If an LLM is what's going to teach me a new language, why would I ever pay some middleman $100-200 a year for an app wrapper? This guy doesn't seem to realize that embracing AI-first doesn't just put his employees on the chopping block, it actually suggests his whole company is unnecessary.
This is what I don't think the "AI-first" business crowd understands -- in many cases, the moment you admit the humans in your organization can be wholesale replaced by AI, that's a sign it's possible your whole ass business case could be unnecessary LLM middleware.
Entirely uncritical state controlled or substantially aligned media masquerading as news is always bad and should be criticized. See also almost anyone called on in White House press briefings these days.
Plus, you are saying it like all propaganda is somehow the same. Rosie the Riveter != "Russia isn't going to do anything...well, it's America's fault...NATO something something...actually, Ukraine basically deserved it."
Leaving aside pricing specifics, the main issue with subscriptions is for products that you just fire up once in a great while. So long as the pricing is reasonable, I have no particular issue with subscriptions for products I use on a routine basis--especially if they're products that more or less require ongoing updates to remain useful.
For me personally, Pixelmator is absolutely a product I just fire up once in a great while. I bought it anyway because when I need it, I need it. But there's no way I would let a program like that deflate my bank account like a pricked balloon.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me. I do subscribe to Photoshop mostly because Lightroom makes sense as a subscription. Otherwise I'd probably make do with GIMP or maybe something like Pixelmator. (I used Photoshop Elements for a long time.)
It doesn't appear that I am. All I meant to add is that if Apple turns Pixelmator into a "cursed subscription zombie" (and I very much doubt this will happen) then I will not be getting that subscription. I expect most people wouldn't either.
Interesting! Do you think a credits-based pricing would be more fair? Only pay for it when you use it? Maybe pay per click? Maybe like how cloud providers charge based on how long you have it open?
Putting concerns about future states aside, congrats to the Pixelmator team. I've been using the app for years and it's a really great piece of software, well designed and well built. It's always been incredible value for the price, especially given that it basically replaces Photoshop for a wide swath of the market without compromising on UX (which is a problem for other competitors) at a price point that's like 1-2 months of an Adobe subscription (I don't even know exactly what that costs any more because Pixelmator + parts of the Affinity suite got me out of their clutches).
Adobe must not be stoked about this news. And I'll just keep my fingers crossed this all heads in a direction that's more Logic than Dark Sky.
I suspect this move is due to behind the scenes Adobe / Apple relations souring over the years.
Adobe used to be one of their biggest supporters and helped winning over users to the Mac platform.
This has diverged significantly over the years, and I think Apple is looking at Adobe and their business model and realizing that it both lucrative for them to have software that fills into this market to round out their creative pro apps suite and that Adobe increasingly becoming aggressive with cost / licensing and tactics to extract revenue aren't good for their ecosystem.
Creative software and macbooks are complement goods. i.e., demand for macbooks goes up when creative software gets cheaper, and vice versa.
This is a case where mergers are expected to make prices go down. As opposed for substitute goods, like macbooks and dell laptops, where a merger would probably make prices go up.
In both cases you have a prisoner's dilemma between vendors - with vendors producing substitute goods, the "defect" option is to lower your price. (This makes you more money, but costs the other vendor more money than you made.) For substitute goods, the "defect" option is to raise your price (this makes you more money, but costs the other vendor more money than you made.)
So mergers of vendors of substitute goods are usually bad, and tend to be blocked, because once merged the companies can coordinate to raise prices. But of complement goods are usually good, and tend to not be blocked, because once merged the companies can coordinate to lower prices.
All this to say that I think this move makes sense for apple regardless of whether their relationship with Adobe has soured.
If X consists of two complementary components, A and B, then if the price for either A or B goes down, then the total price for X goes down, demand for X goes up. Which means demand for A and B went up.
Even if the price of only one of A or B went down.
So if the price of A goes down, demand for B goes up.
If software prices go down, then demand for the hardware to run that software on goes up.
It’s a reframing of vertical integration, which does lead to lower prices or higher value assuming reasonable competition. You can also think of it as disintermediation (“cutting out the middleman”).
I mean theoretically that makes sense? If you get more value for something it increases the chance of buying it? But I also have no idea if this statement is true.
Apple and Adobe have always had a sour relationship. Adobe's crappy font licensing led to truetype and they're crappy implementation of Flash led to Jobs dropping flash in the iPhone just to mention a few things from their history.
Not to mention the fact that there were tons of rumors around Apple developers practically handholding adobe to get them across the finish line for the Apple Silicon port.
