Has your memory card ever worn out?

$40 is also cheap, but neither $50 nor $40
will buy you the current edition of Elements.

Wrong. I got v10 "on sale" at Costco.

Those who actually have a genuine interest in learning
about the products won't limit themselves to only
Adobe's web site.

Why should they have to look anywhere else?

I'm reminded of a "counter-culture" optical store in College Park, MD,
called "For Eyes". (Get it?) 42 years ago I was interested in contact lenses
and walked in. The person there wasn't much interested in helping. "We don't
believe in pushing our products on customers." That's a great way to go out
of business.

Needless to say, I found an optical store that actually wanted to sell me
something and make me happy, and got my contacts there.

But not carefully enough to know
that the complaint is bogus.

It's not bogus.

Let's put it this way... You're interested in Adobe photo-editing products.
You have specific questions about what they do and how they work together
(or not), so you can make an intelligent buying decision. You go to the
Adobe site, expecting clear answers to your questions. Will you find them?

I say you won't.

I don't think he was requesting anything other than
a comprehensive description of anything but the
general capabilities of and the relationships between
the components of the product range.

Wow. Someone who understands what he reads.

Thank you.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:24:06 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:14:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Photoshop never seemed expensive to me. I've paid over $5k for some
of the image editing software I used back then. Photoshop never was
all that good of a program compared to what was available, even
some that cost *less* than Photoshop, like the ULead products were
more efficient and flexible. That's why Adobe bought them and
shelved them.

ULead is now back in service with Corel.

ULead company never went away... Adobe bought Aldus to acquire the
version of Pagemaker that was under development (and became InDesign
1.0), and in the process shelved Aldus PhotoStyler, which was a pro
image editing app developed by ULead. A non-compete agreement kept
pro features, such as CMYK editing, out of Uleads follow-up app,
PhotoImpact. But, if ULead's relationship with Corel turns out like
Ventura Publisher and the Xara apps, they're doomed.

It's not as simple as all that. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corel_Ventura

It pretty much _is_ as simple as that.

As a user of Ventura Publisher since version 1.1, as well as of the Aldus,
Corel, and Adobe products, that brief Wiki overview is not informative. The
fact is that Corel has mismanaged Ventura so badly that many of us serious
users have even offered to take it off their hands so we could update its
code base, and we are still the best (if not only) source of support for the
product (see: corel.ventura10). Xara had a couple of very interesting
graphics products that they introduced to the market, but when picked up by
Corel, they almost went under and are now nearly invisible. Could it be that
Corel didn't want Xara biting into CorelDraw and CorelPaint's market share?
How does that portend good things for ULead?

--
best regards,

Neil

Adobe does not, because it has no understanding
of how to sell merchandise.

What an amazing disconnect from reality!

Glad you agree with me.

READ WHAT I WROTE, DICKHEAD!

"None" seems to be an apt assessment of your wit and sense of humor.


To clarify the point... Good sales aren't necessarily proof of good
marketing.

In Adobe's case, Photoshop was (as far as I know) the first major paint
software * designed primarily for the special needs of photographic images.
Its rapid adoption doubtless reduced interest in other products. It didn't
hurt that it wasn't cheap, as Americans tend to associate price with
quality. And once you've invested in something expensive, you're unlikely to
pay more money to switch.

Photoshop sells well because it's "the standard" and it's expensive -- not
because it's the best choice among competitive products. Of which there are
few. Adobe needs to act as if it had serious competition, and market
Photoshop accordingly. A well-designed clone from a major software company
could do significant damage.

* as opposed to vector (draw) software

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:34:14 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:03:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its
site, I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what
each of its products did (or didn't) do, and why you might
purchase it (or not). When I complained about this, I received
pretty much
a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn" response.

Since professionals have used many similar products for extended
periods of time, Adobe's explanations of what their products do
are adequate to provide a basic understanding of them.

And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new
potential customers every day who are ignorant of such things.
What do you do... ignore them?

There are a couple of levels of answers to this. To those with
general knowledge of image editing and image eding apps that
somehow haven't experienced PhotoShop, they can download the
reference manual, per another response. To the novice, there are
numerous PhotoShop courses available, both in person and on-line.

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and
Photoshop? Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also
does. Why would I use one and not the other? Or both? How do these
products interact (or not). What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

The relationship and differences should be obvious to experienced
image editors or photographers.

