I want to hear which you think is better, real reasons please. Not just, well I think Mac is stupid and for hipsters..or Aw PCs are for poor people..or crap like that. Thank you :)

Views: 1005

Replies to This Discussion

I'm sorry Kris, but that simply isn't true. Linux, Unix, and open source software are quite typically found in computer science departments...

You're already on a different front. I am not suggesting Adobe invented the wheel. The area in focus is editing software, which means a user interface and integrated set of features tailored toward photographers, image editors and digital artists in a competent end product. That is what they developed. 

corporate sponsors and thousands of unpaid volunteers (most of whom are professional software engineers and programmers doing the work for fun in their spare time). 

Great for them, but the professional market and even invested amateurs are willing to pay for the superior product which happens to not be the product they are developing in this case.

Creating Photoshop is work. I profit from that work. I don't have an issue paying for that work in exchange for the benefits it provides me.

I said they spent $1.3 billion on marketing. That's all marketing activity, not just one campaign.

That sum is for marketing and sales, and the fact of the matter is, you don't have a clue how that marketing money was spent. Your claim, not substantiated, was that it was spent on convincing others that no other alternatives exist (or that they are silly to try). I can't account for where all of it was spent, but I know that some of it goes towards event sponsorship, branding, site design, demos, product reps, tutorials, seminar, promotional offers, new product launches, advertisement and more. I am not sure if salaries are part of their figure. 

Sure, we can spend $3500 on a Mac, $600 on Photoshop,

I didn't spend that much on either, and I've seen my return on investment several times over. Need has to be evaluated in the context of the objective, otherwise it just gets silly. In the context of my computer usage, things which do not increase efficiency, productivity or output quality are not needs, and things which do are.

You're already on a different front. I am not suggesting Adobe invented the wheel.

Same front, Kris. You said "free software isn't typically pushing development on this front". Free software pushes software development on every front, and that includes image editors like GIMP.

Great for them, but the professional market and even invested amateurs are willing to pay for the superior product which happens to not be the product they are developing in this case.

Of course they're willing to pay. But how do they know Photoshop is the superior product? They don't. They assume it because Adobe is a trusted brand. Why do so few bother to try GIMP despite that it's free, even when they do hear about it? Because everyone else uses Adobe.  

Tell me, Kris. You don't suppose the $1.3 billion Adobe spent on sales and marketing in 2012 alone has anything to do with that kind of brand trust and brand loyalty, do you? You don't think that's exactly what Adobe wants, even after you agreed earlier that Adobe overcharges those same loyal customers? 

I don't know that to call that but "unsubstantiated" doesn't come to mind.

Creating Photoshop is work. I profit from that work. I don't have an issue paying for that work in exchange for the benefits it provides me.

Neither do I. Pay all you want for those benefits. Enjoy. 

I'm simply pointing out that I have no issue with getting something free of charge and then deriving the same benefits or superior benefits from it. In fact, I think it's better that way. That's why I prefer a Linux PC over a Mac or a Windows PC.

Gimp lags photoshop developments as a general trend. That's the reality. It's a remarkable product given that it is free, yet it is inferior. Typically, Photoshop has features out one or two release cycles earlier and refines them substantially better with more comprehensive support and superior integration to other complimentary products, that is if Gimp ever supports those features at all. There are exceptions to this trend and I no longer try to keep up with all Gimp development, but generally Gimp is chasing Photoshop's tail. That is not what I would consider pushing development.

Some of the plugins on that list are for features which have been in PS for ages, and possibly Gimp as well (high pass filter? Ancient). Some are just for presets. Some are just scripts, and I might have seen some fonts in there. And it's not as if there isn't third party development, free and paid, for Photoshop as well. 

But how do they know Photoshop is the superior product? They don't. They assume it because Adobe is a trusted brand. Why do so few bother to try GIMP despite that it's free, even when they do hear about it? Because everyone else uses Adobe.

On what do you base this claim? I can't account for other people or even the general trend here. I don't know what usage share actually looks like. It is apparent that Photoshop is the industry standard in North America, but many people are sticking with Corel, and Gimp obscure obscure amongst PS users as far as I know. Photoshop is a bit special in that it is so widely known its name is used in pop culture as a verb, though it should be noted that Adobe historically has discouraged this behaviour. InDesign, on the other hand, trounced Quark without the same name recognition, and that's with Quark doing marketing of its own.

