Guess you didn't buy a ThinkPad W701ds laptop with dual screen built in color calabrator and Wacom tablet. Photoshop is not going to preform well on a $800 tablet....
Oh no buddy, you're just a bad guesser. I certainly bought that "lattop" I bought four of those "lattops" but for some reason, Color Lava, Nav, and Eazel will still only work with iPads. How many more of these machines do you think I should buy in order to begin development for Adobe Tablet apps on other platforms?
my $800 dollar tablet, which costs $1,200 to this day, isn't going to "preform well[sic]" is it? If you think you need a core i7 EE to run photoshop you're retarded. Photoshop is hardly the most system intensive thing I do, and I can assure you that my TM2, which is spec'd at something like 6 times the system requirements for Photoshop CS5, handles games like dead space 2 on high settings flawlessly, and has taken everything I've thrown at it in Photoshop.
I think that if I don't want to spend money on an iPad, then it seems asinine to recommend that I should/should have bought a $2200 dollar computer and a cintiq series wacom display, quadrupling both my carry weight and my price tag, while at the same time not bringing me a step closer to using Nav, Color Lava, or Eazel.
Chris, Unfortunately, The mentioned Thinkpad doesn't contain a touch screen or digitizer, so there is no SDK to create apps for it. Although there is an SDK for the HP TM2,
I wouldn't have led off with that sarcastic answer if his recommendation to buy that machine was in any way helpful. Buying a machine that has no touch screen or digitizer is not going to get these tablet apps on other platforms, and it's not going to help me use them with that machine, or my TM2.
You work for Adobe right? Just to clarify, because I'm asking for Color Lava, Nav, and Eazel support for the HP TM2, and it seems your recommendation is that commit IP fraud on Adobe code if I hope to attain this? Is that really good advice? It doesn't seem like it.Would you also recommend I keep their names the same after porting it and charge money for them?
Wouldn't it be easier for Adobe to port the application themselves, as they wrote it, and already have an understanding of touch SDK's, and an army of the most talented developers in the industry?
I'm not a programmer. It would probably take me more than a year to even come up with a halfassed version of Color Lava, as i have zero experience in both the Touchsmart SDK and coding Photoshop plug-ins. I would imagine adobe could whip this out in a matter of weeks if it was a priority.
Unfortunately, The mentioned Thinkpad doesn't contain a touch screen or digitizer, so there is no SDK to create apps for i
Yeah, the same SDK you use to write for tablets works just fine for desktop systems. Despite the unfortunate "Touch" name that got tacked on at the last minute -- the SDK is about communicating with Photoshop over networks and not about touch screens or digitizers.
You said you wanted applications written using the new SDK for your system -- and I told you that you can use the SDK to write applications for your system.
I have no idea where you got the rest of that stuff.
We put the SDK out there so that other people can develop for whatever platform they want.
We are not going to be the sole supplier of applications to communicate with Photoshop anymore than we are the sole supplier of plugins.
Yes, i could develop untestable apps on that.
How is this a better idea than developing them on the computer I already own, that actually has a touch screen?
I did not say I wanted "applications" developed. I said I wanted YOUR applications SPECIFICALLY: Color Lava, Nav, and Eazel, to work with my machine.
Although I do have every right to develop my own apps, I didn't come here for permission to do that. From my original post to the one you most recently replied to I have maintained a simple request for future support.
Although I CAN develop my own applications, I want yours. I could develop my own Photoshop competitor too, but that's ridiculous.
It would be illegal for me to port Adobe IP's to systems that they weren't intended to. And I would do a bad job at it, which gives Adobe every right to enforce their claim to these apps.
The rest of that stuff about "keeping their names the same and charging for them" was just meant to show that "If you want a copy of Color Lava, Nav or Eazel for your system, simply make them yourself." would be illegal, because I had the feeling you were not getting the point.
I'm not asking for "more" apps. I understand you won't be the sole provider of apps for the iPad or any other system that can interface via touch with photoshop.
But you are the sole provider of the apps color lava, nav, and eazel you own them. No one else can copy them and port them to other systems. No one else can make an app that is exactly the same.
When people wanted a windows version of photoshop, you guys didn't recommend using an sdk to copy adobe code.
There's a difference between asking you to support more than one OS, and expecting you to make more apps that I obviously can't use anyways if you've managed to read any of this, as I do not have OR WANT an iPad.
I'd also like to take this oppotunity to take the time to point out that your press release says the SDK is only for mobile OS's. Android, iOS, Blackberry.
Even your advice is not going to get these apps, apps like these apps, or any app using this SDK ever to work on Windows.
So perhaps my question needs to be rephrased. "Future Support for Windows in the Adobe touch SDK?" "Future versions of Eazel, Nav, and Color Lava for Windows?" Or maybe best: "Future suppot for Color Lava, Eazel and Nav for WACOM products?
Whether it be my TM2's screen or any Wacom Cintiq model, (the digitizers can't be that different) creating apps that could be used with tablets on windows would instantly appeal to the already large Wacom/Photoshop userbase.
But if I'm wrong, and there is some way I can use 100% Adobe's code of these apps legally and somehow port them on to Windows/Wacom hardware, I'm all ears. Maybe you could release the source code? :-D
But that's not gonna happen. So it's up to you guys. Which is why I asked to begin with.
point out that your press release says the SDK is only for mobile OS's. Android, iOS, Blackberry.
Where did you find a press release with that statement?
All the ones I've read say it also supports MacOS (we didn't get a native Windows sample app written in time, though).
Again, the SDK is about network communication - the type of device does not matter.
Guess it's not a press release, i was just expecting to find one when i started the sentence before I searched, ended up going to the first result and not correcting myself
It just says "mobile and tablet devices" (of which 0 run on Mac OS, to my knowledge.)
at another point it says "If any device with a wifi connection – iOS, Android or Blackberry PlayBook – could interact with Photoshop"
could. I guess it's not very specific.
So if I understand what you're saying about the SDK is simply a means of communication, but is it NOT a means of communication between devices that are touch enabled and photoshop?
What other possible use could this have if the machine NOT running photoshop doesn't have a form of input unavailable to the host machine? which is pretty much limited to either pen, touch or both at this point. (Although, now that the Kinect SDK is being released for Windows, that could be pretty interesting.)
Would it be safe to say that as you intended native Windows support it will come someday, and/or it's likely Adobe will port Color Lava, Nav and Eazel to Android and Windows tablets at some point?
She said mobile and tablet devices... because that was the topic of that particular blog post.
Nothing there says that the SDK is limited to just those devices.
You simply read too much into that one blog post.
Again, any device that can connect over TCP/IP and support some basic encryption can communicate with Photoshop using the SDK.
That could be MacOS, Windows, tablets, phones, my TiVO, an internet enabled TV, etc.
Lava, Nav and Eazel are tablet examples. They make sense on tablet like devices, and may get ported to other tablet like devices (some just take more time because their toolchain is not as well polished at this time).
Other examples will be coming, and third party applications are already being announced.
My biggest gripe with Adobe is their fanboy attitude with Apple. As an electronic engineer I started working in what was to be called Silicon Valley in 1961. I followed Woz and Jobs as they created Apple and purchased their first offerings. After many years in the valley following many new startups, including one I also helped create, I have become disenchanted with apple guidance and marketing. I will never buy another Apple product no matter how good it's engineering as long as Jobs runs the company.
Therefore, I purchased a Motorola/Google XOOM and am greatly pleased with its performance even at this early stage of Honeycomb development. I would also like to voice my opinion that Adobe also provide software for the many Android devices that are available and multiplying.
Added: I do have the crippled Photoshop app on my XOOM.