How much would you be willing to pay for such a version?
Adobe counts things here: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform
Get a tens of thousands of people to post as well and you might have a shot. Linux is still very much a niche product.
I know thousands of others could say the same.
Yeah, and out of those "thousands", how many do graphics, editing, web-design, page layout? Split a thousand users between 12 major programs and you end up with very little. Makes no sense for commercial software such as Adobe produces it. How many desktop users for Linux are there, anyway? 3% of the overall desktop/ notebook market? Neglectible by all means, even more so when you subtract the ones who need to use Linux because it was dumped on them in public schools, universities or other organisations and who never run anything else but office software....
linux is good for only cheap servers , not sure if it play well as desktop. Ubuntu is good but not that good enough, I tried developing desktop application for linux and it require more effort than on windows or even mac. I think only flash builder (eclipse based) is good for linux, especially for those who use linux as server.
Ubuntu has really come together with their desktop environment, and having the posiblity to take advantage of an OS done the right way and the graphics it can deliver with a proper graphics card (hopefully one from the gentlements of Nvdidia ), I have NO doubt whatsoever that companies like the one I work for, would rather spend money on just Adobe licenses, that having to pay not only that but thousands of $$$ on "pretty machines" and a "pretty OS" that is half a linux machine.
I know the enterprises are all about the money, and if they can save $1.5K USD per machine, having 15 or 20 designers, means around $30K USD worth of savings, do you honestly think they would not consider it???
( btw, sorry for any grammar or spelling mistakes, english is not my native language )
Message was edited by: Daniel Prado - Just a quick fix :P
The fact that this post received no support at all is a pretty good indication of the chances of ever getting a Linux version any Creative Suite software.
BTW, you're English is just fine.
Hehe thanks Bob :]
And well.... About that... you're right..... But I will not stop my battle to have Illustrator and Photoshop riding my pangolin with no wine crap!!! (fyi, pangolin is the codename of ubuntu 12.04 for those that didn't get the reference hehe )
As an MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) and a baby-boomer I can understand how hard it can be to wean oneself off of what has been the GUI interface of our lives. Change is very hard and it does not help that there has been many dollars of fear generated out of Redmond that cannot be adequately countered by the 'free' enterprises developing on open platforms. If one can be open-minded and openly consider alternatives then they may reach the same conclusion as John C. Dvorak, an American columnist and broadcaster in the areas of technology and computing:
"Linux may have a chance, but it is held back by all sorts of factors. I've been using Linux but still prefer Windows. The reasons are minor, except for the fact that Adobe refuses to put its Creative Suite on Linux, where it would probably perform better."
With all due respect this should be a moot question. In an ideal world it should not matter what device/ OS you are using. That is called freedom of choice and America should be all about freedom not forced by market bullying out of Redmond. If Adobe Creative Suite 6 had been developed on something like the Qt Development Frameworks "Code Less. Create More. Deploy Everywhere" they would be able to compile their work on any platform they want with very little extra expense. It would not matter.
As long as application developers limit themselves to specific platforms they are missing out on any residual sales unnecessarily. There is also a chicken and egg sequence as well. I know many that use the excuse that they, like John C. Dvorak above, cannot move to higher availablity options as long as the tools they need are not available on those platforms. I believe that if every needed tool was available for all platforms, which open frameworks like Qt provides, you would see the use of lower availability/ higher vulnerability platforms such as Windows drop substancially. For businesses that fear Linux as being 'half baked' there is always enterprise-grade options like SLED (SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) that will provide the stability and support most businesses demand with the added kicker of an improved Total-Cost-of-Ownership that will positivelty affect the bottom line and increase productivity and decrease the support needs of the organization. I have also found that applications that run on both platforms run ~10x faster on Linux with less drama from lockups and blue screens.
With most phones and tablets running on Linux-like OS's we have already seen the future and it could be Window-less.
All good reasons to rethink entrenched positions...
How much would you be willing to pay for such a thing?
