The article wouldn't exist if you didn't think it mattered, just tell us why.
> the question is not whether they got a good deal. The question is
Who said that was the question?
> This Is Not One Company's Problem
Who said it was?
Stop telling us what thing aren't, just speak like a normal human and convey your own thoughts. It's an insult to your audience to throw constant AI slop at them.
> thousands of companies have woven AI subscriptions deep into their operations. Marketing teams draft copy through ChatGPT Plus.
> Shipping software is in perennial tension between getting it perfect and getting it out the door.
First do no harm. Changing functionality that works is not in tension with getting regressions out the door. Assure it is working before shipping by hiring testers that use the product to the level or extent of most users.
> We do use Photoshop (though not to the level or extent of most users) and noticed the regressions.
Is there something you want to tell us about management? This is crazy, if what you mean is you know you broke this for power users but shipped it anyways, or that you don't have power-users on payroll to constantly test your product that you can call "part of the team".
Obviously they should have a few power users on payroll that find these obvious regressions quickly, and we can call them part of the team who make Photoshop. I'm not sure why this, and what the lead scientist said is valid justification. Just hire "people that use Photoshop". If they already do this, then the people that make Photoshop use Photoshop to a sufficient degree.
But moreover, if one has developed Photoshop for 15 years, I'm pretty sure they are aware of power user table-stakes features.
And then one more point:
> Why?
Because that's what it takes to develop high quality software tools. This shouldn't even be up for debate when charging money for software.
What was the point of this upgrade? Do you not actually use Photoshop yourself, or have people on your team that use Photoshop? Aside from the mea culpa and assurance it will be fixed, user deserve an explanation for why this basic, obvious buggy functionality wasn't discovered immediately during development? Like seriously, you should explain yourself.
Because it's been a massively expensive failure. They can't just will their own platform into existence just because it would be good to have, consumers have a say and they've rejected it completely.
I'm building an immediate mode GUI Win32 app on top of Windows.UI.Composition visuals, maybe building up a library with it along the way. Just a hobby project / experiment. I hate this problem [0] so I went down a rabbit hole trying to solve it.
Why would you be a useful target market for a business running these services then? Seriously, if you can't pay anything at all, of what value is catering product offerings to you? It is thus irrelevant that you aren't happy with not being offered a free service.
Who said it was?
> Pull out the napkin. This matters.
The article wouldn't exist if you didn't think it mattered, just tell us why.
> the question is not whether they got a good deal. The question is
Who said that was the question?
> This Is Not One Company's Problem
Who said it was?
Stop telling us what thing aren't, just speak like a normal human and convey your own thoughts. It's an insult to your audience to throw constant AI slop at them.
> thousands of companies have woven AI subscriptions deep into their operations. Marketing teams draft copy through ChatGPT Plus.
Yea I bet you do..