or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Public beta of Adobe Creative Suite 3 may boost Mac sales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Public beta of Adobe Creative Suite 3 may boost Mac sales

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
Exclusive: Sales of Apple Computer's professional Mac line could receive a shot in the arm later this month if Adobe Systems proceeds with plans to release an early public beta of its Creative Suite 3.0 software bundle.

Thus far, graphics professionals have been slow to adopt the Intel-based Mac Pro workstations introduced by Apple this summer -- a trend which both Apple and industry analysts have attributed to the lack of an Intel native version of Creative Suite for the Mac OS X operating system.

For its part, Adobe has gone on record in stating that native Intel Mac support of its most popular graphics applications, such as Photoshop and Illustrator, will have to wait until the Spring 2007 release of Creative Suite 3.

Though traditionally tight-lipped, the San Jose, Calif.-based software developer earlier this year came under immense pressure from its large Mac customer base to outline plans for Intel Mac support in its industry leading applications.

Like almost everyone else in the industry, Adobe was caught off guard by Apple's decision in the summer of 2005 to make the jump from PowerPC to Intel processors. After some analysis, the company concluded that it would be most effective to support the Mac's architectural changes as part of its ongoing development cycle of Creative Suite 3.0, rather than go back and re-release an Intel Mac version of Creative Suite 2.0.

"This enables us to advance our technology at the aggressive pace that our customers expect, while also adding support for significant new system configurations," Adobe explained in a statement released in February. In the same disclosure, it also indicated that Creative Suite 3.0 was unlikely to ship for another 14 months.

Word of Adobe's plans quickly spread amongst creative professionals, who for the most part have decided to hold out on purchases of new Mac systems until they can get their hands on the Intel native version of Creative Suite. Similarly, sales of the current version of the software bundle are slowing as customers eagerly await version 3.0, now just a few months away.

But those slowing sales trends could all change relatively soon, AppleInsider has learned. People familiar with Adobe's software strategy say the company plans to whet the appetites of its approximately 3 million creative professional customers with a public beta of Creative Suite 3.0 some time this month.

The beta would be available to all current Creative Suite 2.0 license holders in the form of a Universal Binary that would run natively on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs, those people say. The early beta release would also be available in a version compatible with Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP and Windows Vista operating systems.

So far, Adobe has offered very little information on the features, components and pricing og the upcoming release, which is referenced internally under the code-named "Banana Split." However, AppleInsider has reported previously that Dreamweaver, which was acquired as part of Adobe's acquisition of Macromedia last year, will replace GoLive as the primary web authoring application in the release. Similarly, Macromedia's Fireworks will take on the role of Adobe's Image Ready application.

Information also suggests that Adobe will market a variety of Creative Suite 3.0 package bundles, each of which will include a different assortment of applications at various price points.

In a note to clients this month, PiperJaffray analyst Gene Munster estimated that "new seats and upgrades" will cost about the same as "buying Creative Suite and Macromedia Studio separately and then discounting by 15 percent."

Munster's checks also indicate a strong adoption rate for Creative Suite 3.0 following its release, which he believes will help drive Mac sales. In a poll conducted during the September Photoshop World conference, 87 percent of graphics professionals told the analyst that there is a greater than 50 percent likelihood they will purchase the software bundle within 12 months of its release.

"The bottom line is that there is significant pent-up demand for Intel-based Macs among the Adobe creative pro community," Munster said. "Adobe creative pro customers cannot run their Adobe apps at full effiency on an Intel-based Mac until Creative Suite 3.0 is released, so many are waiting until that time to upgrade their machines."
post #2 of 64
With creative professionals making up most of its customer base, you would think Adobe would put a priority on getting a CS version out for INTEL based Macs. At least a temporary fix should have been available months ago. The software sucks on INTEL Macs.
post #3 of 64
This is great news if true.

I still think Adobe was in the end waiting for Vista. They knew about Apple and Intel. And OS X has needed an update that would take advantage of its goodies for well before the intel thing.

Now that Vista has hit the street corporate and Leopard looming, Adobe has to put it out there.

Go Adobe.
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
iPad2 16 GB Wifi

Who is worse? A TROLL or a person that feeds & quotes a TROLL? You're both idiots.....
Reply
post #4 of 64
I wonder what new features it will have OTHER than being a Universal Binary?

