6 ms·

So, is someone going to do a startup to obliterate Adobe's print and graphics production monopoly, or what?

by beatpanda 14y ago

rplnt 14y ago
You can take Gimp, fix it up, brand it, and sell.
- timinman 14y ago
  The latest release of Gimp (2.8) doesn't even run on OSX. I'd love to use it, but I can't.
  - starwed 14y ago
    You should check that statement again! http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html The official 2.8 release was what, a week ago? I don't think it's a big deal if it comes out on one platform a few days late. :)
    - timinman 14y ago
      Unless I'm missing something, the latest download available on that site is 2.6. I realize it's free software, so it probably is a little cheeky to complain, but it can't be a photoshop alternative if it's not available on OSX. From what I understand, the new GTK broke tablet compatibility for OSX. If anyone knows enough about those issues and the underlying languages and libraries behind GIMP, consider this an invitation to get involved: http://www.gimp.org/develop/ http://www.gimp.org/develop/ I'm excited about the unified interface and the new transform tool, so here's hoping it is just a couple more days.
      - starwed 14y ago
        That's odd, 2.8 was clearly available when I viewed that page. Maybe you just had an old version cached? They only seem to offer links to 2.8 for Snow Leopard and Lion, so that could also be an issue.
    - timinman 14y ago
      OK here it is: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx/
- gaius 14y ago
  "Fix it up" includes adding 16-bit-per-channel colour, something that photographers have been crying out for that the GIMP team hasn't managed in 15 years of trying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth#Deep_color_.2830.2F36.2F48-bit.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth#Deep_color_.2830.2F...
  - jarek-foksa 14y ago
    This should be added soon according to http://gimpfoo.de/2012/04/17/goat-invasion-in-gimp/ http://gimpfoo.de/2012/04/17/goat-invasion-in-gimp/ GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated. Once the core is completely ported, it will be a minor effort to simply “switch on” high bit depths and whatever color models we’d like to see.
  - exDM69 14y ago
    More than 8bpp color depth is available in GIMP and has been so for a while now if you use the development version. GIMP was a little late to the game, but the issue has been fixed. Also: your comment was arrogant and impolite towards the GIMP team.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - epo 14y ago
      Having to use the development version with it's collection of unknown bugs and misfeatures is not, in any meaningful sense, being available.
      - exDM69 14y ago
        Sometimes you just need a feature before it's available in a released version. You can either go get the dev version or bitch about it. I tend to do the former. In fact, I use quite a lot of software from their development repositories, e.g. GCC and Blender. It is a very rare occasion that I come by a bug as most open source projects have sane version management practices and branching processes.
- nailer 14y ago
  I'd pay for a not-shit Gimp for OS X. In fact I kind of already so (sans Open Source) with Pixelmator.
abhaga 14y ago
Aviary (http://www.aviary.com/ http://www.aviary.com/) comes to mind. For the book production, PressBooks (http://pressbooks.org/ http://pressbooks.org/) is an attempt to simplify the process and disrupt the CS based tool chain. I am also working on something in the domain. Hoping to show it to the world very soon!
mahyarm 14y ago
Pixelmator kindof?
- batista 14y ago
  Pixelmator + the rest 200 features pros use + an assorted family of products for DTP/Vectors/etc.
elorant 14y ago
Apple should do that.
Yrlec 14y ago
There's also a Swedish start up working on that: http://www.xadesoftware.com/blog/ http://www.xadesoftware.com/blog/ (Disclosure: I'm a minority share holder in the company)
batista 14y ago
>So, is someone going to do a startup to obliterate Adobe's print and graphics production monopoly, or what? Sure, they would just have to build a compelling set of apps, for Windows and Mac at the least, that have 90% of those features that Adobe has built to their apps since 1990. There DO exist competing products for Adobe stuff, but they are disparate. The best of them is Quark (vs InDesign). Final Cut Pro/Avid et co do a nice work against Premiere. Inscape is quite good to replace Illustrator, maybe Corel Draw too. Gimp is not there yet, but Corel Photo-Paint and Painter combined would make a compelling proposal. So, you have parts here and there, but not streamlined nor combined. And for all the "bloat talk", Photoshop can handle huge images with ease whereas lesser programs throw the towel even at 200MB or so. (We have tons of 20% solutions -- they are not any good for professional printing and graphics work with the ease and breadth current designers are used to, even missing extremely critical parts, like CMYK in some cases).
- Silhouette 14y ago
  We have tons of 20% solutions -- they are not any good for professional printing and graphics work Yes, that's the real problem. None of the OSS offerings is really anywhere close to the equivalent CS tool yet: not Inkscape, not the GIMP, not Scribus. Quark and Corel should have the pedigree, but last time I had this conversation I looked up the latest features in Corel's graphics software, and it's basically a second-tier player these days. I've never used Quark, but the picture painted by others looks similar. The thing that puzzles me is why no-one has yet come up with a credible competitor to CS (or, similarly, to MS Office). Two of the most successful software companies on the planet make a very significant chunk of their profits on these product lines, and they are certainly open to disruption by competition based on usability and/or quality/reliability as well as functionality and workflow. Of course there's a substantial barrier to entry, but it's not that unassailable in software terms.
  - xsmasher 14y ago
    There are also network effects at play - your co-workers create .psd files, and your printing company takes .psd files, so you use Photoshop. There is also ample training material, frequent conferences, etc. That was Corel's problem - not matter how good a tool they made, printers either could not open the files, or were scared off by bad experiences with previous versions. Google docs has only succeed because "close enough" formatting was good enough for business docs and spreadsheets. Not so in graphic design.
CamperBob2 14y ago
Not until Adobe's patents expire, they won't.
dendory 14y ago
Personally I use Paint.NET and love it. Sure it won't suffice if you need high end stuff but for me it's perfect and free.
splatcollision 14y ago
Yep, for the task of web design and animation, my product is almost ready...

