SDK Photoshop

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

Uni wrote in message

news:…

Warren Sarle wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

nospam wrote:

… Adobe should be ashamed for charging for it.

Only the very poor complain 🙂

Technically, Adobe does not charge for the Photoshop SDK. They just require you to pay them $195 to decide whether you are sufficiently virtuous to receive the SDK. A scam by another name would smell as rotten.

Come on, the SDK is like any other piece of software. They used to give it away for free, but now they charge for it. Big deal. All you people do is whine about it. Why don’t you and Bart create some software they can utilize and give it to them for free?!

I don’t think you have grasped the principle behind what we are discussing here.

One clue: Application plugins *augment and strengthen* the platform, benefiting Adobe and the user community both. Adobe’s increasingly monopolistic attitude does not benefit anyone except Adobe in the short term and is basically offensive to everyone else, who often work harder than Adobe, for less.

A case in point, where 3rd party plugin developers can value add: Today a friend of mine benchmarked* my ElectricImage file format plugin side by side with Adobe’s ElectricImage plugin (which still ships with Mac Photoshop *only*).

The Telegraphics plugin (currently a free download from
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/) was *100 times faster* in saving a 57MB RGB file into IMG format: 6 seconds, versus Adobe’s 10mins 53seconds. Plus, it supports far more platforms: Photoshop 3.0-7.0 on Windows, Power Mac, and 68K Mac, and includes additional features requested by EI users – while Adobe’s is Mac PS7 only.

If these enhancements were left to Adobe, the community would have an even more difficult time earning the lump sums required to buy the platform in the first place. And alienating developers has got to be a smart move!

Toby

*Test conducted on Power Mac G3 running OS X and Photoshop 7, 512MB RAM.

Toby –

I wouldn’t even bother attempting to reason with the fool. He’s nothing but a troll, and a poor one at that. (And he doesn’t even own any version of Photoshop, nor even Elements, as he was too hard up for cash when his demo ran out.) His committment to freeware is wallet-driven, despite his claims to a higher-minded philosophy.

He’s certainly no one any company would want shilling their product – he’s an idiot and proves it at every turn. Save your breath, my friend.

—
Sally Beacham / www.dizteq.com
www.lvsonline.com / PSP, Filter Frenzy, Xara X
FilterMunky / www.psppower.com
reply to sbeachamATdizteq.com

Sally Beacham wrote:

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

Uni wrote in message

news:…

Warren Sarle wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

nospam wrote:

… Adobe should be ashamed for charging for it.

Only the very poor complain 🙂

Technically, Adobe does not charge for the Photoshop SDK. They just require you to pay them $195 to decide whether you are sufficiently virtuous to receive the SDK. A scam by another name would smell as rotten.

Come on, the SDK is like any other piece of software. They used to give it away for free, but now they charge for it. Big deal. All you people do is whine about it. Why don’t you and Bart create some software they can utilize and give it to them for free?!

I don’t think you have grasped the principle behind what we are discussing here.

One clue: Application plugins *augment and strengthen* the platform, benefiting Adobe and the user community both. Adobe’s increasingly monopolistic attitude does not benefit anyone except Adobe in the short term and is basically offensive to everyone else, who often work harder than Adobe, for less.

A case in point, where 3rd party plugin developers can value add: Today a friend of mine benchmarked* my ElectricImage file format plugin side by side with Adobe’s ElectricImage plugin (which still ships with Mac Photoshop *only*).

The Telegraphics plugin (currently a free download from
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/) was *100 times faster* in saving a 57MB RGB file into IMG format: 6 seconds, versus Adobe’s 10mins 53seconds. Plus, it supports far more platforms: Photoshop 3.0-7.0 on Windows, Power Mac, and 68K Mac, and includes additional features requested by EI users – while Adobe’s is Mac PS7 only.

If these enhancements were left to Adobe, the community would have an even more difficult time earning the lump sums required to buy the platform in the first place. And alienating developers has got to be a smart move!

Toby

*Test conducted on Power Mac G3 running OS X and Photoshop 7, 512MB RAM.

Toby –

I wouldn’t even bother attempting to reason with the fool. He’s nothing but a troll, and a poor one at that. (And he doesn’t even own any version of Photoshop, nor even Elements, as he was too hard up for cash when his demo ran out.) His committment to freeware is wallet-driven, despite his claims to a higher-minded philosophy.

He’s certainly no one any company would want shilling their product – he’s an idiot and proves it at every turn. Save your breath, my friend.

I believe Sally is just PO’d, because I helped chase her little favorite software company out of usenet.

