[evilswan]

Hello!

as a recent switcher, i feel there's a glaring omission to the iLife suite: a photoshop elements style graphics application.

What are the chances of apple adding one?

A conspiracy theorist might wonder if they haven't already developed a photoshop killer that's waiting in the wings, but aren't releasing it to avoid incuring adobe's wrath. remember, adobe ended premiere development for the mac after it became clear final cut / imovie were getting so good.

i'm sorry if this has been discussed before, i did do a search for ilife graphics application but nada.

-miss swan.

[Banana]

Well, the general consensus is that Apple doesn't want to step on Adobe's, one of biggest customers for OS X, toes. The closest Apple did was release Lightroom, but it's argued that there's really no equilivant.

That said, I believe iPhoto is supposed to be your photo management program; and there's plenty of small free apps that give you some basic functionality. I'm sure they've been mentioned a few times in threads re: Must-have apps for Mac.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana Well, the general consensus is that Apple doesn't want to step on Adobe's, one of biggest customers for OS X, toes. The closest Apple did was release Lightroom, but it's argued that there's really no equilivant.

You got it backwards. Apple released Aperture because there was no equivalent, but then Adobe released a preview of Lightroom which basically does the same as Aperture.

Apple did, however, produce Final Cut Pro back when Adobe Premiere and Avid were kings. Apple has since owned much of the video editing market. Apple also has Shake and Motion which compete with Adobe's After Effects. So, Apple has shown that it isn't afraid to step on some toes when the competition (read: Adobe) isn't keeping its software up to snuff.

What's different here, though, is that the image-editing market isn't really stagnating like the video-editing market was. Would Apple see a need to step into the picture and release an app that would inevitably crush competitors simply because it carries the Apple brand? I don't think the situation is that dire yet.

[Banana]

Sorry. I thought lightroom was apple's for some reason, but at least I mixed up the names, not the story.

[chucker]

In all fairness, Lightroom is not Adobe's answer to Aperture. You can't develop something like Lightroom in a matter of a few weeks, not even a beta (which Lightroom still is).

Lightroom had been in development for many years, and Apple's release of Aperture merely triggered the desire to have a public beta ready.

[Brad]

Oh, yes. I agree with you on that completely, chucker. Apple just beat Adobe out the door, so to speak. Maybe Apple knew about Lightroom and released Aperture early, thus accounting for its bugs and poor performance? Maybe it was a coincidence that they were both developed simultaneously? We'll never really know.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brad Oh, yes. I agree with you on that completely, chucker. Apple just beat Adobe out the door, so to speak. Maybe Apple knew about Lightroom and released Aperture early, thus accounting for its bugs and poor performance? Maybe it was a coincidence that they were both developed simultaneously? We'll never really know.

Indeed, we won't know, so it's merely speculation. In any case, the digital camera market had developed in a direction where these two products simply make sense; specifically, for Apple, it makes sense to have a Pro version of iPhoto, and for Adobe, it makes sense to have a stand-alone streamlined version of Camera Raw (which I believe was generally considered to be a little awkward anyway, but I'm no expert on this).

Without doubt, the two are competitors, and I believe Adobe's PR department stated rather clearly that, indeed, the impending release of Apple Aperture had triggered a faster-paced public beta development than originally intended (or a public beta at all?).

It should be noted, too, that Lightroom is not your average "we can't code efficiently nor do remotely good UI design" Adobe app; the very fact that it has to be ported from Mac OS to Windows, rather than vice versa, is proof enough. It has been developed from scratch, without the stupid Qt toolkit or anything, without code cruft, without UI cruft, without typical Adobe conventions that don't make sense in this new decade*. In that, it is a worthy contender.

*) Me, bitter? Nah.

[chucker]

But let us get back to the original question. It has already been stated that Apple may not want to poke Adobe in the eye too much.

The Apple-Adobe situation has been seen in terms of Final Cut Pro/Express vs. Premiere (Adobe eventually pulled out and made Premiere Windows-only) as well as Motion vs. After Effects (I believe Adobe has yet to "react"; presumably, they are waiting for Motion 3 or 4? Final Cut Pro didn't get good until 3, and not great until 4).

E.g.: Final Cut has gone so far as to have Adobe surrender and shift Premiere entirely off to Windows, which if you ask me is rather cowardly and raises an important question: did Adobe not think they could compete against Apple in this field, and if so, why? Final Cut isn't free, although it can be speculated (and I personally agree with that idea) that it is subsidized through hardware sales. Even so, its success doesn't come from customers thinking "it's Apple; it has to be good", but from the fact that gradually, especially with the leaps of version 3 and 4, it became an extremely good piece of software. Why can't Adobe do that, especially when they have so much experience in this very field? The only logical conclusion is laziness; on Windows, they essentially have no competition (Pinnacle? give me a break; Avid is in a higher-end market), so they have nothing to worry about. On Mac OS X, however, they now did.