Tell me, Kris. You don't suppose the $1.3 billion Adobe spent on sales and marketing in 2012 alone has anything to do with that kind of brand trust and brand loyalty, do you? You don't think that's exactly what Adobe wants, even after you agreed earlier that Adobe overcharges those same loyal customers?

I agreed that they could charge less, yet on the flip side, the value for the product is there, especially for the massive number of users using pirated serials. The amount they spend on sales and marketing is bound to be large given that it is an international company with a decent sized product line and staffed operations in seven different countries. Again, their marketing is diverse and much of it is not in the form of advertisement. What Adobe wants? My general experience is that they are not trying to dupe anyone into using their product; they are selling it on legitimate features.

I don't know that to call that but "unsubstantiated" doesn't come to mind.

It was an easy claim to substantiate. Show instances of Photoshop marketing which are designed to achieve the claimed effect "$600 for Photoshop is worth it because no alternatives exist (or that if any do exist trying them is silly, even if they're free).". The fact that they spent millions on marketing does not distill to your claim. I have been to seminars with Russell Brown (Adobe Senior Creative Director), Bryan Hughes (Senior Product Manage for Adobe Photoshop), Julianne Kost (Principle Digital Imaging 'Evangelist' for Adobe), and Terry White (Adobe 'Evangelist'). None of them -- not even those with the bizarre 'evangelist' in their title shy away from the fact that there are alternatives to the Adobe line. Adobe isn't promoting any other alternatives that I have ever seen, but I haven't seen them trying to cloud them out either.

As a side point, I don't know why they call these reps 'evangelists'. I know they aren't the only company to do so, and it seems to be tongue-in-cheek, but it's a bit creepy, even if the people in those positions are pretty down to earth in my experience.

Gimp lags photoshop developments as a general trend. That's the reality. It's a remarkable product given that it is free, yet it is inferior.

I opened with the value proposition, so let me redirect our friendly conversation there once again. As I have said in a few different ways, If GIMP can do what you need it to do, free of charge, then that makes it the superior product. (Or, if you prefer different words: a better choice.) If it cannot do that, and Photoshop is a must, then you can still run Photoshop on Linux (or even on Windows) for less than the cost of running it on a Mac. How is that not true, Kris?

That is not what I would consider pushing development.

I still don't know what 'pushing development' means based on the way you've been using the phrase. I took it to mean improving the existing generation of software and inventing the next generation of software. In that regard, open source software really is developing rapidly. If Photoshop tops GIMP overall-- and if it does, fine-- it's just one of a handful of types of software where closed-source is competitive with open source. I still don't see how that makes it a better value to buy a Mac to run it on, rather than using Linux or even Windows. Care to explain that?

On what do you base this claim?

It's based on the same way you know it's "apparent that Photoshop is the industry standard in North America" and that "Photoshop is a bit special in that it is so widely known its name is used in pop culture as a verb".

I agreed that they could charge less, yet on the flip side, the value for the product is there, especially for the massive number of users using pirated serials.

So they could charge less, meaning it's not worth the cost, but the value is there, meaning the cost is worth it. Okay, I don't think you meant that the way it sounded. Or you did, and it's time to march straight down to your local Apple store and buy a new Mac.

Seriously, so the value for the product is there? Everyone who buys Photoshop for $600 gets features that exist in Photoshop and nowhere else? (Wouldn't this have to be the case in order to get that value?)

Your turn, Kris. On what do you base this claim? Where does that value derive from?

Show instances of Photoshop marketing which are designed to achieve the claimed effect "$600 for Photoshop is worth it because no alternatives exist (or that if any do exist trying them is silly, even if they're free).".

That's easy, Kris. Look into a mirror. How much time have you spent selling Photoshop in this thread? Haven't you been insisting that people should be spending $600 for Photoshop, even when you yourself think it's not worth it and that nothing compares to it? Didn't you say you wouldn't use GIMP, even though it's available for free? 

Show you the achieved effect? Come on, Kris. You and millions of other Photoshop fanboys are the achieved effect.

As I have said in a few different ways, If GIMP can do what you need it to do, free of charge, then that makes it the superior product.

I never argued to the contrary. As I have already said in the thread, I have suggested Gimp and other applications to people in the past, including my own mother. My point is that there is a reason for a certain demographic to pay for Photoshop and for Photoshop to exist as a paid product. A large number of advancements in image editing software exist because Adobe put resources into developing them, and later Gimp users copied them. Copying development in image editing software isn't pushing development. Again, this is the general trend. I am sure there are limited exceptions.

