Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: donbga on September 17, 2018, 12:52:16 pm
-
These past 2 years have seen new players in the photo editor arena and that serves as just one indicator about the competition of Adobe. With about a 120B cap and 28% profit margin one would think Adobe would feel secure about their future as an independent tech company. But perhaps not; Forbes online has published an insightful article outlining Adobe's current view about their own future. Could they become a tech industry Kodak?
Adobe's Future (https://tinyurl.com/yc2mtgqx)
-
one would think Adobe would feel secure about their future as an independent tech company.
Adobe will come through just fine. It's when you feel secure about your future in the tech business that you're liable to go under.
-
Maybe, maybe not. It is interesting to see their approach to diversification. After all who remembers the progenitor company that became Adobe?
-
I don’t know what is going to happen in 10 years, but Adobe’s strategy looks sound (contrary to what Kodak did). They are not resting on their laurels.
New players in the market is a good thing. Don’t be surprised if they buy one or more of those players if they become a threat.
-
Of course what a dumb question
-
Maybe, maybe not. It is interesting to see their approach to diversification. After all who remembers the progenitor company that became Adobe?
What "progenitor" company? I've dealt with Adobe since they started in 1982.
-
Of course what a dumb question
Many people answered the same about the future of blackberry when apple announced the iphone
-
What "progenitor" company? I've dealt with Adobe since they started in 1982.
Mea Culpa - my bad.. I was thinking Adobe absorbed Aldus but it wasn't until 1994 when Adobe purchased them.
-
Many people answered the same about the future of blackberry when apple announced the iphone
Blackberry is in very good shape today making security applications and they still make some interesting phones with the Motion, Key1, and Key2 models.
-
Blackberry is in very good shape today making security applications and they still make some interesting phones with the Motion, Key1, and Key2 models.
Yes, but it is not near in the position it was in the market 10 years ago. Just look at headcount, stock value and market capitalisation. Kodak still exists but it is just a fraction of what it was.
-
Yes, but it is not near in the position it was in the market 10 years ago. Just look at headcount, stock value and market capitalisation. Kodak still exists but it is just a fraction of what it was.
Blackberry's current direction is involvement in autonomous driving cars.
-
Of course not. Adobe is destined to be overwritten by Content Aware Fill.
-
Depends whether they follow through jumping on the Data fueled Tech wagon~
-
You still need to open your psd and other adobe files in the future so you need a subscription...
ergo Adobe will survive , even if they stop developing...
-
You still need to open your psd and other adobe files in the future so you need a subscription...
ergo Adobe will survive , even if they stop developing...
Which underlines the feeling of ultimate insecurity that has always bedevilled my own relationship with things digital.
I still have perfectly good Kodachromes from decades ago; it depends how you protect them.
I retain an almost unused F3, and should I ever manage to sell my place in Spain and return to the UK, then I will certainly revert to using film for a lot of stuff; not everything, of course, but for things that I feel matter, why not?
Michael may have reverted back to digital, but I am not he, and pace has little to do with my life, so being in a hurry to see results doesn't happen much.
-
That's a damned good reason, Rob, to convert all the raw stuff that comes off your cameras to .DNG and save the result. I have at least four backups of everything in .DNG. If anything happens to the .PSD's or other processed stuff I always can go back to the originals, just as you can with your film originals.
-
I probably should add that it's difficult and expensive to back up film negatives and transparencies. With digital it's a piece of cake. I always used to have digital backups in at least two locations. Nowadays I periodically send one set with the recent stuff to one of my sons. You can't very well do that with film or transparencies.
-
That's a damned good reason, Rob, to convert all the raw stuff that comes off your cameras to .DNG and save the result. I have at least four backups of everything in .DNG. If anything happens to the .PSD's or other processed stuff I always can go back to the originals, just as you can with your film originals.
The original raws with a lot of useful but mostly proprietary metadata and a pretty high quality JPEG of the rendering as yet another 'backup'. Plus data verification in some products.
-
It's human nature to imagine the future will be "the present extended." It's why we're repeatedly caught so off-guard by novel developments. So it's impossible to say what the photo processing landscape will be like down the road, or what that might mean for specific companies, 'cuz we have no idea what the next new game-changing thing will be.
-Dave-