<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Adobe to Release &#8220;Light&#8221; Online Version of Photoshop</title> <atom:link href="http://cybernetnews.com/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://cybernetnews.com/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/</link> <description>Technology News</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 22:30:04 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Ryan</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89237</link> <dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 23:11:31 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/03/01/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89237</guid> <description>&lt;div id=&quot;commentquote&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-89222&quot;&gt;Ajay wrote:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Photoshop is definitely quite expensive. But, if you have a &quot;lighter&quot; version which does atleast 1/10th of the full versions functionality, or lets you do major basic editting then it would definitely be worth using.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/div&gt; I definitely agree with you there, but I have a feeling it will be hard for Adobe to go beyond what some online applications currently offer. Even from the decent list of sites that are currently offering photo editing capabilities I still haven&#039;t found an online one that feels like a desktop application. Maybe Adobe can step up and surprise me, but I have strong doubts that they are going to break the mold.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="commentquote"><a href="#comment-89222">Ajay wrote:</a><br /><blockquote>Photoshop is definitely quite expensive. But, if you have a &#8220;lighter&#8221; version which does atleast 1/10th of the full versions functionality, or lets you do major basic editting then it would definitely be worth using.</p></blockquote></div><p>I definitely agree with you there, but I have a feeling it will be hard for Adobe to go beyond what some online applications currently offer. Even from the decent list of sites that are currently offering photo editing capabilities I still haven&#8217;t found an online one that feels like a desktop application. Maybe Adobe can step up and surprise me, but I have strong doubts that they are going to break the mold.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ajay</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89222</link> <dc:creator>Ajay</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:06:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/03/01/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89222</guid> <description>Photoshop is definitely quite expensive. But, if you have a &quot;lighter&quot; version which does atleast 1/10th of the full versions functionality, or lets you do major basic editting then it would definitely be worth using.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Photoshop is definitely quite expensive. But, if you have a &#8220;lighter&#8221; version which does atleast 1/10th of the full versions functionality, or lets you do major basic editting then it would definitely be worth using.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ryan</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89211</link> <dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:49:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/03/01/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89211</guid> <description>&lt;div id=&quot;commentquote&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-89198&quot;&gt;The Slasher wrote:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Having it online just doesn&#039;t make sense to me.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/div&gt; Exactly what I was thinking...people who are familiar with Photoshop will not want to use a stripped down online version because there is no way it could be as powerful. I&#039;m pretty confident that it won&#039;t offer anything more than current photo editors.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="commentquote"><a href="#comment-89198">The Slasher wrote:</a><br /><blockquote>Having it online just doesn&#8217;t make sense to me.</p></blockquote></div><p>Exactly what I was thinking&#8230;people who are familiar with Photoshop will not want to use a stripped down online version because there is no way it could be as powerful. I&#8217;m pretty confident that it won&#8217;t offer anything more than current photo editors.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ashley</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89201</link> <dc:creator>Ashley</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 06:18:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/03/01/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89201</guid> <description>It doesn&#039;t really make sense to me either, especially because it&#039;s going to be a &quot;lighter&quot; version.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It doesn&#8217;t really make sense to me either, especially because it&#8217;s going to be a &#8220;lighter&#8221; version.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: The Slasher</title><link>http://cybernetnews.com/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89198</link> <dc:creator>The Slasher</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:11:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2007/03/01/adobe-to-release-light-online-version-of-photoshop/#comment-89198</guid> <description>Having it online just doesn&#039;t make sense to me.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having it online just doesn&#8217;t make sense to me.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching using disk: basic
Object Caching 243/264 objects using disk: basic

Served from: cybernetnews.com @ 2012-05-25 16:25:43 -->
