Ulysses and the subscription model

Ulysses review are evenly divided between five stars and one.
We wanted table support and the ability to create custom CSS files. We got a subscription model.

 

The life cycle of software — as exemplified by Photoshop — is:

  1. A new program with an unfamiliar UI but incredibly useful features attracts a devoted following.
  2. The devoted followers evangelize the product they love to more people. For a while.
  3. The developers stop adding new features that anyone cares about and add a subscription model when people stop buying new licenses.

Here’s what I want(ed) from Ulysses:

  • Tables.
  • Better ways of managing images. E.g. the ability to browse all images within a given “folder” and update, export, replace, rename, or locate them.
  • Simpler ways to create custom styles. E.g. the ability to make a document style-guide compliant for a given purpose (such as APA).

There’s other stuff but it’s much lower priority.

Instead what we get is a subscription model and no new features I care about. Indeed, the announcement on the Ulysses web site explains how the subscription model allows them to offer a free trial while the blog post on the subject tells me that they didn’t take this decision lightly, but nowhere do I see anything that helps me — someone who has paid for the iOS and Mac versions and hasn’t seen any useful features added in years. But I do get a discount for subscribing to a product I already fucking paid for.

No thank you.

Post Script: out of a sense of hopefulness and fairness and not wanting to be horribly wrong, I downloaded the new version.

The discount for existing owners is 25%. I.e. $30/year vs $40.

I found one nice bug fix — if you search for something and then edit a file found by searching, it doesn’t whisk the file away and lose context if you delete the search term while editing.

Also there’s a nice new feature — inline image previews. Long overdue but also not that well-implemented.

Uninstalled.

Followup…

I emailed Ulysses support and whined a bit along the lines above and was told that adding table-of-contents generation, a table editor, and an image editor were high on their “to-do” list, and if I subscribed I could vote for features.

(I noted in my reply to their reply that I don’t want an image editor. I have image editors. I want image management.)

 

So, I’m kind of torn. I like indie software developers. I like Ulysses quite a bit, despite its sluggish progress. $30 isn’t much money (although it is, ugh, a subscription).

I’ll think further on it.

A better RAW workflow for $35

Processed and cropped in RAWPower
Processed and cropped in RAWPower

As my frequent reader knows, I have been grappling with my RAW workflow for as long as I have had a RAW workflow. I’m hardly a pro or even much of an enthusiast, and I find dealing with all these files exhausting (it also consumes a stupid amount of disk space, etc.)

A user of Photoshop since it was called Barneyscan, and Illustrator since it was 88, I’ve been ambivalent about Adobe’s products ever since they started renting them; this was actually before they switched to monthly fees — the Creative Suites essentially forced you to upgrade on a constant basis simply to not have your software mysteriously stop launching when Adobe’s authentication servers were down.

Today, despite paying Adobe’s tax (albeit the lesser “Photographer’s” tax of $100/year) I remain unhappy with their products. Lightroom is slow, constantly wants patching, requires me to sign in (often more than once) to Adobe’s stupid services just to launch, and on and on. But, until recently, I had no credible alternative that was fast and produced even vaguely decent results.

But now there are two inexpensive, lightweight products that together may mean I don’t need Adobe’s crap any more (I’ll get back to you!):

A quick press of the P key and I can see that I nailed focus on the grass
A quick press of the P key and I can see that I nailed focus on the grass

FastRawViewer — endorsed by no less than Thom Hogan and Nasim Mansurov — is a terrific program that does exactly what it says on the can. It’s simple and lets you browse and rate photos really, really fast. You can customize its keyboard shortcuts to your pleasure (e.g. I have ratings mapped to the 0-5 keys, and P toggles high pass filtering so you can see exactly what, if anything, is in focus without pixel-peeping. Rather than having its own proprietary catalog system, it leverages your file system and XMP metadata (“sidecar” files that are compatible with Lightroom if that still floats your boat). It costs $20, you can get it here.

