Comments

1. hitmouse

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 10:22AM  

   And where do folks from outside UK/EU/US buy it? Since it's just a download I don't see why I can't buy it from Australia using regular online credit-card controls.
2. Ceinach

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 10:51AM  

   Doesn't Picassa already do this for free? You can also do movies, slideshows, crop, and even upload them easily to share for free.

   Could you please explain what the differences are that would justify a $20 ($40 UK) purchase over already existing free software that does more?

   I'm confused.
3. Blair

   

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 12:48PM  

   I had the same thought about Picasa offering free collages. However, Auto Collage 2008 is far more powerful. Easy to use, hard to describe. You really ought to check it out.
4. Ceinach

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 3:16PM  

   You've still lost me. How is it more powerful?

   Can I make a movie with it? No.

   Can I just drag and dropinto the collage? No.

   Can I quickly grab a screenshot of a presentation to add? No.

   Does it watermark? No.

   Can I upload them and sync my albums? No.

   Is there a side-by-side feature comparison that would show us why Autocollage is more powerful or where it handles features and tasks that Picasa currently does not? The only reason I can see not to use Picassa is because it's associated with Google and Microsoft doesn't want anything to do with Google. That, however, is not a reason that I care about.
5. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 3:50PM  

   Ceinach, you are free to try AutoCollage 2008 for 30 days and compare it to Picasa. I don't use Picasa so I can't compare. There is no side-by-side comparison I know of.

   AutoCollage 2008 is a powerful application designed simply to create collages. I've begun creating some fairly intense and large collages with this application which is pretty neat. Not sure I would want to use this application to grab a screenshot of a presentation or add a watermark as I can do that with other apps.

   I explained why this application is sold above. I will repeat here: by charging for this application - this allows the Cambridge incubation team to dedicate significant amount of work to making it rock for consumers. There is no revenue stream for this app such as with ads and what not. It also allows the team to invest in perhaps implementing the features (such as the ones you mention above) it doesn't have today in later versions.

   If you already use something that meets your needs than perhaps this app isn't for you. However others may find it extremely useful.

   - Brandon
6. Ceinach

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 4:19PM  

   Brandon,

   Nobody at Microsoft thought to perform a side-by-side feature comparison of the two products? Interesting.

   In any case, I have tried both. I've also watched the demos and I simply can't see any feature or reason to use AutoCollage over Picasa. From what I see, Picasa trumps Autocollage in every area for my needs and I don't have to pay for it. If there was a feature I'm missing that is better, I'm not seeing it and Microsoft isn't pointing it out to me either.
7. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 4:55PM  

   Ceinach, not every product has a side-by-side comparison ;-) I actually am not sure what the thought process is with the folks who worked on AutoCollage 2008 on product marketing, I just blogged about the release and where to get it etc. I throw the product comparison feedback their way though.

   I just tried Picasa and for me AutoCollage 2008 handles taking in 50+ photos and making a collage much better than Picasa does. AutoCollage 2008 is faster and quality seems a lot better, but that's just my initial thoughts.

   - Brandon
8. freibooter

   
   Posted on: September 04, 2008 at 11:45PM  

   I'm a little confused.

   After almost two years we have yet to see a really useful Windows Ultimate Extra.

   Now an almost interesting piece of software that a lot of people thought might eventually become an Ultimate Extra is released ...

   Just NOT as an Ultimate Extra ...

   but at a very steep price tag (£19.90 = $35.00 in the UK!) for such a one trick pony ...

   with senseless regional restrictions on a digital distribution download, even if people were willing to pay for it ...

   and all that while Google's Picasa does almost the same thing for free and about a thousand other useful things at the same time.

   That sounds like a genius way to alienate existing customer even further.

   I really wonder who the target market for such an application might be.

   "I just tried Picasa and for me AutoCollage 2008 handles taking in 50+ photos and making a collage much better than Picasa does. AutoCollage 2008 is faster and quality seems a lot better, but that's just my initial thoughts."

   Have you tried Picasa 3 or the old 2.7?

   Honestly, I just compared the trial to Picasa 3 and I don't see a notable difference in quality. And while I'm sure your time is very valuable, is it really $35 faster?
9. hitmouse

   
   Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 4:08AM  

   Freibooter - Yes I agree that "senseless regional restrictions on a digital distribution download" shows that MS is still back in about 1970 as far as international commerce is involved. I deal with small retailers around the globe who can process my credit-card and ship me product. Microsoft can't even do it to ship me a product-key string.

   Brandon - a point to note is that AutoCollage may take in more than 25 pictures at a time, but won't generate a collage of more than 25 pictures.

   I'm also waiting for a useful Windows Ultimate Extra, as I'm not a polylingual poker-player.
10. Josh Fillson

    
    Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 9:39AM  

    I think $20 is too much for this tool. Brandon, you obviously have not used Autocollage as you state, otherwise you would know that your 50 picture example is bogus. The most you can collage with it is 25. Picasa does not have that limit, reduces red-eye, allows easy sharing, and a whole host of other features.

