User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

Adobe and holding Apple up....


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Adobe and holding Apple up....
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2006-02-02, 14:38

So it seems Adobe is being difficult and not moving to Universal Binaries any time soon. They even warn that Intel builds of Creative Suite could be as far off as next year around this time.

Clearly Apple can not and will not wait that long, and Jobs has already stated that Rosetta is not good enough for professionals using apps such as Photoshop.

Is this going to be the time that Apple attempts to go after Adobe's market? Up until now, Apple never really had a window of oppurtunity where they could make massive inroads in Adobe's customer base but if Apple comes up with a Photoshop killer now, they will possibly have a year headstart on Adobe offering a comparable product.

Think it could happen?
  quote
zebrahead090
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
 
2006-02-02, 14:42

Yes...Apple is so going to own Adobe. Guarantee it.
  quote
bassplayinMacFiend
Banging the Bottom End
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2006-02-02, 14:58

This is the OS X transition all over again. Adobe took forever to release an OS X native version of Photoshop (v7 IIRC). So Adobe announcing they won't release an intel OS X native version until the next full upgrade really isn't a surprise.

[edit]
Apple would have to come up with a replacement suite for all Adobe products if they decided to release a Photoshop competitor. When Apple released FCP, Adobe killed Premier on Mac. If Apple released Photoshop, Adobe would probably kill all future Mac software releases and switch to PC only.

Also, Apple would cause other software vendors reasons for 2nd thoughts about releasing OS X versions of their software. If they were too successful they'd have to worry about Apple making a competing product. Unless Apple wants to be the only software provider for OS X they have to tread carefully when coming out with Apple software.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2006-02-02, 15:33

well, while Aperture didn't have a direct competitor it was certainly an attack on Adobe's market. Final Cut Pro was, iPhoto is to their consumer market. Motion is an attack to After Effects as well as Shake.

I can see Apple having a page layout app and a image editing app. Or perhaps leaving page layout to Quark.

Also, you have to remember that the Mac is not exactly a small marketshare for Adobe. If they lose it, they lose a very large chunk of their revenue and profit. It is not easy for them to just discontinue mac development.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2006-02-02, 15:44

ZOMG! Liek, duplicate topic!!!1lol.
  quote
TednDi
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Warm Glow of Steve's RDF
 
2006-02-02, 16:21

Apple should buy adobe

!
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2006-02-02, 18:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker
With all due respect I think it defeats the purpose of conversation if people are always clamoring to be the first to say that a thread is a duplicate or should be locked. I would think that decision should be left up to the moderators.

With that said, I checked the third party software forum and overlooked that thread but still would have chosen to make my post here as it involves speculation about future products.

I think it's perfectly possible to have 2 conversations, one in third party software about adobe's statements and one in here about possible actions apple could take to steal away some of adobe's marketshare.

BTW, the hacker/geek type spelling lost its humor and joke a long time ago.

Last edited by Brave Ulysses : 2006-02-02 at 18:32.
  quote
World Leader Pretend
Ruling teh World
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
 
2006-02-02, 18:27

I wouldn't be crushed at all if Apple took Adobe on and made a competing product. Apple builds the platform, so who better to make the software. This is the reason that we love Macs, the OS was made for the hardware.

It would also give Apple the ability to build the product to utilize 2, 4 and eventually 8 cores to make the software fly! I think that Apple could use this as an opportunity in making a point that you either work with us, or we work against you.

I could be completely wrong in my assumptions however...

Someone please help fill in this chart

Adobe CS2
+++++Apple ProLife X (sweet name!)
Photoshop----++-________________
Illustrator-----+_________________
InDesign-----++________________
GoLive-------++________________
Bridge-------++_______________
----------------Aperture

What should they name the competing apps if they exist?
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2006-02-02, 18:34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses
With all due respect I think it defeats the purpose of conversation if people are always clamoring to be the first to say that a thread is a duplicate or should be locked. I would think that decision should be left up to the moderators.
The two threads cover the exact same topic. I pointed it out. There's no "clamoring to be the first" or "back seat moderation" here, and no "IBL!!!".

