Thanks useful information: 
Correct, and as I posted earlier the same applies to most other software. Change the look and feel, throw in a new file format or two, increment the version number and kerching...$$$$$$. The issue is not with development, but with dollars. Saying that, what real differences are there between a 7 year old car and a new one? New software won't work on old computers for 2 major reasons: 1/ it is written so inefficiently (because computer hardware gets ever more powerful that efficiency isn't worth the effort) and 2/ BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED NOT TO! So we are forced in to a constant cycle of upgrading hardware and software, with very little benefit. But that is no different to any other industry. My 1950's Land Rover will get me to town, but not in the same air conditioned comfort as my Hilux, and nowhere near as pleasantly as my wife's Prado.Originally Posted by I @ M
When I say "industry" I mean the "creative industry" in general. Apple and Adobe did a very good job, many years ago, of becoming the de facto standard for "creative types". The reason was very simple, the early IBM PC's had very poor graphics! By the time PC's had caught up, and eventually overtaken (!?), Apple Macs had become entrenched as the standard for most creative graphics work. And the software of choice was Adobe. The same is true today, the daughter of a friend is starting university studying something creative/advertising/marketing and instantly she "needs a MacBook".
It drives me mad, because in a commercial environment Macs are only used by creative people, and these days for no very good reason. PC's are just as good, and the same software titles are available (though for $ reasons the Mac versions are sometimes newer/better) and for really heavy image work big UNIX boxes are better. And Mac's are, historically, a nightmare to integrate with anything else. I was once involved in a project for a multi-national company, creating a particular piece of software for hundreds of users worldwide, and the cost and complexity doubled (and we're talking millions of dollars) because one department of 12 people used Macs. And for various reasons (notably the secretary of an executive officer being an ex-marketing company "Apple fan") we ended up crippling the software and doubling the cost to get it to run on Macs (for 12 people) as well as PC's (for > 200 people).
OK, back on track....
It's also important to remember that the vast majority of people in any given profession aren't talking about it on the web. Discussions on the web involve enthusiasts, not daily grind people. Reading IT forums, for example, you'd think that everyone used Ubuntu, Open Office, Firefox etc., and that Microsoft never sold anything. But that's simply not true. It's just that the people on the forums very often are "kids" who've read a magazine or two. The IT guys who work for large companies and buy software licenses 1000's at a time are mostly buying Microsoft products. Web development guys working from their front room might use all kinds of software, but in big companies Dreamweaver (Adobe) is the norm. The same applies to image editing software. How often have you heard someone say "celebrity X doesn't look like that, the picture's been Capture NX 2'd"? On the other hand, "that's been Photoshop'ed" is a standard phrase.
It might also be the case that whilst photographers, professional or otherwise, might use a product to clean up their images, in the commercial world unless the image is regarded as "art" it is almost certainly subject to subsequent work. So the photographer may use Capture, but once that picture has been sold then the team doing the page layouts, website design or whatever are far more likely to be using a suite of Adobe products.
Reply With Quote
