Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Iphone Software

Photoshop 1.0 Recreated On iPhone 103

Posted by timothy
from the when-time-loops-collide dept.
Dotnaught writes "Photoshop co-creator Russell Brown asked Ansca Mobile to re-create Photoshop 1.0, originally introduced in 1990, for the iPhone. The resulting app, created in three days using the Corona SDK, was distributed to 50 attendees of an event celebrating Photoshop's 20th anniversary. Programmer Evan Kirchhoff in a blog post explains that Ansca took the project on to prove its claims about how Corona makes iPhone development faster."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Photoshop 1.0 Recreated On iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Windows 3.1 will be released for the iPhone. Hrm, that is 2012.

  • by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:04AM (#31215890) Homepage Journal
    Photoshop from exactly 20 years ago - the only way to reliably avoid software patent problems [swpat.org]!
    • by blai (1380673)
      how do patents work in america?
      • by bhtooefr (649901) <<gro.rfeoothb> <ta> <rfeoothb>> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:38AM (#31216076) Homepage Journal

        Expiration is 20 years after patent application or 17 years after patent acceptance, whichever comes last. (That is, you're guaranteed 20 years after filing for the patent, if it's accepted. If it takes more than 3 years to work through the patent office, you're guaranteed 17 years after it's accepted.)

        • I believe that is incorrect. Filers were rigging the system, delaying their patent being approved because they knew they'd be covered during approval and for 17 years after. These were called submarine patents. So they changed the figures to be just 20 years from filing. If it takes 5 years to go through, you get 15 after.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

          • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            You're both right, kinda. 20 years from filing is the base term. But if an application was unreasonably delayed at the PTO, the term can be "adjusted" to compensate the applicant for the delay. Adjustment rules are complicated, but in practice it comes out to the old 17-year term.

          • by tepples (727027)

            I believe that is incorrect. Filers were rigging the system, delaying their patent being approved because they knew they'd be covered during approval and for 17 years after. These were called submarine patents. So they changed the figures to be just 20 years from filing.

            Until recently, most of the notorious software patents mentioned in Slashdot stories were either subsisting or pending as of June 8, 1995. These patents do expire on the later of the two dates, so I see where bhtooefr got the misconception. But as patents filed before June 8, 1995, begin to expire, the rule becomes uniform: filing + 20 years + five more years in the case of FDA-regulated products [wikipedia.org].

      • by SCPRedMage (838040) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:42AM (#31216112)
        Poorly.
      • by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:42AM (#31216116) Homepage Journal

        how do patents work in america?

        Easy. You write something that you think it too long and complicated for a patent examiner to fully undertand in the 17 hours he/she will be allocated. Then it gets granted and for twenty years you can threaten anyone that developers or distributes software that does anything resembling your patent. (You, the writer of a patent, are a protected innovator. Those guys writing software are nasty pirates - watch out!)

        When someone receives your threat letter, they become formally aware of your patent and they now risk triple damages plus paying your lawyers' fees! Win! To avoid this, they could ask their own lawyer for a certificate of non-violation, which costs $40,000. So, if the original letter (which cost 39c to send) asks for $35,000, there's a good chance you'll simply get your money. (As explained by patent attorney Dan Ravicher [swpat.org] in this presentation [pubpat.org])

        Or, you could contest the patent and kill your company by spending 5 years paying legal fees and having a cloud of uncertainty around your business making you untouchable for investors. (As is the case with the 1-click patent [swpat.org])

        But, don't worry, patent law does contain a consideration for the public: the nightmare ends after 20 years, so that's why we're all really excited now about Photoshop 1.0 finally becoming patent-free. I hear there's a great operating system that will be patent-free in 2015!

        • by dangitman (862676)

          I hear there's a great operating system that will be patent-free in 2015!

          BeOS?

        • by feepness (543479)
          I'm sorry, but I have a patent on this patent process.
        • by toriver (11308) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @06:42AM (#31217382)

          You forgot the other way:

          1. You write a confusing patent application that will take two years to process. You submit it in year X.
          2. You keep amending and altering that application every year so the process starts anew. It still shows the X year of filing.
          3. Someone who is actually innovative invents something. You rapidly amend your patent so that it describes that invention.
          4. The patent is eventually awarded, and you sue the actual inventor for infringement because as everyone can see, you held a patent since year X on that particular idea.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by FartKnockerz (1750222)
          how do patents work in america?