Quote:
With that said, I checked the third party software forum and overlooked that thread but still would have chosen to make my post here as it involves speculation about future products.
By the same logic that any genius bar topic involves speculation whether future revisions of the same broken piece of hardware will be better? No, sorry, this belongs in third-party products. Adobe CS3 is a future product, and something to speculate about (though you don't), and you do choose to speculate on whether Apple might compete. But I still don't personally see the merit of putting this in S&R.

Then again, no, I'm not a moderator. It's not my call to make. I was merely pointing out that I felt the two topics had too much overlap to warrant separation. Further, if you were indeed aware of the other thread, why didn't you link to it and point out right from the start how you intended yours to differ from it?

Quote:
I think it's perfectly possible to have 2 conversations, one in third party software about adobe's statements and one in here about possible actions apple could take to steal away some of adobe's marketshare.
Maybe.

Quote:
BTW, the hacker/geek type spelling its humor and joke a long time ago.
You need a verb there. And you can piss on my already non-existing self-esteem all you want, but you can't take away my humor.
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2006-02-02, 18:37

Again, please leave it to moderators to decide. It is unnecessary for you to take a thread further off topic.

Quote:
Further, if you were indeed aware of the other thread, why didn't you link to it and point out right from the start how you intended yours to differ from it?
I think you need to reread.
  quote
World Leader Pretend
Ruling teh World
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
 
2006-02-02, 18:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses
Again, please leave it to moderators to decide. It is unnecessary for you to take a thread further off topic.
Quote:
Quote:
Further, if you were indeed aware of the other thread, why didn't you link to it and point out right from the start how you intended yours to differ from it?

I think you need to reread.
Quit arguing about it children.... it's all fine in the end.
  quote
Robo
Formerly Roboman, still
awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, OR
 
2006-02-02, 21:06

I don't think Apple should develop a CS competitor. At least, not in the near future. They have enough to worry about with the Intel transition to start pissing off one of their biggest developers. As sweet as an Apple Artist Suite would be, I think it's good that it is definitely a dream for now.

and i guess i've known it all along / the truth is, you have to be soft to be strong
  quote
Ryan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
 
2006-02-02, 21:54

Wasn't it the CEO of Adobe who said at WWDC "I have only one question for you Steve: what took you so long?" about the switch to Intel chips?

Oh, the irony...
  quote
ghoti
owner for sale by house
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
 
2006-02-03, 00:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses
Or perhaps leaving page layout to Quark.
ROTFL, that would be one wise business decision! Quark will be out of business before releasing an Intel version of their software. Newspapers and magazines are switching to InDesign in droves. Quark is history.
  quote
octavist13
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: IL
 
2006-02-03, 00:31

Quark will have universal binaries before Adobe.

Linkage
  quote
ghoti
owner for sale by house
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
 
2006-02-03, 00:38

Well Xpress is still a piece of crap. And I seriously doubt that Quark will make it much longer.
  quote
JLL
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
 
2006-02-03, 04:24

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend
This is the OS X transition all over again. Adobe took forever to release an OS X native version of Photoshop (v7 IIRC).

No they didn't. Apple just released Mac OS X a few months after PS6 was released which meant that you had to wait for PS7 to get a Mac OS X native version.

No major developer wants to spend time and money to convert an older version of their app when they have been working on the next version for months.

Adobe started working on CS3 last spring - why should they go back and work on CS2?

- No matter where you go, there you are.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2006-02-03, 04:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL
No they didn't. Apple just released Mac OS X a few months after PS6 was released which meant that you had to wait for PS7 to get a Mac OS X native version.
How does that differ from what he said?

Quote:
No major developer wants to spend time and money to convert an older version of their app when they have been working on the next version for months.
Everyone, including Adobe, was well aware when OS X was going to come out. The exact date, March 24, 2001, was known for many months. There was a public beta half a year before it. There were developer previews. Aqua had been previewed as early as January 2000. Companies like OMNI Group, much smaller than Adobe, were very capable of putting out final versions early.

