Adobe evangelist lashes out at Apple over iPhone 4.0 - Page 5

Steve is so shrewd at times. Beautiful bit of psychological manipulation there. And while Microsoft et al. were busy congratulating themselves over their "victory", Apple was busy outflanking them.

Apple could conceivably buy pixelmator and start there, but I doubt if it's necessary. A great deal of what Photoshop does is already available in the Core functions of Mac OS X. They'd simply need to write a front end on what's already there.

That would create a problem with releasing a Windows version, but I think most of the Core stuff has already been ported to Windows, so it might not be so bad.


That's not quite accurate. Flash still works (sort of) on Mac desktops and laptops.

Rather, you should say "don't expect us to look at your site on ANY mobile device'. People keep forgetting that NONE of the mobile platforms offer a full version of Flash - and even the hyped 10.1 on Android is still months away (at best). It's not just Apple who is saying Flash doesn't belong on mobile devices.


Yes, a forward thinking company would have done that. They'd have built html 5 creation tools into Dreamweaver rather than fighting a losing battle to keep Flash going. But, then, Adobe hasn't been a forward thinking company for at least a decade.


Apple's decisions are not, by and large, arbitrary. Apple has very clear SDK rules. Almost every example of someone complaining about Apple being 'arbitrary' is because they broke the rules.

There are a very few exceptions (the political caricature one, for example), but out of 200,000 apps, the number is tiny - and some, if not all, of those were fixed on appeal.

[QUOTE=Apple Ambivalent;1609795]
Apple has about 25% share of smart phones -- and less than 5% of all phones. How is that a monopoly?


Exactly. If Adobe pulled all their copies of CS5 for Mac off the shelves tomorrow, it could hurt Apple (but not as much as it would hurt Adobe). But if Adobe said "CS5 is the last Mac version we're doing", Apple could have new software out there long before it became a problem.


The difference, of course, is that you're looking at narrow slices. Look at Apple's position in the entire market today - and compare it to anyone else.

Microsoft's market share and market dominance have declined.

Google has increased in influence, but there are indications that they've maxed out. Still, Google is the only other player in the industry besides Apple that is growing its market presence.

Adobe is stagnant. They're doing exactly the same thing they've done for decades - and their market position hasn't changed for at least a decade.

Now, look at Apple. Fifteen years ago, their survival was in question. Ten years ago, they had managed to ensure that they would survive as a minor player in desktop PCs. Eight years ago, they started to gain a very strong position in laptop PCs (reaching 15% market share, IIRC). Five years ago, they took over the MP3 market. Three years ago, they took over the phone market. Today, they're poised to take over the tablet PC market.

The reality is reflected in what the market perceives the company as being worth. Ten years ago, Apple was worth less than Adobe. Today, they're worth at least 10 times as much. Ten years ago, Apple was worth less than 10% of Microsoft. Today, they're at 80-90%. Again, Google is the exception - Google has also done well.

So, saying that Apple has outperformed the rest of the industry is a very supportable position. Saying that Apple has outperformed Adobe is a no-brainer. No one with any knowledge of the industry could ever question that.


Sure they are. That's why it stinks just as badly today as it did when the iPhone came out. Adobe has had 3 years to improve it - and no signs yet (still no 10.1, but even that is limited in functionality and very, very late. Most reports are that it is still slow and uses too much CPU, anyway).

If Adobe were serious about improving Flash, they've had plenty of time to do it.


On a similar Macrumors thread, someone was talking about their introductory programming course where the instructor was teaching html 5 and Flash.

Sorry, but Flash isn't programming. Too many people don't understand what programming is about.

He wasn't at Apple when he said that? Irrelevant now. And Jobs made it irrelevant.

Apple haven't lost. The've won the desktop and laptop and OS argument. Quality in each instance.

They haven't lost any of those under his leadership. (They were losing without his leadership, yes. Well, Du-OH!)



Lemon Bon Bon.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Apple ended up locking MS out of the Premium end and confining them to the Bargain Bin.

When consumers with $$ aren't buying your product, you've got problems. When the Platinum consumers of the industry - those who build your brand - want nothing to do with your product, you'll still sell units, but to the lowest level of the retail pyramid. Ouch.

A devastating summation of M$'s (and their desktop partners) problem.

Lemon Bon Bon.

PS. Anyone know if you can scan images/import directly into Pixelmator like you can with Photoshop?

I think he's really cute when he gets angry.