          Not very well.
      • by mano.m (1587187)

        how do patents work in america?

        My patent, you cannot has. NOM NOM NOM.

        That pretty much covers it, yeah.

    • But hello copyright violation...and trademark violation...

      • by Evan Kirchhoff (1750362) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @01:51AM (#31216456)
        To be clear, this was done for the official Photoshop anniversary event, and demoed by Russell Brown at that show. The number of copies we gave out afterwards was limited by Apple's ad-hoc install process for iPhone dev accounts. A wider release would obviously involve some lawyers signing off on things, not to mention all the interface style guide violations in putting 1990 Mac UI on iPhone (I have no idea how App Store reviewers would react to that!)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      If you RTFA, it says that the app was commissioned by Adobe.

  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewkNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:06AM (#31215904)

    And my N900 can run the latest and greatest version of the Gimp. Big whoop.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This was created as a "nostalgia app" - it's not meant to actually compete with real mobile image-editing apps. Adobe itself makes a free "Photoshop Mobile" app for iPhone & other smartphones that is quite popular.
  • So now (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:10AM (#31215922)

    you can edit your photos while driving

  • well (Score:5, Funny)

    by drDugan (219551) * on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:22AM (#31215978) Homepage

    I'm surprised it was approved by Apple.

    • by toriver (11308)

      Apparently it wasn't submitted; the app was probably just distributed using ad-hoc distribution, so it will only work for three months.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by mr_lizard13 (882373)
      This is great news!

      A sure sign that Apple will approve the other pending Adobe apps.
  • I've got Doom running on my MP3 player (using the RockBox firmware). The iPhone should be able to do way better than that. That fact it was created in 3 days is very cool though, and shows how far we've advanced in tools and libraries.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Urza9814 (883915)

      The iPhone can do doom, quite easily. And Wolfenstein. And Quake. Hell, my third generation iPod can run Doom - yes, the one with 4 color (white, black, and two grays) screen.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Sulphur (1548251)

        The iPhone can do doom, quite easily. And Wolfenstein. And Quake. Hell, my third generation iPod can run Doom

        We need an iCar app, or we're Doomed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Way to *completely* miss the point.

      It's not that a re-creation of Photoshop 1.0 can run on the iPhone. It's that it look three days to write from scratch. It's a demo of the SDK capabilities, not the iPhone's capabilities.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by grumbel (592662)

        This doesn't look as impressive as it sounds. It seems all the app can do is display a histogram and adjust the levels and then save the result. So its more like a little toy then a full application.

        • Yep, this shouldn't really be called "Photoshop 1.0 Recreated On iPhone".

          I mean, why not just call it "Photoshop CS4 Recreated On iPhone", afterall, CS4 also has the histogram dialogue...

          Link to videodemo:
          http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/AnniversaryiPhone_SM1.mov
    • by ytpete (837953)

      The iPhone (and many other smartphones) can do "way better than that" – take a look: http://mobile.photoshop.com/ [photoshop.com]

      The "Photoshop 1.0" app was not intended to be serious... it was just created for fun to mark Photoshop's 20th anniversary.

  • Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mike Hicks (244) <hick0088@tc.umn.edu> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @12:28AM (#31216016) Homepage Journal

    ...I suppose I'm the only person who wants someone to recreate Claris CAD.

    • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gyrogeerloose (849181) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @01:20AM (#31216344) Journal

      ...I suppose I'm the only person who wants someone to recreate Claris CAD.

      Speaking as someone who was once forced to use Claris CAD daily in his job as a technical illustrator, I'd say "yes."

    • by DarkVader (121278)

      Nope, you're not the only one. I don't care about an iPhone version, I just want a new Mac version.

      For those of you who don't know it, it's the best 2D CAD program I've ever seen. It actually works like a Mac program.

      I did get it running in SheepShaver, btw.

  • Control area (Score:2, Informative)

    by Dan East (318230)

    "How big should touchable areas be? I recall Verizon's mobile style guide recommending nothing smaller than 44 by 44 pixels;"

    I lost a little respect for the developer when I read that. Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI. Considering Verizon doesn't even sell the iPhone, obviously their style guidelines are specific to some other hardware. My HTC has a DPI of 259 versus the iPhone's 163, so a 44x44 pixel area is rendered with vastly different scale from device to device.

    • Re:Control area (Score:5, Informative)

      by Evan Kirchhoff (1750362) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @01:20AM (#31216346)

      I lost a little respect for the developer when I read that. Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI. Considering Verizon doesn't even sell the iPhone, obviously their style guidelines are specific to some other hardware.

      Yeah, I knew I wrote that part a little too quickly! More specifically, Verizon was recommending that figure on circa-2008 guidelines aimed at their earliest iPhone-style touchscreen phone, which had a DPI that was more or less the same as iPhone, so it's a reasonable rough-and-ready number to cite. (I was at Adobe working on FlashCast, aka "Verizon Dashboard", at the time, so I randomly happen to remember that guideline.) The iPhone HIG is obviously a better reference, but in this app it's sort of moot anyway because the real limit was "as much touch area as we can squeeze out of 20-year-old WIMP GUI". If I can figure out how to boil all this into a few words, I'll clarify the article.

    • by pcolaman (1208838)

      "How big should touchable areas be?

      That's what she said

    • Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI.

      Ah, no. Pixels are meaningless because of the screen resolution, which is itself restricted by the DPI. Hence the term "Native Resolution" which is where the DPI matches the number of pixels in the screen resolution. However, the resolution can be set lower, making it so that each pixel is one or more dots.

  • by marciot (598356) on Sunday February 21, 2010 @01:55AM (#31216474)

    Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&W Mac? Seriously? What's the point in that?

    Although, if anyone know where I can find a copy of this for my Mac Plus, let me know...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by FranTaylor (164577)

      I should introduce you to my friends Floyd and Steinberg.

    • Yeah, I was surprised by that too, but if you run the Mini vMac emulator on OSX, Photoshop runs in B&W using halftone patterns to represent colors. Maybe it made sense if the output was destined for the low-DPI monochrome printers in those old Macintosh brochures.

      Also, there were some color Macs in 1990, but System 6 still had the B&W UI (screenshot [wikipedia.org]).

      • Also, there were some color Macs in 1990, but System 6 still had the B&W UI (screenshot [wikipedia.org]).

        Cool. Even though that is a screenshot of a relatively primitive system without much color and at a low resolution, I find it remarkable how little change/progress has occurred in the area of user interface design and the whole "desktop" paradigm. I guess don't fix it if it ain't broke, but it seems odd that we've been using this paradigm for 25+ years now and haven't really seen any competitive alternate interfaces. I can see how the command-line interface endured and will endure for the foreseeable fut

        • by am 2k (217885)

          Uh, I guess you forgot about the iPhone/iPad UI? That's a new virtual desktop-less user interface paradigm right there. I guess you could call it "morphable single-purpose-device metaphor".

          • Uh, I guess you forgot about the iPhone/iPad UI?

            I guess you missed the fact that I'm only talking about general-purpose computers. It's relatively easy designing interfaces for specific applications (ATMs, voting machines, even phones), but we really haven't seen anything remarkable in the usability of personal computers in a long time. Sure, we've seen new input development (mainly touch), but they still stick with the aging desktop paradigm.

    • by ultramk (470198) <ultramkNO@SPAMpacbell.net> on Sunday February 21, 2010 @03:14AM (#31216782)

      Well, yes, it ran ok on an SE/30 if memory serves... however it was mostly only useful on that platform to people doing 2-bit graphics or for someone who was just doing file format conversions... Mind you at the time 2-bit graphics were no laughing matter considering the lack of color output options or existing standards for same. A lot of DTP was output in 2-bit, until people started outputting gray-scale photos etc on laser printers, and there was nearly no electronic publishing method like the www. People forget that it was only well after the IIx came out that 24(and then 32)-bit color was even supported at the system level. It was all 8-bit before that.

      BTW: here are the original sys reqs for PS 1.0.7:
        Macintosh SE, SE/30, II, IIx, IIci, IIcx with a minimum of 2 megabytes of RAM
        System software 6.0.3

      Oddly, the SE had the same 8mhz 68k processor as the Plus, and both were upgradable over the 2MB minimum, so I'm not sure why the Plus was excluded. Might be worth a try.

      • by Inda (580031)
        People don't forget. Some wish they could but early digital images still haunt them.

        It all started 20 years ago at the local secondary school. In the corner of a classroom stood a tripod; a camcorder firmly fixed to the top. The sign merely said "DO NOT TOUCH". Snaking its way across the floor was a wire; a wire whose only job was to carry the sinister image to the machine people called BBC Micro. The monitor showed something familiar, an image of a young girl. A young girl who took everyone's fancy until t
        • by ZosX (517789)

          Did you know that magenta has no visible spectrum? Look it up. I was amazed to find out that magenta isn't even a real color!

      • by edw (10555)
        Two-bit would mean four levels; I think you mean one-bit ie. black and white. Regarding the SE vs. Plus, the SE had a newer/bigger ROM in it than the SE; perhaps this was the factor. I don't think the SE had Color QuickDraw in ROM as the SE/30 did, so that probably wasn't the issue.
      • by ockegheim (808089)
        I remember wondering what you could ever do with a colour display. If I recall, the Mac B&W UI looked better than the colour Windows UI...
    • by jonadab (583620)
      > Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&W Mac? Seriously?
      > What's the point in that?

      Yeah. They should have made it for the PC, and had it require CGA. Then people could have edited four-color pictures in any of three available palettes, with one of the four colors being freely selectable from the full range of sixteen! That would have been so much better.

      Okay, so CGA was pretty well dead by 1990. (Is Photoshop really that young?) Nonetheless, people *did* use image editing software back when CGA
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by WWWWolf (2428)

      Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&W Mac? Seriously? What's the point in that?

      Photoshop was made for the needs of the publishing industry, not specifically photographers. Photographers would want precision and fidelity at every turn, which would definitely limit the program's usefulness, but printers just care that photographs get printed to the paper in a way that it still looks good. In 1990, most of newspapers were black and white. Heck, in 2010, a lot of newspapers are still black and white - printing in one ink is cheaper than printing in four.

      If you want to process photographs

  • That's not Photoshop (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 21, 2010 @02:11AM (#31216534)

    It's a neat tribute, but that's not Photoshop.

    It's just a Photoshop startup screen and a fudged reproduction of the "Levels" tool.

    I don't see that taking 3 days on the project was a great achievement. He could have probably done it using Apple's developer tools in the same time period.

    Again, I'm not poo pooing the idea or execution. It's sweet and I'd enjoy messing with it on my own iPhone. But it's not Photoshop and I don't think that it effectively demonstrates that their product speeds up iPhone development.

    The description implies some advantage in memory-management with that image-swapping and masking going on in the demo, but I'd have to reproduce the demo in Xcode and run the two apps side by side to figure out if that's so and I suspect that for an app of that modest complexity any difference that would make would be imperceptible on all but the earliest iPhones.

    • by commodoresloat (172735) * on Sunday February 21, 2010 @03:31AM (#31216848)

      You're right; that's not real Photoshop at all. It's clearly photoshopped.

    • by mobby_6kl (668092)

      Yeah, that's not very impressive at all. Especially since I've used Pocket Artist [conduits.com] on my WM PDA years ago, which is probably on the level of Photoshop 4 in terms of features, and actually supports PSD files. Here's video demo [youtube.com]. The 3-day thing doesn't help either, the same could be certainly done in Visual Studio in the same time frame, if not faster.

    • I'm reminded of that recent story of people selling faked "Iphones". Those people were mocked, yet it seems people are happy to have a fake photoshop to run on their Iphones...

    • by GlenRaphael (8539)
      Have you looked at their sample code? The apps people have put in the App store so far using this stuff aren't very good yet but the general approach looks promising.

      As a former Newton developer, I found developing for iPhone so tedious and needlessly complex that it just wasn't fun. It's great that the iPhone SDK is free, but I'd rather pay hundreds of dollars for it in exchange for a decent development experience. The Newton Toolkit was something like $700 but worth every penny in terms of the amount of

  • by Nyder (754090)

    Steve Jobs must be hating Adobe now.

    Them with their old tech, trying to bring it to new tech.

  • ..is always much faster than for the first.

  • I have updated all my filter-lists several times, but this article still shows up.
    • by Ant P. (974313)

      You can block stories by slashdot editor name, you know. The only drawback to blocking ads that way is that CowboyNeal doesn't post articles to the front page all that often.

  • Ironically, Windows Mobile has had a pretty good Photoshop workalike for most of the past decade as Pocket Artist [conduits.com]. On-device editing of PSDs included, along with layers, IPTC/EXIF, brushes, and so on. It's a pretty good demonstration for why there are in fact some compelling use cases for resistive screens with pinpoint accuracy stylii, despite what the capacitive screen absolutists believe.

    For the record, years ago Aldus Superpaint was superior to Photoshop for several years on the Mac. It was more respons

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...