PDA

View Full Version : Paid Audio, Video, and Image editing software



sirozwald
May 10th, 2012, 04:54 AM
Hello all,

ive been searching for a few days now about what's going on with the outlook of Pro Tools, Adobe Photoshop, Media Composer and other paid contenders on the Linux platform.

all these companies say one thing - there is no real market.

I dont agree, i think if all of those things would be available, a ton of power users who cant afford macs would migrate from windows to linux, and new creative professionals would take this option seriously. (if of course a distribution of linux, probably ubuntu, adapted some things like the color management stuff for adobe for example).

I want to ask 2 questions:

would any of the current linux users opt to pay for this software if it was available?

what would you pay for?

cariboo
May 10th, 2012, 05:22 AM
I wouldn't pay for any of the programs you mentioned as I don't use those types of programs, but I would pay for a Linux version of QuickBooks.

jespdj
May 10th, 2012, 09:54 AM
If there were a version of Adobe Photoshop and/or Lightroom which was just as good as the Windows and OS X versions, then I would seriously consider buying it.

I'm not using it for professional use, but photography is a serious hobby for me.

3rdalbum
May 10th, 2012, 10:56 AM
I'd pay for an excellent DVD authoring program that creates stuff you can view in ANY DVD player*. Something like Nero, but less bloaty and less crashy.

Linux video editors are now finally usable and even useful, but a few years ago I would have paid for a decent-featured, reliable video editor.

I doubt people would jump from Windows to Linux to use the same programs they currently use on Windows. Pro-level programs would be a very good thing for Linux users, and make it possible to entirely use Linux in a professional creative environment. But there would need to be a very strong benefit for these companies and people to go through the trauma of changing operating system.

Many are not even going through the hassle of moving to Macs as there's not enough benefit over their current Windows systems.

*Most of the DVD authoring utilities I've seen on Linux have managed to author discs that work on 75% of players. Every commercial DVD works on all DVD players. If a piece of Linux software creates discs that only work on 99% of DVD players, it's not good enough.

ElSlunko
May 14th, 2012, 02:32 PM
I'd pay for photoshop. I'm already using AfterShot Pro for my photography business.

forrestcupp
May 14th, 2012, 05:36 PM
I dont agree, i think if all of those things would be available, a ton of power users who cant afford macs would migrate from windows to linux, and new creative professionals would take this option seriously.I don't agree with that at all. If they need to buy a cheaper PC than spending the money on a Mac, why wouldn't they just use the Windows that comes on the PC that will already run versions of all the software you mentioned? There's no need for Linux for those types of people.

It's really only people who already love Linux who would benefit from that, and there is not a profitable market there.


I wouldn't pay for any of the programs you mentioned as I don't use those types of programs, but I would pay for a Linux version of QuickBooks.+1000
I'd be a very happy man if QuickBooks would run on Linux.

MisterGaribaldi
May 14th, 2012, 06:05 PM
What forrestcupp said...

Considering what professional tools like Pro Tools, Creative Suite, etc., cost, there is no cost savings by running it on Linux, because if you can afford the licenses for those apps, you can certainly afford a Windows license. Conversely, if you cannot or will not afford a Windows license, you certainly won't be able or willing to afford an Adobe, Apple, or any other such license.

"Linux on the desktop" has had it's shot, and barring a miracle it's blown the chance.

Besides, why should commercial software developers develop and/or port for a platform much of who's population by definition hates their guts and would probably not buy their software out of spite?

Richard Stallman has done many very good and wonderful things for the GNU/Linux community, but the hatred of commercial, proprietary software streak wasn't one of them.

bruno9779
May 14th, 2012, 06:16 PM
I use Bibble5 as a linux replacement of PS.

I think it is quite powerful and stable but it has been years since I last used PS, so I can't really compare.

I like the fact that Bibble5 comes with noiseninja as default and not as a paid for plugin

rai4shu2
May 14th, 2012, 06:17 PM
Once upon a time, you had to have a Mac to use Photoshop. That's the truth. Photoshop then got ported to Windows. No reason it can't be ported to Linux. Considering how well NeroLinux has done, I'd say there's plenty of potential customers if they want them.

MisterGaribaldi
May 14th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Won't happen without a cash-paying audience. Only way I see that as happening is if countries (with money to spend) which have significantly higher Linux adoption rates start screaming to Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, GreatPlains, Intuit, etc., then maybe there'd be a chance. If you could get countries like India, China, Brazil, etc., then you're talking about enough users to justify the expense.

But no doubt the B.M. Gates Foundation is doing a great job of keeping Linux out of third-world countries. ;)

forrestcupp
May 14th, 2012, 09:18 PM
Once upon a time, you had to have a Mac to use Photoshop. That's the truth. Photoshop then got ported to Windows. No reason it can't be ported to Linux. Considering how well NeroLinux has done, I'd say there's plenty of potential customers if they want them.

The "reason it can't be ported to Linux" is lack of motivation. 90% of the desktop market was pretty good motivation to port to Windows. Back in the day, I'm sure the Mac diehards felt like Adobe was a traitor when they first ported to Windows. The only reason they did it was because of the money. They don't care about people.

rai4shu2
May 14th, 2012, 11:45 PM
My point is that Adobe is still a for-profit company. If they think there's money to be made, why allow some competitor to take that money from you (the way they think of competition, by the way). Even if they have to only port the core elements rather than the whole bundle of apps, it still makes sense from that point of view.

forrestcupp
May 15th, 2012, 12:05 PM
My point is that Adobe is still a for-profit company. If they think there's money to be made, why allow some competitor to take that money from you (the way they think of competition, by the way). Even if they have to only port the core elements rather than the whole bundle of apps, it still makes sense from that point of view.
The cost in porting an app isn't just in the initial porting. From that point on, there is an ongoing cost for support and maintenance. It's a commitment, because as soon as you port something, the people expect a port for every version after that, and they expect them to be maintained throughout the entire life of the product; after all, they paid big bucks for it. If they aren't going to make enough money to cover the costs, then it doesn't make sense from that point of view.

Besides, how many commercial competitors are actually taking money from Linux users? That's the whole problem. There's not enough Linux money out there that would cover the cost. A generous guess for a desktop market share might put us at 1-2%. What percentage of that 1-2% do you think would actually pay that much money for Photoshop?

I'm not saying I don't want it to happen. But despite what I want, I understand that it really wouldn't make sense from a business perspective. That's one reason they dropped Flash.