Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Photoshop’s journey to the web

web.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#161

Post by coldtea »

Kapura wrote: post #105
astlouis44 wrote: post #11

WebAssembly is coming for games next. Near native performance, players can join with just a link, and no 30% cut that developers have to deal with.

I've been working in games for the better part of a decade, at AAA scale for the last three years, and this is pure fantasy. It is extremely difficult to develop high-quality games for a console, which has fixed hardware specs and a single vendor for the SDK. Any layer of emulation on top of that creates new problems and dilutes every single aspect of performance, sometimes in unpredictable ways. On top of that, buil…

>I've been working in games for the better part of a decade, at AAA scale for the last three years, and this is pure fantasy.

Maybe we should stop caring for AAA games then? What happened to gameplay instead of "this new game has 10% more detailed graphic assets"?

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#162

Post by coldtea »

softfalcon wrote: post #82
astlouis44 wrote: post #11

WebAssembly is coming for games next. Near native performance, players can join with just a link, and no 30% cut that developers have to deal with.

I feel your excitement and wish it were true. I'm even building a game to leverage this newly supported tech. The good news is that the tech works really really well and is very performant in the browser. You can do a lot of cool stuff! The bad news is that it's not the tech that is holding back web based game dev. It's the users. Market research and testing has shown that users dislike "just playing" a game in the b…

>Players who play the high profile games that web assembly would allow you to make games for (think Fortnite, CS:GO, etc) all want to play games from a trusted download from a trusted store, not some random website.

People just don't want to invest/search for random new games on random websites.

For games people want to play, and already have heard about, it wouldn't matter if they are on a website or a "trusted store". If Fortnite was made available to play only from a website starting tomorrow nobody would have a problem using it from https://www.fortnite.com as opposed to Epic's game platform.

And for games sold by big companies, it also wouldn't matter. It's about trust (which Valve or Epic has), not about web vs a launcher/store.

If devs can get that trust, then getting users to play the game on the web is not a problem.

>but for many many games (source: my wife is a game designer and I'm a game programmer/web dev) that still entails at least 1 GB of data that would need to be loaded and is difficult to cache client side in the browser.

You also need to download/cache that 1GB or 10GB if you use Valve or whatever.

As for caching it client side in the browser, you can do it as well, either as browser cache (browser vendors will just add the technologies for that), or as locally downloaded assets with direct access granted from the browser (the article already talks about using a new API for mmapping-style access to files outside the browser).

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#163

Post by zz865 »

mhoad wrote: post #155
zz865 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks I wasn't sure why wasm was mostly limited to C++/Rust right now but the memory makes sense. Flutter is great except for Dart - another language.

I felt the same way my desire to learn a new language was somewhere between low and none at all. I’m happy to say when I’m wrong though, it ended up as probably my favourite language of all after not too long. It’s often described as the love child of Java and JavaScript where they took the best from both and got rid of the most hated parts of both too. But it ends up as a really nice and performant language to build…

That sounds awesome, I'm going to try it out, thanks.

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#164

Post by Kapura »

coldtea wrote: post #161
Kapura wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been working in games for the better part of a decade, at AAA scale for the last three years, and this is pure fantasy. It is extremely difficult to develop high-quality games for a console, which has fixed hardware specs and a single vendor for the SDK. Any layer of emulation on top of that creates new problems and dilutes every single aspect of performance, sometimes in unpredictable ways. On top of that, buil…

> I've been working in games for the better part of a decade, at AAA scale for the last three years, and this is pure fantasy. Maybe we should stop caring for AAA games then? What happened to gameplay instead of "this new game has 10% more detailed graphic assets"?

Well, I'm a gameplay programmer and I seem to always be busy somehow, so idk maybe you need to play different things?

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#165

Post by folmar »

coldtea wrote: post #148
dperfect wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Photopea is better than GIMP in so many ways (does GIMP still not have adjustment layers for non-destructive editing?), and was created by one person is a little depressing, but also inspiring at the same time.

> Better than GIMP in so many ways (does GIMP still not have adjustment layers for non-destructive editing?), and was created by one person This makes total sense. GIMPs problem was never feature quality or quantity, it was mostly focus and coherence. A single person brings that.