If it cannot do that, and Photoshop is a must, then you can still run Photoshop on Linux (or even on Windows) for less than the cost of running it on a Mac. How is that not true, Kris?

What you said was that paying for the product was a loss to almost 100% of people who are not Adobe. This happens to be false. 

I still don't see how that makes it a better value to buy a Mac to run it on, rather than using Linux or even Windows. Care to explain that?

I already have. You listed a machine where you can get better value on components which are overpowered for image editing needs yet compromised a critical element: display. While things change over time, the last time I bought a computer, Apple was offering one of the best solutions on the market couple with third party Ram and secondary display. You keep weighing it against the MacPro, but hardly any image editors need that level of computing with the possible exceptions like Bert Monroy. 

Even still, I am not pushing Macs as the end all be all machines to run Photoshop. I never have. They are one option in the market which may or may not meet a user's given needs.

It's based on the same way you know it's "apparent that Photoshop is the industry standard in North America"

You're an industry professional in a relevant field? What field is that? There isn't hard market share data which I have ever seen, so I cannot say it is definitive, only apparent.

"Photoshop is a bit special in that it is so widely known its name is used in pop culture as a verb"

This is documented fact. Even Merriam-Webster online has included the usage.

So they could charge less, meaning it's not worth the cost, but the value is there, meaning the cost is worth it.

Price is defined by Adobe. Worth over investment is defined by the consumer. The two don't have to match and acknowledging worth at the given price point isn't tacit approval of high pricing structures. I see a high return on investment at the current price point so the arrangement isn't a bad deal for me. I was never setting out to justify Adobe's pricing, only that it is reasonable that they charge money for their product.

How much time have you spent selling Photoshop in this thread?

None. I have never suggested that anyone buy Photoshop or any other product in the thread.

Haven't you been insisting that people should be spending $600 for Photoshop, even when you yourself think it's not worth it and that nothing compares to it?

No.

Didn't you say you wouldn't use GIMP, even though it's available for free? 

No. I have used it in the past. Whether it is free or not isn't a relevant factor for me. I don't use it now. I would use it if it was a superior application.

Show you the achieved effect? Come on, Kris. You and millions of other Photoshop fanboys are the achieved effect.

Ad hom

I never argued to the contrary [that GIMP can be the superior product].

Of course you did, Kris. You've argued both for AND against GIMP, but mostly against.

What you said was that paying for the product was a loss to almost 100% of people who are not Adobe. This happens to be false. 

Since you've said all along that Adobe overcharges for Photoshop, then (according to you) this happens to be true, since paying more than you should pay IS a loss to everyone but Adobe.

I already have [explained why a Mac is a better value than Linux or Windows to run Photoshop on]. You listed a machine where you can get better value on components which are overpowered for image editing needs yet compromised a critical element: display.

Not quite. I listed MY machine, which has a better value on components, period. I didn't compromise on a thing. Roll back the processor speed and memory, and cycle to cycle, gig to gig, PC hardware is still the better value.

And... critical? The patient dies without it? Please, Kris.

If a 2560x1600 or 2880x1800 retina display is "critical" to running Photoshop-- as having a power supply in the computer is "critical"--I'll eat the chair I'm sitting in.

How did you manage to use Photoshop before this "critical element" came along, Kris?

You see nothing ironic, in a conversation about value, to apply the word "overpowered" to the obviously cheaper PC hardware, and then proclaim as "critical" a display resolution which thousands of Photoshop users obviously did just fine without until-- when? Last year? The year before?

It's so preposterous I'm amazed you're still standing by the idea at all, Kris.

Ad hom.

Take it as a compliment, then. You are the biggest Mac and Photoshop enthusiast I've ever encountered. Really. I'm speechless. You stand by these products so staunchly maybe you should become one of those evangelists you were mentioning earlier in the thread. You have seen the light!

The arguments you are making on my behalf are not arguments I am making to the point that you actually need to force words into my mouth to make your view fit. Repeatedly. It is clear that you are entirely unwilling to even listen to what I am actually saying, and instead are content with ad homs and straw men. 

It's disingenuous. It sickens me.

This is done.

Of course they're willing to pay. But how do they know Photoshop is the superior product? They don't. They assume it because Adobe is a trusted brand. Why do so few bother to try GIMP despite that it's free, even when they do hear about it? Because everyone else uses Adobe.  