Adobe is extremely incompetent wrt actually developing usable, clean and efficient software so I can definitely see this as being plausible
… didn’t Apple switch away from Nvidia, push for OpenCL and keep Adobe in the rain when their new release was all super optimized for Nvidia? And I think heavily push for their proprietary video and image editing software? But Adobe rewrote its codebase and had the better product after all. And that was 15+ years ago?
Yes they did.
But any fact that would paint Apple in a bad light will be silenced here.
The truth is that no matter how good of a player Adobe would be, Apple would still be trying to fuck them over because Apple's greed is infinite.
Adobe's switch to subscription pricing is very annoying, but at least it's not completely absurd compared to what you would pay previously if you bought the software outright and if you actually subscribe to the full package, you get much more value actually.
And their competitors, while decent, are not really a replacement for professional work.
Affinity is fine and all but after having used it a bit for a few projects, if I were to do it full time professionally, I would pay for Creative Cloud.
In comparison the extortionate pricing Apple practices on their RAM/storage upgrades is much worse.
I don't think so. Mac sales have only grown and the whole "you need a Mac for creative work" hasn't been a thing since the 00's.
I think this is more about having the team put advanced photo editing features into the native Photos app, and possibly contributing to AI image processing.
There are lots of amateur photographers out there that use Apple hardware yet so far Apple only monetizes storage. I wouldn't be surprised to see a subscription offering that includes pro tier features for Photos.app good enough to replace Lightroom for enthusiasts but not for actual professionals.
99% chance it will not stay alive for more than 1-2 years. Shazam is the only Apple acquisition I know of that still exists independently, and that's only because it promotes Apple Music on Android.
Most likely will be integrated into Photos or possibly even a new advanced photo editing app for macOS/iOS only.
Since they were already Apple hardware only apps, there is a good chance not much will change about it (at least in the near term) and they will just use it as a tool to increase the desirability of their hardware, just like they do for their iWork suite.
I don't think it bodes well for the long term though, because Apple tend to not care much about stuff that don't make them a ton of money.
It will probably become like their office apps, being updated at a glacial pace, used primarily as a marketing tool but never really reaching a level that would truly make them a worthwhile competitor.
Not to mention Apple's challenge with 30% AppStore tax for subscription revenue.
My guess was that Apple is okay with Apps from third parties that tithe 1/3 of their subscription revenue but aren't willing to make a place for them if they don't "sing for their supper" as my Grandfather used to say.
But macOS requires app notarisation. They again made it harder to run un-notarised apps this year. If you look at the iOS side, it's clear that Apple has no qualms adding content restrictions for app notarisation, and it is more than just a malware check. It could be just a question of time until Apple decides to stop notarising Mac apps that do not use App Store payments.
Notarization isn’t the same, it just requires you have a developer certificate. There’s no restrictions on notarized apps that I’m aware of. It allows Apple to pull the cert if the app is found to be malware.
> There’s no restrictions on notarized apps that I’m aware of.
Notarized Mac apps have to used the hardened runtime, which comes with a few restrictions. For now, there are no content restrictions for notarized apps on the Mac. Let's hope it stays that way. But there are very significant content restrictions for notarized apps on iOS, and who knows how long until Apple introduces them on macOS as well.
Meh, Apple might be a little ahead of others, but all mainstream OSes and stores are basically headed this direction already. It’s just part modern security, part quality control, and part family & work friendliness. Most people on both sides actually want a walled garden. There will probably always be ways to run unsigned code and to get content that’s not approved by an app store, but maybe it’s fine if it’s ‘harder’ and not the default.
Yeah Windows does the same thing. It's something indie game devs run into. If you release on Steam, Steam launches your game. Otherwise you have to pay a certificate authority to sign your game or Windows Smart Screen will do the same "this code is sketchy. Are you really really really sure you want to run it?" thing MacOS does for non-notarized apps.
Didn't know what Pixelmator was, looked them up and they only distribute through the App Store.
I haven't been an Apple user for over 10 years, through that macOS now uses the App Store to distribute OS updates. There is no getting around the App Store on macOS and must be used for Apple related software releases, such a Xcode.
The community that looks for applications not in the App Store is most likely quite low. It requires knowledge of the ability to side-load, how to do it, and where to find applications that can be side loaded. Homebrew installation ratio against total macOS users might be a good metric.
You do not need to download Xcode via MAS, you can download the disk image directly from their developer website. Going through the MAS has been historically very painful for that big app and the day it is the only option is the day I probably stop using it unless they make some changes.
> Apple’s main source of innovation is applying mafia tactics to software distribution.
Main source of innovation? What about the Mac, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple watch, AirPods and M1 MacBook Air, all of which transformed their product categories? Not just because of the hardware, but also because of the hardware-software integration.
Even Apple's failed innovations (Apple Vision, etc.) are interesting products that push the envelope.
