Will you buy linux photoshop?

[praveesh]

I just want to know how many of the current Ubuntu users will buy photoshop if it is ported in linux (without using wine . A native gtk or qt app).

[Ms_Angel_D]

When? I think you'll be waiting a while on that one...but Me I'm fine with gimp.

[koleoptero]

Where's the poll? :P

And no, I won't buy it, free programs cover all my needs. (Gimp - Picasa)

EDIT: Being remarkably inane, I voted yes, so could someone that wanted to vote yes, click a NO for me?

[Sashin]

If it's native (GTK+) then definitely, if it's a wine port then no.

[kpkeerthi]

No. I'm fine with GIMP. (on a side note, I hate anything that runs on wine)

[lukjad]

I just want to know how many of the current Ubuntu users will buy photoshop if it is ported in linux .
I use GIMP, and that does all I need. I'm not much into photo editing anyway.

[ushimitsudoki]

I'd bet one internet cookie there are more non-paying users of Photoshop than there are paying ones.

[hoagie]

If by Photoshop you also mean Photoshop Lightroom then yes I will.

[Screwdriver0815]

I would not. Gimp does all I want

[Tews]

I'd bet one internet cookie there are more non-paying users of Photoshop than there are paying ones.

Lol ... Ill bet a whole BAG of cookies ...:lolflag:

[t0p]

Shame... I saw the title of this thread and thought there'd been an announcement re the impending release of Photoshop4Linux. But no, it's just a hypothetical exercise. Very well </me dons hypothetical hat>

I wouldn't buy Linux Photoshop. The Gimp serves me very well, and I use it quite a bit (amateur photographer). But this might be very different if I'd been trained in the use of Photoshop before I learned the Gimp. A lot of people use Photoshop for paid work, these are the ones who say stuff like "I'd use Linux if Photoshop was ported over", so maybe a port would help win over new converts.

Then again, maybe these people would just find a new excuse. "I'd use Linux in a flash, but I need to use Word, I hate wine and open office is no substitute..." Grrr!!

[anaconda]

I would buy it, even if krita can handle almost everything I need.

But I would worry.. Would I have to buy a new version for each new ubuntu release? That would be a big turnoff. I mean a new version every 6 months. That would be just too crazy.

And I would definetely prefer a qt version, which would work pretty much on every system...

[koshatnik]

No. But I might consider LightRoom. But then Linux already has two great photo apps in LightZone and Bibble.

[RiceMonster]

I would not. Gimp does all I want

this

[keplerspeed]

Gimp does everything that I need. I do hear photoshop gurus complaining the gimp isnt as user friendly. But I dont do anything that complicated, so the GIMP is perfect.

[The Real Dave]

I'd bet one internet cookie there are more non-paying users of Photoshop than there are paying ones.

+1. I for one never buy software anymore, I either use free software, or obtain it via other means :D So no, I wouldn't buy Linux Photoshop, dont think I would use it, GIMP works fine for my needs :D

[kevdog]

I would buy it. But I fear it will never be ported.

[CharmyBee]

If I really wanted it, i'd buy it. If it's for a professional job, no doubt in a heartbeat I would lay my money down. I can't stand GIMP no matter how hard I try to like/tolerate it.

[billgoldberg]

I'm sure Photoshop is better than Gimp for pro's, but for normal users who just want to create some wallpapers, or modify some pictures, it's more than enough.

Photoshop is so popular because most people pirate it.

Adobe knows that, that's why they will never port it to linux.

No professional photo editors are on Linux, the Linux market share is too small to port it over.

[ReddogOne]

I just want to know how many of the current Ubuntu users will buy photoshop if it is ported in linux (without using wine . A native gtk or qt app).

Probably a silly question to ask here as those that need, or feel they need, Photoshop would not, likely, be using ubuntu in the first place so not see the poll on a forum they don't use.

But for those arty types that work for arty type companies a linux version might go down quite well. The posts hint to me... we are not professionals... so probably wouldn't take so much.

