Photographer
ChristerArt
Posts: 2861
Cambridge, England, United Kingdom
Apple Invents Next-Gen Virtual Drawing App to Take on Adobe's Photoshop & Illustrator “Today, the U.S. Patent Office published a jaw dropping Apple patent that reveals that Apple is working on a new advanced graphics app to take on Adobe’s Photoshop and Illustrator,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple. “The new app will also be aimed at Macs and the iPad. The system is being designed to work with both the mouse and touchscreen gestures. Apple’s two detailed patent applications cover the basics of the graphics app and their new simplified object layering system,” Purcher reports. “Apple’s invention relates to systems, methods, and computer-readable media for changing graphical object input tools.” http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-a … rator.html
Photographer
Dark Shadows
Posts: 2269
Miami, Florida, US
I hope so. Photoshop prices are getting out of control. Having Apple in the mix would be welcome for consumers.
Photographer
Managing Light
Posts: 2678
Salem, Virginia, US
I second that. But I suspect that it will be a long time before Apple can seriosly challenge the capabilities of Photoshop.
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 8020
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15973
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom
What next Adobe joining up with Microsoft.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
Dark Shadows wrote:
I hope so. Photoshop prices are getting out of control. Having Apple in the mix would be welcome for consumers. Funny -- I always felt that Apple's pricing is traditionally a little north of "appropriate".
Further, despite what Apple sycophants might say, there still an order of magnitude more PCs running Photoshop than than Apple machine.
I don't mind Apple in the news. I do mind biased Apple news, though.
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 838
Encino, California, US
Just because Apple is working on a new graphics program doesn't mean they are aiming it at the professional market.
Photographer
Michael Bots
Posts: 8020
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
For reasons not obvious I will step back in here. I will say I was doing contract repair on broken Mac machines in 1985 just after they came off warranty - kid, (mostly Sony guts at the time) and I don't feel threatened at all by an overpriced Intel machine with a Sharp screen and the battery pack glued into the case to guarantee a limited product lifespan. I guess Jeremy Clarkson is correct in the headline. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … d-dog.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Filing for patents on prior art and see what sticks in court as a business model? Really. 2009 tech MIT media lab was publicly showing gesture control (including at Sigraph in Asia) so it was well established technology at that time. http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/20/mit-b … e-control/ http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/gest … -1211.html http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news … g-gestures 1997 tech Apple sued for every touchscreen device by Flatworld prof http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/23 … eractives/ "A Pennsylvania professor is gunning for a slice of all of Apple's touch-based product revenues, after claiming they infringe a patent for a museum screen technology he developed 15 years ago." "Slavoljub Milekic, a professor in cognitive sciences and digital design at the Univeristy of Arts in Pennsylvania, said he developed a touchscreen testing tool for children to manipulate screen images in 1997 for the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky, and was issued with patent #6,920,619 eight years later." “Reading Flatworld’s patent is like reading the description of gesture recognition features of any of the accused products on Apple’s website,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Flatworld's lawyers at Hagens Berman in a statement. “It is clear that Flatworld owns technology that Apple has used to drive billions of dollars in infringing sales.” "Flatworld said that it notified Apple of the patent in 2007, shortly after the iPhone launch, but that Cupertino has not deigned to reply." 2009 Designing Gestural Interfaces (how to manual) http://pdf.aminer.org/000/334/249/movem … usical.pdf 2006 Jeff Han shows off a cheap, scalable multi-touch and pressure-sensitive computer screen interface that may spell the end of point-and-click. (from NYU's CIMS lab) http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_han_demos … creen.html Jun 8, 2010 "Get Ready to Control Your Android Phone With the Wave of a Hand http://gigaom.com/2010/06/08/android-na … e-control/ One company is now enabling Android phones to watch for and interpret hand gestures for a more natural user interface and better user experience" "--- uses a phone’s camera to monitor for gestures, which are then software-interpreted into commands such as map zooming, digital audio playback or phone call receipt" 2010-04-27 Fingers are pointed at Apple over touchscreen http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/n … 109632.ece "The sale of Apple's iPhone and iPad in the US is under threat after the US International Trade Commission initiated a formal investigation into the company for allegedly infringing a patent covering multi-touch technology. The ITC, which has the power to ban the import and sale of products, said it was responding to a request from the Taiwanese touchscreen maker Elan Microelectronics, which has a patent for technology that detects the simultaneous presence of two or more fingers on a touchscreen or touchpad." May 2, 2010 Google Buys BumpTop: 3-D Multitouch Tablet Interface on the Way? http://gigaom.com/2010/05/02/google-buy … n-the-way/ "Is there a tablet in Google’s future with a 3-D, multitouch interface?"