You might as well be talking about Mac vs. PC. The PC lost the cool factor to Mac a long time ago, reinforced by ads showing a cute young Mac user vs. a dumpy, somewhat older and very uncool PC user. Consequently, there's a demographic who would no more buy a PC than a business suit.

Steve Jobs was a marketing genius from the product conception stage onward.

You might as well be talking about Mac vs. PC. The PC lost the cool factor to Mac a long time ago, reinforced by ads showing a cute young Mac user vs. a dumpy, somewhat older and very uncool PC user. Consequently, there's a demographic who would no more buy a PC than a business suit.

Exactly. People pay for style. It's not that a Mac lacks substance necessarily. But there's the perception of both style and substance with a Mac that a Windows PC is sorely lacking (mostly on the style side). 

Brand trust is a big part of it. The bedrock of marketing strategy involves building trust in the brand. Mac is good at that too.

But speaking of substance and trust...

I did some freelance web development work for an investment firm in Boston back in the late 90s. I ended up using an Apple Power Mac G3, right around the time those ads with the snail (making fun of the Intel Pentium II) had come out. It was a great ad, and it was a nice machine.

But on day one, I was typing an email. It locked up. Nothing was running but the mail app. I gave it a chance, went and ran an errand, came back, and it was still locked up. Reboot.

Day two. Same thing; torched my work, this time a page of HTML and JavaScript. I talked to the LAN integrator. He came and looked at it, shrugged, and told me to save my work more often.

This happened routinely, three or four times per week. It was my introduction to Apple. You know the sound a Mac makes when it boots up? I came to associate that sound with "I just fucked up all your work. Ha! Ha!" I still do.

Skipping ahead a bit, I was offered a chance to join the company full time as a web developer. I asked if I'd be using the Power Mac if I said yes. They said yes, that's all we ever use here, like they were delivering the news that I'd be getting a company car for my own private use.

I said no thanks. I ended up working for one of their competitors. The Windows PC I ended up with was a bit slower, and not as sexy, and I didn't see any great television advertising for it, but it never once crashed.

Seriously? Who gives a rats ass anymore? Last I looked CNET and ZDMedia were talking about the demise of the desktop at the hands of mobile hardware. My lab teacher told us in 1986 that miniaturization was the wave of the future and battery technology was the holy grail….

As someone who, early on, owned and used both platforms it just falls on what you're comfortable with and what you can afford. If Apple products are too much money I'm sure that there is a PC or Linux product that will fit the bill. Don't make you a bad person. Don't make you a bad person if you pay more and get less by buying an Apple laptop. What do we care what someone wants to spend?

It's like arguing about Harley's and Honda's… 

Here is something that may answer a nagging question. When HP invents a laptop they go to market and ask Intel for the latest greatest Central Processor they've invented. Same thing with Apple. The only thing limiting their choices are the Operating System. HP uses Microsoft Windows. They call Microsoft and tell them what they want to do and is Their operating system compatible. Microsoft tells Hp that they'll get back to them as soon as they test out this new snazzy CPU with their latest flavor of Windows. You see HP doesn't have to worry about developing Hardware and Software simultaneously. HP is a hardware company. Of course their products are going to cost less. Apple does both… But be that as it may; I could care less. If I want to buy it and I can Afford it then Cest la vie, here's my Amex, ring me up, and plug it in. Who cares?

Buddy of mine went out and bought a set of Dr.Dre Studio headphones. They run about $299.00. He paid $125.00 off some peddler on the street. He starts worrying about if they're real they're not real did he get taken. He spends the better part of the day searching Youtube to see how he can tell the difference between "REAL" Dr. Dre's and phony's. Yeah! He got taken. They were phony but before he found this out he showed me a youtube video of some 17 year old kid explaining how to tell them apart. The kid looked straight into the camera and said, "Dr. Dre Studio headphone's cost $299.00. You know what $299.00 buys you? Peace of mind. It saves you the energy of searching Youtube to find out if your $125.00 headphones are real or not. If you don't have $299.00 for a set of Dre's and all you have is $125.00 then get a set of Sony's for $125.00. Why? Cause it's what you can afford and then there is also peace of mind." 

Funny.

RSS

  

Discussion Forum

Mac Vs PC

Started by Autumn Morales. Last reply by kris feenstra Apr 6, 2013. 94 Replies

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service