The Case for an Apple Photoshop Replacement
It would be easy enough to look at the MacBook benchmarks for an indication of what a Photoshop monopoly does to the platform, but there's really more to it than simply expecting a design tool that runs at full speed.For better or worse, Photoshop is still rooted in concepts that have been around since version 1. Some major advances arrived in version 3, but the basic user interaction strategy can still be traced back to MacPaint.
You don't have to mess around with the current version of Photoshop for very long to see how far off it is from being a legitimate, native Mac OS X application. The dialogs, controls and behaviors simply feel dated, which is not helped at all by the fact that they're supposed to work nearly the same across platforms. Windows becomes a sort of anchor for the experience.
If Apple shipped something like Photoshop as-is today, they'd be ripped apart by the customer base. The question is why does Adobe get away with it? I think it's just because they are Adobe. We've thought of Photoshop as the tool for so long that it's hard to think of being another way. (Of course, I don't blame the individuals engineers at Adobe, it's a strategy/culture issue).
Then again, who would have predicted Final Cut Pro would have made such a huge impact on the video market? Better tools can succeed. The time's right for Apple to produce a modern, elegant graphic design tool that can unshackle us from the Adobe monopoly.
Yes, the most important immediate issue is to have an app that is fully native, but I'd also like to see a fresh approach to graphic design UI. Again, people are accustomed to the Photoshop model, but there's also a lot of cruft that has built up over time. Photoshop simply doesn't behave like a Mac OS X application.
Apple has invested a lot into their professional application suite, but the usefulness of it rests on the availability of Photoshop. That's not a great position to be in.
There are some other tools out there that attempt to be Cocoa-based Photoshop replacements, but most of them end up being more filter factories than legitimate design tools. What we need is something that can be used not just to apply affects, but actually design layouts, web pages, and interactive UI elements.
The next issue, of course, would be a vector design tool to replace Illustrator, but one step at a time, I suppose.
The Case for an Apple Photoshop Replacement
Posted May 19, 2006 — 39 comments below
Posted May 19, 2006 — 39 comments below
Eric Hope — May 19, 06 1285
Also it would be pretty sweet if Apple were to undertake this endeavor by not only making a product that usurps the paradigms and functionality of Photoshop but also incorporated the vector related behaviors of Illustrator into one cohesive product.
There is a ton of redundancy between Illustrator and Photoshop, with enough thought and abstraction a hybrid could be generated. Remember the emergence of resolution/format independant video editing? That was a shock to many, and a no brainer to others. So why should the format and rendering methods of an image-object restrict a designer to a seperate application or workspace?
An Apple designed "Design App" that handles raster and vector workflows in the same environment, now that would be somthing to behold...
Matt Ronge — May 19, 06 1286
Lucas Newman — May 19, 06 1287
Scott Stevenson — May 19, 06 1288
Well, it matters to me. I have to imagine that the people that buy Apple's pro products notice too.
The people that use Photoshop day in and out are accustomed to the interface and don't really want it to change
I'm not sure that's a reason not to do it. By that logic, we should all use Windows. Just because people are comfortable with something doesn't mean something new is bad.
In fact, Final Cut Pro has a very unique, non-OS X look to it, and it doesn't matter that much
The look comes from ProKit, which is currently a private framework. It's shared (more or less) by the other Pro tools. I think an Apple graphic design app would use this look.
Chris — May 19, 06 1289
But that doesn't mean a truly and obviously superior product couldn't take serious marketshare.
(MacPaint tangent. The true successor to 1984 MacPaint was HyperCard, not MacPaint 2.0. Bill Atkinson put a lot of cool paint tools into HyperCard. Too bad it never made it to true color.)
Matt — May 20, 06 1290
Photoshop is popular as a kitchen sink of image-processing tools. It can do a huge number of things. It has integration with squillions of plug-ins. Every graphic designer on the planet is trained in it.
To develop a program capable of a large number of tasks and still make it feel wholistic and properly integrated is a nightmare of design. Photoshop does an excellent job of concealing (at the top level) the vast number of things it can do and yet they remain within two clicks or a menu at any time.