Apple cant win. They favor an Open standard over adobe's proprietary crap and they still are the bad buy. Im sorry, i cant get upset over an FLash being asked to compete in a free market ( people are free not to buy apples Flash free products) or a open more efficient standard over a closed one.

The fact so many technology writers have their panties in a bunch over Flash and its crappy video is odd to me. Im a flash designer 10 years now and I still cant care less. I am looking forward to HTML5 content creation tools in my future.

And yes, the CS UI for mac sucks.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I have been using Quark since 3.3. I am on version 8 now. Contrary to what I hear on the web, virtually 98% of the people I collect artwork from deliver it to me on Quark, despite my telling everyone of my clients that I accept Quark, InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, or PDFs as long as they are press ready.

I'll up front admit I do pay a premium to stick with Quark. I don't care one whip for the flash tools. I still use Quark much in the same way I always have. If Apple bought Quark, I'd be very happy. I was never really into InDesign. Not that it isn't an awesome app. I have nothing against it truly. I'm just very used to Quark and I so I just stick with it. I have hundreds of layouts in Quark and I just to see the point to switching to anything else. I will always have to be ready to accept Quark files, so no matter what I have to buy it. If I were merely an end user, I'd might see this differently. But since I collect from others as well as do company layouts, I just use what I know best.

Now, I won't always have the job I have. And so I keep my eyes open for potential good replacements. I have used Pixelmator and Vector Designer, but Photoshop and Illustrator are flat out better. But Freehand was truly awesome. Printers accepted it. It was truly professional grade.

When OSX first released I tried Caffeine, I think it was called. Or Tiffany, which is similar to photoshop. I also tried Corel products. All of these are close, but not close enough. I had wished and wished Apple would buy Macromedia and take on Fireworks, Freehand, etc.

I've never liked flash. Since OS 9 Flash has been a slow, buggy pile of steam. I have owned both PCs and Macs and the difference has always been easily seen. On the PC, flash is okay and pretty fast, but not perfect at all. But on the Mac, it's awful. I turn off all the flash on my Mac browser. I remember going to a keynote for Macromedia before flash was all over the place. I thought flash was going to make the web better. Think back to the days of web sites like Balthaser. But in that keynote, all the CEO of Macromedia talked about was flash for the sake of advertising. Now we have ads the fly right in front of the very text we are reading. On the WSJ, it just opens up consuming half the browser space to show me an ad. It's pegs the CPU to 100%. Certain things I have noticed make it unstable. As Steve Jobs said, it loves to crash. I have seen many times were a flash part of the site simply stops and you have to quit the browser and reload it. We all od this so quickly perhaps we don't even realize it. The plugin does die once in a while.

I personally want HTML5. I don't want flash on my iPad or Mac.

All I see around me are folks trying alternative after alternative looking to leave Adobe. We just can't because nothing is as good. We're locked in. Look at Lightroom vs Aperture. Apple made a credible product. Apple would do a good job I think in making a Photoshop like application if they truly wanted to.

As for Microsoft, I think Apple could absolutely make something on par to Word if they wanted to. In quite a few ways I am starting to prefer Pages over Word. But Numbers needs work to be considered an Excel killer. It's not horrible and for most folks I am sure it's just fine. I could totally use Numbers if I had to and pretty much replace all I do with Excel with it. It would be a little harder and slower for me to create what I want, but I could do it.

Just the other day our company brought on a new hire. I asked to purchase another license of Office for the employee. My boss said, Give em Open Office. I had to pause in shock for a few minutes. The company is sick of buying Office licenses.

I think this is the mood going around. A lot of open source or inexpensive software is starting to get pretty okay. Pages, Keynote, Numbers. It's not an office killer, but it does the job. Open Office does the job. Pixelmater, no. Vector Designer, no. Microsoft is truly the first company to be targeted. Adobe's Acrobat is a target. I actually prefer PDFPen for business uses. But so far, nothing can pull me away from PS and Il. There is simply nothing else on par with these two. I wish that would change.

If Apple bought Pixelmator they could certainly hire the right people and put major resources into it and make it a much better app. Illustrator I don't think would be hard to topple at all. I think no one wants to truly try. Perhaps Adobe has too many patents in the right places.

Here's an idea: Apple buys Adobe. Or buys another graphics company, adds in a few bits of code of their own, and does a Final Cut Pro on them, which is what Avid got when they abandoned the Mac. How'd that work out for you, Avid? Steve can be a killer when he wants to.