Anyway, I want it.
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
"How fortunate are you and I.."
Reply
post #5 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmoney

With creative professionals making up most of its customer base, you would think Adobe would put a priority on getting a CS version out for INTEL based Macs. At least a temporary fix should have been available months ago. The software sucks on INTEL Macs.

Actually, Acrobat has become their major application in sales. Of course, some is due to the lack of major graphics updates. Acrobat's use in so many corporate and government institutions is huge.

Plus, I've been saying this since Universal Binary was announced. Adobe is not going to release Creative Suite 3 until Microsoft Vista is released. Get used to it...Adobe is Microsoft's lackey. I think I remember recently where Mac users account for about 20% of Adobe's total sales; 40% of its creative software sales (which reinforces the impact of Acrobat on total Adobe sales). So believe me, if Vista were delayed another 8 months, so would Creative Suite 3!

It stinks but it's business reality.

/
post #6 of 64
This is what I've been saying they should have done all along; I just didn't expect it would take them this long to do it.
post #7 of 64
It will be great to see a beta at MWSF in January.

That way, the bugs can be worked out and creatives can purchase Mac Pros, CS3 and Tiger all at once in the spring.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #8 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pairof9s

Actually, Acrobat has become their major application in sales. Of course, some is due to the lack of major graphics updates. Acrobat's use in so many corporate and government institutions is huge.

Plus, I've been saying this since Universal Binary was announced. Adobe is not going to release Creative Suite 3 until Microsoft Vista is released. Get used to it...Adobe is Microsoft's lackey. I think I remember recently where Mac users account for about 20% of Adobe's total sales; 40% of its creative software sales (which reinforces the impact of Acrobat on total Adobe sales). So believe me, if Vista were delayed another 8 months, so would Creative Suite 3!

It stinks but it's business reality.

/

+1

And that's why we went from a 12-18 monthes develppement cycle (as touted by Adobe when CS2 began shipping) to a claimed as normal 24 monthes dev cycle

I used CS2 since I got my MBP rev A and, now, my MBP C2D and it has been a pain in the ass to use (despite other apps I use being blowing fast). Acrobat Pro 8 is said to be really fast as was Adobe Reader 8 when I tested it.

Being one of the poor guys to buy an upgrade from CS1 premium to acobat Pro 7 just before having to upgrade to CS2 with no dicsount, I will wait to CS3 inbstead of buying Acrobat 8 now. And I don't think I am the sole one to fear to be burnt twice. So I don't expec Acrobat Pro 8 numbers to be that good until CS3 is out. And I think it is why we have so few benchmarks of Acrobat Pro on intel Macs until now

That being said, CS 3 is said to bring hardware acceleration to graphic rendering, non destructive live filters and simple 3D and video tools to Photoshop along a revamped interface (a la Premiere). I don't know if Adobe went with Image/animation/video Core API from OS X or wdent we their own engine but the idea is the same : leverage the graphic card OpenGL capabilities to help in rendering 2D graphics
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
post #9 of 64
Quote:
to whet the appetites

Interesting spelling.
post #10 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir

Interesting spelling.

What? The correct spelling is interesting?


What will be interesting is how much Adobe apps will make of both Vista's and OSX's graphic acceleration. Adobe's filters and effects look positively pedestrian beside apps using CoreImage to get realtime image manipulation.
post #11 of 64
It would be good if Apple and Adobe did a joint launch: 8-core Mac Pro and CS3 "available today."
post #12 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir

Interesting spelling.

whet |(h)wet| |(h)w?t| |w?t|
verb ( whetted |(h)w?d?d|, whetting |(h)w?d??|) [ trans. ]
excite or stimulate (someone's desire, interest, or appetite) : here's an extract to whet your appetite.
noun archaic
a thing that stimulates appetite or desire : he swallowed his two dozen oysters as a whet.
post #13 of 64
i was an indesign beta tester on indesign 2 and we got regular updates to play with. what we were not told (though we should have worked it out) is that the file format for ID2 beta was not fixed. so the files we created in beta were not compatible with ID 2 when it came out.

i doubt adobe would do this with a public beta, but something to keep in mind...
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
post #14 of 64
Honestly, here is the mentality I think both Apple and Adobe had.