I don’t think you’re reading the GPs point very charitably. They’re clearly talking about recent innovations that generate revenue.
Also I think you’re overreacting with some of your examples there. You seem to be conflating “successful” with “innovative”. The two terms aren’t mutually inclusive.
As a software developer who made good money reaching hundreds of thousands of people through the app store where the old “put up a website and buy advertising” model might have netted me single-digit thousands of sales, I am always surprised at the white knights telling me I got no value from paying 30% of revenue.
If the app store is “mafia tactics”, I can’t even imagine how demonic things like wholesalers mist be.
The issue with the App Store model is that it's just another platform to market yourself on. In your case, you benefitted from a first-mover (or early-mover) advantage and did well. Over time the App Store becomes more and more saturated with apps and so the value to developers goes down. This is no different from the web! It's merely offset by a few decades.
If you had put up your website back in the early 90's and were judicious about advertising back then, you might've been a Fortune 500 company (depending on your business niche, of course)!
Big corporations get less benefits than small ones.
This is missing from the conversation, is on average, smaller corporations can better keep via the App Store model vs the open software market, because it allows for focused marketing on a fair playing field
During the PPC-Intel transition, Adobe compatibility was almost a running joke. Along the lines of the infamous "You can always count on [..] to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities] quote.
I was surprised at how quickly Adobe adopted aarch - it didn't feel sour.
My recollection is that Adobe was slow to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit x86 because they were still dependent on many of the Carbon APIs (Mac OS 9 compatibility) and those APIs weren't carried over to 64-bit. They dragged their heels about transitioning to Cocoa (NeXT derived) APIs for their UI, and it showed.
It still kills me that Altsys/Aldus/Macromedia let their NeXT codebase for Altsys Virtuoso whither (v2 was essentially Freehand 4 w/ a couple of unfixed bugs) so that when Rhapsody was announced they weren't ready for it.
In some other timeline, I am using a Mac w/ a current version of Macromedia Freehand running on Rhapsody and I am a _much_ happier person.
As it is, I'm about to give up on interactive vector drawing and just code everything either using METAPOST or OpenSCAD, or some mix of both.
In general, the way a walled garden wins is by providing everything its villagers need inside.
And Apple’s products seem to create walled gardens in order to prioritize [first creative, then economic] control.
Based on the demographic that a significant portion of their marketing seems targeted towards (artists and creative types), I think your theory sounds likely.
Assuming you're right, the vertical platform vendors should consider having a public Sherlocking policy. If you're anywhere near Apple's stuff, the Pixelmator outcome is a large fraction of your upside.
Much larger than it should be for the ecosystem's sake. Excessive cannibalism isn't probably in Apple's interest even.
Bet Apple eyes at the rent that Adobe extracts out of all those subscriptions and wants the same thing for itself. Apple has been in the market of renting out content for decades (starting with iTunes) and this move means people will have less options, not more.
Bingo. Uncommon for a company Apple's size, but they are trying to Innovators Dilemma Adobe. Either by releasing a pro version of Photos.app or adding pro features to Photos they will continue to move up the value chain into Adobes market of LR/PS. Adobe charges $20/month for the LR/PS bundle. If Apple can add some of the prosumer functionality and say increase Apple One by $5, they shift some of the subscription revenue over to them.
I can’t even remember how long have I been a Pixelmator and then Pixelmator pro user. I tried it once and I knew I would never go back to Photoshop again. An incredible bang for the price as well! Congrats to the Pixelmator team, and hoping for a bright future for their product. Fingers crossed though!
I used to use Pixelmator when I was on a mac. Its great for what it does, but its much much more limited than photoshop. Frankly most people don't need Photoshop. The UI is intuitive enough. I'm on linux now but missed that "preview" app for format/size conversions.
(It has a fun mosaic tool that lets you take a bit of an image and tile it real time which is really fun).
>Adobe must not be stoked about this news
Probably any mac developer should be a little worried. Apple has a mixed history at best with these applications. They had a lightroom competitor (Apeture?) they just dropped out of the blue. (some photographers are still griping) The "final cut pro" upgrade made people start using adobe again. But apple seem to keep the music making stuff going.
Frankly adobe Shold actually port their stuff to linux. The "free" competition is getting good (Krita, Blender, Gimp...). I have a couple pieces I used Gimp to layer together going into a gallery next week. Frankly its different, but pretty good once you get used to the UI.
I don't know how long ago that was, but I've been a Pixelmator user for at least a few years, and it's leaps and bounds ahead of where it was when I started with it. Coupled with Photomater -- its cousin app -- they're certainly starting to give Photoshop a real run for its money in many ways. Of course, not all ways, at least not yet, but I have personally used it for everything from photo touchups to marketing collateral to art elements later incorporated in a range of things including print layouts and videos. Once in a while I bump my head on a missing or incomplete feature that I was surprised to find not yet implemented, but its getting rarer by the month.