You might be interested in this:

http://www.pixelmator.com/support/vi...t=180&start=45

http://www.pixelmator.com/support/viewtopic.php?p=11275

A sign of (great) things to come . . .

Taking a somewhat longer view - and I am just an observer not an expert so the chronology is not complete - In the beginning, the Apple Adobe relationship was symbiotic. Together they brought Postscript and laser printing to the desktop. That partnership flourished until Adobe decided that support of Microsoft was a better business decision than continued support of Apple. Since then, the relationship has seen its ups and downs - but for Apple it has been mostly down. That is, lag in Adobe applications and features for Mac versions, absence of support Apple initiatives when the interests of Microsoft would be adversely affected.

Those were business decisions made from a monetary rather than a relationship perspective. Now that the shoe is on the other foot Adobe resents the pinch.

It is true that a company, to an extent, has the right to do as they wish. Adobe can do as it wants. And so should Apple.

The bottom line though is still the end user. Users of Apple products, like myself, have been relegated as second class citizens by those who preferred to focus most of their attention to MS-centric computers.

From personal experience, I contacted Adobe because I used a product of theirs. I was told that they did not have a version of the Adobe product that would be compatible with my computer. I was left with two choices, use my very old second generation iMac to use the Adobe; or buy a MS-centric computer, buy the latest version of the Adobe product.

Then, there is cost. The latest version for the Mac is $499, the upgrade is $149, while that of the MS-centric computers is $199, upgrade is $99.99. I cannot even upgrade because my version is considered too old.


You nailed the very problem I encountered and continue to have problems with.

In the past, I invested in a number of softwares that were prepared by MS-centric software companies, only to find later on that they stopped further software development because there is not enough market.

As a predominantly Apple product user, it will cost me a fortune just to own and keep up with Adobe products, and they are not even optimized for Apple products.

So. if Apple can find a way to improve my experience with my Apple equipment, more power to Apple.

CGC

Freehand was always the best. What happened is a perfect example of monopoly power. Adobe bought up enough stuff to swallow the market and push out competing products based solely on monetary concerns. Freehand was the better of the vector tools by a large margin yet it's gone simply because of stupid business reasons, not because it was an inferior product.

So much for Capitalism always allowing the best product to flourish.

I have been cruising around Adobe's website today and it strikes me there is a much bigger problem with Adobe than just the low quality of it's offerings. Their entire raison d'être seems to be to service business concerns as opposed to creating a great product. All the text refers to how you can monetize your designs. All the new features go on about how they increase client partner communication or some such business baffle-gab.

Even if they did a 180 degree turnaround and recoded everything in Cocoa, they still would see themselves as "enterprise" software and as serving the needs of the design *business* not the design professional themselves.

There is still a real need for a product for the "lone creative" or the small shop. There is a still a need for more focussed products that do one or a few jobs well instead of the giant suite that does everything badly. Adobe will not change it's culture unless it fails, is bought out, or even dies completely and is reborn under new ownership. This is not likely to happen. People who don't like the CS suite (and they are legion) should really be looking elsewhere already, and people like the Pixelmator team should start getting more serious about making a clear alternative product that actually does what he consumers want.

What are you going to do in the meantime?

Completely agree.

I'd say so, if this small company can keep it together.

The demo version is useable (apparently, fully functional) for 30 days. I'm no Photoshop jock, but it looks very good.

There is a dichotomy in the goals between predominantly software company and predominantly hardware company.

This can be glimpsed from the strategy of Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft does have its own hardware products but its bread and butter are its software products -- Windows, MS Office, Windows Mobile OS. In contrast, while Apple also creates many softwares, it's major sources of income are its hardware creations, Mac computers, iPod line, iPhone and iPad.

Software companies like Miicrosoft and Adobe would want to become the predominant in their business and could do so best by making their software code unique once they gain a hold of the market.

Apple realized, after losing the battle of portable computers, that its best bet would be software based on standards so that the softwares developed by other software companies would work for Apple products. It is for this reason that Apple has worked to influence the adoption of codes that will go into the standards. It is known that Apple contributed some its own software technology to achieve this goal.

However, just like software companies, Apple as a predominantly hardware company has to find an edge in technology to differentiate its hardware from other hardware companies. It has been very successful in doing this with its Mac computers so that it can be a niche player, charge premium and still make more profit than the largest players in computer hardware. Using its reputation for quality and "it just works", its latest set of creations -- iPod series, iPhine and now iPad -- are not only know for their quality but has caught the interest of the public, so that they became the predominant in their market.