Apple pulled a surprise on everyone by switching to Intel...and by forcing developers into Xcode for Unibin support. Even major developers were left in the dust.....on purpose. When Apple decided to transition it would be best to get the OS and hardware ready first while assisting developers port to Intel AND while simultaneously developing new innovative products. What's best to come out of Apple is still being created....Jobs refers to this saying products in the pipeline are the best he's ever seen.

Apple didn't give the software vendors a heads up on purpose. If I was in this position, I would do the same thing. It's a transition and there's a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into this. It's not like flipping a switch and voila.

If I were Microsoft, Adobe, etc. I would probably be somewhat frustrated with Apple IN THE SENSE that they force the IDE to Xcode. From what I hear Xcode isn't really up to par with the IDE Adobe, Microsoft, etc. use. So, it's painstaking work and it wouldn't make sense to do a port of it and then release your next big upgrade a few months later.

I do wish Apple would have given somewhat of a heads up to developers saying, "we're evaluating OSX x86, and we think you should too".

It does suck to have to wait, but I think the rewards will be well worth it. Leopard will be awesome, the new Intel Mac stuff I'm sure will be the best products we've seen, and the upgrades from Adobe and Microsoft sound like they are worth the upgrade. Don't forget Adobe had a huge buyout and products to combine.

So don't take it out on Adobe, they made the right decision in response to the transition announcement. I just really hope we see a Beta in January
post #15 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixlnet

Apple pulled a surprise on everyone by switching to Intel...and by forcing developers into Xcode for Unibin support. Even major developers were left in the dust.....on purpose. (snip)

If I were Microsoft, Adobe, etc. I would probably be somewhat frustrated with Apple IN THE SENSE that they force the IDE to Xcode. From what I hear Xcode isn't really up to par with the IDE Adobe, Microsoft, etc. use. So, it's painstaking work and it wouldn't make sense to do a port of it and then release your next big upgrade a few months later.

Even if it wasn't very elegant, I think Apple had to do this because the other IDE being used for the Mac (PowerPlant) was very conservative and very oriented towards Classic Mac OS coding.

In order to force the Big Software Vendors to create swift applications, I believe Apple had to get them on the Xcode train : this way they had to rewrite all their legacy code from scratch. This is particularly important because these apps' legacy code go back far in time (sometimes in the 80's), much farther in fact than the legacy code found in the Windows version of the same apps. This probably translated in heavy code surrounded by "life-sustaining" wrappers (whose purpose is only to allow the old code to continue to work in the new environment), making the code even heavier, and thus apps slower.

And "slower" is the keyword here : Apple's OS is compared to its competitors. And if the Mac OS always comes out as the slowest despite Apple's efforts to the contrary (at least for the last 2 or 3 years), then the rest of the optimization efforts must be done in the Big Software Vendors. Now they were not really interested doing so in their old IDE, since it would have meant rewriting their code (and who wants to do that when it works ?)

By breaking the old IDEs, Apple forced the Big Software Vendors to take a long hard look at their code base. Hopefully this will/should translate in better performance too.
post #16 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

whet |(h)wet| |(h)w?t| |w?t|
verb ( whetted |(h)w?d?d|, whetting |(h)w?d??|) [ trans. ]
excite or stimulate (someone's desire, interest, or appetite) : here's an extract to whet your appetite.
noun archaic
a thing that stimulates appetite or desire : he swallowed his two dozen oysters as a whet.

owned.
post #17 of 64
Hi everyone. Long time no see. Hope you guys are having a decent holiday season. Don't get your hopes up about support for 8 Core machines that don't exist. Even if Apple were to announce it soon(doubtful IMO), developers like Adobe wouldn't begin building software for it until they are used by a sufficient percentage of their customers. IE you're not going to see 8 core support anytime soon.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #18 of 64
Will a considerable percentage of professionals behave as though the beta was the final thing (buy Mac Pros and use the beta in day to day work)?

Think Secret says Adobe is planning a release "...in the near future—possibly by week's end—sources report."

With regard to what's been discussed about a ground-up rewrite of legacy code, they also say 'Photoshop CS3 "simply flies" on Intel-based systems, sources recently said.'
post #19 of 64
A public beta of CS3 makes a lot of sense. With the code completely written for Intel using Apple's coding tools along with integrating software from Macromedia, too much has changed to risk only in-house and chosen-few testing. If they do that, the final version is likely to hit the market with some dreadful problem that'll cost customers much in lost time, labor and money. Not what Adobe wants.