Sure, it doesn't feel 100% aqua wonderful but that is because it's trying to replicate the same feel on multiple platforms (another hideous thing to attempt).
I'm not defending everything about Photoshop just trying to point out how difficult I think designing and implementing a competitor would be.
Sean Murphy — May 20, 06 1291
I'm so glad you decided to write this post, mainly because I now realize I'm not alone in my dislike for the "Human Interface" aspect of so many of these monopolistic apps we depend on.
The fact that software from Microsoft and Adobe (especially the Macromedia suite) are a necessity, and do have such a stranglehold on me, is the only reason I keep using them. My productivity (and enjoyment) decreases the second I open one of these second-rate Mac citizens. These programs don't behave like anything else I use and my trained tendencies are all rendered incorrect.
I really wish Adobe and Microsoft would hire someone who uses and understands the way of Mac OS X and the design philosophy of Aqua, that could just inform them of how we, as Mac users, expect software to behave (and look). Mac users DO notice when an app is blindly converted into a cross-platform product.
From not obeying consistent system-wide keyboard shortcuts (End of line in Word uses the home/end keys, Photoshop's CMD-H doesn't hide by default, etc..) and lack of effort in interface design (Spell check icon in Word is pathetic and identical to its Windows counterpart), I'm so frustrated how creative and excellent software is ruined by a lack of coherent and elegant interface work.
Apple's philosophy of human interface design is outstanding, and when early MP3 players were a pain just to get music onto them, the iPod came along and introduced the "plug it in and sync." I hope they can do the same for the graphic design market, and take full advantage of the development paradise that is under the hood of Tiger.
BTW: I really enjoy all of your writing, and it feels like sometimes you've even read my mind.
Mr eel — May 20, 06 1292
I would love to see something that rethinks the way we manipulate images, real time image processing via Core Image and a consistent and well thought out interface.
"Photoshop is popular as a kitchen sink of image-processing tools. It can do a huge number of things. "
A fair proportion of which most users have no need for. In this case I think term 'kitchen sink' is a negative. The core set of features that most users want is actually quite a bit smaller than what Photoshop currently offers.
In other words, a competitor doesn't need to replicate 100% of the functions in PS, only the 80% (or so) that most people use most of the time.
Thereafter, future versions could expand on the feature set to include all those niceties.
The only sticking point I see, is file compatibility. A replacement for PS would need to be able to open PS files, purely because it dominates the industry so completely. You couldn't avoid it.
Scott Stevenson — May 20, 06 1293
This is not a reason for Apple to not do it, and they wouldn't be starting from scratch in any case. There's some excellent API built into the OS for graphics manipulation, not to mention code that exists in Aperture, Keynote, and Pages.
Every graphic designer on the planet is trained in it.
And all computer operators used to use punchcards, yet here we are. :)
To develop a program capable of a large number of tasks and still make it feel wholistic and properly integrated is a nightmare of design.
Again, just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Otherwise, what sort of ecosystem are we left with? We let applications like Photoshop go unchallenged because it's too complicated to make something better?
If we can put someone on the moon and map the human genome, I'm sure we, as a species, have the capacity to write a solid, native, modern graphic design tool for the Mac.
Photoshop does an excellent job of concealing (at the top level) the vast number of things it can do and yet they remain within two clicks or a menu at any time.
I strongly disagree. I think it's too awkward on the surface and non-intuitive and inconsistent when you dig down further. I've been using Photoshop for ten years, so this isn't just a first impression.
Sure, it doesn't feel 100% aqua wonderful but that is because it's trying to replicate the same feel on multiple platforms
Which is only a stronger argument for Apple to make something better.
Mike Abdullah — May 20, 06 1295
As someone who very, very rarely uses Photoshop, I personally find the interface quite intimidating when I sit down in front of it.
MJ — May 20, 06 1296
I want a paint program that does vectors. Even if they're on different layers. Some sort of scaling for bitmaps. And good knockout support.
Let's face it, it will have to compete against Photoshop PLUS plug-ins. I used to really like Macromedia xRes...
