[ManuelKiessling]

This is only a tangential question, but anyway: I‘ve read several years ago that since around Photoshop version 4, 99% of the work is about keeping the application UI usable with all these new features, and not about „hard“ technical challenges within the features themselves. Is that true?

[jacobolus]

That sounds plausible. Most of the features are kind of gimmicky bolt-ons added piecemeal and not really integrated with each-other. They make for cool 10-second demos but then most users ignore them because they aren't part of a coherent system. The result is a menu after menu of gimmicks, like a cabinet of hyper-specialized kitchen tools bought from infomercials. There has been limited product vision about the core abstractions and their basic composability. If you give a skilled user a photoshop version from the early 2000s they'll largely be able to do what they need, because there hasn't really been much fundamental innovative improvement in the past ~25 years.

[ndiddy]

Microsoft actually does a fairly good job with this. Here's a part of a talk that goes over a single feature in PowerPoint (a slide animation that morphs the contents of one slide into a different slide) and demonstrates how this feature interacts with the enormous existing PowerPoint feature set in interesting ways. https://youtu.be/_3loq22TxSc?t=1409 It's obviously a stupid gimmicky feature but whatever team Microsoft put on it were clearly overachievers.

[esafak]

Thanks for sharing that fascinating video! It seems like a fair bit of work went into it. One criticism I have is that it is undiscoverable and opaque; it is not obvious how it is going to behave. I wonder how many users are aware of it.

[MontagFTB]

There is a lot of effort put in to making the application usable, no question. At the same time, we have added a litany of new features and tools since Photoshop 4, many of which I would describe as extremely technically challenging.