[CrazyArcher]

Lol ... Ill bet a whole BAG of cookies ...:lolflag:
I'll bet TWO bags! :D

Photoshop is a professional application used by lots of people to downscale photos.

[ghindo]

Photoshop is so much more than I need at a price that's much more than I'm willing to pay.

I'm happy with the GIMP.

[Tibuda]

I'd bet one internet cookie there are more non-paying users of Photoshop than there are paying ones.

Start a new poll: "Photoshop users: did you bought Photoshop?"

[LowSky]

I dnt need photoshop, so buying it seems like wasting money.

Photoshop is wastefull unless your in the business, otherwise many other free programs will do the job just fine, like GIMP.

[WatchingThePain]

I just want to know how many of the current Ubuntu users will buy photoshop if it is ported in linux (without using wine . A native gtk or qt app).

How much will it cost?
I am not a professional designer so I doubt it.
To be honest I have owned Photoshop on Windows and since I am not a power user of it I don't see what Photoshop will give me that Gimp can't.
I am more concerned with getting some nice filters into Gimp, that is it really.
Lots of professionals use Gimp.
Gimp is not Limp.

[LowSky]

How much will it cost?

knowing Adobe the same as the windows version

[Mohamedzv2]

I use GIMP, and I love it, but Photoshop seems to have a few features so I'd like to try it out again...and I doubt I'd buy it unless I became a pro

[init1]

No, don't need it.

[NFblaze]

I voted no. Although, in the past I've probrably used it once or twice. I also have a copy of the install a friend gave me years ago, but I've never installed it. Its a little bit more than I need. Im not in the business of making print. So, i usually use the free alternatives that can reasonably do things like photoshop, but arent as weak as a general paint program.

[Grant A.]

Something interesting that I've found about Linux users is the fact that, while they say they'd be more than happy to pay for a Linux version of X software, they seldom really do, which leads to the poor companies who actually make a Linux fork recalling their products, and halting production.

[H2SO_four]

Unneeded. But when I need to, I will use GIMP.

[handy]

I used to use Macromedia StudioMX 2004, & previous versions of Dreamweaver, for a few business customers when I ran an IT repair business.

StudioMX had been initially installed on a windows system. After retiring from my business, I quickly dumped anything to do with windows OS's & joined the Linux community, which happened 3 years & 8 months ago.

Anyway, some months back I decided I wanted to make a simple site, I wanted to do it via Arch, but the few simple software options available for Linux were not available for Arch, & I love Arch too much to change distro's for this job, so I thought I'll install StudioMX under Leopard on the iMac which primarily uses Arch & just put up with having to boot into Leopard when I want to do anything on my site.

So I installed StudioMX, which then had me go to the new owners, Adobe, to activate it, where I was knocked back because it had been installed before on the windows machine!

So I went through the process of phone activation, which took about 40 minutes before I got to speak to a person, where I was told that I had to buy a license to install StudioMX on the iMac!

I told the young man that I would not buy a license for software that I had already purchased, & was not running on any other machine. I also told him that I would solve the license problem via torrents, & that I would NEVER buy an Adobe product again.

So, you can guess which way I voted in the poll.

As it turned out, I bought Sandvox, an OSX only product, which is cheap & is also the easiest software I have ever used for creating web sites. It has limitations, but they are not a problem for my current usage.

[jedimasterk]

I would definately buy it. Although I would hope they would port all of their other apps over as well. Like they do for the MacOSX community. Photoshop is great, but adding ports of the other apps is almost essential to get the real benefits from Photoshop. And for those who cannot afford Photoshop, then there could be Photoshop Elements for Linux or Lightroom for Linux.

[jedimasterk]

Where's the poll? :P

And no, I won't buy it, free programs cover all my needs. (Gimp - Picasa)

EDIT: Being remarkably inane, I voted yes, so could someone that wanted to vote yes, click a NO for me?

Tell me is there a free program similar to Adobe After Effects?. If not then yes we need Adobe to port their apps to Linux.