    I simply can't support what should be a free Ultimate Extra product for a team of researchers that are creating a product that already exists, is arguably better, and has no cost. Why would I donate $20 to a team who, as another poster stated above, can't even show us why we'd spend our money on their product in relationship to the other offerings or understands the market?
11. Ceinach

    
    Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 9:52AM  

    Brandon,

    The fact that Microsoft just doesn't get it with this product tells that Microsoft just doesn't get it. It's trying to compete with a very well-established piece of software that is freely available and does more. Has Microsoft gone mad lately? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

    Have you even seen the red-eye reduction capabilities in Picaso? They are superb. Probably the best on the market. Their collage tool is fantastic. It doesn't waste time spinning around in a circle before compiling the collage, I can add text, fully edit any picture, and then post it for my friends to see. For free.

    The Autocollage team has given a product with 1/50th the capability and charge for it. They also can't tell us why it's better than the competitive product. Not one reason why we should spend our money versus another companies product that is superior and they are giving away free (something Microsoft should have done with this as well...I agree, it should be an extra). Pitiful. Really. I normally support developers working on cool projects and will throw them a bone once in a while, but this is at best $5 - if all you want to do is make a collage from already edited pictures. Microsoft does realize there are about 100 other FREE collage tools on the Internet right now...right? You've priced yourselves completely out of the market.
12. Brandon LeBlanc

    

    
    Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 3:49PM  

    Josh Fillson, I've not used AutoCollage 2008 extensively no. I've created a few collages but only with 18+20 images so far - one of which was for a family member. I apologize as I was incorrect about the 50+ image statement. I had assumed it supported 50+ photos based off a conversation I had with a friend also playing with AutoCollage 2008.  

    I do all my photo editing in Windows Live Photo Gallery which in my opinion has excellent red-eye reduction capabilities as well. The photos I used to create my collages were all tweaked and edited in Windows Live Photo Gallery first as I usually edit the photos after importing them off my D40 into Windows Live Photo Gallery.

    A lot of the feedback, especially from Ceinach, I am seeing is that with apps like Picasa etc you get a full fledge app that does everything (red eye reduction, etc) all in one place. Would you find the technology seen in AutoCollage 2008 of better value if it was integrated into a more full digital photography editor and management app? Forget price for the moment.

    I appreciate the constructive feedback. I'm making sure the folks who worked on AutoCollage 2008 are aware.
13. freibooter

    
    Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 5:04PM  

    I'm starting to wonder who was the head of the AutoCollage project. Could it have been by any chance Dr. Nobel Price?

    You know, famous inventor of the Foot Snuggies, the Slushabouts and the Tinkle Table:

    http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Nobel_Price

    Trying to sell a niche product with a single feature that a mass market product does much better is one thing.

    The fact that it's a product by a mayor competitor who gives it away for free is another.

    But trying to charge $35.00 for it in the UK makes this a failure of epic proportions.

    Had this been an Ultimate Extra, people would have been unimpressed but Microsoft would at least have delivered a tiny bit of their previous promise ... but trying to charge $35.00 for it is ... it would be funny if the state of Ultimate Extras weren't that sad. :-(
14. Ceinach

    
    Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 6:00PM  

    Brandon,

    I'm pleasantly surprised by your request for feedback. Let me get off my rant a bit and let's see what can be done to help matters rather than continue the negativity.

    1. I would immediately offer this as an extra and have the extras program sponsor the expected funds from the sale to the team members to continue their research. It would get this tool in the hands of millions of people.

    2. Tell people you are adding a new extra. Blog about this until the cows come home. This alone will be the best money Microosft has ever spent. The good will towards the Extras will be great. The good will toward the cambridge team will be great. A win for Microsoft and a win for the customer.

    3. I think adding a photomosaic piece  consisting of those little pictures that make a bigger picture would be great. People love printing and viewing those things. That would be a COOL feature.

    4. Same with a 3-D version. People are always staring at those things. Get creative. Try new things that seem interesting. How about printing out a paper that you can fold into a cube that sits on a desk? Do you have any idea how many people would use that at work?(perhaps I should stop giving you these money-making ideas for free, eh?...:))

    5. Integrate the product with some of the already developed great photo editing software Microsoft already has. You can't just collage without touching up the existing photos first. Make it seamless. If you'll notice, Picasso has an "I feel lucky" button in it as well. One click to a great photo. Simple. Easy. Exactly what we want.

    6. Create a scrapping booking feature add-in. Allow the service for free, but charge for a printed book copy (man, I really have to stop giving you these great ideas). This alone would sell 100,000 copies of Vista Ultimate overnight. You'd rule the hearts and minds of the "family" users. That in terms of $$ is priceless.

    7. Continue adding cool features and prominently advertise it as such...something like "every 30 days...check your Extras for a cool new feature we'll be adding". Wow. Talk about turning the corner overnight. You'd leave people speechless it would be so cool.

