[admactanium]

Originally Posted by Moogs I think the only way creative pros *would* buy it, is if it were [a professional level tool], even if not at feature parity with Photoshop. In fact it would behoove them to make something very powerful, but which does not attempt to duplicate some of Photoshop's biggest strengths. Make it a compliment instead of a competitor. The world is full of mediocre photo editing tools; they should either go with both guns blazing or leave it in the holster. Honestly though Apple seems primed to head into this world, even if it's not in the next year or two. I wouldn't be surprised in a few years if we had Apple Photo Pro and Apple Photo Express (basically).

there is almost nothing that apple can do at this point that would unseat photoshop. unlike some other adobe apps which basically whither on the vine on the mac (premiere) photoshop will always be on feature parity with its windows counterpart. photoshop is adobe's bread and butter (and pdf). it would take a screw-up of such monumental magnitude for photoshop to be unseated that i would suspect the whole adobe company would have to cease to exist. it would have to be a much bigger screw-up than quark's decade's long arrogance and refusal to improve their product.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Hobbes I assume Adobe's older apps, like Photoshop and Illustrator, are still developed in CW (and it wouldn't surprise me to hear if all them are), so it's going to be a sticky transition for Adobe for sure. Late 2006, early 2007, though... bleah.

As I said Illustrator is already in Xcode now and the Late 2006, Early 2007 thing is because they won't ship Universal Binaries of existing apps.

It kinda makes sense since they are probably already working on Acrobat 8, CS3 and so on, and they won't go back and spent time on older versions.

But keep in mind that Photoshop on Rosetta is already running smooth on the DTK, and it's not unthinkable that running PPC Photoshop on the coming Intel based Power Mac is faster than Photoshop on today's Power Mac.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by admactanium there is almost nothing that apple can do at this point that would unseat photoshop. unlike some other adobe apps which basically whither on the vine on the mac (premiere) photoshop will always be on feature parity with its windows counterpart. photoshop is adobe's bread and butter (and pdf). it would take a screw-up of such monumental magnitude for photoshop to be unseated that i would suspect the whole adobe company would have to cease to exist. it would have to be a much bigger screw-up than quark's decade's long arrogance and refusal to improve their product.

Office is the same way yet Apple saw areas Office covers but covers poorly or has weaknesses in and is now attacking (iWork)

Same thing will be done with Photoshop.

Give it time. Apple doesn't like to be dependant on anyone anymore

[admactanium]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut Office is the same way yet Apple saw areas Office covers but covers poorly or has weaknesses in and is now attacking (iWork) Same thing will be done with Photoshop. Give it time. Apple doesn't like to be dependant on anyone anymore

the difference is that you can get most of your work done in office using very little of its built-in features. most people use about 10% of the features of office. in order to get your work done in photoshop (paying retouching work) you'd have to use a pretty decent percentage of the program's capabilities. the only potential market photoshop could lose to apple would possibly be photoshop elements or people who pirate full versions of photoshop.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut Give it time. Apple doesn't like to be dependant on anyone anymore

That is pretty much it in a "nutshell" (pun intended).

I think Jobs recognised that what was holding Apple back was its lack of focus and pitiful management. Although he cut a deal with MS (initiated by Amelio iirc) to get the company solvent and firing on all cylinders again, he was not afraid to "bite the hand that fed it" once the deal had expired. Goodbye IE - hello Safari. And, in the spirit of the Who's "Won't get fooled again" he was amply prepared to give IBM a big kick up the backside and ditch their processor because they had not delivered what they promised. The man obviously plans for contingencies.

Also, he knows that the user experience is what makes the Mac unique and he has successfully managed to implement a software strategy to ensure that his company would never be held hostage to anybody else again. That's ruthless, but very business smart.

Safari, iChat, FCPro, Logic, iWork ... the writing is on the wall, PhotoPro (and by extension, PhotoExpress) is (are) coming.

[Swing]

FWIW Adobe customer reps are still spouting possible BS re support to enable CS2 on the new Mac intel machines. I just called over there to order another cross-platform license switch and asked. The non-engineer rep said yes Adobe will provide a patch or 'whatever it takes'. Seems unlikely from Chizen's interview and what is posted here . . .

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by Mac+ Safari, iChat, FCPro, Logic, iWork ... the writing is on the wall, PhotoPro (and by extension, PhotoExpress) is (are) coming.

iPhoto is PhotoExpress.