But if they make the beta available only for CS2 owners, they're making a mistake that's almost as great. I own virtually all the components of the Creative Suite--InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and Acrobat (along with FrameMaker and AfterEffects). But I only use InDesign extensively enough to justify keeping up with the current version. I was planning to use the shift to Intel hardware and the release of CS3 to bring all the Adobe software I use even occasionally up to date. That's why I hope the rumors that there'll be several versions of CS3 prove true. I have no interest in paying for a Dreamweaver upgrade or Flash products. And if Adobe doesn't offer the right package for my purposes, I'm likely to buy less rather than more.

But Adobe also needs to remember that many of us use one application almost exclusively. We don't like it when Adobe tries to play games and draw us into buying a suite of products that we have little use for. We like it even less when they treat us as second class citizens.

Adobe should also offer individual beta packages for the registered owners of each of their major products. They should certainly do it for those who have the current version, and they'd be wise to at least consider doing it for those with less-than-current versions. (After all, these will be time-limited beta products.) The shift to Intel is the perfect time to persuade Mac users of older Adobe products (particularly Classic versions that don't run on Intel), that they need to upgrade to the new version, whether or not they buy CS3.

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle
post #20 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

It will be great to see a beta at MWSF in January.

That way, the bugs can be worked out and creatives can purchase Mac Pros, CS3 and Tiger all at once in the spring.

Adobe shuld offer a discount to prople buying a new mac. Buy a Mac get 25% off CS3!
That would make the transition much easyer to swallow.
Why do so many Sys Admins hate the Mac? . A q u a M a c .
Reply
Why do so many Sys Admins hate the Mac? . A q u a M a c .
Reply
post #21 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixlnet

Apple pulled a surprise [..] by forcing developers into Xcode for Unibin support.

Please, not this again.

1) Anyone with half a clue easily saw the writing on the wall that CodeWarrior was going away, especially when Motorola didn't even put any effort into PPC970 support.
2) Apple had been recommending people to move to Xcode Tools for many, many years.
3) It is perfectly possible to compile a Universal Binary without Xcode. All you need is lipo, which Xcode calls into anyway, and two compilers (duh).
post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir

Interesting spelling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

whet |(h)wet| |(h)w?t| |w?t|
verb ( whetted |(h)w?d?d|, whetting |(h)w?d??|) [ trans. ]
excite or stimulate (someone's desire, interest, or appetite) : here's an extract to whet your appetite.
noun archaic
a thing that stimulates appetite or desire : he swallowed his two dozen oysters as a whet.


Owned!

edit: damnit I didn't read till the end of the thread, someone beat me to it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #23 of 64
While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.
post #24 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

2) Apple had been recommending people to move to Xcode Tools for many, many years.

Exactly.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #25 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.

I hear you, I did like whipping open elements to do something quick and easy, a LOT of the people I know that use PS would be fine with PSE, of course they're win users who didn't pay for their PS so that's another story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777

Exactly.

It wasn't so simple as that though. There were many discussions about this in the last year. One issue is that Apple didn't bother to explain why a developer should have been transitioning to Xcode. Another issue is that Xcode was still an immature product for much of the time that Apple was (poorly) trying to convince devels to switch. It wasn't as good as it should have been to handle large projects, so it looked like a disincentive to switch when they already were using a mature development system.
post #27 of 64
Still, I agree, it was written on the wall and sooner or later, Adobe would have been in a difficult position. The sooner they began the transition on an imperfect xCode, the better they had chances to overcome its shortcomings.

With all the 68k days code still around, it was stricking everybody as urgent to rewrite some Adobe apps : they could have began that task much sooner ona per app basis, to avoid a transition on all CS apps at once…

What I think is that waiting for Vista techologies to be frozen was also really important for Adobe and the Intel transition was really convenient to justify the delays…

Also, while I agree Photoshop code was a mess to rewrite, Adobe had much more recent or easier apps to transition and that could have been done in far less than 20 monthes… Illustrator is said to have been rewritten in mach-O already in CS2 version and InDesign, ImageReady, Bridge and Version Cue are all pretty recent creations…

And, why Apple, who worked on Macromedia codebase for FCP and, later, third parties products like Motion, Logic Pro or Shake had much shorter developpement cycle than Adobe?