[jedimasterk]

Plus I may add that if Adobe did port their apps, it would benefit the Linux community tremendously. Meaning greater adoption, especially from the professional photography/video camps. So even if you wouldn't buy Photoshop for Linux. It does help for greater Linux adoption and that is a good thing!. Why should the MacOSX platform be the only Unix based operating system to get Adobe apps.

[gashcr]

If I really had a need for it, yes, I would. As I don't have such need, no, GIMP is more than enough for me

[SupaSonic]

Tell me is there a free program similar to Adobe After Effects?. If not then yes we need Adobe to port their apps to Linux.

The thread is about Photoshop.

I definitely wouldn't buy it, the price is sky high for Photoshop anyway, and Gimp does everything i need for free. The fact that it's been soooo long and Adobe hasn't ported Photoshop to linux tells me that it is unlikely ever to happen. And even if it does, i don't want to feel as if they're throwing me a bone.

[NickWilsdon]

Absolutely. Ubuntu/Linux needs a Photoshop equivalent if it is ever going to secure it's place over Windows in the workplace. At the moment the substitutes are not there.

Gimp is more powerful than people first realize when they open it but it needs to have an interface that pro-Photoshop users can quickly relate to. They don't have the time to learn another tool from scratch. Like it or not, Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign are industry standards in an online agency.

Gimpshop (http://www.gimpshop.com/) is very out of date too, running version 2.2 of Gimp rather than the new 2.66. There is no 64-bit version available.

Gimphoto (http://www.gimphoto.com/) looks interesting but again, no 64-bit version.


Krita (http://www.koffice.org/krita/) has a good interface but lacks the functionality. It can't open/work with .gif files which makes it next to useless at the moment.

Similarly XaraExtreme (http://www.xara.com/us/) is promising but IMHO does not have the functionality/interface design to compete with PS at the moment.

These alternatives seem to have been put together without any input from real-world pro-designers. I'm sure they would greatly benefit from having some some usability sessions with designers to see how they work.

Pixel (http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12) looked promising but everyone is still waiting for the first non-beta release which is several months overdue now. People who bought the beta have paid for a program which was last updated in 2007. There are many outstanding issues there which need to be dealt with before it can be a contender.

So yes, there is definitely still room in the market for a program of this type. There's no reason why a Linux/Ubuntu or even cross-browser program can't be better than Photoshop/Illustrator. Look at OpenOffice or Blender for example. I also know that agencies like ourselves, would be willing to pay for this software.



Something interesting that I've found about Linux users is the fact that, while they say they'd be more than happy to pay for a Linux version of X software, they seldom really do, which leads to the poor companies who actually make a Linux fork recalling their products, and halting production.

@GrantA - I think you're 100% correct. However this is a different case from the usual software. I've helped many companies move across to Ubuntu now but we still end up leaving the designers on Windows because of Adobe products. Agencies/companies are prepared to pay for licenses and will do so. This would be the market for a ported version of PS, not individuals or hobbyists. After all, I'm willing to bet that most of that demographic don't buy licenses on Windows either!

[handy]

I think that Adobe, who have quite a wide range of software, generally offer most expensive prices for what I would term popular software; what I mean by popular, is that it is used by professionals in a variety of fields, it is also used by students who want to become professionals in the aforementioned variety of fields, it is also used by non-professionals in those fields be they in business, artists, web designers/publishers for what ever reason, & private individuals who desire the abilities that the Adobe software offers them for their own creative endeavors.

Adobe sells a LOT of software, I consider them to be greedy, from personal experience, as I noted in a previous post.

I know that there exists far more expensive specialized software on the market, but Adobe make & sell a LOT of software; most all of it is aimed & priced at the corpies, who in general are spending the shareholders money, which is exactly the same as supplying governments, I know MS gets the corpies, governments & home users just like Adobe.

The corpies are happy to spend big bucks on software, as it is not out of their own pockets it is shareholder funds, the same as governments using their allocated funds raised from taxation.