Andy Matuschak — May 20, 06 1297
Gavin — May 20, 06 1298
AppleWorks consisted of writing (Pages/Word), presentation (Keynote/PowerPoint), drawing (iPhoto,Photoshop), database (FileMaker Pro), and spreadsheet (Numbers[?]/Excel). Given the advent of Core Image and the updated vector tools in iWork, I fully expect to see Apple complete the suite of applications. Will it be iPhoto or something in-between iPhoto and Aperture?
Time will tell.
Incidentally, Apple must be careful of filling all of the gaps in the software spectrum. They most certainly don't want to dominate the field by producing every piece of software their customers use.
Andy Lee — May 20, 06 1299
Well put.
Scott Stevenson — May 20, 06 1301
First, a lot of people here seem focused on feature count. That's really not what I'm after. I'm looking for a native, modern graphic design tool that address the bulk of the most common needs. This is a starting point, and it's better than the nearly zero alternatives we have now.
Secondly, with all due respect, Apple will have an easier time making something like this happen than a independent developer will
It's hard to compete with a decade of work from that many programmers.
Let's put this in perspective. Apple isn't a startup. They have a lot of experience, some fantastic API, and they have a lot of code that already works. That doesn't mean this app would write itself, but folks, come on -- it's not impossible. Apple is completely capable of writing a design tool.
Scott Stevenson — May 20, 06 1303
I don't think we're talking about the same sort of thing. I'm looking for something that's a peer with Aperture and Final Cut Pro, but for general-purpose graphics. The pro suite is very good, but I doubt many are using it without Photoshop. You need a general-purpose imaging tool to tie everything together.
Incidentally, Apple must be careful of filling all of the gaps in the software spectrum. They most certainly don't want to dominate the field by producing every piece of software their customers use.
No, but certainly they should step in when there's a need to do so. I think this is one of those cases. Photoshop just isn't keeping up.
Joshua — May 20, 06 1304
Uli Kusterer — May 21, 06 1305
Julian Bennett Holmes — May 22, 06 1321
Photoshop is slow and bloated, and definetly feels old.
I probably use 1% of the features in Photoshop, yet there's no suitable replacement, as of yet.
I might actually pay for an Apple Photoshop-replacement application, even if it didn't have nearly as many features.
Jacques Lema — May 25, 06 1330
Of course PhotoShop is slow as hell to load but once you've loaded it it is pretty fast. In ChocoFlop (which is still pretty unstable, sorry) I saw that I could add features really fast because of all the work that Core Image saves you, not to mention ImageIO (anyone ever tried to write a JPeg2000 encoder himself?).
So you can add features fast. Now, that doesn't mean it's optimized. You'll soon notice that working on a large image in a CoreImage app needs more than just a good GPU. It needs good, proven sofware. And that piece of software currently is PhotoShop.
Now if you look at the future, graphic cards are bound to be really amazing. So if it can do it now very fast on a 1024 pixel image, then it will be able to it in a few years on a 10k pixel image. Just have to be patient :-)
Brooks — May 27, 06 1335
cleaned up a little bit. These days, Photoshop Elements tends to most of my graphic needs, but I do occasionally launch
Graphic Converter. Aspects of its interface takes me back to the days running System 6 on a Mac Classic. Its still being
worked on, the most recent release is Universal, something that cannot be said for Photoshop.
Scott Stevenson — May 27, 06 1336
cleaned up a little bit
It too was designed back in the classic days. Universal is good, but that's just one piece of the equation.
Jean-Marc Borer — Jun 07, 06 1350
It seems very promising once it will become polished on Mac. Developers, just jump on the band wagon!
Theodore — Jun 07, 06 1351
I believe Photoshop's major usage falls in to three categories (there could be more, but for simplicity, lets focus on these three): Photo retouching, Print Compositing and Web Compositing.
Tackling the first task - photo retouching is easy. There are several tools out there that let you do this - iPhoto and Aperture are the big ones on the Mac platform.
Second and third tasks - print and web compositing. These workflows are very different from the retouching workflow, and should have tools that are better suited to handle this.
I really wish Apple would buy Fireworks (and Freehand, but that's another article). Apple has shown what amazing stuff it can do with a good starting point from Macromedia (Final Cut was a Macromedia app originally before Apple bought it). Fireworks has a strong featureset for web compositing, and with Apple's touch, it could get the interface up to snuff.