What about Dreamweaver which should be easily rewritten comparatively to Photoshop ?

Nah, Adobe waited to upgrade all apps at once to wait for Vista and to be sure to have a good enough incentive for frowning CS 2 users to upgrade another time.
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
post #28 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

whet |(h)wet| |(h)w?t| |w?t|
verb ( whetted |(h)w?d?d|, whetting |(h)w?d??|) [ trans. ]
excite or stimulate (someone's desire, interest, or appetite) : here's an extract to whet your appetite.
noun archaic
a thing that stimulates appetite or desire : he swallowed his two dozen oysters as a whet.

Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".
post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir

Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".

I think it has some relation to "whetstone", a rock used to sharpen knives. I really don't know how that came about though, to sharpen one's appetites doesn't make much sense to me, but a lot of colloqualisms don't make sense.
post #30 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by othello

i was an indesign beta tester on indesign 2 and we got regular updates to play with. what we were not told (though we should have worked it out) is that the file format for ID2 beta was not fixed. so the files we created in beta were not compatible with ID 2 when it came out.

i doubt adobe would do this with a public beta, but something to keep in mind...

They could water mark them.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #31 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

It wasn't so simple as that though. There were many discussions about this in the last year. One issue is that Apple didn't bother to explain why a developer should have been transitioning to Xcode. Another issue is that Xcode was still an immature product for much of the time that Apple was (poorly) trying to convince devels to switch. It wasn't as good as it should have been to handle large projects, so it looked like a disincentive to switch when they already were using a mature development system.

Cut the bullshit, JeffDM. Please.
post #32 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol

Cut the bullshit, JeffDM. Please.

I'm not making things up. This is all information I gleaned from discussions on these very forums.
post #33 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling

A public beta of CS3 makes a lot of sense.

In theory, only in so far as letting possible Mac Pro customers know it's OK to upgrade. Don't get your hopes up for the "Adobe is moving to a public beta process" thing. If a public beta happens, this is a special set of circumstances driven by a new CPU platform. It will by definition be this way only once. Next time everyone will already have native MacIntel stuff (the stuff we're waiting for now), right? So there will be no need at that time, to assure anyone that a Macintel version is in the works. They'll already own a Macintel version.

As for Light Room (in case anyone is going to cite that as proof of some larger shift in thinking at Adobe), there are obvious reasons surrounding that application's public beta, having mostly to do with Aperture (in most people's opinion). Adobe probably wants people to understand -in that niche market- that Apple's product is not the only game in town, to the extent that even their unfinished product is highly usable and worth considering. And remember well: the fact that public betas sometimes exist, doesn't mean a more robust private beta program isn't going on at the same time, with that group ultimately deciding on the features, style of implementation, etc. I am not a part of such a program, but does anyone really think there have only been 4 builds of LightRoom since the public program was announced? My hunch is version 2 will not have a public beta, but I'm open to wagers of course.

There are two kinds of public betas. One is to float a brand new concept to the public and see if theyrespond favorably before proceeding further with feature development... another is to let a specific segment of the public know that a long-awaited product is coming along nicely, and will eventually be available. You decide what camp a possible CS3-related beta app falls into.

Quote:
With the code completely written for Intel

PPC and Intel are on equal footing now and for a couple years at least, for all big name developers. The percentage of MacIntel users as a part of the total Mac user base is still much smaller than the PPC segment. It would be bad business for any developer to start ignoring PPC-related performance improvements and stability in their apps, at this early stage. Eventually PPC will fall by the wayside but it'll be a while.

Quote:
using Apple's coding tools along with integrating software from Macromedia, too much has changed to risk only in-house and chosen-few testing.

You can take what I'm saying or leave it, but this kind of thinking makes Mac rumor sites easy targets for ridicule. The *only* risk for closed-to-the-public testing -and only during unusually long development cycles- is that it's difficult to keep customers informed and re-assured that good stuff is on the way. Seriously... I'm not making this up.

Quote:
If they do that, the final version is likely to hit the market with some dreadful problem that'll cost customers much in lost time, labor and money.