CGC

Don't forget the business world. I don't think MS$ cares much about the hardware as long as they get the server and most of the business market.

Like always, I find alternatives, it is tough, but it is doable. The extra amount of work I do to go around these problems is the reason why I think there must be a better way.

That is why when it comes to software, I support standards, so that there is greater compatibility irrespective of the source. To an extent, this is what is happening with the bulk of the scripts that govern the basics of the internet.

It is when companies, like Microsoft, in their desire to achieve dominance, forks the development of internet standards, If you are developing website templates and CMS, for example, so much effort has to be done by web designers and developers to ensure that unique scripts in the Internet Explorer be made compatible with standards used by other browsers.

In regard Adobe Flash, it has a tendency to slow my internet experience to the extent that it may freeze my old computer when I multitask (which is almost all the time), so the sooner Adobe Flash disappears, the better for me.

CGC

If you don't need the full Photoshop, you can get PS Elements ($80) which covers what most people need and uses a lot of the plugins also.

He has also written several excellent books which should be required reading for Apple Developers.

If I read the reviews correctly, many of those that migrated to the Mac computer, previously coming from the PC side did so because they had the security that they can still run the MS-centric softwares in the latest versions of Mac computers.

"The Mac is also a PC." Wasn;t that one of the focus of one of the "Get a Mac" commercials?

I read several first hand experience from "journalists" and other "prominent" techies or bloggers, who tried to try the Mac. Once they get acquainted with the Mac, soon preferred the Mac way. This trend, among those who gave the Mac a chance, has been corroborated by a number of posters here, who were also previously PC-users.

CGC

Interesting take here:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/0...e-flash-myths/

I've been using Flex Builder for a long time and I've got to say it works quite well. I also can use Flex Builder on Windows machines and the same projects can be just copied from machine to machine. That's what I call multiplatform support.

I also make apps for iPhone, in C/C++/Objective C and OpenGL ES. I have to say Apple's move is making me consider dropping our support for Apple's platform. Things might get even worse. One company shouldn't be allowed to do such things.

It is. Thank you.

Just curious, Many criticize Apple because of their :vertical integration - derisively called "Walled Garden". Many would not buy the latest Apple products because they are not open source, and would rather use Android.

If the opposition to Apple's latest products is about its being not open source, why the championing of products, like Flash from Adobe, which does not even work very well for Apple products?

Those who oppose propriety products must not be supporters of Adobe Flash, or many of Adobe products. But, not all those, especially perhaps many Mac users, who prefer proprietary products may support Adobe products.

To be frank, I am in principle all for open source. In fact, I use open source CMS to create websites. Until now though, after so many years, even after paying templates for the open source CMS, the best of these open source softwares cannot even match what professional news-magazine sites can achieve.

The same is true with Linux. I had high hopes for it for the Mac. Red Hat had made billions based on Linux. There is a vast pool of developers for the Linux. But, and this is the big but, where is the Linux GUI, that would be as easy to use as that one developed by Apple?

It took me less than an hour to learn how to use the first Mac I ever bought. If I spend a week or two to learn the Linux for the Mac, and get acquainted with its GUI (is there one already?), what it would cost me, in terms of my time and effort would be more than the cost of a Mac computer or two.

CGC

If AE died on Mac, users could styill run the Win version on their Macs or use FCP.

Where did you get this impression?

Apple is very active in the standardization of scripts used for the internet and mobile computing. As a predominantly hardware company, having software technology standards is crucial for Apple. It need not be marginalized even if it market share is in the minority, as has happened in the portable computer segment. [Now that Apple has made the game-changing products for mobile computing and consumer products, it has greater interest to have its say in the starndards for the industry,]

Apple -- even before its ascension as the most innovative in mobile computing -- has spearheaded development of these technologies, especially in mobile computing. Apple even contributed some of its proprietary technologies Iwithout charging royalties) to become the basis of these standards. This is not all altruistic though.

The more Apple could influence the standards, the more say it could in shaping the softwaare technology that would run the internet and mobile computing. Other companies, like Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc., have the same goals.

CGC

Quadra - Thanks for the link about Pixelmator. I never knew about this package! I bought PSE a few months ago to work on a quickie graphic update on a client's website because I didn't have time to wait for CS5 and put off choking on the huge price tag I was going to pay. I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing Pixelmator and I was really impressed with it. Since it is compatible with .PSD formats, I think it's a done deal.

