Nope, it’s the limitations of being a monopoly. They don’t have to be better cuz there is no one else making them be better. They don’t listen to designers and they sure as heck don’t listen to printers, and they don’t even know wide format people exist.
Though I was kind of amazed they did reach out to me, among may others, regarding the Illustrator large artboard thing. They hadn’t really considered the PDF problem of 200" limits. But that was addressed in the release of that large artboard. I like to think I had a hand in that. LOL.
You can have to pitch your idea/bug/feature request and have it garner votes, the higher the votes the more likely it is to be looked at.
I can only imagine what it must be like have 1,000,000 voices shouting at you to all fix/improve/add new features on a daily basis.
I know that they pitch their ideas to corporates who buy 1000’s of license globally - and they’ll pitch an idea like - would you like to Share/Review online or would you like us to work on making the UI prettier - or something else mundain.
They’ll say Share/Review online everytime, as they think that’s important to them, and Adobe plug it into the software and gain 1000 sales.
Problem is that they shoehorn in all these features to please stakeholders who buy the most amount of products from them.
But then those features are left to the wayside and end up as clutter in the software.
That’s the reason that Adobe don’t listen to designers/printers or anyone on the ground because they know we need the software and will buy it anyway. And they don’t really care if you leave the Adobe ecosystem - as they are concentrating on building sales with 100,000 companies who will buy 10,000 copies of the Creative Cloud and that’s a lot of sales. And they know the little guy on the ground will buy it anyway,
No, this was for real. It came from someone I had been in contact with there for something else. Used to be they’d allow print partners access to betas so they could get it in place before release to the general design population. But the print partner program is dead now. Sorta says something right there, don’t it.
There are obvious issues, shortcomings and bugs that garner votes, like the artboard size limitations PrintDriver mentioned, since so many people have been frustrated by them.
What doesn’t garner votes are the never-implemented possibilities that people don’t know they need since they’ve never encountered them. For example, the Affinity suite of applications allow users to access features from one Affinity application while still working in another. Glyphs, the typeface design application I use, enables me to easily move anchor points while keeping the control points stationery (incredibly useful for fine-tuning a curve). Also in Glyphs, by default, when an anchor point is removed, Glyphs reconfigures the resultant curve to approximate as closely as possible a smooth version of the original curve. Illustrator, on the other hand, just lets the curve collapse, like a popped balloon.
These and other proposed features rarely garner any attention on Adobe’s UserVoice site, so Adobe ignores them as failing the popularity contest. People aren’t making a fuss about them because they’ve never worked with them to begin with. However, after working in other non-Adobe applications, one begins to realize how useful some features are in these apps that are totally missing or awkwardly and obscurely implemented in Adobe software. Of course there are useful features in the Adobe apps that their competitors don’t have.
Adobe introduces all kinds of new features into their apps all the time, but they fail to address long-standing issues and improvements in favor of things that seemingly have no particularly useful purpose except to niche audiences. I’ve always wondered who at Adobe purposes their new features and how decisions are made to implement them. My guess is that these things are driven by the developers who really don’t use the products in the same way as their end users and who, consequently, come up with things that most designers don’t really need at the expense of making improvements that would be genuinely useful to the majority. For example, I’ve been waiting for 30 years for Adobe to implement a larger continuum of flexible options into Photoshop’s dodge and burn tools than just the pre-configured shadows, midtones and highlights ranges.
I could say just as many, if not more, good things about Adobe software, but it really does seem as though they’ve lost touch with much of their user base.
Only allowed CPU rendering for 3d. Even with a decent PC, it could take 7-13 hours to render a image in high quality.
It took then 2 years to implement GPU rendering. Something that would be basic in any other 3D environment software. Of course they added on the ability to purchase credits to do cloud rendering which is what I suspect they wanted people to do.
I believe they just discontinued the cloud rendering to some extent or limited it.