Comment on Adobe roofies all of their customers (Louis Rossmann's reaction)

• M500@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Linus tech tips did a video about this where he had his team use other tools. Essentially he was like, it would end up costing him more or the same as it would take his team longer to do the same stuff and relearn.

  It might have been a shortsighted video, but you can look it up if you want to.

  source

  • pbjamm@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Indeed. Retraining and the extra time using a new tool is a short term loss for what should be a long term gain. The transition will always suck.

    source

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Short sighted LTT video?

      Checks out

      Seriously though transitioning your team to a new software suite will suck at first but it’s worth it in the long run. Long term gains vs short term gains and all that.

      source

      • overload@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Is Adobe suite a major cost for LTT though? Is the cost of a few licenses, and if it means just one less video goes out per year due to the inefficiencies of learning a new software package, it would not be worth the switch.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Obviously, LTT doesn’t see the long-term benefit of retraining his team to not be attached to monthly subscription bullshit.

    Short-term quarterly-profit energy.

    source
  • Fizz@lemmy.nz ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Ah that means Adobe truly has us by the balls.

    source
• hedge@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  As far as InDesign alternatives go, do people know about VivaDesigner or even LaTeX for that matter?

  source

  • adespoton@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Once upon a time print shops would only accept files in Quark Xpress format. Eventually, they came to accept InDesign documents too. They have licenses for the software and workflows and toolchains set up to integrate those files into their existing prepress and press systems.

    LaTeX is purely for academic markup for postscript printing. VivaDesigner and its kind? Only niche and hobby layout and print.

    That said, I only share in PDF now, so I use other software for the layout phases and don’t care that it isn’t portable to other shops.

    source
  • baggins@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    In a word, no. They are focused on the Adobe name. A bit like Apple, lots of good alternatives but who wants to be seen with a ‘insert non fashionable name here’ phone. There was a time when Adobe was king, not anymore though.

    source
  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I don’t know about VivaDesigner (never looked for an alternative anyway), but I hope people know about Scribus. LaTeX is a bit too manual for someone coming from InDesign, so it’s not a real alternative in that sense. My point was, that people have projects and files created and maintained with the Adobe software. Unless the programs are 100% compatible with the alternative, it’s hard for many to make the switch. Plus they would need to learn a new “complex” tool, and know exactly which one is the right one and is worth switching for years to come.

    Just giving people an alternative is not enough to convince them.

    source

    • IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I’ve tried to use scribus, but the interface is pretty clunky and it doesnt react well to high-dpi screens in my experience.

      source

      • Powderhorn@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        If you start from the assumption you’re using Quark 3.3, it’s not bad,

        source
  • Zworf@beehaw.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Or maybe Affinity Designer? I bought that a few years ago for Mac and it was really good.

    source