There is no question that Apple is perfectly capable of writing the very program you're asking for, both in the consumer space (iLife) as well as the professional one (Pro Apps); perhaps even with a third Express tier. But seeing as Final Cut Pro, no matter how good it is, essentially crushed the market of video editing apps, maybe they are, indeed, wary of how the competition is going to react. I saw a price analysis for Final Cut Studio a while ago. The extreme discount Apple's solution has over the competition is not even funny. You have to remember that Final Cut Pro includes things like Soundtrack, LiveType (once an expensive third-party app), Cinema Tools (once an expensive third-party app); the list goes on. On the one hand, Cocoa allows Apple truly rapid application development, but on the other hand, you have to wonder just how much they actually benefit from the fact that they are, after all, a hardware company. They can take huge profit margins on the PowerMac which the people are going to work on, then put the money gained through them into application development, then sell the result to the very same customers at a rather low price.

It is often stated that a Photoshop competitor cannot survive. LiveMotion and X-RES are taken as examples; no, Gimp does not count, and neither do things like ChocoFlop, as fun as they can be to use. LiveMotion's fate was that its preferred image format, LivePix, once strongly supported by companies like Kodak, has totally become forgotten these days, and that the company eventually sold out the Quark, who as we all know have very little expertise on making programmer produce great products. (Suffice to say, LiveMotion died soon after the acquisition, without any explanation as to why.) X-RES wasn't quite the same, as it came from Macromedia, but unlike LiveMotion, it really didn't have much brilliant ideas of its own anyway, so by design, it could only ever have become a second choice to Photoshop. Simply put, it didn't compete. Likewise, developers of other things like Corel PhotoPaint etc. were never really given a chance by their management.

So if you ask me, nobody actually tried! They're all to scared that this big, near-monopolistic unemotional corporation is, at the end of the day, going to win. Not even Microsoft has attempted to create a competing app. That says something, doesn't it?

No, I don't think it does. I honestly feel that, given the right budget (and Apple has a huge, constantly underestimated budget), it is very possible to rival Photoshop's huge dominance.

So, Steve Jobs, please try.

[TednDi]

just don't release it with problems like (cr)aperture!

Oh, and can we get an update on aperture that supports the kodac dslr/n.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by TednDi (cr)aperture!

Oh so funny!!!

Just like, y'know, "Micro$oft", or "Crapple".

...

[Robo]

Apple shouldn't have released Aperture with problems?

Um, welcome to the world of 1.0 releases, pal.

In fact - this might surprise you - all software has problems. Yep. Every last program.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Roboman In fact - this might surprise you - all software has problems. Yep. Every last program.

And it might surprise you, Roboman, that I've written several "hello world" programs that work flawlessly.

QED.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brad And it might surprise you, Roboman, that I've written several "hello world" programs that work flawlessly. QED.

Ah, but have you tested them under extreme weather conditions?

[Brad]

Red herring! That would relate to hardware faults, not software faults as the argument proposed.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brad And it might surprise you, Roboman, that I've written several "hello world" programs that work flawlessly. QED.

My bad.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brad Red herring! That would relate to hardware faults, not software faults as the argument proposed.

D'oh! I was hoping you wouldn't find out.

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by Brad And it might surprise you, Roboman, that I've written several "hello world" programs that work flawlessly. QED.

Really? All my "Hello World" Programs give me a kernel panic

[Frank777]

Going back to the first post, I'd argue that the "graphics application" Apple needs to introduce isn't a competitor to Photoshop, but Illustrator.

The Mac platform, once the sole owner of the graphic artist market, now finds that Freehand is soon to be departed, joining MacPaint, ClarisDraw and a bunch of others. Illustrator is all that remains.

Even if Apple doesn't want to go after the High End like Illustrator, there is a definite need for a lower end drawing product, maybe as part of the iWork suite.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Illustrator is all that remains. Even if Apple doesn't want to go after the High End like Illustrator, there is a definite need for a lower end drawing product, maybe as part of the iWork suite.

There are already several very good low-end (and some not-so-low-end) competitors to Illustrator, though, that already fill the space.

OmniGraffle (and OmniGraffle Pro)
Inkspace
EazyDraw
iDraw
DrawWell (and WorksWell)

Just to name a few. I'd say the "need" for this type isn't really there if you look around.

[Banana]

I want to chime in that I do have some misgiving about Adobe's present position-

When you think design apps, there's no choices other than Adobe (well, yes there are, but do I know of any big shot graphic designer using anything but Adobe? No, therefore I assume that Adobe is dominant). I'm now told that Adobe has a tendency to move at a glacial pace, and as of late, their quality has been falling off. I conclude with the latter assessment; as on three separate tools, I would get an error message saying I did it wrong (Okay! Fine, you sumabitches, I'll do it *your* frigging way). As a result, I find myself fighting more with Illustrator.