Though the small business, artist, hobbyist, student (who may get a discount because they want you to become an Adobe or MS for that matter addict) are being most unfairly charged for the software, why should the little people be paying the same price as Adobe's major markets?

Both the government & the corporations don't feel any pain when they pay, as their investors via both taxation & shares are coughing up, the little people pay the same price & they pay tax!?

I consider MS & Adobe to be the two most greedy software houses in existence.

I for one will never buy another Adobe (no need to mention MS) product again, if I for some strange reason need one of their products I will steal it. Not that I am advising others to steal anyone's products, it is just that I have been stolen from by Adobe. Please see prior post?

[Loon4000]

I use photoshop at work and gimp at home to be honest i can't see the point in spending so much money when i haven't found anything gimp cannot handle.

[WatchingThePain]

Something interesting that I've found about Linux users is the fact that, while they say they'd be more than happy to pay for a Linux version of X software, they seldom really do, which leads to the poor companies who actually make a Linux fork recalling their products, and halting production.

Couldn't they just take a deposit or payment up front then?.

[sim-value]

Go ahead open a Petition and spam adobe :)

[ade234uk]

I would use gimp If they created exactly the same layout as photoshop and when adding text as a layer it did not come up in the box.

Yes I know its lazy of me, but its all about familiarity. If Gimp did do this, it would be even more of a winner.

However I also find that Photoshop CS and Dreamweaver 9 work without any issues through Wine, in fact they sometimes run better than they did in Windows.

I remember 3-4 years just getting Dreamweaver to work was an achievement, and then when you finally sorted it, you got awful rubber banding issues when resizing Windows. These issues have long gone, and I appreciate being able to use this software on Ubuntu.

I can see Wine improving. You just need to try other freeware apps for Windows and you will be surprised how many of these applications actually install and work to a certain degree.

[BlazeFire247]

'Course I would! GIMP isn't enough, there are some stuff that Photoshop has that GIMP doesnt... Only GIMP is easier.

[handy]

I would use gimp If they created exactly the same layout as photoshop and when adding text as a layer it did not come up in the box.

There is Gimpshop, which endeavors to do that I believe (though I have not personally looked at it).



I can see Wine improving. You just need to try other freeware apps for Windows and you will be surprised how many of these applications actually install and work to a certain degree.

If more people supported Wine & Crossover, financially, we would see the list of compatible windows software growing much more quickly.

Which certainly has great benefits for those that already own the Adobe or whatever companies' windows software, that wish to leave the windows OS's behind.

[NickWilsdon]

There is Gimpshop, which endeavors to do that I believe (though I have not personally looked at it).

I've been looking at this recently. Gimpshop is v. old now, the project is running v.2.2 of GIMP rather than 2.66. Program has changed significantly in that time.

If you're running 32-bit then I would checkout Gimphoto which is up to date.

You still don't have a 'Photoshop' experience with either program. Pixel is probably the best bet but we'll have to see if the final version actually gets released.

[praveesh]

Plus I may add that if Adobe did port their apps, it would benefit the Linux community tremendously. Meaning greater adoption, especially from the professional photography/video camps. So even if you wouldn't buy Photoshop for Linux. It does help for greater Linux adoption and that is a good thing!. Why should the MacOSX platform be the only Unix based operating system to get Adobe apps.
Exactly . Making wine better is also enough . Someone should help the wine people financially.

[jespdj]

Photoshop is one of the few applications that keep me from switching to Linux completely. Yes, I would buy Photoshop for Linux if Adobe would port it.

Unfortunately, I think the chance that this is really going to happen in the forseeable future is minimal. There are too few Linux users to make it worth the trouble for Adobe to port Photoshop.

[KiwiNZ]

I voted no as there is several viable alternatives

[zeroseven0183]

I prefer to use GIMP. Why pay for something if you have an alternative that is FREEEEE?

[jespdj]

I prefer to use GIMP. Why pay for something if you have an alternative that is FREEEEE?
This has been discussed a million times before...

