[jkrltifk]

Adobe actually did extensive market study regarding a PS Linux port. The conclusion was that there is basically zero demand for a PAID Photoshop. People do want PS on Linux,but they want a FREE version (sudo apt-get install photoshop)

[vunie]

zero demand for a PAID Photoshop? If that's what the study really concluded then it completely failed to take into account current customers who want to switch to linux.

I would love to read more about that study.

[jakobmi]

"current customers who would switch to linux". Again, this is 0 incremental revenue but a ton of incremental costs to Adobe.

[vunie]

Adobe moved to a subscription model. They lose revenue as they lose customers.

[closeparen]

If you need Photoshop, you'll stay on platforms where it's supported. If you don't, you'll probably not pay for it anyway.

[vunie]

> If you need Photoshop, you'll stay on platforms where it's supported.

Sure, but your customers will resent you for it and search for alternatives. Vendor lock-in is not a good long term strategy. Competition will eventually catch up.

> If you don't, you'll probably not pay for it anyway.

This is speculation on your part.

[jkrltifk]

Maybe I should have said low exclusive Linux demand. Current customers are already paying, and ditching Photoshop is not a credible threat, at least at the moment.

[waste_monk]

People will always say they want free Thing over paid Thing, and it doesn't matter what OS's you support - piracy will happen in any case. But if people are going to be using Photoshop anyway, having linux support would be good.

I think it would come down to convenience - even if it was still paid software, having it as an apt/yum/whatever repository and either having it prompt for licensing / seek out a FlexLM server / etc. on launch would be great for linux users. Even better if if you could just apt-get install adobe-cs (or whatever it's called now) as a metapackage and let it pull in photoshop et al. as individual subpackages that could be updated independently instead of massive multi-gig monolith packages.

[iudqnolq]

Is this publicly available info?

[jkrltifk]

Probably not. However this subject has been discused many times on their community forums, just google it.

[iudqnolq]

Thank you. Here's one official response I found, if others are interested.

> Again, we've done the research. The profits aren't there -- very few Linux users are willing to pay for commercial software.

> And the cost of entry is still high because of the fragmented Linux landscape.

> The Linux world has to change before commercial software will have reason to invest in Linux ports.

> And we haven't seen much real change in the Linux market in several years.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160321232350/https://forums.ad...

Edit notice: I completely overwrote the initial version of this comment, which said I couldn't find these posts, because I realized I was using the wrong search time terms and found what parent mentioned.

[mehhh]

Appimage has solved the distribution on Linux problem, software packaged as Appimages are as easy to run as an exe on Windows, and no additional software is required (unlike Flatpak & Snap).

[iudqnolq]

The forum comment is from 10 years ago. I have no idea if it still (or ever) accurately describes Abobe's internal decision-making. I do not and have never worked for Adobe, so regardless of the merits of your assertions I can't change anything.

That said, if I had to make an assumption about Adobe's perspective, I'd assume that the position of many linux users that desktop software shouldn't require a recurring subscription was (and is) the main obstacle from Adobe's perspective, not distribution.

[hellozee]

Not completely, unfortunately, :(

[LargoLasskhyfv]

They could distribute it over Steam. Problem solved.