The best example of software development is Robert McNeel and Associates Rhino (www.rhino3d.com). They pioneered completely open development and had Rhino in beta for 7 years before they released it. They hosted a forum where users would support one another. Users would download new versions of Rhino that ran for 90 days. Every 90 days you’d simply download another version. The development team would watch the conversations that took place and steer the platform development to support the needs of the users. And they rewrote the app from scratch more than once.

I believe/hope that Adobe is using the lessons of McNeel in developing LightRoom. I don’t want a product designed by committee, like the Pontiac Aztec. I want a product designed by someone with a vision, like Enzo Ferrari did. Ferrari created the car HE wanted, with input by people he respected (F1 drivers).

It would be even closer to the truth if the waiter snatched the menu out of my hands when tried to order and said “Aha, your accent tells me that you’re not from around here. You have to order from the specials menu. It’s exactly the same as the menu you were just looking at and comes from the same kitchen but it’s twice the price!”.

1. All commercial software is created by programmers who almost never use the software. They don’t care what dishes are on the menu and they don’t care where the fork is. They do what they’re told and they build the restaurant the way they’re told to build it. If those instructions result in a confusing restaurant, that’s not their problem. Hell, if they’re in a big company they might not even KNOW they’re working on part of a restaurant.

2. The instructions are given to the programmers are inevitably driven by the marketing department. Newsflash, the people in marketing don’t use the software either. Not only do they not use the software, they don’t understand the technology. All they know is “what’s hot right now”.

Most commercial software is created based on the instructions of ignorant people passed on to indifferent people. That’s why most of it is crap.

The Blurry One

While people like to complain and say that companies like mine don’t listen, the fact is that I’ve seen repeated instances where one customers gripe/suggestion take priority over all of the developers and program managers input. As a consumer, at least with my company for the nearly 14 years I’ve been there, this is how it works. I don’t believe Adobe follows this policy to the same extent we do, but they have to be doing a little bit of listening to their customers otherwise they couldn’t continue to create compelling new releases that cause people to pay the huge upgrade fees they charge.

I am not surprised that some software developers are pissed about this, and the “Scott Kelby” example doesn’t fly with me. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be half the photographer I am without Scott – but industry can’t use the guru response. Here’s what I mean…. there are relatively few people in the guru category that developers can gear changes to.

However, all being said, gurus like Mr. Kelby are the expertise that we all draw from.

So….all aaid – software developers tale note- release a Beta – give lots of opportunities for feedback and develop some metrics to gain the knowledge of the masses…………..

and listen to the Masters like Scott , but also listen to those who Scott gives the greatest advice to!

Theoretically, Agile software development can deal with this but the logistics of producing a product that will be used by millions is very difficult. Most companies refuse to spend the time or money in extensive user testing and proper UX planning. And realize that all development comes with the idea that some bugs are more “acceptable” and can be released anyway. It has to do with the cost/benefit ratio of the features being released.

There are no easy solutions but from this developer’s perspective I think one thing would help: attention to quality. The ideal of craftsmanship has eroded over the decades to being non-existent. I would like to see a revival in caring about what we work on and wanting it to be the best.

From my experience in the software industry, one of the major hurdles with development is that creativity is stifled by the product life-cycle and marketability. You have the guys that know the product inside and out and have a good idea of where they would like to take it to push it to that next level, then you have the company as a whole involving the marketing and research department that are asking questions like “What is the most profitable sweet spot for a product life-cycle?” or “What new feature has that zing to it that will make the most people drool?”. The answer that first question can often hinder the creativity of the product engineers because they are given pretty extreme deadlines that automatically derail a lot of their ideas. The answer to the second question begins an even more vicious cycle: new features are more marketable to Joe Public than fixing or fleshing out old ones->trying to compromise on time spent developing between new feature and fixing old ones->”tacked on” new features, little improvement to old ones->More features that will need to be fleshed out after release while competing with whatever needs to be tacked on to add “zing” to the next release. Many companies are in a vicious cycle with branded titles because that sweet spot for profitable profit life cycle is 1 to 1 1/2 years.

Photoshop actually gets the big dev team because that’s the flagship of Adobe. Consider many of their other titles that get pretty minimalist upgrades between versions because their dev teams are much smaller. I’m not just saying this life-cycle is applicable to Adobe only. In fact, I would say that they are one of the better companies at handling it. I’m just trying to give a glimpse of the pain that most developers go through from a distant view of the company as a whole.

It has been stated in these comments that Adobe’s shortcomings are what keep you in business, but I would think that is a bit of a cynical view. Their shortcomings helped to drive a need for a lot of what is going on at Photoshopuser, but what is here has grown and thrived beyond the satisfying of that need thanks to your vision and hard work.