Going forward, we would like them fixed, too. Personally my hope is the message from user feedback like this is heard loud and clear, and we respond appropriately.
Everyone with non-trivial software has to do this to some extent. Perfection just isn't possible. The real measure is in where the company finds the balance. I think Adobe needs to tilt toward the perfection a bit more, but this is not something that people can do unilaterally without buy in from the very top of the chain, which I'm guessing GP is not.
Keep in mind that photoshop isn't the near-monopoly that many people think it is, especially in light of generative AI. If they take too long to ship features, it will similarly be criticized by paying customers who feel Photoshop is hobbled.
Rolling out a new UI for such a staple piece of software is smart. But doing it the way they are doing is absurd. Why even release it when you have basically nothing to show besides a broken modal, rounded sliders and a couple things made thicker? That’s not being mindful, that’s just someone’s unfinished staging build that got pushed to production by mistake. It’s insane that they’re doing this to Photoshop (of all apps). And honestly, quite insaner that anyone would defend anything from Adobe after all the crap they’ve pulled (and continue to pull) over the years.
They are wrong. They are going about it the wrong way. And paying customers deserve a hell of a lot more. Adobe OWES us a better treatment. Big time.
And unfortunately Photoshop very much is the monopoly many think it is. Those complaining about Photoshop being hobbled because it can’t hallucinate AI slop are not Adobe’s target audience and main source of income. Adobe’s only as crap as it is now exactly because it knows it holds basically the entire graphic design industry in a stranglehold. No other apps are currently even close to Adobe’s in terms of compatibility, functionality and support—unfortunately. I wish someone would come and claim Adobe’s crown, but that is simply not happening.
First do no harm. Changing functionality that works is not in tension with getting regressions out the door. Assure it is working before shipping by hiring testers that use the product to the level or extent of most users.
> We do use Photoshop (though not to the level or extent of most users) and noticed the regressions.
Is there something you want to tell us about management? This is crazy, if what you mean is you know you broke this for power users but shipped it anyways, or that you don't have power-users on payroll to constantly test your product that you can call "part of the team".
Photoshop is the premiere image editor that has been in existence for decades. The issues you are responding to are fundamental changes to how the application behaves. It defies belief that your team and its processes have this little respect for dedicated users who have spent thousands of dollars on your product over the course of years. I understand shipping software. Do you understand your users?
Indeed, I don't think most people can appreciate how hard the tension is between shipping and perfection. As a fellow perfectionist, it kills me to ship things that I know aren't perfect, but I've had to work on becoming more of a pragmatist because if I had my perfectionist way, shipping would take years and feedback loops would be so long that it would be somewhat self defeating (though that's a personal problem). I appreciate you taking the time to respond here, even knowing you'll catch some heat.
If this was a startup or new software finding a market fit it would be different. This is industry standard, professional software that impacts livelihoods. More thought should go into each release because of this fact.
These kinds of sharp edges should *never* have made it as far as UAT. All of these should have been caught in the first prototype and never made it beyond that point.
The fact that they made it all the way to the shipping product shows that too many responsible parties were asleep at the switch.
Why? The actual people who make Photoshop are programmers, and this is a tool for image editing.
Obviously they should have a few power users on payroll that find these obvious regressions quickly, and we can call them part of the team who make Photoshop. I'm not sure why this, and what the lead scientist said is valid justification. Just hire "people that use Photoshop". If they already do this, then the people that make Photoshop use Photoshop to a sufficient degree.
But moreover, if one has developed Photoshop for 15 years, I'm pretty sure they are aware of power user table-stakes features.
And then one more point:
> Why?
Because that's what it takes to develop high quality software tools. This shouldn't even be up for debate when charging money for software.