Obvious? Obvious how? How can you identify the dkifferences if there
is no easy way to determine the broad content and capabilities of
each?

It's obvious to pros in either the image editing or photographic
industries. Those that are not in either one of those industries or
a professional in support of one of those industries, the apps are
probably overkill. In other words, it would be unlikely that one
could become a pro in one of those areas and not get considerable
exposure to the apps -- pun intended -- because of their market
position.

But that's not what is being discussed. How can the ordinary person
who has no great familiarity with Adobe software obtain enough
information to make a meaningful comparison between the individual
products?

It should be clear to the "ordinary person" that the majority of Adobe's
products are not intended for them.

My oldest daughter is a graphic designer and she knows photoshop as
she was taught it at school. Her daughter is a graphic designer and
she too knows photoshop as she was taught it at school. But neither
of them really knows what is/isn't in Elements, Lightroom etc.

And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in
school? Just the fact that those apps are being taught in schools
that are training designers, photographers, etc. says about all that
needs to be said. Non-pros have little to no need to know, since
they are not the target users of those products.

That may be the reason the improving amatuer cannot get sufficient
information to enable them to decide which of four different Adobe
products they really need.

They already have the information they need; most Adobe products are not
aimed at amatuers, regardless of their status!

--
best regards,

Neil

And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in
school? Just the fact that those apps are being taught in schools
that are training designers, photographers, etc. says about all that
needs to be said. Non-pros have little to no need to know, since
they are not the target users of those products.

That may be the reason the improving amateur cannot get sufficient
information to enable them to decide which of four different Adobe
products they really need.

They already have the information they need; most Adobe products
are not aimed at amatuers, regardless of their status!

And that means that all Adobe products should be bought and used by all
professionals?

That is not an excuse for failing to provide adequate pre-sales support.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in
school? Just the fact that those apps are being taught in schools
that are training designers, photographers, etc. says about all that
needs to be said. Non-pros have little to no need to know, since
they are not the target users of those products.

That may be the reason the improving amateur cannot get sufficient
information to enable them to decide which of four different Adobe
products they really need.

They already have the information they need; most Adobe products
are not aimed at amatuers, regardless of their status!

And that means that all Adobe products should be bought and used by
all professionals?

Do you not recognize a significant technical difference between "most Adobe
products" and "...all Adobe products..."?!?

That is not an excuse for failing to provide adequate pre-sales
support.

Interesting that only you amatuer users seem to feel that way. Perhaps you
can explain the reason that such a "failure" resulted in the market position
for those products (#1), and how they can somehow do better by wasting their
resources explaining those products to folks that are unlikely to need or
buy them?

--
best regards,

Neil

Interesting that only you amateur users seem to feel that way.
Perhaps you can explain the reason that such a "failure" resulted
in the market position for those products (#1), and how they can
somehow do better by wasting their resources explaining those
products to folks that are unlikely to need or buy them?

It's never a waste of resources to make an effort to capture a new customer.
Just because a product sells well, doesn't mean its manufacturer knows how
to best market it.

You obviously don't understand the psychology behind asking a customer
whether they want one egg or two eggs in their milkshake (when they actually
don't want any). You place clearly defined options in front of a customer,
in the expectation they will select one of them, rather than buying nothing.
As in... "Do you want Photoshop, Lightroom, or both?" You then explain what
they do and how they work, and the customer says "Oh, I don't need
Photoshop. I'll just buy Lightroom." ka-CHING.

Adobe's market position has little to do with the way Photoshop has been
promoted.

Photoshop was (as far as I know) the first major paint software * designed
primarily for the special needs of photographic images. Its rapid adoption
doubtless reduced interest in other products. It didn't hurt that it wasn't
cheap, as Americans tend to associate price with quality. And once you've
invested in something expensive, you're unlikely to put out additional
dollars to switch.

Photoshop sells well because it's "the standard" and it's expensive -- not
because it's the best choice among competitive products. Of which there are
essentially none. (Corel PhotoPaint seems to be the only meaningful
competitor, and it doesn't sell well because it's "obviously" too
inexpensive to be any good.)

Adobe needs to act as if it had serious competition, and market Photoshop
accordingly. A well-designed clone from a major software company at a
slightly lower price ($400, say) could do significant damage.

* as opposed to vector software