Pixelmator + parts of the Affinity suite got me out of their clutches
I haven't used Pixelmator, but currently use Affinity as a replacement for Photoshop for my personal projects. Unfortunately, Affinity isn't yet good enough to replace Photoshop for work.
Are you able to outline how Pixelmator stacks up against Affinity Photo?
I gave up on Affinity Photo after discovering that it degrades images as you edit them. Specifically, it blurs entire layers when you merge them. And it does so over and over, making the base layer worse each time. Therefore you can't trust it with your images. Affinity has refused to fix this, making excuses instead. Example here: https://youtu.be/QA8eVWOLL5I
Affinity is also unwilling to fix glaring UI blunders or omissions. For example, in Designer, people have been asking for a "print/no-print" toggle on layers for years. Everybody else has this. But nope; they have staunchly refused to add it.
So I bought Pixelmator. It's a little clumsy to use in some ways, but the authors have been good about responding to queries about it.
Here are a few threads from the forums; there are probably more. The first seems the most extensive. To be fair, I'm not sure if there are employee responses in there or just eager apologists ignoring evidence and blaming other users for the defective behavior:
The first thread is large, for sure, but is it relevant? Why do all of these have to do with pixel art, which is something you probably should do in a pixel art editor (Aseprite[0] is great, cheap and deserves your support)?
If this is indeed an issue overall it would be very ironic because the Affinity suite of products are (as far as I understand) way more focused on and enable a non-destructive workflow than Photoshop and its related products. I think it's a big "if", though, no offense intended.
2 of the 3 threads you posted are specifically related to pixel art.
The first linked thread is by a person who is doing pixel art. “I'm working on pixel art (very small-resolution bitmaps)”
The second thread you linked is also by a person doing pixel art.
“I work on pixel art a lot”
This doesn’t take away from the fact that there’s a blurring issue happening that Affinity don’t seem to be able/willing to solve as of yet, just making it clear that you linked to two threads by people doing small bitmapped pixel art, then denied they had anything to do with it.
A deterrent to prevent additional whistleblowers from coming forward? If the issues are as massively systemic as facts to date suggest, it seems like there might be a number of other shoes that could drop. Boeing's reputation (as well as that of its higher ups) could get a hell of a lot more tarnished and even breach further into legal culpability territory.
I'm not fully convinced that's what's happening here, but two whistleblowers on a massive US company that also happens to be a defense contractor dying in suspicious and unusual ways (especially that first one "killing himself" after he said if he died it wasn't suicide and also smack in the middle of his deposition days...) certainly warrants a non-trivial amount of concern and a deeper investigation.
This assumes the risk of getting caught offing whistleblowers is less than the risk of more whistle-blowers coming out. Does it really make sense that you'd risk exposing a whistle blower murder program as opposed to whatever corporate problems they have? Not to mention, it's a lot easier to smooth over corporate screw ups than getting caught hiring hit men.
If these are hits, i would think it's one or two rogue execs or stakeholder with a lot of personal money to blow doing this, OR they are leveraging US military contacts to get it done. It's probably impossible to keep an assassination program from leaking carried out in any other way.
I don't think you refuted the underlying point so much as gave cause to it. The idea isn't that simply stupid people rise to the top, it's that people who are capable of gaming a system without providing for or attending to the system they're deftly traversing are floated by their EQ/credentials/jargon straight over the corpses of the things they were actually meant to shepherd or build. I have seen this over and over again, and frankly managed to sometimes straddle the line enough to play along and be the beneficiary of this sort of corporate backchannel -- it's a very real, very human thing.
I've watched wildly incapable people bluff their way up a corporate ladder, fail over the course of two years in an elevated role, and then use that previous title to bluff their way into better positions elsewhere (and then leave those positions before they're totally found out to move on to somewhere else with a yet better title). I've watched people come out of McKinsey into the startup world, talk a major game -- they are the best conjurors of business fantasy at strat plannings and my god, those decks -- but then utterly fail to deliver for years only to end up with SVP roles at major companies on the "strength" of their backgrounds.
I get it: play the man, not the puck or whatever...but eventually somebody has to make sure the puck ends up in the fucking net and not sold off to buttress quarterly earnings.
Really cool idea and generally solid execution -- I would totally use this.
That said, a couple bits:
1. I can't seem to click the events on the map in Safari on Mac.
2. The map doesn't load at all in Brave (I even dropped the tracker blocking on the site and reloaded and it still didn't load).