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
Ohh HELL to the YESSSSS!!:-) I'll finally have a program that I can figure out how to work!! Something that will make sense and be easy to use!
Photographer
Wilde One
Posts: 2373
Santa Monica, California, US
Very good. Photoshop needs competition.
If Apple does a similar good job with still photography/graphics editing as it has with video editing, then this could shake up things.
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9474
Paris, Île-de-France, France
Perhaps if Apple can use Unix based GIMP and add an Apple interface and improve upon that it will offer something valuable to the market for users who don't need all the bells and whistles of Photoshop.
No one will deny the sheer power of Photoshop.
They did quite well with Aperture, no reason they couldn't do the same with a bitmap and vector app.
For me Photoshop is only needed as LightRoom doesn't have efficient pixel level fixes like the stamp tool, nor layered corrections ( as Capture 1 has ) but if it did I wouldn't need Photoshop.
Photographer
Worlds Of Water
Posts: 37732
Rancho Cucamonga, California, US
Apple taking on Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator Who cares... they both produce hardware and software that's insanely expensive and can be replaced at 1/4 of the price. Let both of them lose their asses on court costs and monsterous attorneys fees in some ludicrous legal battle and see if I give a rats ass... 
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
Apple would need an amazing game changer to even stand a chance. They'd also have to provide something at a much lower price point and available on the PC.
Adobe already has lots of competition from the likes of Coral, etc so nothing new there.
Photographer
R Michael Walker
Posts: 11987
Costa Mesa, California, US
Brian Scanlon wrote:
Just because Apple is working on a new graphics program doesn't mean they are aiming it at the professional market. OR PCs.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
c_h_r_i_s wrote:
What next Adobe joining up with Microsoft. They've done that already...
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
*YAWN!*
Seriously, who cares? Unless they make the software cross-platform, it won't stand a chance against Photoshop (and I don't see how they're going to do that with the differences in hardware.) Is this just sour grapes from damaging the relationship with Adobe?
As far as price point goes, when has Apple ever cared about being competitive from that point of view?
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
William Kious wrote:
*YAWN!*
Seriously, who cares? Unless they make the software cross-platform, it won't stand a chance against Photoshop (and I don't see how they're going to do that with the differences in hardware.) Is this just sour grapes from damaging the relationship with Adobe?
As far as price point goes, when has Apple ever cared about being competitive from that point of view? +1
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
Darren Brade wrote:
Apple would need an amazing game changer to even stand a chance. They'd also have to provide something at a much lower price point and available on the PC.
Adobe already has lots of competition from the likes of Coral, etc so nothing new there. Hehe, Apple is the king of game changers!:-)
Photographer
afplcc
Posts: 6020
Fairfax, Virginia, US
I welcome Apple's entry. Whether it's better or not, it's likely to be different. And, if you step away from our myopic view (ie: as photographers), Apple has long tried to be the computer that creative workers (graphic designers, print production, sound and music professionals) use. So how can it be so and not be a major player with photography and high-end photo work? So some of this rationale is just a "brand thing".
Ed
Photographer
Michael Paolini
Posts: 33
Austin, Texas, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
Funny -- I always felt that Apple's pricing is traditionally a little north of "appropriate".
Further, despite what Apple sycophants might say, there still an order of magnitude more PCs running Photoshop than than Apple machine.
I don't mind Apple in the news. I do mind biased Apple news, though. Hmm, not sure your aware of the irony in here - in fact your exhibiting biased Apple news. It's just a negative (and unfounded bias).
Lets take a quick peak at facts and prices for example:
Apple Aperture digital down load $79 (Vs Adobe Lightroom $149)
Apple Final Cut Pro $299 (vs Adobe Premere Pro CS6 $799)
Apple OS latest version upgrade $19.95 (Vs Microsoft $40)
Apple iWorks complete $60 (vs Microsoft $149)
The point here is if you actually compare Apple software prices to any of the their competitors you'll find that that are usually half the price (and install on multiple systems for you both and family members legally).