    Brandon, I'm incredibly glad to hear you asking for feedback. There is a winner here in all this research, but I do think that Microosft needs to step back a bit and see the bigger picture. Adding this as an Extra will clear up a whole nest of bad feelings and give the research team a good morale boost. Continue this service and you won't be seeing tens of thousands of dollars...you'll be seeing millions off this work.

    Again, thank you for asking for feedback. Hopefully some of those ideas will be passed on to the higher powers and I can't wait to use and see what happens from this in the future.
15. hitmouse

    
    Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 8:45PM  

    I would say "make AutoCollage a pluggable feature of Live gallery" except for several factors:

    1. The only such plug-in I know of is the panorama feature with a dreadful non-WYSIWYG UI. I mean this is the 21st century, or did someone just not notice. (It's on-par with the add-photo feature of Vista Windows Contacts which amazingly doesn't support drag and drop).

    2. Windows Live Gallery is incredibly slow to load. Picasa literally runs rings around WLG, performance-wise.

    3. Windows Live Gallery is not integrated well with Windows Explorer. Despite the individually good features of WLG, it's like shifting into a bizarro universe.
16. B.W.

    
    Posted on: September 05, 2008 at 11:37PM  

    $20 is $20 too much.

    Kudos to the cambridge team for a slick little tool. Being a developer myself, I can understand how one feels when they finish their product and it should be worth a million bucks. I understand that the research team  wants to recoup their investment. That said, whomever made the decision to approve this thinking that vast amount of money were to be reinvested in the program is going to be sadly mistaken. It's just not worth it. It's really not worth spending anything on at the moment.

    A very good analogy as to what is happeneing here is to have the cambridge team realize they have developed Wordpad. They are now trying to sell it for money in a world where Word is free. Do you get my point? I believe this will become obvious when the research team sees that only a few people are willing to pay for this.

    The best thing that could be done with all this time and research at this point is to give it away as a Window Extra download. That was the best suggestion and I agree with it.

    Sorry to say that they invested in the wrong technology at the wrong time and decided to charge the wrong price for it. Make it a Windows Extra and everything changes for the better.

    My 2 cents.

    Sincerely yours,

    Bart
17. Bawkman

    
    Posted on: September 06, 2008 at 11:21AM  

    I have but one simple question. Did any person on the cambridge research team try Picassa before coding? How did they come to charge for a tool that should be free or a simple add-on? I would look as though they may have a> priced themselves out of most sales b> rankled the already upset ultimate crowd yet again c> are spending research money in all the wrong niche areas.

    On a side-note, Mr. LeBlanc, why exactly was this NOT released as an ultimate feature and WHEN are we going to see ultimate features? I paid a fifty dollar premium for languages I don't use and card games I don't play. Where is the love? I do no want to knock on the research team, but the ultimate situation is feeling like fraud to me.
18. DoesAnyoneCareWhoIam...

    
    Posted on: September 06, 2008 at 1:31PM  

    Bawkman - that was two questions. LOL. :)

    Brandon - You asked would we find more value if it were integrated? Do you really need to ask this question? Why wasn't this question asked BEFORE someone took the time to plan, research, develop, bug test, and package it as a stand-alone one or two time use product? Who produces collages on a daily basis that would need this specific app? Don't get me wrong this is a kewl little tool (I just made a 10 picture collage with it that looks good and the faces are correctly identified and centered. The product works as advertised with no errors.), but for gods sake $20 versus free for the same capability isn't hard for people to figure out.
19. hitmouse

    
    Posted on: September 06, 2008 at 9:02PM  

    This reminds me of similar mistakes made by the Windowsmedia team, with some of their overly expensive Media Player add-ons only available to those with US credit cards and IP addresses. Eventually most of those tools were put up as free downloads.

    That was nearly a decade ago. Microsoft just doesn't seem capable of learning from these mistakes. (Or of responding to 2 years of complaints about Vista Ultimate add-ons)
20. RogerRodger

    
    Posted on: September 08, 2008 at 6:18AM  

    Twenty dollars!!!??? Some one needs their head examined. How does Microsoft get off with such outrageous behavior?

    Fail.

    Abort.

    Retry.
21. MStyles

    
    Posted on: September 09, 2008 at 1:54PM  

    This app basically loads up to 25 pictures at a time, wastes video computing resources spinning them in a circle, and then displays a collage with limited editing ability. I don't get it at all either. In light of all the collage tools already on the market, including the fantastic 800-lb Picasa toolset this appears to be almost pointless to have been produced let alone sold. It is frightening that with all the problems with Vista, this is what Microsoft chooses to invest their time with.
22. hitmouse

    
    Posted on: September 10, 2008 at 3:55AM  

    Essentially you are seeing an exposition of a number of Microsoft cultural issues.

    1) unawareness of the competitive landscape

    2) development outposts like Cambridge having to justify their existence to Redmondites, who frankly, would just rather that anyone outside of Puget Sound would just go away as it's all too much to deal with ( I have lots of first hand experience of this, and agreement from Ballmer himself, who I discussed this with face to face briefly a few years ago)