Not since FASB said we couldn't do that without charging more money.
Interesting. What does FASB stand for ?
Observing many odd things happening within the Adobe camp these days. Including some of the most talented engineers that Adobe have, having time to post on the forums all day. Not a very optimistic sign, if truth be told.
And now there is the CS5.5 release (5.1 for Photoshop) …
Including some of the most talented engineers that Adobe have, having time to post on the forums all day.
Well, is anybody gonna complain about getting good advice?
And while I have occasionally wondered about the hours Mr.Cox kept, I would not consider his Forum-time disconcerting, would you?
When you look at the grand scale, PS gets many things right much more than it does wrong. But some of those wrong things are just noodle scratchers why they weren't added.
For example, ICO format support. You're the KING of image file formats, so why not ICO?
It's easy to see that the AI team and PS team may not have integrated as tightly as they should; each program still provides a unique function; neither will ever take over the role the other does, but it's great when they share common functionality. So how come I cannot hold spacebar in PS when placing pen anchor points to move it on the fly?
Honestly, I just don't know.
But again, don't let this detract from the overall "BOOYEAH" that PS provides.
So how come I cannot hold spacebar in PS when placing pen anchor points to move it on the fly?
There's a very good reason for that. Because you would not be able to move the image around as freely while zoomed in. Most people use the Space Bar to navigate within Photoshop, and its possible to do this with every tool, except the Type tool of course.
A preference to change this behaviour for the Pen tool is a valid Feature Request. But it would not be intuitive, or a particularly useful addition if it were a default.
Actually, it's fine for a tool to be "context sensitive", meaning it changes depending on your situation.
When you are actively using the Pen tool and dropping anchor points, it's natural for the SPACEBAR to operate and a "move anchor point on the fly" method. When you have finished laying down the path (have no paths selected or anchors selected, the Space goes back to panning the document window.
I would have no issue if this was a toggleable option (gives the best of both worlds). It's just one of a couple minor usability issues that are long past due in PS.
so why not ICO?
Because ICO is not a normal image format.
>> .ICO files contain one or more small images at multiple sizes and color depths.
It's a multi image representation format, and can have some odd masking modes.
That doesn't fit with normal image editing, and is well served by specialty applications designed for editing file system icons.
While Photoshop could write a single size, single depth version of ICO - that hasn't been interesting enough to the customers we've checked with (the ones who sent in feature requests for ICO support).
It's easy to see that the AI team and PS team may not have integrated as tightly as they should;
Not the ideal place for the question, but if you are an experienced Illustrator user maybe you could tell me how to close a Path in Illustrator without losing the first point’s backward bezier handle?
Photoshop does not do that, but I have never figured out how to get Illustrator to honor the handle I set on closing (or picking up an end point).
What is this junk about the FASB? With as many socialist characteristics as our country has taken on as of late we are all very aware that free enterprise organizations are not being told how to sell, update, and price their products.
Game companies regularly do updates for free after the product releases and those updates include new features such as weapons, abilities, levels, etc.
Apple has done numerous updates to iOS that add substantial features and do not charge for the updates.
Kind of sad that a representative of Adobe would sling such a weak justification when Adobe is overlooking sensible features and consistency between products.
With as many socialist characteristics as our country has taken on as of late we are all very aware that free enterprise organizations are not being told how to sell, update, and price their products.
I know this is not the place and I don’t even know for sure which country you are talking about, but if you should be talking about the USA: »Socialist«?
Are you trying to be funny?
You conveniently passed over the Apple iOS example and I can assure you from first-hand experience many very visible game companies such as Epic, id, EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, etc. have given away massive new content releases for free as an act of generosity and thankfulness to the customers who support them. There were no subscriptions involved. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.
They certainly do not engage in a practice of deferring earnings to claim revenue at a later time for something they gave away previously. Slightly fraudulent don't you think and investors clearly don't accept those types of deceptive practices.
Hmmmmmmm, contact the FASB about deficencies in Adobe products and the company's disregard for customer requests.......uuuuuuh sure.
Back to your compiler now.
Yes, and those companies use different accounting tricks to allow for that.
And yes, if they want to add features they have to defer revenue or have a subscription.
This is not an Adobe issue.
This is forced on us by the FASB and accounting firms following FASB rules.
We'd love to see that policy changed. But we've tried, pleaded and begged - and FASB will not budge.
My problem is almost the reverse of the original post.
I've paid a lot of money for an upgrade yto CS5 and an essential and compleely basic feature of PS has been removed- with no notice that it would be before I bought the upgrade (or I wouldn't have bothered buying it).
I have, and others have, posted about this, and we have had no reply about why it was removed, or whther it will be put back, or of course, when.