Scott Stevenson — Jun 08, 06 1353
It looks like a descent app, but the whole point here is having something which is designed for the Mac, not a port.
Michael James — Jun 20, 06 1378
Adobe tries to sell you the Creative Suite when you really just want Photoshop and Illustrator most of the time. Why not make this one of the bundling options?
The licensing scheme is a nightmare. I can spend around $900 for 5 or 6 apps (when I only want the 2 most popular) but I can only install it on 2 computers at a time (and the laptop counts as one of those computers)?
All of this leads to the real issue and that's pricing. Sell me the full Photoshop (and supporting apps like ImageReady or Fireworks) and Illustrator for at most $200. Allow me to install it on at most 5 computers (including laptops) or better yet remove the licensing spyware altogether.
Adobe is worried about people pirating their software (as all developers should be), yet they price it so high that people who would like to start learning the industry standard in image manipulation (but aren't planning on becoming professional graphic designers) are put off by that price tag. Bring the price down so that dabblers can afford it and you'll see a ton of more legitimate registered users.
I agree with your post though, I'd love to see a Photoshop and Illustrator competitor that meets the requirements I have above. It doesn't have to be Apple, either. But whoever it is, they'll have to be able to read and write current Photoshop and Illustrator files if they want people to truly switch.
Michael James — Jun 20, 06 1379
Remember what making an educational version of Maya (free for download, I think) did for them?
Before, you couldn't find books in stores for Maya and most people certainly couldn't afford it and the hardware and operating systems that were required at the time (IRIX or Windows NT on a SGI system). When they ported it to OS X and offered an educational download, that opened the doors for people who always wanted to learn 3D animation on an industry standard application.
Now you can easily find books on Maya, and I'm sure Alias is seeing a lot more users (and dollars) now because of it.
Pozycjonowanie — Oct 31, 06 2262
I want a paint program that does vectors. Even if they're on different layers. Some sort of scaling for bitmaps. And good knockout support.
Cysterny — Nov 13, 06 2396
Photoshop is slow and bloated, and definetly feels old.Just have to be patient. Thx
eMule Forum — Dec 11, 06 2641
Cheers
Maria Vang — Jan 12, 07 3218
If you want a simple image processing program - you can find a whole bunch of such programs. But if you are a professional - complaning or not that it is one of the most loathed applications or that it is monolithic, slow, clunky interface, hidden functionality - you will not find a better alternative. Just because there isn't. And it is not because it will be hard for the competitors to take over the market. It is not because everybody knows what Photoshop is. It is because Adobe developers have achieved their product with years of development - something that is almost impossible or at least too hard to catch up for a month or a year spent in coding.
Alexander Peterson — Jan 18, 07 3343
I am afraid this sounds more like a dream. I fully agree with your Photoshop price issues - Adobe's products are really expensive and only drive people into pirate copies. I doubt Adobe will lower their prices especially having in mind that they are almost monopolists(no good enough competitor on the horizon).
But as you said yourself - there is Photoshop Elements that is a good alternative for those who are not professional designers. I am not sure about Illustrator alternatives but either way, hoping for an alternative(competitor) for Adobe's applications which will be able to read AND write their files is just... dreaming. This is just my opinion and only time will prove me wrong or right.
Braut — Jan 21, 07 3370
Scott Stevenson — Jan 21, 07 3374
I don't think that's necessarily true. An app which has clear value over Photoshop will find its market. I think Final Cut Pro is a good example of this sort of thing. But I agree a simple clone of Photoshop would probably not be enough for broad acceptance. It might, however, be enough to sell to people like me who don't need to interact with agencies at all. I think that's especially true if it costs less.
johnny — Oct 10, 07 4725
@Cysterny, try new Photoshop CS3 , its a read hardware eater but it will do the job way better than other tools.
Schreibtisch Hengst — Apr 20, 08 5753
Przepisy kulinarne — Jun 14, 08 6070
Webdesign — Jul 27, 08 6184
Photoshop is slow and bloated, and definetly feels old.Just have to be patient. Thx
lukasz — Apr 13, 09 6685