Not trying to be an a-hole, but this is not sound reasoning on your part. I don't know your personal history but it seems like you've never been a part of a closed beta group for any well known software product. Developers often choose internal testers from a wide range of professions and hardware profiles (and therefore wide range of needs) to beta test their software. Roughly anywhere from 100 to 300 non-employee-testers, depending on the developer and the product. Most operate with the intention of replacing their everyday software with the beta-ware (assuming it's truly beta and not alpha-ware) and really hammering on it for many hours each week, reporting bugs, discussing features, etc. It's actually a gigantic volume of feedback that comes from even 100 testers, especially over a period of many months. There are people whose job it is simply to manage that feedback and channel it one way or another.

Where invite-only beta programs go, testers take it very seriously and are very picky in many cases.

For most complex software products, far more bugs are found from one release to the next, than are ever fixed in a given release. That's true of operating systems too. Look at OS X and all the dot releases. You think that's a small beta demographic? No way! Apple has a huge number of beta testers for their OS, and as such they couldn't possibly wait till every annoying bug was fixed before releasing. They get the worst offenders, freeze the UI for release, tweak some more and let it out there. Otherwise development would be never-ending. And in fact it IS never-ending, it just doesn't seem that way from the perspective of boxed products. Development goes on 365 pretty much, for any big-name product you use.

The point I'm trying to make is this: the notion that invite-only testers somehow are prone to missing important things the public wouldn't, or that the public would find everything that's serious, is very naive. And in fact most people who download and use public betas are pretty useless as testers; they're only excited to see the new stuff and once they have they forget about it because it's no longer news. Just like rumors. Once one has been verified, no one cares anymore.

Quote:
But if they make the beta available only for CS2 owners, they're making a mistake

No developer would tie a public beta to prior registered users if the purpose is to get new users as well as allay the fears of existing ones.

Quote:
But Adobe also needs to remember that many of us use one application almost exclusively. We don't like it when Adobe tries to play games and draw us into buying a suite of products that we have little use for. We like it even less when they treat us as second class citizens.

Here's what I can tell you; I've tested software for large, well known commercial developers in the past. Among those developers, nearly all were conscientious individuals in how they approach their jobs. They truly care about users' opinions and solicit them often; they all want to make their product better - constantly. They work very long hours, they listen carefully (and often repeatedly) to comments made about what works, what doesn't, what's fair, what's not, what's logical, what's crazy... and they take more shit (often undeserved) than you might guess. Some testers, despite the invite status, seem to think carrying an attitude into the room is not a big deal. Most are very gracious however.

Remember Adobe is in business so their employees can make money just like you or me. And if we were developing multiple software products (you and I), we too would consider bundling them in different ways and charging different amounts from one release to the next until we found a sweet spot. And FWIW for every Adobe user out there that only uses one app (solely), there are -I would wager at least 5- who use multiple apps, every day. 5-to-1 IOW. Photoshop and InDesign, Illustrator and InDesign, InDesign and Acrobat, Illustrator and GoLive (or now Dreamweaver). The permutations are endless and all very valid (and common if you extrapolate out to millions of users).

Adobe isn't' playing games with anyone and if you feel like a second class citizen because Adobe follows their business plan and not yours, well, that's kind of naive too don't you think? All I know is, when I look at all the things I can do with the software Adobe and Apple and OmniGroup and a dozen others make, I don't feel too bad about giving them my hard-earned money because quite frankly trying to do my job without their software would be hellish at best. Imagine a world where things like MS Publisher or Paint were your best friends.... *shudder*.

Quote:
Adobe should also offer individual beta packages for the registered owners of each of their major products. ...

Why? What benefit does this provide, in return for all the work that's required to set things up specifically for registered owners? If they were to release all the products as public betas (instead of one or two let's pretend), why wouldn't they simply have a multi-part suite download with beta serial numbers, and let users install as many or as few as they want, without any sort of administration to go along with it?

Anyway, I think people like yourself spend way too much time over-analyzing rumors of the products you like, when 98% of those rumors are basically fabricated from nothing. Use the software you got to good ends, and if a beta comes out, well then lucky us. But given the publicly announced quarter of release for the suite, I wouldn't expect any potential public betas to be in 100% finished form or as stable as a boxed product. Nor would I expect to get multiple builds the way we have with LightRoom (that's a 1.0 product remember).