The one and only reason Adobe couldn't have it done was that they didn't have to, since they were a near-monopoly and under no pressure at all to move quickly. This is even worse today thanks to the Macromedia merger.
  quote
JLL
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
 
2006-02-03, 07:39

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker
How does that differ from what he said?
I swear that when I hit reply his post was saying something else. But I can see that it's the same text in my reply


Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker
Everyone, including Adobe, was well aware when OS X was going to come out. The exact date, March 24, 2001, was known for many months. There was a public beta half a year before it. There were developer previews. Aqua had been previewed as early as January 2000. Companies like OMNI Group, much smaller than Adobe, were very capable of putting out final versions early.
Please don't compare minor apps from Omnigroup (that didn't even need that much of a conversion anyway) to apps like the whole Creative Suite.

And yes, Adobe did know the release date for months, but remember that they started working on the apps in late 1999 - Aqua wasn't even revealed at that point. Futhermore they have their own release schedule to maintain - no matter what Apple or Microsoft does. I don't expect that they're waiting for Vista before releasing CS3.

- No matter where you go, there you are.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2006-02-03, 08:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL
Please don't compare minor apps from Omnigroup (that didn't even need that much of a conversion anyway) to apps like the whole Creative Suite.
Adobe knew about three years ahead that a Cocoa (then Yellow Box) front-end would make it easier to port. They could have done that. They decided not to, instead pressuring Apple to introduce Carbon. So Apple did that, not much later. So Apple only had to carbonize their code, which essentially involves modernizing it, which they should have been doing anyway.

Is Photoshop more complex than OmniWeb? Yes.

However: Does Adobe have more people working on it? Yes. Is it Adobe's fault that it's complex to begin with? Yes.

Quote:
Futhermore they have their own release schedule to maintain - no matter what Apple or Microsoft does.
When you sell 30% of your software to people using an OS from Apple, don't you want to make your release schedule work with that OS?
  quote
CoolToddHunter
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 5 minutes from SouthPoint
Send a message via AIM to CoolToddHunter  
2006-02-03, 09:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend
----------------Aperture
That blank should be filled with Adobe Lightroom. That name may change, but for the moment we've got a free beta. The article at AppleInsider also mentions that it (being beta) will be a universal binary soon.
  quote
MacGregor
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stumptown, Puddlecity, many names
 
2006-02-03, 13:36

So could Apple buy Quark!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Now think of the installed user base and then think of the Apple-ification of that user base!!! If Quark is doing a dinosaur extinction thing, and I'm not sure that is true, then this could help both companies and think what Apple engineers could do with all of that legacy (good and the bad) sitting there for free....cool Aperture-like interface, media palattes with iTunes, iPhoto, GarageBand (or rather pro versions of each - FCP and Soundtrack) etc. content one click away ... instant integration into Keynote for presentations and integration into FileMaker databases!!! That would make a REAL HONEST TO GOODNESS all-in-one studio in a box!

I would rather Apple not do so, since it would almost be like MS doing the same thing, but it IS intriguing.

It makes one wonder what would have happened if Apple had snatched up Macromedia before Adobe .... would the Adobe CEO ever gone to another Jobs keynote again?

The "Mother of All" Flip-flops.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Support the Freedom of Information Act by using it ... support the troops by being an informed electorate!

Last edited by MacGregor : 2006-02-03 at 13:42.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2006-02-03, 13:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGregor
would the Adobe CEO ever gone to another Jobs keynote again?
Good question, but would anyone have missed him? Steve Ballmer may need a new deodorant, but even he isn't anywhere near as arrogant and dipshit-esque as Bruce Chizen. Recommended reading.
  quote
MacGregor
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stumptown, Puddlecity, many names
 
2006-02-03, 14:19

I'll critique myself by saying though, that it is arguably the inbred Quark gui and workflow that is keeping those houses in the Quark family and if Apple were to Apple-ify it they might as well move to Adobe with its stronger history and proven performance. Also it is money, if Apple bought Quark and upgraded it, then charged a premium for upgrades, Quark would lose one of its advantages over Adobe.

The "Mother of All" Flip-flops.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Support the Freedom of Information Act by using it ... support the troops by being an informed electorate!
  quote
Gaslight
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2006-02-04, 15:28

A simpler way of proceeding were to be for Apple to withdraw a large amount of cash, cover it in petrol and set it alight.