Because GIMP is not Photoshop, because Photoshop has a lot of advanced features that are not available in GIMP, etc. (if you want to know more reasons, search for GIMP vs Photoshop threads in the Recurring Discussions forum...).

[handy]

I currently have no need for photoshop or gimp, but what I have gathered over the years is that there is an overlap between the two app's, but for serious/professional users, gimp is no substitute.

If gimp were a substitute perhaps we would then see photoshop's prices drop somewhat. As it is photoshop seems to have no real competitor, so the price remains exorbitant.

[NickWilsdon]

To be honest this question needs to be addressed to studios, companies and professional designers. They are the market for this, not individuals.

I doubt very much that many individuals and hobbyists pay $699 to have a licensed copy of Photoshop on their Windows platform.

It is the companies who make up the market for Adobe, as they have a responsibility to ensure they have fully licensed and valid software for their employees. These same companies would no doubt pay for the software on Linux if it was available. With OpenOffice and the increase in browser-based work (Google Apps/ Cloud computing), it seems an increasing no. are questioning their need for Windows.

At the moment though it not sufficient to say to a professional designer that alternatives exist - they don't. They are good projects that will do for the non-professional but they are not yet comparable with Adobe. If any professional graphic designers want to dispute that then fair enough, I'll listen but that has not been the usual feedback.

Porting PS over to Linux would allow more companies to migrate away from Windows. For that reason alone we should support it.

Saying that, Photoshop CS2 does work very well under WINE. They are doing some excellent work over there.

[magnus0]

I wouldn't buy Photoshop. I'm fine with Gimp

[Tipped OuT]

To be honest this question needs to be addressed to studios, companies and professional designers. They are the market for this, not individuals.

I doubt very much that many individuals and hobbyists pay $699 to have a licensed copy of Photoshop on their Windows platform.

It is the companies who make up the market for Adobe, as they have a responsibility to ensure they have fully licensed and valid software for their employees. These same companies would no doubt pay for the software on Linux if it was available. With OpenOffice and the increase in browser-based work (Google Apps/ Cloud computing), it seems an increasing no. are questioning their need for Windows.

At the moment though it not sufficient to say to a professional designer that alternatives exist - they don't. They are good projects that will do for the non-professional but they are not yet comparable with Adobe. If any professional graphic designers want to dispute that then fair enough, I'll listen but that has not been the usual feedback.

Porting PS over to Linux would allow more companies to migrate away from Windows. For that reason alone we should support it.

Saying that, Photoshop CS2 does work very well under WINE. They are doing some excellent work over there.

Us, "professional graphic designers" need Photoshop. The GIMP is OK, but it lacks a lot of useful features that we need. Most of us are already used to Photoshop's menu layout, and The GIMP's menu layout, is just confusing and messy to us. Either way, our alternative free image editing software we use is Paint.NET. Why? Because it's very easy to use and has the same familiar menu layout as MS Paint. It can basically do all that The Gimp does. So there really isn't any need for us to use it.

[timjohn7]

My requirements are also satisfied by the gimp and Picasa. What advantages Photoshop has vs its probable price bracket make this a no-brainer for me. I just dont need any more than what the gimp already offers.

[super.rad]

Not worth paying for when gimp can do everything that I'd use photoshop for

[ZarathustraDK]

To be honest this question needs to be addressed to studios, companies and professional designers. They are the market for this, not individuals.

I doubt very much that many individuals and hobbyists pay $699 to have a licensed copy of Photoshop on their Windows platform.

It is the companies who make up the market for Adobe, as they have a responsibility to ensure they have fully licensed and valid software for their employees. These same companies would no doubt pay for the software on Linux if it was available. With OpenOffice and the increase in browser-based work (Google Apps/ Cloud computing), it seems an increasing no. are questioning their need for Windows.

At the moment though it not sufficient to say to a professional designer that alternatives exist - they don't. They are good projects that will do for the non-professional but they are not yet comparable with Adobe. If any professional graphic designers want to dispute that then fair enough, I'll listen but that has not been the usual feedback.