What I think Apple needs is a new Mac Drawing and painting program to go into iWork and seamlessly work with iLife (iPhoto and iMovie).

[chucker]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan iPhoto is PhotoExpress.

Just like iMovie is FinalCut Express and GarageBand is Logic Express?

[Hobbes]

Originally Posted by JLL As I said Illustrator is already in Xcode now...

Ah, missed that. Good to hear.

Originally Posted by JLL But keep in mind that Photoshop on Rosetta is already running smooth on the DTK, and it's not unthinkable that running PPC Photoshop on the coming Intel based Power Mac is faster than Photoshop on today's Power Mac.

That I will have to see to believe.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Hobbes That I will have to see to believe.

Photoshop on the DTK only runs a little slower than Photoshop on my DP2.5GHz G5 in my tests, and filters like Guassian Blur is just as fast.

Which is why I think that CS2 on whatever CPU Intel has a year from now will run faster than on a DP2.7GHz Power Mac.

But Apple could release a DCDP (Dual Core Dual Processor) Power Mac G5 before that - hopefully

[Swing]

JLL, have you run any of the other CS2 apps on the DTK? If so, have you experienced any problems, or otherwise care to provide more details?

Thanks.

[JLL]

I haven't tested the other apps that much, but they seem to run fine.

The Acrobat PDF viewer plug-in doesn't work though.

Originally Posted by julesstoop Isn't Adobe's problem that they either have to start using the cocoa framework or have to port their own custom frameworks in order to be able to generate universal binaries? So at the moment they are probably far from a 'simple recompile'.

I work at a large software developer (better not mention who) and trust me that Apple are plenty pissed about Bruce Chizen's comments about the difficulty of porting the app. I assure you that you will have to pay for MacIntel support from Adobe and that it is a lot of work for them so don't expect anything soon!

On a side note, Chizen is a dick. He wants Adobe to be Microsoft and has really gone against the way the company was founded. Adobe today is all about Windows really. What makes me laugh is that Apple asked them to create the i apps like iPhoto etc and they said No!

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by macmonkey On a side note, Chizen is a dick. He wants Adobe to be Microsoft and has really gone against the way the company was founded. Adobe today is all about Windows really. What makes me laugh is that Apple asked them to create the i apps like iPhoto etc and they said No!

thank you.

[julesstoop]

Welcome!
I've noticed. Most of Adobe's Acrobat effort (which seems to be Chizen's child) has gone into 'Windows'. For some strange reason he seems to believe he can dethrone Microsoft on their own turf. He might even be right.

You are most welcome. Apple is helping our company (again I better not say who) to help us move the major apps to MacIntel. I for one am excited...

[Swing]

It seems plausible Adobe will charge some 'upgrade' price just to enable CS2 to run via Rosetta on Mactel.

JLL, have you run any more CS2 apps, even a little, and care to provide some details?

Has anybody else here run the CS2 apps on the DTK and care to provide details?

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Swing It seems plausible Adobe will charge some 'upgrade' price just to enable CS2 to run via Rosetta on Mactel.

Why? CS2 should work.

Originally Posted by Swing JLL, have you run any more CS2 apps, even a little, and care to provide some details?

No I haven't tested any further at the moment, but I plan to test on 10.4.2 pretty soon.

[Swing]

Originally Posted by JLL . . . The Acrobat PDF viewer plug-in doesn't work though.

Originally Posted by JLL Why? CS2 should work . . .

Acrobat is an essential app for me, in part due to the viewer plug-in for other CS2 apps. Given Acrobat's integration into the other CS2 apps, Chizen's often stated goal to cash-in on it, and its current incomplete functioning on the DTK, I wonder if Adobe has or will decide it makes sense, money-wise, to charge for some upgrade to allow CS2 to work on the Mactel- and by CS2 I mean all functionality of all the apps.

[oldmacfan]

http://www.microsoft.com/products/ex...n/default.aspx

Micro$oft has announced that it will compete against Adobe in a big way. I say I am excited that they are going after Adobe, maybe Adobe will get their ass together and stomp M$ right out of the market.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Swing I wonder if Adobe has or will decide it makes sense, money-wise, to charge for some upgrade to allow CS2 to work on the Mactel- and by CS2 I mean all functionality of all the apps.

I don't think it requires nuch more than a minor point release - meaning that it will be free.

I haven't got any web plug-ins to work btw. Perhaps they will work fine in the final Intel version.

[Swing]

JLL, thanks very much for the info.