4 ms·

Wouldn’t {excuses} be reverse engineering all of Lightroom’s adjustment tools to be able to develop the same picture from a given pair of raw and sidecar files?

dataflow 3y ago
Probably. But I'm not sure why the difficulty should convince customers to buy a product that doesn't solve their problem.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  It will take these customers some time to understand that their deeper problem is not the lack of support for XMP but decades-long vendor lock-in they voluntarily entered into. Only with this understanding they can realize it's worth the effort.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    The existing files they have are still going to be there regardless of how much "understanding" they do.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      Sunk costs.
      - dataflow 3y ago
        No, being unable to utilize your old files is an ongoing cost, not just a sunk cost.
        hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
        Let's reformulate the problem: what is a more responsible approach regarding old graphics files that have value for you: to keep them in a proprietary format that can be used only with a tool you will have to pay for until the end of your life and can lose access to at any moment[0] because it's controlled by a third party, or rather store them in a format that is open or can be opened by software you actually own and which cannot be shut down by someone else? Yes, I know we had little choice back then. But we are in a better position now. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49973337 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49973337
        dataflow 3y ago
        > and can lose access to at any moment The risk detailed in the link you posted is regarding online storage. Notice it's talking about downloading files stored with Adobe. That's a very real risk, and I never advocated storing stuff online. However, if Adobe really canceled everyone's subscriptions tomorrow, people would immediately mess with Photoshop enough to at least export their files to some other formats, if not outright keep using it. There isn't a genuine risk of "can lose access to at any moment" here. However, I'll also note that the risk profiles are obviously different for different situations. An individual photographer that takes pictures of their family or nature is not going to be in the same boat as the employees of some company. Heck, if I was working for some big corporation that dealt with RAW files, I would probably immediately migrate to an open format for files moving forward. That doesn't imply the same thing makes sense for every individual. Same goes for corporate vs. individual backup schemes/security defenses/etc.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    There was no real competition to the Adobe suite for decades. Pros didn't have a real choice. The same pros didn't have a choice between Mac OS and Windows NT. The lack of accurate color calibration kept them on Mac OS, even with it's significantly inferior kernel process, and memory management.
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  It is their problem, just not immediate and not actionable. Things like this let Adobe continue their extortion while their software stagnates. For example PSD/PSB is a internal proprietary format for Photoshop, it was never intended to be the industry standard exchange format for raster images, but is abundantly used as such. Technically, users are not wrong in requiring impeccable PSD compatibility from other software and can call actual reasons {excuses}, but realistically it's not possible. Then how do they expect anything to change?
  - dataflow 3y ago
    > users are not wrong in requiring impeccable PSD compatibility from other software and can call actual reasons {excuses}, but realistically it's not possible. Then how do they expect anything to change? First, "realistically it's not possible" isn't obviously true on its face. People have accomplished incredible feats of reverse engineering (arguably much harder ones) even in the open-source world - with hardly any compensation. It takes a ton of talent, investment, and dedication, sure. It's hard. But it's not like this is out of humanity's reach or something. Second, "realistically it's not possible" applies just as well for the flip side. Expecting customers to ignore their very real and actual problems and pay for a non-solution just because HNers prefer them to (calling them "sunk costs" or whatever, as you can see in sibling threads), is realistically not possible either. It's just ignoring reality. Finally, customers (at least retail ones) aren't investors or policymakers - they're just customers. You can't burden them with problems in the hope of guilt-tripping them into "but society would be so much better in the coming decades if you ignored your problems". That hasn't even worked for something with consequences as severe as climate change, let alone Adobe's vendor lock-in on Photoshop.
    - orbital-decay 3y ago
      I am both a "customer" and a developer (and a manager making pipeline decisions in a creative company, in the past). The problem with reverse engineering is that it's a minefield for the business entity, from all viewpoints - competition, legal, tech. And it's never complete. Large reverse engineering attempts usually end up in a disaster for a business, and suggesting everybody following another company by reverse engineering is just not going to work. There's an objective reason for the poor compatibility with Adobe products, that's not an excuse. As I said, you're not wrong - you'll just get stuck with exploitation by Adobe as a result, and the reason is not laziness or excuses by the developers of other software. RAW edits in the sidecars in particular simply can't be made compatible between different software, because everybody has their own magic and these files only keep the configuration data for it. The best you can count on is compatibility between the different versions of the same software, if the vendor provides it, and you will lose your edits when Adobe goes out of business or decides to cut some backward compatibility.

dataflow 3y ago

Probably. But I'm not sure why the difficulty should convince customers to buy a product that doesn't solve their problem.

