up getting really complex too.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Comprehensiveness is one of Adobe's differentiators, the other is specialised products that seamlessly interoperate. Illustrator is "Photoshop, but focus on vectors", InDesign is "Illustrator but for page design", Animate is "Illustrator, but for animations", Aftereffects is "animate but for video". All of them seamlessly interchange files with each other. Adding tools with the sole purpose to give a less powerful, more intuitive interface would have fit perfectly into the Adobe ecosystem.
  - omnimus 6y ago
    Well Adobe products in reality interoperate very badly. It's very apparent Indesign, Illustrator, AE used to be made by different companies and they have different codebases. For example if you want to import some vector shape from Illu to either Indesign or AE... its pretty complicated. Especially if you need to be able to make edits after the import (like animate the shape or change colors). Or if you want to copy text boxes? Forget it. This is obvious when you compare it to Affinity suite where not only you can copy anything around but you can instantly switch from one app to other inside the apps. Switching is then more like "vector mode", "pixel mode" and "layout mode". It all works much better and faster.
mc10 6y ago
Collaboration is pretty difficult to retrofit onto an existing product. A collaborative text editor like Google Docs needs to be designed for that purpose in mind, and the state-of-the-art techniques (CRDTs and OT) are still undergoing active research. See also the xi-editor retrospective: https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.html https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.h... I imagine Figma, being built around CRDTs and a web platform, probably had a number of intentional design differences from Photoshop etc.

wlesieutre 6y ago

Cheap is relative, would I rather have Photoshop for 2.5 months or a permanent license of Affinity Photo? I'm taking into account a current 50% discount, but I think that's fair since Adobe products no longer go on sale. But even without the sale, it's 5 months of Photoshop versus a permanent license.

staysaasy 6y ago

The main thing that was stopping them from improving in the collaboration / usability department was the fact that Adobe's products are extremely comprehensive – that's how they differentiate. But that comprehensiveness comes at the expense of complexity, makes it harder to have a really tight interface and add things like collaboration features. The comprehensiveness is what allowed them to win in the enterprise, but it came at a high price. If Figma wants to become an enterprise solution they'll probably end up getting really complex too.

wongarsu 6y ago
Comprehensiveness is one of Adobe's differentiators, the other is specialised products that seamlessly interoperate. Illustrator is "Photoshop, but focus on vectors", InDesign is "Illustrator but for page design", Animate is "Illustrator, but for animations", Aftereffects is "animate but for video". All of them seamlessly interchange files with each other. Adding tools with the sole purpose to give a less powerful, more intuitive interface would have fit perfectly into the Adobe ecosystem.
- omnimus 6y ago
  Well Adobe products in reality interoperate very badly. It's very apparent Indesign, Illustrator, AE used to be made by different companies and they have different codebases. For example if you want to import some vector shape from Illu to either Indesign or AE... its pretty complicated. Especially if you need to be able to make edits after the import (like animate the shape or change colors). Or if you want to copy text boxes? Forget it. This is obvious when you compare it to Affinity suite where not only you can copy anything around but you can instantly switch from one app to other inside the apps. Switching is then more like "vector mode", "pixel mode" and "layout mode". It all works much better and faster.

mc10 6y ago

Collaboration is pretty difficult to retrofit onto an existing product. A collaborative text editor like Google Docs needs to be designed for that purpose in mind, and the state-of-the-art techniques (CRDTs and OT) are still undergoing active research. See also the xi-editor retrospective: https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.html https://raphlinus.github.io/xi/2020/06/27/xi-retrospective.h... I imagine Figma, being built around CRDTs and a web platform, probably had a number of intentional design differences from Photoshop etc.