RAWPower lets me make RAW adjustments, straighten, and crop faster than I can launch Photoshop
RAWPower lets me make RAW adjustments, straighten, and crop faster than I can launch Photoshop

RAWPower — developed by former Aperture engineers (or a former Aperture engineer; I’m not sure) — gives you most of Aperture’s non-destructive RAW processing in a fast, lightweight app that also provides the same functionality via Apple’s Photos app. I like the Photos app except for the whole slower-than-treacle-in-a-walled-garden thing, so there’s that too. It costs $15 in the App Store. My only issue with RAWPower is that its crop-and-rotate tool is clumsy if you want to both crop AND rotate, which I usually do (and I’ve been told that addressing this issue is a priority).

(If you’re a Windows user, FastRawViewer is still great, but RAWPower is Mac only.)

FastRawViewer lets me view a folder with thousands of RAW files with no waiting (just dragging the folder info Lightroom, Photos, or Aperture would be agony), and RAWPower lets me adjust exposure, shadow recovery, straightening, and so forth faster and just as competently as Lightroom. (Photoshop still wins for any major surgery, obviously — RAWPower has no dodge, burn, layers, healing brush, perspective correction, stitching, etc.)

Affinity Photo — First Impressions

Affinity Photo in action

Note: if you’re interested in using Affinity Photo for processing RAW photos (i.e. its “non-destructive workflow”) you’re probably going to be horribly disappointed. See my followup article.

Affinity Photo has just come out of beta and is being sold for a discounted price of $40 (its regular price will be $50). As with Affinity Designer, it’s well-presented, with an attractive icon and a dark interface that is reminiscent of late model Adobe Creative Cloud and Apple Pro software. So, where does it fit in the pantheon of would-be Photoshop alternatives?

In terms of core functionality, it appears to fit in above Acorn and below Photoline. In particular, Photoline supports HDR as well as 16-bit and LAB color, while Affinity Photo lacks support for HDR editing. Unless you work with HDR (and clearly not many people do) then Affinity Designer is both less expensive than Photoline, and far more polished in terms of the features it does support.

Affinity Designer supports non-destructive import of RAW files. When you open a RAW file you enter “Develop” mode where you can perform adjustments to exposure, curves, noise, and so forth on the RAW data before it gets converted to 8- or 16-bit RGB. Once you leave Develop mode, you can return and second-guess your adjustments (on a layer-by-layer basis). This alone is worth the price of admission, and leaves Acorn, Pixelmator, and Photoline in the dust.

In essence you get the non-destructive workflow of Lightroom and the pixel-manipulation capabilities of Photoshop in a single package, with the ability to move from one to the other at any point in your workflow. Let me repeat that — you can “develop” your raw, go mess with pixels in the resulting image, then go back and second-guess your “develop” settings (while retaining your pixel-level manipulations) and so on.

This feature isn’t quite perfect. E.g. you can’t go back and second-guess a crop, and vector layer operations, such as text overlays, get reduced to a “pixel” layer if you go back to develop mode. But it’s a big step in the right direction and for a lot of purposes it’s just dandy.

This is just my first impressions, but there are some things that could be better.

Affinity Photo provides adjustment layers, live filter layers, filters, and layer effects — in many cases providing multiple versions of the same filter in different places. Aside from having functionality scattered and in arbitrary buckets, you get several different user interfaces. This is a mess, and it is a direct result of copying Photoshop’s crazy UI (accumulated over decades of accumulated functionality) rather than having a consolidated, unified approach the way Acorn does.

At first I thought Affinity Photo didn’t support layer styles, but it does. Unfortunately you can’t simply copy and paste layer styles (the way you can in Photoshop and Acorn), so the workflow is a bit more convoluted (you need to create a style from a selection and then apply it elsewhere — often you just want to copy a style from A to B without creating a reusable (or linked) style so this is a bit unfortunate).

I really like the fact that the RGB histogram gives a quick “approximate” view but shows a little warning symbol on it. When you click it, it does a per-pixel histogram (quite quickly, at least on my 24MP images).

I don’t see any support for stitching images, so if that’s important to you (and it’s certainly very important to landscape photographers) then you’ll need to stick with Adobe, or specialized plugins or software.