Porting PS over to Linux would allow more companies to migrate away from Windows. For that reason alone we should support it.

Saying that, Photoshop CS2 does work very well under WINE. They are doing some excellent work over there.

What he said.

I think the question we "normal people" have to answer is: should we run stuff in Wine giving the companies the impression that it's ok to just keep on making Windows-only programs?

[Swagman]

If I was going to spend that kind of wonga on an image editor then it wouldn't be on photoshop.

It would be Photogenics (http://www.idruna.com/photogenicshdr.html)

[NickWilsdon]

If I was going to spend that kind of wonga on an image editor then it wouldn't be on photoshop.

It would be Photogenics

Interesting, I hadn't come across that option before - thanks. They also have an offer on for $399 for the moment. I'll have to try and get hold of a demo, it seems to be missing from their other demo options but they are looking for testers at the moment.

[xuCGC002]

No. (http://www.gimp.org/)

[fatality_uk]

I think when Linux market share starts hitting the 2-3%, there may well be a look at the market by major software developers.

[aysiu]

I don't think a simple yes-no poll will tell you anything meaningful.

All we know (as of the moment I'm writing this post) is that there are at least 42 Ubuntu users who say they'd be willing to pay for a Linux port of Photoshop.

The people who say they won't could be in any number of situations: Have already paid for a Windows or Mac version of Photoshop and don't want to pay again Use a pirated version of Photoshop and would probably pirate the Linux version as well Would really like Photoshop, but really want to stick with open source applications like GIMP Am not a professional photographer or graphic designer and so am perfectly fine with GIMP There are probably plenty of other situations I can't even think of.

I would suspect the vast majority of users fall into the last category. I know in theory there are things Photoshop can do that GIMP can't, but I'm not a professional photographer or graphic designer, so I don't know what those are specifically, and I wouldn't even know how to use them.

[kk0sse54]

No, I don't think I'd buy any software for linux no matter what it was

[Swagman]

I'd certainly buy software for linux.. Bu tit has to be something that I'd deem useful.

Artrage 2 for linux for example

[WatchingThePain]

The last thing we want is pirate software on Linux.
42 users? That's a drop in the ocean. No one's gonna cater for so few are they really?.
So for now, another Castle made of sand melts into the sea.

[NickWilsdon]

42 users? That's a drop in the ocean. No one's gonna cater for so few are they really?

I wouldn't hang so much on that number. If the main group who would buy Linux Photoshop are professional graphic designers or design/print/web production studios, then I doubt that group is well represented here as they're currently stuck on Windows/Adobe.

My own experience with companies/organisations has been that owners are very receptive to cutting costs. The main motivation is not to support the OS community or ethos but to reduce their need for costly MS licenses. From this POV, a Linux port of Photoshop would be a solution that allowed them to migrate.

[praveesh]

I didnt expect 42 users. Too high. Doesnt it indicate that atleast 10% of the 10 million of current users + new professional users (who will come to linux if ps is ported) will buy photoshop . Its time for adobe to port

[Darkaiser]

No. Inkscape and GIMP only for me

[pookiebear]

Here is my take.

I use Gimp and Paint Shop Pro.

I have photoshop cs2 but don't use it anymore.


I had an idea for Adobe to make some more money. They should put out a photoshop under wine plugin. What I mean is. On the CD if they had a mod to WINE that you could install that would make the latest photoshop work flawlessly (update it with each upgrade) under wine. Then they could sell photoshop to the linux users that want it. And not worry about a port/linux support team.

[Invincible23]

I'm not a photoshop *poweruser* and GIMP fulfills my occasional editing needs. yet i would consider buying the linux version or any paid software if i have some critical need which the software in the linux ecosystem cant fulfill, which in itself is a rarity.

And I doubt abode would ever release a linux version.

[blur xc]

So far more than 26% would buy ps, and I'm one of them.

But- only if lightroom was included. PS by itself, for me and my workflow, is useless. I need lightroom to do the front end of 90% of my photo developing, and then for certain pictures I'll drop them into ps to finish them off.

BM