The main trouble with GIMP (and Inkscape) is lack of first-class CMYK, making it irrelevant for any print-targeting activity. Otherwise the features have advanced in the last few years and the coherence is not bad, the photoshop crowd being in the same ballpark for me.

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#166

Post by inDigiNeous »

dperfect wrote: post #88
wgx wrote: post #4

A polite reminder that the (quite extraordinary) Photopea[0] is available which replicates most of Photoshop's features in the browser, and is free - with a paid ad-free option. 0. https://www.photopea.com/

The fact that Photopea is better than GIMP in so many ways (does GIMP still not have adjustment layers for non-destructive editing?), and was created by one person is a little depressing, but also inspiring at the same time.

Nomen est Omen, with a name like GIMP what can you expect. I mean, the software name is literally slang for a disabled person.

Why don't they start from changing the name I don't understand.. Open Source projects have these odd ways of just sticking whatever somebody came up in the late 90s and rolling with that.

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#167

Post by dperfect »

avian wrote: post #154
dperfect wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Photopea is better than GIMP in so many ways (does GIMP still not have adjustment layers for non-destructive editing?), and was created by one person is a little depressing, but also inspiring at the same time.

You know what's more than little depressing? That each time any similar topic comes up you don't have to scroll down very far to find someone in the comments that will bash GIMP for some random thing. You're comparing an ad-supported/subscription web service making a good part of 6 figures per year with software maintained largely by volunteer work for the past 20+ years.

I apologize - I truly don't mean to bash GIMP and I appreciate all the work the volunteers have done. It has come a long way and appears to be getting better with every release.

My reliance on adjustment layers and non-destructive workflows probably doesn't represents the majority of GIMP's user base, and that's ok. I can't really use it seriously for photographic retouching until it does have that, but I'm glad other people get a lot of use out of it, and the other features that have taken higher priority surely make sense for a great number of those people that do use it regularly. I hope that drives more usage, donations, and development.

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#168

Post by josefresco »

This reads like an ad for Google and "the Chrome team".

"Chrome has been working to empower web applications that want to push the boundaries of what's possible in the browser"

"Google Docs was a pioneer of this simplified access"

"Early apps like Gmail showed that more complex interactivity and applications were at least possible"

"No large project can be successfully completed without the appropriate tools for the job, and it's for this reason that the Chrome team developed full featured WebAssembly debugging support."

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#169

Post by tony_cannistra »

inDigiNeous wrote: post #166
dperfect wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Photopea is better than GIMP in so many ways (does GIMP still not have adjustment layers for non-destructive editing?), and was created by one person is a little depressing, but also inspiring at the same time.

Nomen est Omen, with a name like GIMP what can you expect. I mean, the software name is literally slang for a disabled person. Why don't they start from changing the name I don't understand.. Open Source projects have these odd ways of just sticking whatever somebody came up in the late 90s and rolling with that.

GIMP is an acronym (GNU Image Manipulation Program).

Re: Photoshop’s journey to the web

#170

Post by Godel_unicode »

HeckFeck wrote: post #78
orangepurple wrote: post #53

> Why Photoshop came to the web The entire section is a deception. The real reason is to strong arm everyone into a subscription model where you never own the software that runs on your computer. That's the real end game, not this nonsense about how easy it is to launch an application if its a URL in a browser.

I've never met anyone who couldn't grasp the idea of programs running locally on a computer. Practcially every user of Android/iOS will understand it intuitevly. Back in the day anyone of all ages and abilities I knew on 90s-2000s hardware could download and install programs. Anyone who couldn't honestly wouldn't get much benefit from a computer. Indeed, the convenience argument is just a pretext. They long to see th…

I see these comments in virtually every web app thread that there is, and it's immediately clear that the people making them have never worked somewhere with a vaguely incompetent IT department (most companies). There are companies where adding a new application to the image/getting IT to install it requires forms, waiting, and sacrificing a small animal. Those people are also not paying for it and thus don't care at all how much it costs.
Post reply on HN