It also seems to lack smart resize and smart delete or Photoshop’s new motion blur removal functions. (Photoline also does smart delete and smart resize.)

Anyway, it’s a great first release, and definitely fulfills the promise of the public betas. It seems to me that it’s a more solid overall effort than Affinity Designer was when first released, and I’m probably a more demanding user of Photoshop-like programs than I am of Illustrator-like programs. I can understand the desire to provide a user interface familiar to Adobe products even at the cost of making them unnecessarily confusing and poorly organized, but I hope that sanity prevails in the long run.

Bottom line: a more complete and attractive package than either Photoline or Acorn (its most credible competitors) and better in some ways than Photoshop.

Node-Webkit Development

I’m in the process of porting RiddleMeThis from Realbasic (er Xojo) to Node-Webkit (henceforth nw). The latest version of nw allows full menu customization, which means you can produce pretty decently behaved applications with it, and they have the advantage of launching almost instantly and being able to run the same codebase everywhere (including online and, using something like PhoneGap, on mobile). It has the potential to be cross-platform nirvana.

Now, there are IDEs for nw, but I’m not a big fan of IDEs in general, and I doubt that I’m going to be converted to them any time soon. In the meantime, I’ve been able to knock together applications using handwritten everything pretty damn fast (as fast as with Realbasic, for example, albeit with many of the usual UI issues of web applications).

Here’s my magic sauce — a single shell script that I simply put in a project directory and double-click to perform a build:

DIR="$( cd "$( dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" )" && pwd )"
echo "$DIR"
cd "$DIR"
pwd
zip app.nw *.html package.json *.png *.js *.css *.map
mv app.nw ../node-webkit.app/Contents/Resources/
cp nw.icns ../node-webkit.app/Contents/Resources/
cp info.plist ../node-webkit.app/Contents/
open ../node-webkit.app

What this shell script does is set the working directory to the project directory, zip together the source files and name the archive app.nw, and then move that, the icon, and the (modified) info.plist into the right place (assuming the node-webkit app is in the parent directory), and launch it. This basically takes maybe 2s before my app is running in front of me.

info.plist is simply copied from the basic nw app, and modified so that the application name and version are what I want to appear in the about box and menubar.

This is how I make sure the standard menus are present (on Mac builds):

var gui = require('nw.gui'),
    menubar = new gui.Menu({ type: 'menubar' });
if(process.platform === 'darwin'){
    menubar.createMacBuiltin(appName);
}
gui.Window.get().menu = menubar;

And finally, to enable easy debugging:

if(dev){
    var debugItem = new gui.MenuItem({ label: 'Dev' }),
        debugMenu = new gui.Menu(),
        menuItem;
    debugItem.submenu = debugMenu;
    menubar.append(debugItem);
    menuItem = new gui.MenuItem({ label: "Open Debugger" });
    debugMenu.append(menuItem);
    menuItem.click = function(){
        gui.Window.get().showDevTools();
    }
}

So with a few code snippets you get a Mac menubar (where appropriate), a Dev menu (if dev is truthy) and a single double-click to package and build your application in the blink of an eye. You can build your application with whatever Javascript / HTML / CSS combination suits you best.

Obviously, you don’t get a real “native” UI (but the next best thing is a web UI, since people expect to deal with web applications on every platform), and this isn’t going to be a great way to deliver performant applications that do heavy lifting (e.g. image processing), but it’s very easy to orchestrate command-line tools, and of course the chrome engine offers a ridiculous amount of functionality out of the box.

I should mention that Xojo is actually quite capable of producing decent Cocoa applications these days. (It sure took a while.) But its performance is nowhere near nw in practical terms. For example, C3D Buddy is able to load thousands of PNGs in the blink of an eye; the equivalent Xojo application is torpid. Now if I were doing heavy lifting with Javascript, perhaps it would tilt Xojo’s way, but it’s hard to think of just how heavy the lifting would need to get.

Dropbox vs. Box vs. HubiC

Edit: Brain Fart — I seem to have omitted about a paragraph of pertinent information.

