[brookst]

> because it is the industry standard

> Nothing Photoshop does today is special

You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people: that a product's only value is its technical implementation.

Photoshop is sold to businesses. It's value prop is "you will be able to hire anyone and they will be productive day one, which will save a lot of money in training."

People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly and getting the next paying gig. A CPU bound filter is statistical noise compared to having to figure out how some different tool works.

[whywhywhywhy]

> You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people

I work as a creative director, my anger about this is decades of suffering what I consider substandard tools.

> People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly

We definitely do care about our computing power being used to the fullest of it's potential. This is why some of us even do 2D static work in After Effects now because its faster and uses more of the machines power than PS.

[MontagFTB]

Photoshop developer asking: what examples can you give of 2D/static work that performs better in AE over Ps? I'm very curious about your workflow now...

[brookst]

Well I apologize for my presumption. Showing a little of my own frustration as a former engineer, now product person, I suppose.

I'm really curious why you care about using machines to their potential. Is it cost savings from not having to buy a more expensive machine, philosophical dislike or waste, or does it really come down to hours of non-billable time?