The same as anyone would pay for any other platform. It should not matter... You buy the software media and load it into the drive, it querries the OS, be it Windows 98/2000/XP/7/8/9.., OSX, .DEB, .RPM, Android (includes Nook & Kindle), iOS, Solaris, Symbian, OS BlackBerry 10, WebOS, etc, and determines what should be loaded and then loads the required dependancies as required... and away it goes.... the beauty of Qt.... create once, deploy anywhere...
Sorry, it simply doesn't work that way!
First, if you have that type of abstraction, you tend to lose performance and access to OS-dependent features. With Adobe applications, we are exceptionally close to the hardware including video cards and the GPUs thereupon. We can't count on the native OS or any intermediate third party abstraction layers to get us the functionality and performance these applications need. Thus, we do need separate versions for separate platforms. And of course, we would need to test under all flavours of Linux. Thus, your contention that it would not cost us anything extra simply doesn't hold water at all.
Secondly, over the years, Adobe has done marketing studies looking at the Linux market, especially with our FrameMaker product which probably would have the most Linux fans. The results have been fairly consistent. There are simply not enough potential users to make it worth it even assuming that such users would be willing to pay the same licensing price as Windows and Mac users. And even worse, the potential Linux users appeared to expect applications software pricing to match that of the underlying operating system (plus the potential for free source code).
This simply won't happen unless there are major shifts in the industry towards desktop Linux adoption. And quite frankly, Linux desktop adoption has not only not taken off, but it has floundered tremendously over the last several years.
Take me off email list
Sent from my iPhone
Come back to the web forum and click on the stop email notifcations link under the Actions section.
Yeah please Adobe, Creative Cloud for Linux, pleaseeeee. It's the only reason that I don't change to Linux. I'm sick of Windows or Apple OS. Pleaseeeee!!!
I'll ask you the same question that's been asked before and that nobody
seems willing to answer...how much more would you pay?
Hi Bob, I would pay the same that Creative Clous at this moment for the others platforms. Maybe, if you let me choose, I pay a little more but the actual method for Creative Cloud is great, works really fine. So, I would pay for a version to Linux, monthly or annual, yes, definetly.
Thanks for asking. We cross fingers!
I don't work for Adobe but if you take into account the millions of dollars that it would cost and the multiple flavors of Linux, I think you'd have to be willing to pay a great deal more to make it worth while for Adobe.
Linux has its place, but not for a creative professional. I wouldn't say never because that's a very long time, but there's no way you'll see it any time in the near future.
Ok, understood Bob, but it's sad cause I've been working with Apple OS machines all my professional life, 16 years ago and Apple it's not the same now than then. And better don't talk about Windows. Is because of this I appreciate a lot, a Linux version for Creative Cloud right now cause Linux is now the best os for me.
But I see your point and you got right that you're saying. Let's dream a little, at least it's free
Thanks for taking the time to weigh in on this. While we can agree to disagree, from your perspective I can see how you can have that opinion. Nevertheless there is another possibility that should at least be vetted. KDE is a Linux GUI that is entirely constructed using Qt and many legions of Linux fans prefer it over non-Qt alternatives. If a GUI can benefit from Qt I find it hard to believe that your suite would be disadvantaged in any way by it. Qt is not Java and does not extract the performanace toll Java does. So the tradeoff between increased market penetration and performance can be a resounding winner if you are clever about it. With mobile devices the future, and with Microsoft having little or no impact on that future, maybe it is time to rethink old beliefs as the Linux-like mobile domination starts to leak into the mainstream. The only thing holding Linux back is apps. However even that it changing because of companies like Adobe playing it too safe. The market will always find a way, especially a clever one like those in the Linux world...
Full-featured professional level applications are already ready to challenge Creative Suite elements and they are entirely free to boot. Studios like Dreamworks are already using them. They include: GIMP, Inkscape, Blender, Ardour, KdenLive, Handbrake, Synfig Studio, Cinelerra, Darktable, Avidemux, Audacity, Libre Office Draw PDF Editor, Scribus, Art of Illusion, etc, etc... These applications were developed on platforms such as Qt and other simular platforms, such as GTK+, originally on Linux but many were also compiled for Windows, OSX and mobile devices. These applications seem not to suffer the performance issues that you seem to be concerned about. Download them and check them out. Naturally they do run better, faster and more reliably on Linux that on Windows, everything does . You will be suitably impressed even if they were not "free"...