Now were people often get the impression of Apple costing more is in the hardware - and the simple reason for that is the parts used. In particular Apple uses highest quality and frequently cutting edge parts - so when you compare a Apple laptop to say a Dell and only look at the GHz you may not realize they are using a different class of processor even though the frequency is the same (this effects both the speed of the system and the power consumed for example). In effect, your not comparing Apples to Apples so to speak. Similar comment on the iPhones and iPads.... And I would argue that not only do you make that up in how long the products fill their need (4 and 5 year old Apples are still out performing their Dell counterparts - and commanding high resales) but also in productivity (few crashes, better interfaces, faster processing, etc) and in cost of software.
Simply put when you look at the whole of it, the economics make sense.
(A former Windows user to switched to Mac after having his Photoshop (High End Dell) crash or Hang 5 times in a 3 day post processing workshop while those with Mac didn't crash. I was converted by watching my neighbors experience on Mac doing the tasks side by side and comparing it to mine. The next week I had Mac and coveted over. 3 Years later I'm a believer.).
Photographer
Peach Jones
Posts: 6906
Champaign, Illinois, US
I find it all very interesting. Adobe starting it PS program on the Apple machines several years ago. Without Apple, one can make an arguement that there would be no PS
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
Michael Paolini wrote:
Hmm, not sure your aware of the irony in here - in fact your exhibiting biased Apple news. It's just a negative (and unfounded bias). I believe that I post & comment on both positive & negative Apple news (it's exceedingly rare to find "neutral" Apple news).
But phrases like "Apple taking on... and "jaw dropping copyright..." and others seems more sensational than factual to me. I don't like feeling like I'm being manipulated. "News" reports like this are to Apple like Fox News is to Republicans (at least that's how if feels to me).
Photographer
BuskerPhotography
Posts: 54
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Darren Brade wrote:
Apple would need an amazing game changer to even stand a chance. They'd also have to provide something at a much lower price point and available on the PC.
Adobe already has lots of competition from the likes of Coral, etc so nothing new there. That is what everybody said about non linear with Avid owning 98% of the market. Along came FCP and blew them out of the water.
Photographer
BuskerPhotography
Posts: 54
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
85 % of Ad agencies = Apple
75% of film makers = Apple
85% designers = Apple
100% of bureaucrats, town planners and tax accountants +microsoft.
My BIL is in the top management structure at Microsoft, so I have some close inside info, it is an absolute requirement to be anally retentive to work there or use the product. You should see his photos... everything from camera angle, lights to width of the model's smile is worked out beforehand on a Microsoft computer
And before you microsoft users get upset. It is a joke. Something the rest of us call humour
(And yes the irony of using percentages is intentional)
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
George Ruge wrote:
Hehe, Apple is the king of game changers!:-) They are the King of Marketing, otherwise they got lucky. You could also say Adobe are King of game changers since several of their products also stole the top slot from their competitors, if fact you have to go back a few years because when Adobe takes the top slot they do it for a long time.
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
BuskerPhotography wrote:
That is what everybody said about non linear with Avid owning 98% of the market. Along came FCP and blew them out of the water. True there are always exceptions.
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 3351
London, England, United Kingdom
Considering this is a patent and not yet a product, why don't we wait until they release something.
Most the time the press release the slightest rumour because they have nothing left to do. Take last years iPhone 5, the press worked themselves into a frenzy sine they were sure it would be released, but it wasn't.
Photographer
MN camera
Posts: 1862
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US
George Ruge wrote:
Hehe, Apple is the king of game changers!:-) Yes, they sure changed the game for the Final Cut user base when they released "iMovie Pro" and cut them off at the knees, didn't they?
Photographer
37photog
Posts: 710
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
BuskerPhotography wrote:
That is what everybody said about non linear with Avid owning 98% of the market. Along came FCP and blew them out of the water. There's a difference there. AVID was king 10 years ago when peoples personal computers couldn't have the RAM or processing power, or storage space hard drives to edit video. AVID was an entire editing console, costing tens of tohousands, typically owned by production houses & tv stations. A few years later, with gigs of RAM, terabyte hard drives, video can be edited on most store bought out of the box PC's.
Anyway, as is typical with Apple any new Apple product thread turns into "Wooohooooo this is gonna blow everything else away.. Apple rules!!" by a bunch of people still on 3G.
Photographer
Done and Gone
Posts: 7650
Chiredzi, Masvingo, Zimbabwe
I am in the graphics industry. One thing that comes up again and again when chatting with peers is the shortcomings in Adobe Creative Suite.