So, is someone going to do a startup to obliterate Adobe's print and graphics production monopoly, or what?

rplnt 14y ago

You can take Gimp, fix it up, brand it, and sell.

timinman 14y ago
The latest release of Gimp (2.8) doesn't even run on OSX. I'd love to use it, but I can't.
- starwed 14y ago
  You should check that statement again! http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html The official 2.8 release was what, a week ago? I don't think it's a big deal if it comes out on one platform a few days late. :)
  - timinman 14y ago
    Unless I'm missing something, the latest download available on that site is 2.6. I realize it's free software, so it probably is a little cheeky to complain, but it can't be a photoshop alternative if it's not available on OSX. From what I understand, the new GTK broke tablet compatibility for OSX. If anyone knows enough about those issues and the underlying languages and libraries behind GIMP, consider this an invitation to get involved: http://www.gimp.org/develop/ http://www.gimp.org/develop/ I'm excited about the unified interface and the new transform tool, so here's hoping it is just a couple more days.
    - starwed 14y ago
      That's odd, 2.8 was clearly available when I viewed that page. Maybe you just had an old version cached? They only seem to offer links to 2.8 for Snow Leopard and Lion, so that could also be an issue.
  - timinman 14y ago
    OK here it is: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimponosx/
gaius 14y ago
"Fix it up" includes adding 16-bit-per-channel colour, something that photographers have been crying out for that the GIMP team hasn't managed in 15 years of trying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth#Deep_color_.2830.2F36.2F48-bit.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth#Deep_color_.2830.2F...
- jarek-foksa 14y ago
  This should be added soon according to http://gimpfoo.de/2012/04/17/goat-invasion-in-gimp/ http://gimpfoo.de/2012/04/17/goat-invasion-in-gimp/ GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated. Once the core is completely ported, it will be a minor effort to simply “switch on” high bit depths and whatever color models we’d like to see.
- exDM69 14y ago
  More than 8bpp color depth is available in GIMP and has been so for a while now if you use the development version. GIMP was a little late to the game, but the issue has been fixed. Also: your comment was arrogant and impolite towards the GIMP team.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - epo 14y ago
    Having to use the development version with it's collection of unknown bugs and misfeatures is not, in any meaningful sense, being available.
    - exDM69 14y ago
      Sometimes you just need a feature before it's available in a released version. You can either go get the dev version or bitch about it. I tend to do the former. In fact, I use quite a lot of software from their development repositories, e.g. GCC and Blender. It is a very rare occasion that I come by a bug as most open source projects have sane version management practices and branching processes.
nailer 14y ago
I'd pay for a not-shit Gimp for OS X. In fact I kind of already so (sans Open Source) with Pixelmator.

