MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Jo Ann Snover on February 18, 2015, 20:30
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/technology/personaltech/photoshop-at-25-a-thriving-chameleon-adapts-to-an-instagram-world.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/technology/personaltech/photoshop-at-25-a-thriving-chameleon-adapts-to-an-instagram-world.html)
The New York Times is behind a paywall, but you do get some number of freebies (I think 10) each month, so I hope most people can read this.
Other than an interesting recap of the company's history, I found this quote from the exec in charge of software curious:
"Adobe also has grander plans to break up Photoshop into a number of apps, some of which it will make itself, with others made by third-party developers who will have access to Adobe’s image-processing systems online. In some cases, those apps will even be free.
“The goal is to go from tens of millions of people benefiting from the technology within Photoshop to hundreds of millions of people over the years,” Mr. Wadhwani said"
I'm not a big Instagram user, but have mucked about a bit; I find it hard to fathom how Photoshop can go there, and even if it did, why would their quick fix filters be any more appealing to people who really don't want to spend a lot of time on their photos than all those already out there.
But if they've set their sights on expanding their market from creative professionals to everyone with a smartphone camera, I can't see that being good for those of us who value the complex/high end/tools. Two different audiences with two different sets of needs, workflows and equipment.
-
"Two different audiences with two different sets of needs, workflows and equipment."
I totally understand, having been a studio photographer with pro equipment. But, if the resulting images (to compete with the insanely popular instagram and others) are what the buyers are looking for they don't care how the image was processed or by what equipment. So Adobe, though late, is entering the market. When the fad moves on they will be prepared. There will always be a need for photos taken on a high end camera and processed by expensive programs but right now that is the least of (some) buyers criteria when purchasing photography.
This quote from the article says it all, "“I think the younger generation of designers is looking for new tools, and they don’t care what device it’s on.”
Adobe is a megamonster with many more apps and plugins then can be imagined and they have already expanded their reach to industry-specific markets as well as the "consumer." They work with third-parties and make money from specialty add-ons that integrate into all of their main programs. I work in the textile industry and use plugins for Illustrator and Photoshop that are Adobe-certified. The things they can do are amazing. Any Adobe buzz is a plus for them even if they give some programs away (and you know that in the end it will only generate more money).
-
I believe Forbes is a relaible source?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/12/19/instagram-worth-35-billion-facebook-stock-91-citi-says/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/12/19/instagram-worth-35-billion-facebook-stock-91-citi-says/)
Some of the points:
Just before its 2012 IPO, Facebook shelled out $1 billion for photo-sharing service Instagram in a move greeted by mixed reviews at best. Two and half years later, the word shrewd barely does justice to Mark Zuckerberg’s coup in snapping up the business.
Citigroup estimates Instagram is worth $35 billion, based in part on hitting 300 million monthly active users, and analyst Mark May thinks the segment’s rapid growth is only in its early stages.
“Not only is Instagram’s audience now larger than Twitter TWTR +1.84%, but its users are ~1.8x more engaged, and user growth has been greater,” May writes in a note to clients Friday. “Instagram is at the early stages of rolling out advertising, but we believe brands have and will find it an effective channel.”
If Adobe sees that there's money in buying FT, then they will do that. If they see that there's a profit in going into the same market as Instagram, then they will launch into that.
Personally? I was hoping the poor color, faded, and old looking photos from a phone "fad" would go away like Disco, or autotune. :) Can't happen soon enough. But that's not what Instagram is all about. It has become a photo sharing platform. (as if Flickr, Tumblr, and the rest weren't enough?)
-
Adobe wants millions of smart phone shooters to fill and feed their cloud. Hatching little applications to compete with facebook / instagram is part of a overall business diversification plan. Seems every internet - software company hungers for millions of cloud subscribers with long term loyalty insured by the weight of too many stored gigabytes to transfer.
-
Once again we'll see hundreds millions of dollars blown by a big company ponderously chasing the tail end of a fad, thinking they're going after the money of "the kids". How long will it be "an Instagram world"?
-
On the other front, Afinity Photo released their new alternative to Photoshop. Only for Mac.
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/02/affinity-photo-app-gives-photoshop-a-run-for-its-m.html (http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/02/affinity-photo-app-gives-photoshop-a-run-for-its-m.html)
Sounds interesting. And comes without a subscription plan. Actually, for a limited time, it's completely free to download. Anybody has tried it?