Bottom line: I am a big fan of Adobe and, as MSCE who has an appreciation of both worlds, I do not want to see them go down with the Microsoft ship as it heads toward the rocks of irrelevency. Adobe needs a post-Microsoft strategy and the sooner they get on it the more likely they will survive and thrive... And with Adobe being more readily available not only on Windows it would accelerate the decline in the use of Windows as many only stay on Windows only because of your products. I could also see a Adobe Linux distribution, see SuSE Studio <http://susestudio.com/> for details, where your applications can be more refined and not suffer from the availabiliy issues that one has to suffer being tied to Windows issues and vulnerabilities... you could even make the DVD bootable so essentually it would run just the way you would like it directly off of the DVD controlling all performance characturistics.
I hope that helps
I have already answered your question so stop with the "how much more would you pay?" line.. it is getting a bit tiresome.
Whether you like it or not, that is what the decision to do this would
be based on.
Adobe, like all of us, is in business to make money and it's a publicly
traded company. Shareholders would be up in arms if they took on an
obviously money-losing proposition.
Microsoft is hardly irrelevant. Did you happen to see their earnings
Bob you're definitely mostly right.
In the very near term a switch over to tons of desktop Linux users is unlikely.
One of the reasons being University or College graduates who were trained to use proprietary tools (and given them at a discounted rate, get em while they're young) will have a hard time moving all their knowledge to new tools, simply put some of their knowledge will no longer be pertinent.
Another reason is that you can't go into a store and buy a Linux desktop/laptop. Dell has something of an Ubuntu attempt going on
The lack of available Linux pre-installs I believe is because of the first point, no software people are trained to use => no demand => no sales (here Dell is targetting developers since the design software is not available and many developers learned using *nix systems in school and servers are a majority *nix). Another equally large gap in the Linux world is games (I believe due to properietary/problematic graphics drivers and lack of software to deploy games to Linux, more on that below)
Despite the lack of systems with Linux available as a pre-installed option, for desktop users, anyone can take their existing hardware and install Ubuntu (or any other distro of Linux). Who is going to give themselves "more computer problems" though, if they feel things are hunky dory in Windows and they already unwittingly paid the licensing fees?
However it seems ignorant to say that there is no chance that Linux poses a threat to Microsoft in the relatively near future (couple of years). Take for example China's move to adopt Ubuntu:
How about Steam on Linux why would they do this if they don't see potential:
Although they don't have it in the plans to create their IDE in Linux Unity is supporting Linux deployment:
I personally grabbed one from System76 and it's been great:
Currently I dual boot Win 8 (bought retail license from TigerDirect) and Ubuntu 13.04. I have Win 8 exclusively for running CS software from creative cloud (which I'm weaning myself off of). I'm a web developer and Linux suits me well for many tasks, anywhere I go for hosting I can get Linux and with VPS can administer it myself (I realize I'm not the populace though so this advantage doesn't apply to all, but anyone who's a web developer this does apply to as most of the servers are running Linux so working knowledge goes a long way).
So yah I don't know with Linux running a good portion (about 1/3) of the internet and getting into more people's hands via Android daily doesn't it seem like something Adobe should at least start thinking about paying attention to? But what you say is true, only 10,000 people complained, and they are up to 500,000 creative cloud subscribers so the complainers are still just 2%. The problem is as Rorschwihr's list shows these people like me are developers and are relatively quickly building open source replacements for the Creative Suite. It just seems if there was any way for Adobe to have a Linux distribution of say Photoshop it would create more Linux users (people who don't have to dual boot, or VM), which in turn would create more demand for other products. IDK hard to say from my perspective but I'll certainly be moving forward using Linux as my primary OS.