abhaga 14y ago

Aviary (http://www.aviary.com/ http://www.aviary.com/) comes to mind. For the book production, PressBooks (http://pressbooks.org/ http://pressbooks.org/) is an attempt to simplify the process and disrupt the CS based tool chain. I am also working on something in the domain. Hoping to show it to the world very soon!

mahyarm 14y ago

Pixelmator kindof?

batista 14y ago
Pixelmator + the rest 200 features pros use + an assorted family of products for DTP/Vectors/etc.

elorant 14y ago

Apple should do that.

Yrlec 14y ago

There's also a Swedish start up working on that: http://www.xadesoftware.com/blog/ http://www.xadesoftware.com/blog/ (Disclosure: I'm a minority share holder in the company)

batista 14y ago

>So, is someone going to do a startup to obliterate Adobe's print and graphics production monopoly, or what? Sure, they would just have to build a compelling set of apps, for Windows and Mac at the least, that have 90% of those features that Adobe has built to their apps since 1990. There DO exist competing products for Adobe stuff, but they are disparate. The best of them is Quark (vs InDesign). Final Cut Pro/Avid et co do a nice work against Premiere. Inscape is quite good to replace Illustrator, maybe Corel Draw too. Gimp is not there yet, but Corel Photo-Paint and Painter combined would make a compelling proposal. So, you have parts here and there, but not streamlined nor combined. And for all the "bloat talk", Photoshop can handle huge images with ease whereas lesser programs throw the towel even at 200MB or so. (We have tons of 20% solutions -- they are not any good for professional printing and graphics work with the ease and breadth current designers are used to, even missing extremely critical parts, like CMYK in some cases).

Silhouette 14y ago
We have tons of 20% solutions -- they are not any good for professional printing and graphics work Yes, that's the real problem. None of the OSS offerings is really anywhere close to the equivalent CS tool yet: not Inkscape, not the GIMP, not Scribus. Quark and Corel should have the pedigree, but last time I had this conversation I looked up the latest features in Corel's graphics software, and it's basically a second-tier player these days. I've never used Quark, but the picture painted by others looks similar. The thing that puzzles me is why no-one has yet come up with a credible competitor to CS (or, similarly, to MS Office). Two of the most successful software companies on the planet make a very significant chunk of their profits on these product lines, and they are certainly open to disruption by competition based on usability and/or quality/reliability as well as functionality and workflow. Of course there's a substantial barrier to entry, but it's not that unassailable in software terms.
- xsmasher 14y ago
  There are also network effects at play - your co-workers create .psd files, and your printing company takes .psd files, so you use Photoshop. There is also ample training material, frequent conferences, etc. That was Corel's problem - not matter how good a tool they made, printers either could not open the files, or were scared off by bad experiences with previous versions. Google docs has only succeed because "close enough" formatting was good enough for business docs and spreadsheets. Not so in graphic design.

CamperBob2 14y ago

Not until Adobe's patents expire, they won't.

dendory 14y ago

Personally I use Paint.NET and love it. Sure it won't suffice if you need high end stuff but for me it's perfect and free.

splatcollision 14y ago

Yep, for the task of web design and animation, my product is almost ready...