I only ever heard creatives complain about Adobe and their UI/UX and how they don’t understand their customers.
Never really used any of their products myself though. Maybe they still are best-in-class. I can’t tell.
Every major change in the last 6 years has either been weird window dressing changes to welcome panels or new document panels, in all cases building sluggish jank heavy interfaces, try navigating to a folder in the premier one and weep as clicks take actual seconds to recognize.
Or just silly floating tooltips like the ones in Photoshop that also take a second to visible draw in.
All tangible tool changes exist outside the interface or you jump to a web interface in a window and back with the results being passed between in a way that makes it very obvious the developers are trying to avoid touching the core tools code.
Very clear Narayens outsourcing and not being a product guy has lead to this
There are tools no one uses, and there are tools people constantly complain about.
Every user hates using microsoft products, and don't get me started on SAP. But these are gigantic companies with wildly successful products aimed at enterprise customers.
Only because they've never had a chance to experience the competition.
Having worked in IBM and had to use the Lotus Office Suite I can tell you Microsoft won fair and square. And I'm not even talking about the detestable abomination that is Lotus Notes.
This one was so obscure to find because it seems to exist in a weird space of being Microsoft Office but not.
They’re terrible products for the most part. But they buy the competition (Substance) or they develop some half baked substitute (Adobe XD) that people might use since it comes with the subscription.
Figma could build an illustrator killer in 6 months if they wanted to and it would be obliterated.
If they actually tackled this task people would be kicking themselves for putting up with the shambles that is illustrator for this long.
Statements like this are almost always wrong, if for no other reason that a technically superior alternative is rarely compelling enough by itself. It that weren’t the case you would see it happen far more often…
The scenario I was calling out is more: Company A is great at X, so clearly that technology could be used to easily be great at Y, and doom company B in 6 months. The problem with that thinking is that often the technology is the easy part (and sometimes superficial similarity, also).