I'm sure no rules of any organisation are stoping Adobe sorting that one out- or at least relpying to the feature request/bug thread on it. It makes me feel like now I've paid my money Adobe couldn't give a hoot about the difficulties it has landed me with.
For the record, the thing that's gone is 'print selection' which I use all the time, and even freeware word processing packages manage to have- so surely it can't be beyond the capacities of PS programmers- and in any case, why would anyone actually go to the trouble of removing such a useful option? As no-one got back to us, and it is now many months since it was first raised, I can only guess.
Feeling a bit unloved, here.
Rokeby you are exactly in line with my point that Chris Cox can't seem to wrap his mind around. He would rather have us believe that an outside accounting standards organization is determining the course for Adobe as to what they can innovate, include and release in products.
Adobe would rather I purchase a toy of an app for my iPad(for the sake of the FASB I guess) to customize the Photoshop toolbar instead of including that functionality in Photoshop which has been requested by myself and many others repeatedly since Photoshop CS. Sure, you can customize pretty much every other aspect of the workflow and UI but why extend that to something so trivial as the toolbar right?!
The Photohop team either has no clue or doesn't give a damn as to how artists use the product if they feel a smart workflow is to have the user look away to an external device to do something that should exist in the space where they are already working. Anyone who's ever done serious design work know's this is a HUGE FAIL!
Guess the FASB has been telling Adobe since CS released that they couldn't incorporate a basic feature like that, but when another company developes an unrelated technology then Adobe is free to utilize that in an absurd manner and charge customers for a ridiculous implementation. Guess apps like Nav and Color Lava give some Adobe program manager a warm fuzzy of "Oh look we're embracing another platform." Who cares if it makes sense right?
Jeez Adobe, after passing over the toolbar request for so long you would think you wouldn't charge for an app designed for that express purpose. Irregardless, it's still an insult to serious users of Photoshop to offer the functionality through an external device. What's next, the swatches panel on my iPhone??
Apparently Mr. Cox will fall on the sword for Adobe and insist the FASB is the determining force in what they can update or incorporate for the benefit of the user.
So yes Rokeby, you are correct in your feeling....many many long term users and supporters of Adobe products are going unconsidered. With developers at Adobe pitching such ludicrous explanations it's no wonder fundamental features have been removed or overlooked for so long. But hey, at least we still have the little wizard easter egg right. Sigh.....
C Styles, Sorry but I'm getting a little tired of your aggressive
approach to airing your personal dissatisfaction with Adobe's choice
to charge for updates.
It isn't freeware, shareware or open source software. I think that
should probably have been Chris Cox's answer, but instead he chose to
give you more information.
More information which to a person unwilling to accept free
enterprise, is just another point to counter.
Test yourself, and impress me by NOT countering this point. I'll be
Well M Lamy I will counter because funny thing is my existence & that of these forums is not about impressing you. If you get tired of direct feedback in forums that are designed for that express purpose then don't read it. Who's forcing you?
If you would have truly read what was written then you could not come to the conclusion that I have any problem with Adobe or anyone for that matter charging for their product or updates. It's about the functionality that's included or removed. How could you miss that?
I have purchased every version and worked extensively with every version of Photoshop since 4. The issue at hand is very fundamental functionality and customer suggestions being overlooked by Adobe or couldn't you discern that glaring point?
Oh and addressing customer's personal dissatisfactions when they are vaild is part of being a free enterprise business. In a free enterprise system accounting standards organizations don't tell companies what features they can or can't include in a product. Charging or not is irrelevant. See, the solution is simple. Implement the functionality that has been requested for many years by a very substantial amount of users and charge for whatever version or update it comes with thereby showing your customers you pay attention to and appreciate their needs. This doesn't apply to every possible request, but what this thread has discussed is far from trivial or wish list. You don't sidestep adding functionality to a core application only to see it surface on an external device. Maybe once you've done some more retouching work you'll come to understand and appreciate that.
Aimless, subjective comments like your's are not relevant to the topic and were only written to serve your narcissism.
Take your challenges and utter lack of attention to what's going on and seek to be impressed on some kiddie blog that will serve your unjustified drivel. When you have something to say that addresses the topic of Adobe adding features, like the title of this posting indicates, then give your peanut opinion.
»The Photohop team either has no clue or doesn't give a damn as to how artists use the product«
But I assume Mr.Cox may be restrained from answering in kind by his patience and politeness.
»Adobe would rather I purchase a toy of an app for my iPad(for the sake of the FASB I guess) to customize the Photoshop toolbar instead of including that functionality in Photoshop«
I may be missing your point here, but has that functionality not basically been available since CS4 with the free Configurator?