Microsoft has tons and tons of money, with a ship that big it is difficult to shift momentum, but I wouldn't dismiss it as impossible. If you told me in 2006 that Apple is going to topple Nokia and RIM (BlackBerry) in the next two years I probably would have called you crazy. If you told me after Apple had already taken that market share that Google even had a chance using a half working Linux mobile OS to become what Android is today I'd probably also say it's far fetched. What I'm getting at is "almost impossible" things happen all the time in this industry and Adobe should at least be prepared if they are being responsible to their stakeholders. Using QT (or other platform agnostic GUI toolkit here) and writing platform specific code when necessary doesn't seem like a bad suggestion.
But the powers that be will do as they see fit... just my rant/two cents.
I am a website developer and designer, I use Adobe products on a daily basis!!!
(Inc In-Design, Dreaweaver, Photoshop, Fireworks and Illustrator)
I am currently using Windows 8 (was using Windows 7).
I have always wanted to go over to Linux (Ubuntu), unfortunately I am unable to due to Adobe not being supported on Linux (Literally every other program I need such as Putty, FileZilla, Skype, Chrome, etc). I had used Linux Ubuntu for a really long time and did use a VirtualBox image with Windows running to use Adobe, plus tried using the Dual Boot option too but its not the same, Adobe needs to be fully support on Linux.
I run several servers with Ubuntu / CentOS so I am really use to the Linux platform and really hate the Windows and Mac platforms.
You all say should pay more to make it worth while and how much would you really pay, etc etc, the fact is Adobe have their products they have their pricing, on Ubunty or any other Linux platform you would pay the same as what everyone else is on Windows and Mac, why should Adobe be more expensive or even cheaper for that matter for Linux! Adobe can still make money from Linux there are paid apps and programs for Linux.
As Linux Ubuntu is growing more and more every day I don't see why Adobe won't support Linux, the only thing holding so many users back from using Linux is Adobe, all other big and small companies/businesses have support Linux so why can't Adobe, what makes Adobe so different to decline the thousands of users that use and want to use Linux.
^^ This page now has over 14,000 likes for Adobe to support Linux.
People could use Wine and other software on Linux to get Adobe working but its not the same or fully stable.
Adobe could charge a small transfer/upgrade fee for their licenses for uses that are on Mac or Windows that want to go over to Linux, this way Adobe gets paid more money whilst keeping the users happy and legit.
I always recommend Linux to friends, family and other people I speak with and quite a few people have gone over to Linux because its easier and more simple to use (but can be techy too).
SUMMARY: I also want Adobe to support Linux!!!
You want Adobe to support Linux for the CC, heck I'd like Adobe to support FrameMaker on the Mac. It won't happen in the near term. Dov speaks for Adobe. Clamoring for it won't make it happen. The way to make it happen ever is to make Linux a mainstream computing platform. Have it run by tens or hundreds of millions of regular users world-wide and in Adobe's interest millions of graphics-oriented users. Have those users show they are willing to support companies by buying lots of expensive commercial software. When that happens, Adobe will see a market worth pursuing. It is simple Economics. Adobe has no need to try to seed the graphics market for Linux to help it mature at its shareholder's expense.
In the meantime, you can use CC apps on virtual platforms or dual boot your computer. That is what I have done for years with respect to FrameMaker. The idea is to run the tools you need on the platform they are available for. I am happy to have the tools available wherever I can get them.
I can understand Adobes point of view. Making free favors would not be reasonable for the business.
Now I am not a software developer so I am sorry if this sounds lame. But if there are already windows emulators that can run Photoshop and Illustrator on Linux, but not quite flawlessly. Then would it not be extra "easy" for Adobe itself, to create working emulators specially made for Adobe products?
If some guys have made playstation games run on windows and linux, then whats the big problem with photoshop running on Linux? Can any geek explain how this "goldmine" idea will not work, or do you need a bigger investment in it?
I would glad to purchase Photoshop and then pay extra for the emulator to get it running.