They seem to be unwilling or unable to address issues involving transparency, Pantone colors, gradients and corrupted Postscript code.
They also seem to be oblivious to the idea of using a single color engine for Illustrator, InDesign, Photoshop and Acrobat.
These shortcomings make it more challenging to print files created in Adobe products.
If Apple addresses these issues in some bulletproof fashion, many of us will switch platforms immediately.
Photographer
37photog
Posts: 710
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Yeah, I think by competing with Photoshop they mean it more as graphic design, not photography adjustment. The market for that is basically pro-end use, and idiots pushing a single button on Instagram. Still, alot of designers use Photoshop for graphics, rather than Illustrator. I think it's more user friendly, but Illustrator does create vector graphics.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
37photog wrote:
Anyway, as is typical with Apple any new Apple product thread turns into "Wooohooooo this is gonna blow everything else away.. Apple rules!!" by a bunch of people still on 3G. Someone will point out something good about the report: they'll be labeled an Apple fanboi.
Someone will point out something bad about the report: they'll be labeled an Apple hater.
Defending either or both of these knee-jerk responses turns the whole thread into a trainwreck, overshadowing whatever the report was actually about.
Fortunately, some people ignore the labels, and read what is written, looking for useful information.
Not many, alas, but some, nevertheless.
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
MN camera wrote:
Yes, they sure changed the game for the Final Cut user base when they released "iMovie Pro" and cut them off at the knees, didn't they? I wouldn't know, I don't do video.
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 13200
Brooklyn, New York, US
A new patent doesn't mean squat
If anything I expect Apple to be out of the Pro computer biz sooner rather than later
Photographer
BuskerPhotography
Posts: 54
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
37photog wrote:
There's a difference there. AVID was king 10 years ago when peoples personal computers couldn't have the RAM or processing power, or storage space hard drives to edit video. AVID was an entire editing console, costing tens of tohousands, typically owned by production houses & tv stations. A few years later, with gigs of RAM, terabyte hard drives, video can be edited on most store bought out of the box PC's.
Anyway, as is typical with Apple any new Apple product thread turns into "Wooohooooo this is gonna blow everything else away.. Apple rules!!" by a bunch of people still on 3G. Okay one at a time here. I have been doing broadcast work for a very long time. We not only used to own Avid systems but our online system was Harry. The cost when Harry came out was in excess of 1 million $ to install. So I have a little idea of what I am talking about.
I have also work in Ad agencies so know a little of what happens there. Avid used to have the market because it was one of the first non linear off-line systems that was affordable. As I said Harry (though online) was bloody expensive. Apple developed FCP by using editors to build the functions. It quickly became the industry norm, because it was as much an off line system as an online system.
Yes FCX was very limited when they released it, however have a look at the latest updates. I know 6 editors that have switched and is now loving the system.
By the same token, Adobe dragged freehand into CS and destroyed a great tool. CS still has major deficiencies, but so does all software. It is called development.
And your last statement had me rolling on the floor laughing. How the hell has the connection system your smartphone uses, have anything to do with the quality of professional post production tools?
If you are shooting video for local school functions and conferences, then maybe it is cool to impress your clients with a phone that you can watch movies in real time on. I use my to make phone calls and arrange shoots. Call me stupid......
Photographer
samreevesphoto
Posts: 665
Santa Cruz, California, US
I hope it's better than iPhoto. Even though PS prices suck, I'll stick with it over the other stuff.
Photographer
The Grand Artist
Posts: 468
Fort Worth, Texas, US
Apple main goal is to sale hardware not software. The price of the software is built into the hardware and then you still pay extra on top of that.
Will not use Adobe or Apple. FOSS all the way.
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6420
Nashville, Tennessee, US
ChristerArt wrote:
Apple Invents Next-Gen Virtual Drawing App to Take on Adobe's Photoshop & Illustrator
“Today, the U.S. Patent Office published a jaw dropping Apple patent that reveals that Apple is working on a new advanced graphics app to take on Adobe’s Photoshop and Illustrator,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.
“The new app will also be aimed at Macs and the iPad. The system is being designed to work with both the mouse and touchscreen gestures. Apple’s two detailed patent applications cover the basics of the graphics app and their new simplified object layering system,” Purcher reports. “Apple’s invention relates to systems, methods, and computer-readable media for changing graphical object input tools.”
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-a … rator.html Why was the term "jaw-dropping" added? I saw nothing special at all.
