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

Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

chrome.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 254 posts

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#51

Post by whizzkid »

wffurr wrote: post #45
whizzkid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I want to own my hardware and software power" I think this states what I am trying to say.

The parent is specifically addressing that point. You don't own most of the software you are purchasing. The vendor retains either the technical or legal ability to reach into your machine and disable the software via the licensing agreement.

I understand the point, which is really reasonable.

But how about this way;

In order to disable the software that I installed on my machine, they need to know who I am, which computer it is installed to, plus lots of other procedures to deal with. Which is time consuming and not easy.

In order to disable cloud hosted software,

- User.find(me).licence.valid = false

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#52

Post by pjmlp »

wffurr wrote: post #45
whizzkid wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I want to own my hardware and software power" I think this states what I am trying to say.

The parent is specifically addressing that point. You don't own most of the software you are purchasing. The vendor retains either the technical or legal ability to reach into your machine and disable the software via the licensing agreement.

On most countries EULAS are void.

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#53

Post by api »

whizzkid wrote: post #19

I am little bit concerned about the way technology trends these days. It feels like sooner or later, big companies will have all the hardware and software hosted on their side and people will only get access to play it according to companies rules. This is actually a concern to my freedom as well. I want to own my hardware and software power. I want to run everything offline if i want to. I don't want to click "I agr…

"It feels like sooner or later, big companies will have all the hardware and software hosted on their side and people will only get access to play it according to companies rules."

I agree. The "PC revolution" has gone into full reverse. It's the revenge of the mainframe and the whole mentality behind it.

There's many reasons for this, but the biggest one I think is piracy and the general mentality that "everything should be free" (as in beer). The problem is that nothing is free. Everything costs money. Really polished software costs a lot of money.

So far three strategies for dealing with this misalignment have emerged:

(1) Push everything back to the mainframe and return the user to serfdom.

(2) Create completely jailed devices (iOS, jailed Android deployments) linked to completely closed app stores and use cryptography to effectively achieve #1 without having to offload all computation.

(3) Create "free" products and services for which the user is the product -- this is the surveillance and manipulation business model of sites like Facebook.

I've come to believe that free is actually the enemy of freedom, and that the "pirate party" crowd is worse than wrong. What they're promoting is actively pushing us toward a radically less free world. The "everything should be free" ideology creates a complete decoupling between the user and the economics of software and content creation -- so now the only viable business models are either serfdom or exploitation.

In a sense free places the user in the ultimate position of disempowerment. Since you're not paying there is no reason anyone should care about you or your needs/preferences. It works for content too. In a world where people pay for music, music is made for you. In a world where nobody pays for music, it has to be made for someone else. I envision a future where pretty much all non-hobbyist / starving artist music is made at the behest of advertisers or political propagandists. It's all full of either product placements or messages crafted to get you to vote or think a certain way, and it has negative artistic integrity.

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#54

Post by deelowe »

bshimmin wrote: post #11
arscan wrote: post #9

For those wondering how the "streaming" version of Photoshop is implemented: Project Photoshop Streaming is identical to the Photoshop you’d install locally with a few notable exceptions. This build can be accessed from any Chrome browser (Windows only) or Chromebook and does not require a full download and install. In other words, this is the same build of Photoshop you’d typically download and install from Creative…

I'm pretty excited to see how utterly wretched the performance will be!

Yep. Absolutely wretched: http://shield.nvidia.com/play-pc-games/

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#55

Post by wmf »

pdknsk wrote: post #47
flixic wrote: post #14

Well this is interesting. Their FAQ[0] contains some more information, but still does not explain everything. They say "however, instead of being installed on your local machine, it is running in a virtualized environment so can be accessed from any Chrome browser or Chromebook. Because this version of Photoshop is running in a virtualized environment, you open, save, export and recover files from/to your Google Driv…

The color correction can be done on the server. It just needs to get and upload your monitor profile, and Photoshop on the server returns color corrected pixels. Of course, Chrome cannot even read the monitor profile on Linux yet. I'm not sure if this also applies to Chromebooks though. Since it's a fixed device, it probably ships with the monitor profile file factory stored somewhere. Or Adobe gets the files for the…

And then H.264 artifacts probably undo that color correction.

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#56

Post by JoeAltmaier »

pjmlp wrote: post #52
wffurr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is specifically addressing that point. You don't own most of the software you are purchasing. The vendor retains either the technical or legal ability to reach into your machine and disable the software via the licensing agreement.

On most countries EULAS are void.

Yeah how's that work? In the US any terms made after money is tendered are void. This was done to avoid someone adding terms to a contract on delivery. SO is it true for software too? What about electronic download?

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#57

Post by r00fus »

Interesting - so it's Adobe's Photoshop on a VPC, but is only for Windows/Chrome.

Remote storage of your designs/files, remote execution, like manipulating via remote desktop/VNC, but hopefully more usable.

My two concerns would be a) privacy of data and b) upload/download costs/time - some of the files involved can be huge.

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#58

Post by ewzimm »

whizzkid wrote: post #19

I am little bit concerned about the way technology trends these days. It feels like sooner or later, big companies will have all the hardware and software hosted on their side and people will only get access to play it according to companies rules. This is actually a concern to my freedom as well. I want to own my hardware and software power. I want to run everything offline if i want to. I don't want to click "I agr…

On the flip side, you can consider that traditional proprietary software installs usually have full access to read and modify your system, often in ways you don't expect or wouldn't consent to. Running in a virtualized environment in a browser significantly reduces access to your system. So if you run a free software local install with proprietary programs running in a jailed browser environment, you are probably more secure than you would be if you had installed them locally.

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#59

Post by sp332 »

andybak wrote: post #42
bshimmin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty excited to see how utterly wretched the performance will be!

If you can play an FPS remotely (and I have - and it works) then I think this is a walk in the park.

Yeah, low-latency streaming using x264 was solved in 2010. http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/249

Re: Adobe joins the Chromebook party, starting with Photoshop

#60

Post by math0ne »

flixic wrote: post #14

Well this is interesting. Their FAQ[0] contains some more information, but still does not explain everything. They say "however, instead of being installed on your local machine, it is running in a virtualized environment so can be accessed from any Chrome browser or Chromebook. Because this version of Photoshop is running in a virtualized environment, you open, save, export and recover files from/to your Google Driv…

IS it possible that there is a localized virtual machine setup and the image itself is what is streamed over the network? IE you would have a locally installed version of linux on a virtual machine and an additional drive is essentially steamed over the network via SMB os something that contains the PS application?
Post reply on HN