It's not even hard to handle the easy pieces, let alone requiring reverse engineering! You won't get a bit-for-bit pixel-perfect repro, but who cares? It's not like they have to change the heart of that one random user who used XMP files to transform their penguin into a gorilla that they hashed on the blockchain to get the 90%+ of the other holdouts to jump ship! If they see a random transformation they can't replicate adequately, they can just warn the user. just read the darn file and apply the straightforward stuff as if the user applied them manually! And if users re-adjust the settings, just update these back in the file like Photoshop would. Surely the app can at least alter brightness and contrast. The cases most people care about are astonishingly simple. It's right there in XML, already human-readable in English. The XMP file is just a list of operations. They don't even need to go through the trouble of reverse-engineering for the most common XMP file functionalities people actually want. I don't buy this RE is a gross exaggeration of what's actually going on. > The problem with reverse engineering is that it's a minefield for the business entity, from all viewpoints The best you can count on is compatibility between the different versions of the same software, if the vendor provides it, and you will lose your edits when Adobe goes out of business or decides to cut some backward compatibility. RAW edits in the sidecars in particular simply can't be made compatible between different software, because everybody has their own magic and these files only keep the configuration data for it. There's an objective reason for the poor compatibility with Adobe products, that's not an excuse.Īs I said, you're not wrong - you'll just get stuck with exploitation by Adobe as a result, and the reason is not laziness or excuses by the developers of other software. Large reverse engineering attempts usually end up in a disaster for a business, and suggesting everybody following another company by reverse engineering is just not going to work. The problem with reverse engineering is that it's a minefield for the business entity, from all viewpoints - competition, legal, tech. I am both a "customer" and a developer (and a manager making pipeline decisions in a creative company, in the past). That hasn't even worked for something with consequences as severe as climate change, let alone Adobe's vendor lock-in on Photoshop. You can't burden them with problems in the hope of guilt-tripping them into "but society would be so much better in the coming decades if you ignored your problems". It's just ignoring reality.įinally, customers (at least retail ones) aren't investors or policymakers - they're just customers. Expecting customers to ignore their very real and actual problems and pay for a non-solution just because HNers prefer them to (calling them "sunk costs" or whatever, as you can see in sibling threads), is realistically not possible either. Second, "realistically it's not possible" applies just as well for the flip side. But it's not like this is out of humanity's reach or something. It takes a ton of talent, investment, and dedication, sure. People have accomplished incredible feats of reverse engineering (arguably much harder ones) even in the open-source world - with hardly any compensation. Then how do they expect anything to change?įirst, "realistically it's not possible" isn't obviously true on its face. users are not wrong in requiring impeccable PSD compatibility from other software and can call actual reasons, but realistically it's not possible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |