DailyTech - Adobe Photoshop to Go Online, Free

Submit News

Software Adobe Photoshop to Go Online, Free
Gabriel Ikram (Blog) - February 28, 2007 11:14 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

32 comment(s) - last by Ralph The Magi.. on Mar 2 at 2:15 AM

Adobe has big plans to get its next-generation Photoshop on the web

Adobe Photoshop will be making its way online within the next six months. The online Photoshop will be an entry-level form of the product and will be available to all Internet users free of charge.

Adobe already has the foundation for an online product in place with Adobe Remix, a web-based video editing tool. Remix, which is a simplified version of Adobe Premiere Elements, is offered free of charge through Photobucket.

Like Remix, the hosted Photoshop will also be offered through a partner. Despite this, according to Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen, if ad revenues are high enough Adobe might be tempted into offering its web services to users directly.

"That is new [for Adobe]. It's something we are sensitive to because we are watching folks like Google do it in different categories, and we want to make sure that we are there before they are, in areas of our franchises," said Chizen to CNET.

There is little doubt that Adobe has made this move as a result of the looming threat of Google, which lately has been placing a large amount of emphasis on online software. Late last year Google launched Docs and Spreadsheets, a word and spreadsheet editing tool based completely online and available for free. It is possible that Google might also create an online version of Picasa, which is currently distributed as desktop software for free.

Like Microsoft, Adobe’s business is largely based on packaged software. It is evident, though, that the company is not planning to be caught off guard in the case that Google offers an online competitor. Although the online version of Photoshop will be a low-end form of the product, Adobe claims it will still offer enough features to beat other free competition, namely Google Picasa.

The web-based Photoshop is expected to be the first move of a larger transition that will integrate hosted services into Adobe’s business model. Adobe plans to market the online Photoshop using its well established Photoshop brand, which is one of the leading graphics-editor software available.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

AJAX Please

By Ralph The Magician on 3/1/2007 12:40:55 AM , Rating: 2

Let's just hope it's done in AJAX, and not in Flash. But given Adobe's recent aquisition of Macromedia, that's probably not the case. :-(

God, I hate Flash.

RE: AJAX Please

By Hare on 3/1/2007 3:32:23 AM , Rating: 3

AJAX is great for many things but AJAX photoshop? C'mon, that would be just wrong... Don't compare Flash and AJAX, these are two completely different things. Like a boat and a car...

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By ira176 on 3/1/2007 4:14:49 AM , Rating: 2

What is AJAX?

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By Hare on 3/1/2007 4:53:18 AM , Rating: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By GoatMonkey on 3/1/2007 8:11:26 AM , Rating: 2

There's nothing wrong with Flash when it's used correctly. The problem is that most people's only exposure to Flash is "punch the monkey" type advertisements. For example, a lot of streaming video is now Flash based. I think the developers would have a much easier time making a nice simulation of a thick client app by using Flash instead of AJAX.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By Ralph The Magician on 3/1/2007 10:51:14 AM , Rating: 2

I'd consider Flash video to be one of the worst things that Flash has done to the internet. Hard to save, hard to play, not compatabile with most software players, not compatabile with any devices, scales poorly, crappy sound, etc.

Flash video and the On2VP6 codec are what I'd consider a perfect example of how NOT to use Flash.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By TomZ on 3/1/2007 10:55:16 AM , Rating: 2

Flash video gives content providers a small amount of control of their content, which allows them to make it more readily available. Otherwise, you would not see so much content freely available. So, your lack of control also has this other side-benefit.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/1/2007 12:27:35 PM , Rating: 2

There were already a ton of formats that provide control to the provider. Flash won because of market share and low bandwidth utilization.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/1/2007 4:26:01 PM , Rating: 2

Replace market share with installed base.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By GoatMonkey on 3/1/2007 1:19:50 PM , Rating: 2

The streaming video aspect is not really the point though. You're right that Flash video has its drawbacks.

I'm just saying that there are ways to make applications in the web browser using Flash that can talk to back-end servers, so that it has a look-and-feel that is close to a thick client application, and many times (especially for Adobe) can be easier for the developers to work with than AJAX.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By edge929 on 3/1/2007 9:55:24 AM , Rating: 2

Flash has already transformed the internet for the better in many ways. This coming from a long-time Flash programmer so admittedly I am biased. I also love AJAX and the 2 can play together nicely I've found.

Seeing how it's Adobe we're dealing with, they'll use their recently acquired (Macromedia) Flash technology for this in order to get the full functionality they're looking for. Even AJAX can't provide the full functionality that Flash can.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By SinistarX on 3/1/2007 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 2

Except in terms of accessibility. Flash has been a major pain for anybody with vision or hearing problems.