While it is not impossible for Apple to introduce a basic painting program, the idea that Apple would create a competitive set of applications to compete with Illustrator, Photoshop/ImageReady, InDesign, GoLive and Acrobat is beyond silly. The amazing advantages of having CS2 and it's PDF-enabled workflow and document management systems in Acrobat as well as VersionCue has raised the bar considerably; moreover, the expertise in CMYK and image processing that Adobe has is second to none and light years ahead of anyone.
  quote
Dave Hagan
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2006-02-04, 18:03

Apple has a "sort of" Photoshop in "FunHouse," an in-house app Apple wrote so they could demostrate Core Image features in the as-of-yet Tiger. I bet Apple could own Photoshop if they chose to make an extremely competative product, although, I would think Apple knows the risk of doing this. I would think they want to woo developers, like AutoCAD, for example. Now that Apple is on Intel, and using OS X, getting them to port might be more inticing. How much of a coup would that be?
  quote
Gaslight
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2006-02-04, 21:44

Apple could own Photoshop. Well, Apple and who's army? To be competitive as a pro app, they'd have to compete the infinitely complex workflows possible thanks to the delicious integration between PS and the rest of the suite.

There are a billion other ways for Apple to spend money wisely than to try creating a professional image editor that will make money. Something to fill out the shelf on the low end, sure, but not a pro app that will "own" Photoshop. If they want to lose money, why not just buy an airline?

There are reasons why Paintshop, Corel (and Gimp) aren't called pro applications despite having been around for a while. It's hard. Just think of all the things it would need to be merely to qualify as an "Also Ran": 33-bit colour, RAW (Apple is learning how hard that is), excellent CMYK management (something they've stayed away from, in case you haven't noticed), integration to electronic and paper publishing applications including web editors, the list goes on and on.

If they do anything, I it will be to create a basic painting program for adding vector speech balloons to photos and elementary cropping/web compression. Any more money spent would not be a wise investment in my humble opinion.
  quote
rollercoaster375
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UIllinois (Champaign, IL)
Send a message via AIM to rollercoaster375 Send a message via MSN to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Yahoo to rollercoaster375 Send a message via Skype™ to rollercoaster375 
2006-02-04, 22:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaslight
There are reasons why Paintshop, Corel (and Gimp) aren't called pro applications despite having been around for a while. It's hard. Just think of all the things it would need to be merely to qualify as an "Also Ran": 33-bit colour, RAW (Apple is learning how hard that is), excellent CMYK management (something they've stayed away from, in case you haven't noticed), integration to electronic and paper publishing applications including web editors, the list goes on and on.
I must disagree on your first comment... Paint Shop Pro, if it hadn't been trashed by Corel, was a very powerful image editor, and a worthy competitor to Photoshop for 80% of tasks. If Corel had decided to keep working on it, I think that it very well could have been a pro-level competitor to Photoshop. Instead, they took the route of making PSP into a more powerful iPhoto...
  quote
Gaslight
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
 
2006-02-04, 22:54

Hey:

I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, PSP (under what ever name it's now being marketed) is roughly comperable to Photoshop elements. As I recall, it still doesn't do CMYK which removes it from the pro sphere in principle.

Just so it's clear, I am not saying every single user out there needs or will ever need all of Photoshop, we're talking here about Apple releasing a competing product to Photoshop, which I think is idiocy. In that I agree with you, 80 per cent is a lot of functionality and good enough for most users.
  quote
kcmac
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: kansas city, missouri
 
2006-02-05, 13:01

I've believed for quite awhile that Adobe is holding itself back due to Windows. OS X and XP are pretty much different graphically. When Vista comes out, there are no more excuses. Look at the improvements in their new versions. Actually, quite pathetic.

If Adobe had been keeping up with the new goodies in OS X this whole time, it would be pretty bad for their attempt at a truly cross platform set of applications. I think we will see a similar thing processor wise with Intel. Let's see how Apple can push their new technologies while the commodity PC boxes struggle to keep up.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:08.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova