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

Pixelmator 3.0

pixelmator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#101

Post by yardie »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #69
vilius wrote: post #54

Remember "Google buys Sparrow"? I wonder if we'll see "Adobe buys Pixelmator" in the near future.

I’d rather it not be acquired, but if it were, I’d much rather that it be acquired by Apple. That company doesn’t currently have a full-fledged image editor in its software lineup and probably wouldn’t cancel or cripple the product. As Adobe already ships several full-fledged image editing tools, I don’t have much faith they would leave this product intact. I use Adobe products for much of my day, but I still hate th…

Those 2 have an obsessive, abusive relationship. Adobe cancels Premiere for the Mac, Apple releases Final Cut Pro. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has a mole in Pixelmator who calls the Apple batphone if Adobe starts to sniff around their office.

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#102

Post by gibwell »

sgustard wrote: post #32
gibwell wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sell millions of licenses a year. Their revenue per employee exceeds that of Google or Apple. Is more explanation needed?

Do you have a source for those numbers? I have no reason to doubt you, but you seem put off by the question. It's a legitimate concern before sending money to a company to ask how financially secure they are.

I was put off by the idea they needed a business model other than selling the app for money.

A little googling should provide the due diligence you require.

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#103

Post by dantesandoval »

armandososa wrote: post #95
TheZenPsycho wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photoshop is a lot of things, but I've never thought of it as "robust" These are two very different programs, and there are lots of things that one may still need the real deal photoshop for, but I wonder what you mean by "robust" here?

My guess is that he meant "fat"

Ha, yeah, no > Photoshop is a little better at handling files that are REALLY big dude. You know like Pro's use...

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#104

Post by eli »

Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #98
eli wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really want to like Gimp, but at least on OS X the experience is pretty dreadful.

Have you tried Seashore? http://seashore.sourceforge.net/The_Seashore_Project/About.h... Based on GIMP it adds a proper Mac UI. Not all GIMP functionality is there but for the basic stuff it's not bad.

Yes and was underwhelmed (though the UI is greatly improved). Does not appear to support PSD files at all, for one thing.

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#105

Post by Samuel_Michon »

yardie wrote: post #101
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather it not be acquired, but if it were, I’d much rather that it be acquired by Apple. That company doesn’t currently have a full-fledged image editor in its software lineup and probably wouldn’t cancel or cripple the product. As Adobe already ships several full-fledged image editing tools, I don’t have much faith they would leave this product intact. I use Adobe products for much of my day, but I still hate th…

Those 2 have an obsessive, abusive relationship. Adobe cancels Premiere for the Mac, Apple releases Final Cut Pro. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has a mole in Pixelmator who calls the Apple batphone if Adobe starts to sniff around their office.

I do agree with you that Apple and Adobe have a strained relationship, it has been so for decades. However, your example isn’t correct.

Apple bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia in 1998 and released its first version in 1999. At the time, Adobe had been releasing new versions of Premiere for both Mac and PC for years, and the product only went Windows-only in 2003 (when it renamed the product Premiere Pro.) In 2007, it started releasing Premiere for both platforms again.

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#106

Post by armandososa »

dantesandoval wrote: post #103
armandososa wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that he meant "fat"

Ha, yeah, no > Photoshop is a little better at handling files that are REALLY big dude. You know like Pro's use...

My bad then. Where I live it's not uncommon to use "robust" as an euphemism for fay. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#107

Post by avree »

jodi wrote: post #83
avree wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of negative commentary is always distasteful. Any person who's used a computer in the last twenty years would understand that the interface is not responding and try alternate input methods (like scrolling, one of the most common paradigms on web pages.) It doesn't "just look broken".

It's not negative commentary. It is a legitimate user interface issue that several people experienced. It is also super easy for them to fix. Sometimes(always) when you launch a new product or design, you want feedback on the silly little things you wouldn't have thought of that could potentially turn people away. The attention span of cold clicks is measured in seconds. Any silly issue can push someone to click off.…

The dramatic hyperbole drives it from being "surfacing an issue" to negative bashing.

"Did anybody else spend half a minute trying to interact with the "app", then give up and close the tab, thinking it was broken before coming back here to discover that it was just a full-page screenshot of a desktop app?"

xauronx, and the majority of the other folks explaining the issue, took a much more reasonable approach—"it was a .5 second instinct to interact with it and then I figured it out. Not sure if that constitutes a negative UI experience or not, but it IS an issue. "

It's just unbelievable to think that anyone familiar with a web interface would get so confused by the screenshot that their only recourse would be to abandon ship.

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#108

Post by antonyme »

Looks like the v3 update still doesn't support NetPBM files (.pgm, .ppm, etc) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netpbm_format

A much earlier version did support this common file format, but for some strange reason it was removed in 2.x.

A pgm/ppm file is a wonderfully simple format - it is basically a simple textual header followed by a binary dump of the image data. So it is trivially easy to parse and load or save. It is for this reason that it is so useful, for example when working on image processing algorithms, it is so convenient to export test data, intermediate results and so forth.

I hope they will (re-)add support for pgm/ppm files soon. If you think this would be useful too, please vote on the support site.

Re: Pixelmator 3.0

#109

Post by welly »

vilius wrote: post #54

Remember "Google buys Sparrow"? I wonder if we'll see "Adobe buys Pixelmator" in the near future.

I'm curious as to what reasons people think Adobe might buy Pixelmator other than to shut down the competition? They already have a budget image editor - albeit not as cheap as Pixelmator and is there any technology in Pixelmator that Adobe doesn't already have?
Post reply on HN