And with the arrogance that Adobe has been showing of late, I think now I will gladly remove my PSE package and go with Pixelmator. The price is certainly agreeable as well!

Thanks for the recommendation. I look forward to trying it out in more detail!

Adobe doesn't want to invest the money in a marginal platform (OS X). Lets face it, OS X is less than 10% of the installed base world wide, why should they invest more than 10% of their development resources. This is why the Flash plug-in for OS X sucks.

The problem with Adobes 'Logic' is that while OS X is 10% of the installed desktop/server/notebook market, OS X, as iOS, is becoming the dominant mobile OS.

The second problem is, Adobe wants access into the kernel for video optimization that Apple will not allow. If Adobe would optimize flash to use Open GL, or similar, there wouldn't be a problem. But that would require Adobe to re-write a huge part of Flash, which isn't going to happen.

So, to sum up:

Apple says: Your product is substandard on our operating systems, fix it using the tools we have made available.
Adobe says: You are too small of a fish for us to spend the developer resources on.
Apple says: Until you fix your product, we're not allowing your product to compromise our end users mobile experience
Adobe says: But Flash runs the internet.
Apple says: Screw you.
Adobe says: "Go Screw Yourself."

That's a joke right? Pixelmator is like a dumb down version for someone who doesn't have time to learn photoshop. It's a shabby version of elements, but to compare it with photoshop is like comparing an ipod shuffle with a touch.

I am an Apple fan and Mac programmer. And I am looking forward to watching Adobe's bones being nailed to the roof of Apple's headquarters so that they may slowly bleach in the sun.

Adobe has refused to work with Apple on improving Flash for Mac OS X and iPhone OS. For years now. This may, of course, be a reaction against Apple bundling Preview with Mac OS X, which effectively killed off 99% of the Mac market for Acrobat (a textbook example of "bloatware".) And Adobe is probably still sore about Aperture effectively replacing Photoshop and Lightroom for many amateur and professional photographers.

So what did Adobe do? Well, instead of improving their Mac software and competing against Apple through the merits of their own products, Adobe has gone the passive-aggressive route. They are giving Apple the cold shoulder, refusing to improve the quality of their Mac software, and thus giving creative professionals more than just a little nudge toward the Windows versions of Adobe software.

So when that Adobe evangelist/clown says "We are not looking to kill anything or anyone," he's really saying "We are looking to hurt Apple for developing products that compete against ours."

And frankly, the whole idea behind cross-compilers is to cut corners. Save a few weeks here and there and avoid hiring Mac-specific and Windows-specific programmers for the different versions of your products. What you end up with is the lowest common denominator. Some tech companies are fine with that. Apple isn't.

You are free to leave. The iPhone is not an open platform. You are not required to produce software for it. I don't here a lot of people complaining that C#/ VB.Net are not available development environments for the Apple Platform.

That is what it boils down to. Why should Apple invest $1 to improve Adobes bottom line? Why should Apple allow privileged access to the OS Kernel? Especially in light of how BAD their software is currently? Adobe admits that it's software on OS X is lacking. It should either fix it, or shut up.

MAYBE if they produced a product for OS X that was stable, Apple would let them into the iPhone OS sandbox.

Ouch. That was a comprehensive beating for Adobe in the Apple vs Adobe article. Very articulate. Very well written.

Quadra. Thanks for the links. I'm checking them out.

Lemon Bon Bon.

This isn't about preventing low quality apps from entering the iPhone app store. They already have quality control standards in place.

The new licensing allows Apple to deny an app because of how it was developed, even if it qualified in every other regard. This doesn't help users or developers. It has forced me, and many other independent developers out of Apple's market, and thousands of titles already in the app store violate this license.

Who will this help? Large companies that can afford dedicated iPhone development teams. Sure, this hurts Adobe, but this hurts many independent developers, and iPhone users who want to play their games.

I think we get that Photoshop is a mature program. I remember it being good at Version 4. But these days... bloated and slow. And hasn't supported GPU acceleration for years when it could have done.

Pixelmator is off to a good start. There's a few omissions like Twain Aquire. But the feature list is impressive, it has GPU acceleration and a gorgeous interface. And it's only on version 1.5.

Photoshop needs to go to the gym and work off some of its fat ass.

Lemon Bon Bon.

... and lurking in the shadows, unnoticed by the raging mobs of nerds - Quark was rubbing his hands together in an evil like manner "excellent.... yeees... excellent... "