Of course, AJAX hasn't exactly been any better.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By TomZ on 3/1/2007 10:58:01 AM , Rating: 2

You can easily zoom into Flash movies - isn't that helpful for people with vision problems? I'm not an expert in accessibility, however.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/1/2007 12:37:22 PM , Rating: 2

Wow, zoom in. How about screen readers or braille interfaces. How about accessibility to robots and text only browsers. What about clients other then Adobe's official plug in.

The worst part about Flash is that it's client is closed source and it's infected half the web. If you only run a mainstream OS, I guess it's fine to put up with that BS.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By TomZ on 3/1/2007 2:32:30 PM , Rating: 2

Your point about screen reading and braille interfaces is well-taken. But the rest of your comments are crap.

1. What is wrong with using Adobe's free plug-in? What other choices do you want besides free?

2. What is keeping you, me, or anyone else from making their own open-source plug-in?

3. Flash is supported on Windows (incl. IE, FF, Opera, Netscape, and AOL), Mac OSX (Intel and PowerPC), Linux, Solaris, PocketPC, HP-UX. Doesn't that cover like 99.9% of all computers? What else are you looking for?

4. What alternative technology can you suggest instead that would give the degree of interactivity and expression that Flash gives you?

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By gilboa on 3/1/2007 2:47:45 PM , Rating: 2

1. Closed source - very limited documentation. I rather not have a closed box that may or may not work on my hardware/software.

2. Closed standard. Having to reverse engineer -anything- (especially if you're required to do a clean room implementation) is major hurdle.

3. Yes, it does support Windows and Linux - but it doesn't support BSD; it doesn't work in 64bit (Windows/Linux/BSD). It -may- cover 99% of the machines (now) - but considering 1 and 2, I rather not relay on Macromedia's good will. (They may decide to drop Linux/OSX in the future - what then?)

4. To be honest, I have no idea - I'll let the people who do know a thing or two about web-programming take this one.

Compare Flash to PDF (Apples and oranges, I know).
You have 1000 different PDF viewers (and writers) some of them much more capable then Adobe's Acrobat Reader (KPDF?).
In the Flash world you have two open source projects that barely manage to support Flash v7 - let alone v9.
Nuff' said.

- Gilboa

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/1/2007 4:16:33 PM , Rating: 2

TomZ nothing I said is crap. I don't have a problem with Adobe or Flash or closed source technology so much as I have a problem with lazy web developers who use it when it is unnecessary.

Hover menus, streaming video, simple interactivity and things of that sort shouldn't be in flash. It makes browsing the web very difficult for people who fall outside of Adobe's sphere of influence.

Here's my point, Flash is great for product demonstrations, vector animated cartoons, things which it's designed for. It shouldn't however creep into all the aforementioned places which have perfectly good, standards based implementations.

Also, I'm of the very strong opinion that if it wasn't for Flash; free, open, standards based solutions like AJAX, SVG animations (hell SVG rendering at all) and the like would be much farther along.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By TomZ on 3/1/2007 4:52:33 PM , Rating: 2

Choosing Flash for a web site is not about being lazy. People choose to use it because it allows you to develop a high-quality, very interactive site, without a lot of hassle. There is really little comparison between what you can do today with Flash compared to other competitive technologies. Bottom line is, if you want a sexy, highly-interactive, responsive web experience, Flash is the only game in town.

In addition, Flash is a de-facto industry standard, and I personally don't see why an open standards-based solution is inherently more virtuous. The measure of the goodness of a standard is in the tools and solutions it enables, not the model under which it was developed.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/1/2007 6:34:05 PM , Rating: 2

Wow. That sounds like a bunch of hype. Can you tell me how a website can be 'sexy' or at least how that could possibly relate to flash? :)

Seriously, you just glossed over my point. Flash has it's uses, but given it's current limitations, it's use should be limited, especially when there are alternatives.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By Ralph The Magician on 3/2/2007 2:15:31 AM , Rating: 2

Of course it's hype. Almost anything that can be done in Flash can be done outside of Flash, and done better. I have seen *very* few examples of Flash, outside of animation, that have actually enhanced a site. Making things Flash and swirl all over the place does not enhance a site. In most cases, Flash ends up making the site slower, more complicated, and harder to navigate.

Actually, I'm curious what kinds of sites would actually need to be done in Flash that couldn't be done in AJAX/RoR/PHP. I know I've seen a few, but there isn't one I can think of off the top of my head.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By mindless1 on 3/1/2007 5:01:42 PM , Rating: 2

1. The question isn't necessarily free or not. The other choice is not using it, which also happens to be free.

2. What is keeping us from it is the expectation it would be a worthwhile venture once another from a large company has a significant dominance. It wouldn't be that it was better, just earlier. There's also the factor that we may not all dislike flash with an idea to do the same thing with different code, rather it's the use of any such presentation method.