Adobe really needs someone to burn their ass so they'll actually get the ball moving. I'm thinking it shouldn't be Apple (at least not for now); but third party company who can always have secret support by Apple or other prominent stakeholders in design industry.

Adobe is turning into Mircosoft and I don't really need that.

[World Leader Pretend]

Originally Posted by Brad There are already several very good low-end (and some not-so-low-end) competitors to Illustrator, though, that already fill the space. OmniGraffle (and OmniGraffle Pro) Inkspace EazyDraw iDraw DrawWell (and WorksWell) Just to name a few. I'd say the "need" for this type isn't really there if you look around.

Which would you recommend getting as a high-end competitor to Illustrator?

I'm not sure which one I want to learn how to use...

[defaultmike]

As far as Professionals are concerned, the only real Vector apps are Illustrator and Freehand. Even Corel Draw isn't really considered pro. But now that it's highly speculated that Freehand's gonna get the axe, I wouldn't mind seeing Corel releasing Corel Draw for the Mac once again.

But then again, maybe Adobe will sell Freehand to some other company. (As well as Go! Live and (Image Ready or Fireworks). Maybe Apple's the company that'll buy them, I wish they didn't, but who knows? Just don't count Freehand out just yet...

[Moogs]

evilswan:

A) Photoshop Elements is not a graphics application, it's a photo editor.

B) Apple already has a consumer photo editor (it's called iPhoto and competes directly with Elements in a lot of ways including price point).

C) iLife is a media integration suite. Music, video, photos, DVD. Graphics do not logically fit into that mix. Not unless you want some cluster like the Corel suite of old.

D) Graphics apps are dime a dozen; there's no compelling reason for Apple to make one.

Banana: regarding Adobe: nothing like Microsoft other than their being a large company. They're much more creative, more attentive to customers, more consistent in their offerings and generally less detestable in nearly every way I can think of. There's a lot of good people at Adobe; trust me.

[Ghstmars]

why hasnt anyone mention Apple buys Adobe!!!!

[Grammar Police]

Originally Posted by Ghstmars why hasnt anyone mention Apple buys Adobe!!!!

If you'd like to be taken seriously in these forum discussions, please extend the courtesy of taking a few moments to check your grammar and to form a coherent message before posting. Your message makes little sense and is difficult to read. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum; you have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend Which would you recommend getting as a high-end competitor to Illustrator? I'm not sure which one I want to learn how to use...

I'd suggest starting with Inkspace. It's free and the features are good. Granted, I'm not a professional with vector graphics, but I can tell that Inkspace has a lot more to offer than I actually use. If you want more advice on this, let's start another thread in the Third-Party Products forum about it.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by Moogs Banana: regarding Adobe: nothing like Microsoft other than their being a large company. They're much more creative, more attentive to customers, more consistent in their offerings and generally less detestable in nearly every way I can think of. There's a lot of good people at Adobe; trust me.

More power to them.

However, that doesn't reassure me from the fact that they're now the only serious player in this field; competition is always healthy, IMO. Secondly, there are several different ways to reach same objective, so having different programs with different UIs, different philosophy will ultimately allow for more content.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as market stands right now, if anyone came up with a great idea in this field, it'd be a matter of time before Adobe snatched it and integrated it into its product and because they're the de facto standard, everyone will continue to stick with Adobe, effectively squishing any creative offshoots that may have resulted. That's my #1 concern.

[evilswan]

Originally Posted by Moogs evilswan: C) iLife is a media integration suite. Music, video, photos, DVD. Graphics do not logically fit into that mix. Not unless you want some cluster like the Corel suite of old.

I don't agree. It seems that graphics fits perfectly into that mix. Apple are trying to provide a suite of software that allows creative people to get started right out of the box, to not be able to create graphics seems a glaring omission.

Originally Posted by Moogs D) Graphics apps are dime a dozen; there's no compelling reason for Apple to make one.

Real Pro Graphics apps, to the standard of Photoshop are not. Photoshop is light years ahead of everything else out there, on any platform.

Anything Apple develop would have to be as good, and then a step better. That would take a serious investment in development and testing.

Plus, if Adobe ended mac photoshop development it would make every design company in the world (rightly or wrongly) re-think purchasing macs for their studios.

Apple would not only have to make a product, they'd have to make it backward compatible with the PSD format. Would they be able to do that legally? i'm unaware as to the legal implications of file types.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by evilswan Apple would not only have to make a product, they'd have to make it backward compatible with the PSD format. Would they be able to do that legally? i'm unaware as to the legal implications of file types.

GIMP works with PSD, so I don't see why Apple couldn't.

[Aesahaettr]

All I know is that Steve has always given me all I ever could ask for and more regards computers, and I'm thinking now that I might realy like to have a graphics app in iLife, since most of the good ones out there are overly-priced. I'm sure Steve will pull through and give us some sort of easy to use app for editing graphics better than those not very good free ones you can currently download.