Besides whether the issue he's addressing is real or not (i dont agree with him), this is not the way to address the company you work for and i would completely agree with Adobe if they do fire him for this.
I wouldn't fire him but I would ask that he be a little more informed on how modern technology works before going on a rant about it. Especially when he aims his complaints at his own company. There are REASONS for some programs to load slow, it's not like everyone is competing for the slowest loading software.
He adressed nothing beyond his hate for the splash screen, which has seen its time imo, but nonetheless has nothing on many of the other features and tools that Adobe puts out when it comes to bloat.
If Adobe really cared about the user, they don't because they own the brand name synonymous with image manipulation, they would at least make an attempt to tailor the application to the specific user's needs, not the user base as a whole. But they don't have to and will keep doing what they deem good for them until a real challenger appears. And then they'll buy them or sue them into oblivion.
I'm not sure how they would "tailor the application to the specific user's needs" as it would be clearly impractical to develop different versions for each of their millions of customers.
Photoshop (for example) is pretty extensible and has support for plugins as well as scripting capabilities etc, not sure what else you want?
Also part of the reason that adobe is the industry standard is that their applications are consistant and a designer who hops jobs can easily get upto speed in a new environment without having to learn a completely new tool.
are you assuming that every time a developer switches job, he or she has to learn a new IDE. Life isn't like that.
It's not impractical to assume that a user will use a specific subset of all of the tool offerings and doesn't need or use all of what the application has to offer. The app should be able to develop a profile based on what the user actually does with it instead of forcing all of the functionality onto them.
But Adobe makes a lot of money with their product, has no competitors of note and therefore doesn't have to change the way they do business because even if their subsequent releases fail to impress their user base, they're still going to sell licenses.
The problem is that beforehand you don't necessarily know which features you are going to need to use. I am constantly discovering new useful features in most of the programs I use, having to install plugins for every feature I wanted to use would quickly become a pain , hamper discoverablity and the program would probably just end up back where it started in terms of size.
Besides when you have a program with a long load time, this is not necessarily correlated with the number of features, it's more likely that it's some core part of the program that is taking a good chunk of the initialization time.
The consistency argument is important, especially to anyone who has ever worked on telephone tech support. Being able to give somebody instructions on how to perform an action without having to worry about which of the 1000s of possible configurations their program is in is important.
This is probably one of the big reasons desktop Linux never took off.
Most professional programs like IDEs or photoshop are intended to be used by professional users anyway who will be likely to have a reasonably fast computer and will have invested some time in learning to operate the program properly.
Adobe has actually had quite a few competitors over the years, currently there are programs like PixelMator and in the past they have had JASC , Corel, Macromedia (until they bough them) and of course GIMP to contend with.
Based on what you're writing, I detect that you have little experience in a [pro-level] multi-discipline working environment and you're assumptions are at best broad guesses.
GIMP to contend with? Adobe could give two shits about that app, its user base and the Linux community in general.