3. No it covers a large percentage of PCs with typical PC attributes. The world is moving away from this one-size-fits-all mindset and on to new and more mission specific devices. We'd be looking for something that does not many any assumptions about leveraging modern performance levels or common system attributes, or more importantly, no reliance on flash at all, let it be an alternate SECONDARY form of information, that information always available through the primary form too. For example, no flash website homepages. Nothing where the content requires flash or you are diverted to a different page IF you don't have flash. It should always be a site developed with the assumption there is no flash capability then the diversion to the lesser developed content being if the client browser did support flash. The default should always be the lowest common denominator.

4. You imply it's used for a degree of USEFUL interactivity or expression?

Most often it's just a lazy shortcut or an annoyance. We'd be better off if it didn't exist at all. It is a tool that can be put to good use, but far more often isn't. When the bad outweighs the good, subjectively interpreted, it is fair for the subject to say we'd be better off without it.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By TomZ on 3/1/2007 5:27:19 PM , Rating: 2

I agree that doing a 100% Flash web site can be a problem for the ~2% of computers that don't have the flash player installed. So the decision has to be made whether it is worth the effort to do both. But this really is no different than other compatibility decisions, e.g., HTML rendering compatibility issues between different browsers and browser versions. You have to develop your site to the most common configurations, and realize that your site will not be usable to some percentage of people using it. Only by having the most primitive site can you guarantee 100% compatibility. Anything beyond that reduces compatibility. Even strict compliance to the most open of standards reduces compatibility.

We recently converted our HTML site to 100% Flash. When we took on that project, we surveyed the state of available technologies and tools, and we also looked at what technologies were being used for newer, high-quality sites. Based on this survey, it became pretty obvious that Flash was the best way to go. Our site is an important marketing tool, and it is important to get it to look the best it can given limited resources. Then, considering the near 100% penetration of Flash players, we also decided to completely thrift out an "alternate" non-Flash site. It's just not worth the hassle, frankly.

Are we better off without Flash? I don't know how I or anybody else could answer that, since we don't know what other thing would have been developed in its place. It could have been better or it could have been worse. Such "what if" pontifications are kind of futile, anyway.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/2/2007 12:40:56 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
But this really is no different than other compatibility decisions, e.g., HTML rendering compatibility issues between different browsers and browser versions.

This is not similar in the slightest. Most HTML, CSS, JavaScript, AJAX, etc implementations can be made to degrade gracefully or just play do so. Flash has two modes, works or it doesn't.

quote:
We recently converted our HTML site to 100% Flash

Yikes. May I ask how your site ranks on Google in it's given field or market? Do your customers possibly include the visually impaired (if you answer no to this question, I'm quite curious what your market is.)

quote:
we also decided to completely thrift out an "alternate" non-Flash site. It's just not worth the hassle, frankly.

Wow, I personally hope this is not where we are headed. Great web content beholden to Adobe, on both ends no less.

quote:
Our site is an important marketing tool, and it is important to get it to look the best...

Oh, so much for great web content. Oh well, the kids with marketing degrees are probably happy.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By mindless1 on 3/1/2007 4:50:56 PM , Rating: 2

I disagree completely. NEVER have I seen something online and wished "if only this was done in Flash", nor "it's missing a flash presentation". On the contrary, every time I see something done in flash it looks unnecessary or annoying. Advertising is possibly the worst, I don't want images on a printed page moving around and not on a computer monitor representation of a printed page either. If it is distracting (as the advertiser hopes) it is too much of an undesirable impact on the content presentation.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By outsider on 3/1/2007 3:52:57 PM , Rating: 2

I do a lot of AJAX programming and I say there is no way Javascript can handle the performance image editing requires. Neither Flash would be able to come any close. How exactly are you supposed to replace vectorized assembly code with one of the slowest scripting languages out there?

Whatever they show, it will be to Photoshop what a kite is to a jet plane.

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/1/2007 4:20:24 PM , Rating: 2

Ehem, can you say Java?

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By TomZ on 3/1/2007 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 2

Couldn't the image processing be done on the server, and then just update the image at screen resolution back to the client?

Parent

RE: AJAX Please

By glennpratt on 3/2/2007 1:46:25 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, I think thats like their online video editing product. But if this is the case, then I take it hand tools are out of the question.

Parent

Obligatory...

By Xenoid on 3/1/2007 12:02:38 AM , Rating: 4

I thought it was already a free online download?

RE: Obligatory...

By kamel5547 on 3/1/2007 12:24:02 AM , Rating: 1

Uh if you mean torrents.... otherwise there is some cheasy little photo album software, but nothing like the entry level Photoshop Elements (like $79 nowadays).

Parent

RE: Obligatory...

By Kougar on 3/1/2007 1:02:07 AM , Rating: 3

Only if you wear an eye-patch, have a peg-leg, and say 'Arr'!

I didn't realize a Photoshop Elements based program was freely available for use though, hmm.

Parent