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
It will take these customers some time to understand that their deeper problem is not the lack of support for XMP but decades-long vendor lock-in they voluntarily entered into. Only with this understanding they can realize it's worth the effort.
- dataflow 3y ago
  The existing files they have are still going to be there regardless of how much "understanding" they do.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    Sunk costs.
    - dataflow 3y ago
      No, being unable to utilize your old files is an ongoing cost, not just a sunk cost.
      - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
        Let's reformulate the problem: what is a more responsible approach regarding old graphics files that have value for you: to keep them in a proprietary format that can be used only with a tool you will have to pay for until the end of your life and can lose access to at any moment[0] because it's controlled by a third party, or rather store them in a format that is open or can be opened by software you actually own and which cannot be shut down by someone else? Yes, I know we had little choice back then. But we are in a better position now. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49973337 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49973337
        dataflow 3y ago
        > and can lose access to at any moment The risk detailed in the link you posted is regarding online storage. Notice it's talking about downloading files stored with Adobe. That's a very real risk, and I never advocated storing stuff online. However, if Adobe really canceled everyone's subscriptions tomorrow, people would immediately mess with Photoshop enough to at least export their files to some other formats, if not outright keep using it. There isn't a genuine risk of "can lose access to at any moment" here. However, I'll also note that the risk profiles are obviously different for different situations. An individual photographer that takes pictures of their family or nature is not going to be in the same boat as the employees of some company. Heck, if I was working for some big corporation that dealt with RAW files, I would probably immediately migrate to an open format for files moving forward. That doesn't imply the same thing makes sense for every individual. Same goes for corporate vs. individual backup schemes/security defenses/etc.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  There was no real competition to the Adobe suite for decades. Pros didn't have a real choice. The same pros didn't have a choice between Mac OS and Windows NT. The lack of accurate color calibration kept them on Mac OS, even with it's significantly inferior kernel process, and memory management.
orbital-decay 3y ago
It is their problem, just not immediate and not actionable. Things like this let Adobe continue their extortion while their software stagnates. For example PSD/PSB is a internal proprietary format for Photoshop, it was never intended to be the industry standard exchange format for raster images, but is abundantly used as such. Technically, users are not wrong in requiring impeccable PSD compatibility from other software and can call actual reasons {excuses}, but realistically it's not possible. Then how do they expect anything to change?
- dataflow 3y ago
  > users are not wrong in requiring impeccable PSD compatibility from other software and can call actual reasons {excuses}, but realistically it's not possible. Then how do they expect anything to change? First, "realistically it's not possible" isn't obviously true on its face. People have accomplished incredible feats of reverse engineering (arguably much harder ones) even in the open-source world - with hardly any compensation. It takes a ton of talent, investment, and dedication, sure. It's hard. But it's not like this is out of humanity's reach or something. Second, "realistically it's not possible" applies just as well for the flip side. Expecting customers to ignore their very real and actual problems and pay for a non-solution just because HNers prefer them to (calling them "sunk costs" or whatever, as you can see in sibling threads), is realistically not possible either. It's just ignoring reality. Finally, customers (at least retail ones) aren't investors or policymakers - they're just customers. You can't burden them with problems in the hope of guilt-tripping them into "but society would be so much better in the coming decades if you ignored your problems". That hasn't even worked for something with consequences as severe as climate change, let alone Adobe's vendor lock-in on Photoshop.
  - orbital-decay 3y ago
    I am both a "customer" and a developer (and a manager making pipeline decisions in a creative company, in the past). The problem with reverse engineering is that it's a minefield for the business entity, from all viewpoints - competition, legal, tech. And it's never complete. Large reverse engineering attempts usually end up in a disaster for a business, and suggesting everybody following another company by reverse engineering is just not going to work. There's an objective reason for the poor compatibility with Adobe products, that's not an excuse. As I said, you're not wrong - you'll just get stuck with exploitation by Adobe as a result, and the reason is not laziness or excuses by the developers of other software. RAW edits in the sidecars in particular simply can't be made compatible between different software, because everybody has their own magic and these files only keep the configuration data for it. The best you can count on is compatibility between the different versions of the same software, if the vendor provides it, and you will lose your edits when Adobe goes out of business or decides to cut some backward compatibility.