Oh, well!!!!!!

🙂

Uni

Sally Beacham wrote:

"Toby Thain" wrote in message

Uni wrote in message

news:…

Warren Sarle wrote:

"Uni" wrote in message

nospam wrote:

… Adobe should be ashamed for charging for it.

Only the very poor complain 🙂

Technically, Adobe does not charge for the Photoshop SDK. They just require you to pay them $195 to decide whether you are sufficiently virtuous to receive the SDK. A scam by another name would smell as rotten.

Come on, the SDK is like any other piece of software. They used to give it away for free, but now they charge for it. Big deal. All you people do is whine about it. Why don’t you and Bart create some software they can utilize and give it to them for free?!

I don’t think you have grasped the principle behind what we are discussing here.

One clue: Application plugins *augment and strengthen* the platform, benefiting Adobe and the user community both. Adobe’s increasingly monopolistic attitude does not benefit anyone except Adobe in the short term and is basically offensive to everyone else, who often work harder than Adobe, for less.

A case in point, where 3rd party plugin developers can value add: Today a friend of mine benchmarked* my ElectricImage file format plugin side by side with Adobe’s ElectricImage plugin (which still ships with Mac Photoshop *only*).

The Telegraphics plugin (currently a free download from
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/) was *100 times faster* in saving a 57MB RGB file into IMG format: 6 seconds, versus Adobe’s 10mins 53seconds. Plus, it supports far more platforms: Photoshop 3.0-7.0 on Windows, Power Mac, and 68K Mac, and includes additional features requested by EI users – while Adobe’s is Mac PS7 only.

If these enhancements were left to Adobe, the community would have an even more difficult time earning the lump sums required to buy the platform in the first place. And alienating developers has got to be a smart move!

Toby

*Test conducted on Power Mac G3 running OS X and Photoshop 7, 512MB RAM.

Toby –

I wouldn’t even bother attempting to reason with the fool. He’s nothing but a troll, and a poor one at that. (And he doesn’t even own any version of Photoshop, nor even Elements, as he was too hard up for cash when his demo ran out.) His committment to freeware is wallet-driven, despite his claims to a higher-minded philosophy.

He’s certainly no one any company would want shilling their product – he’s an idiot and proves it at every turn. Save your breath, my friend.

I believe Sally is just PO’d, because I helped chase her little favorite software company out of usenet.

Oh, well!!!!!!

🙂

Uni

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:34:23 -0400, "Sally Beacham" wrote:

Follow up, Owen….

Gary would love to converse with you about any Python-related stuff you might care to converse back about, so if you need his email address or anything, drop me a line.

I don’t have a valid email address for you anymore, and for fear of SPAM the my one here is not valid either! Could you ask Gary to go to my contacts page and contact me:

http://www.ransen.com/contacts.htm

Or maybe I’ll sign up to his newsletter…

By the way, we should not be doing this in a Photoshop group!

😉

—
http://www.ransen.com/
Repligator – Easy graphics effects
Gliftic – Easy decorative tilings

"PR" wrote in message

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:34:23 -0400, "Sally Beacham" wrote:

Follow up, Owen….

Gary would love to converse with you about any Python-related stuff

you

might care to converse back about, so if you need his email address or anything, drop me a line.

I don’t have a valid email address for you anymore, and for fear of SPAM the my one here is not valid either! Could you ask Gary to go to my contacts page and contact me:

http://www.ransen.com/contacts.htm

Or maybe I’ll sign up to his newsletter…

By the way, we should not be doing this in a Photoshop group!

Could be worse, we could be trolling like the Unidiot or Mike the Unmentionable.

Besides, it shouldn’t hurt Adobe to hear their consumers ain’t too happy about the SDK issue, either. Well, it might hurt, but it’s the truth.

p.s. My email is in my sig-file, you just gotta figure it out. ;-)))

—
Sally Beacham / www.dizteq.com
www.lvsonline.com / PSP, Filter Frenzy, Xara X
FilterMunky / www.psppower.com
reply to sbeachamATdizteq.com

PR wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:34:23 -0400, "Sally Beacham" wrote:

Follow up, Owen….

Gary would love to converse with you about any Python-related stuff you might care to converse back about, so if you need his email address or anything, drop me a line.

I don’t have a valid email address for you anymore, and for fear of SPAM the my one here is not valid either! Could you ask Gary to go to my contacts page and contact me:

http://www.ransen.com/contacts.htm

Or maybe I’ll sign up to his newsletter…

By the way, we should not be doing this in a Photoshop group!

Yes, move it on out and take your pet walrus with you.

🙂

Uni