I’ll assume you all know what Dropbox is. If you don’t, go get Dropbox now. It’s free and it’s awesome.

The only downside of Dropbox is that if you want more than the 2GB of storage you get for free, it gets more expensive, and the upper limit on how much you can store is (for practical purposes) quite low. Personally, I haven’t found either of these an issue — but thanks to my link on opensourcemac.com, I have a pretty huge “free” account. But it would be awesome to have something like Dropbox that was so big I could just stop managing what I keep on it altogether (of course, this is the problem with stuff that’s free — you waste it).

Box.com has been around about as long as Dropbox (heck, it has an even better domain name, right?) but has been targeted at the enterprise.

hubiC.com (their capitalization) I just found out about via Hacker News. It offers more free storage than Dropbox, but not quite as much as Box, and vastly cheaper paid plans, including about $140/year for 10TB. (I’m not sure how you can actually get 10TB into it, short of using a ZFS or Drobo style multi-disk volume.)

2GB vs 50GB vs 25GB

This is how much storage you get for free.

$100/year for 100GB vs. $10/month for 100GB vs. $13.60/year for 100GB (or $136/month for 10TB)

Edit: I’ve corrected the costs for HubiC.

This is how much it costs for more storage. Box gives you — by far — the most free storage but gets more expensive than Dropbox (while offering various enterprisey features). HubiC is insanely cheaper than both of them. By way of comparison, iCloud costs $20/year for 20GB, so in terms of dollars per unit storage, only HubiC is a better deal. In terms of useful features out of the box, Dropbox support is built into far more programs while iCloud offers useful functionality (notably over-the-air backups of devices and integration with Apple products) to Mac and iOS users that no other platform can (currently) match.

For Android users, the iCloud equivalent is Google Drive, which gives you 15GB free, and costs $60/year for 100GB, making it a bit cheaper (and less useful) than Dropbox.

Mac OS X Integration

All three programs appear as folders in your home directory by default, and stick shortcuts to themselves in Finder’s sidebar. Having installed HubiC and then Box after installing Dropbox, Box was very flaky when first installed. Its installer provided no feedback, and the first few times I tried to launch the application nothing seemed to happen, followed by weird broken delayed launches. Once I’d patiently killed a bunch of Box.app instances and started over it worked well.

Box and Dropbox have similar levels of Finder integration — they indicate the state of files and provide context menu items for sharing links. HubiC appears not to do anything like this, unfortunately.

All three applications provide status menus — those icons that appear in the menubar to the left of the Spotlight magnifying glass. I should note that HubiC’s icon looks like a shapeless blue blob — a blue cloud? — which is an anti-feature. The status menus of all three seem to be perfectly fine and offer decent functionality. Oddly enough, Box and Dropbox no longer keep you apprised of your usage level whereas HubiC does.

Box has one glaring defect — it won’t sync Mac OS X “bundles” (i.e. directories masquerading as files). I have no idea why — they’re just directories. It tells you to zip them up first (gee, how about doing it yourself?)

All three services offer support for all the usual platforms — although I can’t comment on how good any of them are (except the Dropbox client for iOS is decent, and all three work decently in a web browser, although HubiC’s in-browser account management is awful). I cannot yet comment on the security of Box or HubiC. Dropbox offers, and I use, two-factor authentication, and I’m pretty sure HubiC does not (but its website is pretty hard to navigate so maybe it’s there somewhere).

Conclusion

If you just want some free storage and don’t mind not being able to sync bundles then Box is a better deal than Dropbox and it’s probably quite robust given the money behind it. If you’re already using Dropbox and don’t need more storage, Box does not work as well so unless you want its enterprisey features (and you know who you are) you might as well stick with Dropbox. I can’t really comment on HubiC until I’ve exercised it by, saying syncing a buttload of RAW files to it (if I’m going to get more cloud storage, I want enough of it to not need more than one service). If you’re interested, HubiC is a damn good deal for free and it works side-by-side with the others. If it turns out to deliver the goods, I may well end up buying a 10TB plan and switching to it from Crashplan.