Photographer
ThatLook Visual Media
Posts: 6420
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Michael Bots wrote:
I guess Apple will soon claim that Photoshop's ability to read an image file from a camera memory card violates their new patent and that Adobe stole their intellectual property. Well you know, Apple invented graphics 
Photographer
DrifterintheRain
Posts: 54
Sunnyvale, California, US
Michael Paolini wrote:
Hmm, not sure your aware of the irony in here - in fact your exhibiting biased Apple news. It's just a negative (and unfounded bias).
Lets take a quick peak at facts and prices for example:
Apple Aperture digital down load $79 (Vs Adobe Lightroom $149)
Apple Final Cut Pro $299 (vs Adobe Premere Pro CS6 $799)
Apple OS latest version upgrade $19.95 (Vs Microsoft $40)
Apple iWorks complete $60 (vs Microsoft $149)
The point here is if you actually compare Apple software prices to any of the their competitors you'll find that that are usually half the price (and install on multiple systems for you both and family members legally).
Now were people often get the impression of Apple costing more is in the hardware - and the simple reason for that is the parts used. In particular Apple uses highest quality and frequently cutting edge parts - so when you compare a Apple laptop to say a Dell and only look at the GHz you may not realize they are using a different class of processor even though the frequency is the same (this effects both the speed of the system and the power consumed for example). In effect, your not comparing Apples to Apples so to speak. Similar comment on the iPhones and iPads.... And I would argue that not only do you make that up in how long the products fill their need (4 and 5 year old Apples are still out performing their Dell counterparts - and commanding high resales) but also in productivity (few crashes, better interfaces, faster processing, etc) and in cost of software.
Simply put when you look at the whole of it, the economics make sense.
(A former Windows user to switched to Mac after having his Photoshop (High End Dell) crash or Hang 5 times in a 3 day post processing workshop while those with Mac didn't crash. I was converted by watching my neighbors experience on Mac doing the tasks side by side and comparing it to mine. The next week I had Mac and coveted over. 3 Years later I'm a believer.). -.-
Apple uses Intel processors. The same processors most windows users use. They use the same graphics cards windows users use, the memory technologies are the same, the Thunderbolt interface they're using now is an Intel technology that they just happened to start using before other manufacturers, the USB ports and controllers which have far outpaced firewire in all systems now are largely Intel technology, their motherboards are built by the same manufacturers that produce motherboards for windows PCs. Do you really honestly think that Apple is using better *processors* cause the GHz don't matter? When they're using the SAME processors? Do you know the part of the hardware that Apple designs themselves? It's not the performance parts, it's the case! Yep, they make the case, and do some parts and assembly for their branded peripherals, but all the parts that make the system run so well are the same parts I bought for my machine.
If you want to know why windows and mac run differently:
Windows is built to support a much broader range of low-level interactions in any given software, and to easily support an essentially infinite number of applications running at the same time (within memory and addressing limitations).
The vast majority of crashes that have happened with windows machines have been due to the fact that applications were allowed to perform operations which would wind up conflicting with other software that was running at the same time and corrupt blocks of memory. The primary reason that didn't happen as much on macs was because the mac operating system was built on an architecture that didn't allow as much multitasking and provides very limited interactions with the system itself, because they weren't providing means for people to do whatever they wanted to do with the system.
And still, I've seen macs so overloaded with crap software they were barely capable of running at all and would lock up repeatedly within a span of a half hour. A friend of mine who is a software developer had running jokes with colleagues about macs, because one of their coworkers was ridiculously over-enthused about how awesome macs were and how spectacularly well the systems would run, so whenever one of their mac laptops locked up they would go and show it to him saying "Look! It's just working!"
The blue screen of death people make fun of in windows? Of course macs don't have that, a mac would NEVER have something like that. Hell no. Macs have the BLACK screen of death. It's better cause it's not blue.
I could name thousands of reasons why I think the whole Apple > Windows argument is a load of crap, but realistically - who cares? You can use whatever you like. You like mac? That's friggin awesome for you! But stop spouting off lies about "it's better cause it's made with better processors!" No, it isn't. The fact is, they're the same parts. While there are some manufacturers churning out crap parts that should be avoided, that is a statement about those manufacturers and not about windows machines or macs or any other general category. Hell, even Apple ships out some bad parts - like their THOUSANDS of monitors that got shipped with a yellow tint to the screen, or the exploding batteries they sent out with their iPods. It's just your preference, that's all it is.
|
