A bit blown away..

[gcellison]

Great! Thanks for the advice.

[handrawn]

paul does websites, I don't

for me the disadvantages of xara are almost all on the raster side - for example, because affinity have integrated true raster and vector I can import a PSD with clipping layers into affinity designer and they will be presverved - this just does not happen in xara, they are lost because the way it handles raster, whilst fine for it's intended purpose, it not a true integration, it's a clever, but limited, manipulation of bitmap fills

[pauland]

[QUOTE=handrawn;621843]paul does websites, I don't [\quote]

?

I don't use Xara software much these days - very rarely. For me the golden age was Xara Xtreme 4.0 and I also had web designer which was fantastic.

I make a few websites, but mostly make iPhone and iPad apps.

I prefer web creation to be an assembly of parts rather than the one-size fits all and I prefer truly responsive sites to the WYSIWYG adaptive sites that Xara produces.

for me the disadvantages of xara are almost all on the raster side - for example, because affinity have integrated true raster and vector I can import a PSD with clipping layers into affinity designer and they will be presverved - this just does not happen in xara, they are lost because the way it handles raster, whilst fine for it's intended purpose, it not a true integration, it's a clever, but limited, manipulation of bitmap fills

Xara is very much a jack of all trades and when clients sent me assets in Adobe formats Xara was not up to it, it was imperative to have access to the Adobe Suite, but I gave up my Adobe subscription over a year ago - one year Adobe - clean!

Today Xara seems to have foregone the simple interface that many apps have for building websites and relies on layer conventions, etc, seems convoluted to me. I guess that's what happens if you rely on one program to do everything.

[handrawn]

I remember the time here when hardly a day went by without someone saying words to the effect 'you can do anything in xara', but it was always hype; you can do an awful lot within a given set of project parameters, but 'one program to do everything' does not make as much sense as 'the best tool for the job' - it's like a supermarket, great if it stocks what you want, tough if it doesn't [now i wonder why i thought of that analogy... ]

which is why i don't do websites, I am no good at it...

I toyed with CC PS, thought at one point I would run with it now that my CS2 is getting so long in the tooth, but despite being very impressed with some brush features, I went back to the bought and paid for programs...

[mwenz]

sure, if they are asking for specific program help, but ...

...

lets not even tell everyone photoshop is actually adobe...

You more or less made my point--except the last bit.

Adobe is more than any of its desktop applications. They make more money in other endeavors.

A person asking for help on an Adobe application forum simply wouldn't usually ask for help with their "Adobe." If they did, they would be asked which application if unclear from their request for aid. That mod would, upon receiving an answer or having ferreted out which application the OP is talking about, would move the post to the appropriate forum.

That happens quite a lot on Serif's Affinity application forum...because it often takes specificity to respond properly.

But hey, feel free to not care.

[pauland]

Adobe is more than any of its desktop applications. They make more money in other endeavors.

Tell us more!

I know about the image library, but exactly what else you'll have to tell me.

But hey, feel free to not care.

I won't!

[handrawn]

@ mwenz

we are talking about different things

[mwenz]

Tell us more!
...

Adobe makes gobs of money from other SaaS companies they own that basically track users online and the sales of that data. I think they now own 4 of those companies that are not named anything "Adobe." Other Adobe named SaaS services also make 'em money--what those are is half a mystery but I have a spreadsheet somewhere on a backup that listed them up until 2015, but include the umbrella terms of: Analytics Cloud, Marketing Cloud and Magento Commerce Cloud, as well as Adobe Advertising Cloud. These "cloud services" garner revenue in the billions versus what they make for the roughly 13 million CC users.

Their old standby, licensing PostScript makes 'em a lot of yearly revenue. They own a bazillion patents and make money off the licensing. But there's more.

[pauland]

Adobe makes gobs of money from other SaaS companies they own that basically track users online and the sales of that data. I think they now own 4 of those companies that are not named anything "Adobe." Other Adobe named SaaS services also make 'em money--what those are is half a mystery but I have a spreadsheet somewhere on a backup that listed them up until 2015, but include the umbrella terms of: Analytics Cloud, Marketing Cloud and Magento Commerce Cloud, as well as Adobe Advertising Cloud. These "cloud services" garner revenue in the billions versus what they make for the roughly 13 million CC users.

Their old standby, licensing PostScript makes 'em a lot of yearly revenue. They own a bazillion patents and make money off the licensing. But there's more.

Wow. Thanks for the info.

[mwenz]

You're welcome.

Since 2015 or 2016, Adobe no longer reveals how many CC licenses there are nor its revenue from the same as line items in its accounting. Beginning in 2012/2013 it was holding fairly static at a 10% or so year over year growth. Many/most volume of licensing is to government bodies, educational seats & larger businesses. So realize that the average person doesn't get the volume pricing that governments and larger business do, and educational licensing is pretty inexpensive.

From what I can ascertain the way Adobe is now reporting their revenue for CC desktop applications, it accounts for about 1.5 billion of the 9 billion in revenue as of year's end 2018.