Happy holidays.

-Moogs
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #34 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pascal007

By breaking the old IDEs, Apple forced the Big Software Vendors to take a long hard look at their code base. Hopefully this will/should translate in better performance too.

Very interesting. Steve Jobs is the man. I never saw that side of things.
post #35 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac

While Adobe's at it, I want my UB PS Elements. I know all the pros are snickering but I really like Elements and it suffices for all the home users and hobbiests.

*snicker* *snicker* Maybe you'd like a PC and Windows98 to go along with your PS Elements? muaha ha hh h ahah haha h hah you "home" and "hobby" graphic peons.....!!!

Side note: pro creative/ graphics is a really cutthroat and sometimes very ego-driven environment. But we all knew that. I hacked my way in, and was devastated by what I saw. \ But there are some decent boutique Mac-driven friendly creative pro shops (web/ graphic/ ad design services, etc) out there.
post #36 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir

Time to out myself as a non-native speaker of English. I guess I had encountered this expression largely only in spoken language. And "to wet somebody's appetite" made perfectly sense to me, also because in my mother tongue the corresponding expression would translate roughly into "the water is accumulating in my mouth".

Nah, no worries, it's a common mistake among English speakers, precisely because yes, in can make sense that "to wet someone's appetite" is to make someone salivate, metaphorically or literally. I actually forgot about it in some way if you had not brought it up (and then got, unfortunately, p*wnd). Whet is the proper word to use... although I'd bet you half of anyone in high school in English speaking countries today would think Wet is the word to use.
post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs

Happy holidays.

-Moogs

You've been away too long, you're too nice.
post #38 of 64
Good points Mike, here's some thoughts:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling

A public beta of CS3 makes a lot of sense. With the code completely written for Intel using Apple's coding tools along with integrating software from Macromedia, too much has changed to risk only in-house and chosen-few testing. If they do that, the final version is likely to hit the market with some dreadful problem that'll cost customers much in lost time, labor and money. Not what Adobe wants.

Precisely. There's too much riding on CS3 and remember, this will be the first major lovechild of the Adobe-Macromedia sexfest (well, in terms of code) 8). As some have pointed out, CS3 coincides with the 80% (very rough) Windows user base ready to move to XP2 from 2000 or Vista from XP2 -- over the next year and a half, and coincides with the 20% Mac user base clawing in the air for UniversalBinaries and ready to move to 10.4 or 10.5 in the next year and a half. Alongside Acrobat8 and several other Adobe products, it needs to get CS3 solid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling

But if they make the beta available only for CS2 owners, they're making a mistake that's almost as great...

This would be highly tragic as they want a whole new generation of up-and-coming users of the software who may have been on Corel or Gimp or other stuff that are "getting serious" to come onboard the CS train.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling

That's why I hope the rumors that there'll be several versions of CS3 prove true. I have no interest in paying for a Dreamweaver upgrade or Flash products. And if Adobe doesn't offer the right package for my purposes, I'm likely to buy less rather than more.

Actually, you're likely to buy more rather than less, for most people. They'll have several packages and several upgrade pricing packages, etc. But I can guaran-fracking-tee you there'll be one or two programs you *don't quite need*. I think for profit's sake they will certainly not offer individual purchases and do the old "Creative Suite Premium" "Creative Suite Web" "Creative Suite Basic" etc...
post #39 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

....which is referenced internally under the code-named "Banana Split."...

hahahaha. Great name

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

... Dreamweaver ... will replace GoLive ... Fireworks will take on the role of ImageReady ...

Makes good sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Munster's checks also indicate a strong adoption rate for Creative Suite 3.0 following its release, which he believes will help drive Mac sales. In a poll conducted during the September Photoshop World conference, 87 percent of graphics professionals told the analyst that there is a greater than 50 percent likelihood they will purchase the software bundle within 12 months of its release.

"The bottom line is that there is significant pent-up demand for Intel-based Macs among the Adobe creative pro community," Munster said. "Adobe creative pro customers cannot run their Adobe apps at full effiency on an Intel-based Mac until Creative Suite 3.0 is released, so many are waiting until that time to upgrade their machines."

I normally like Gene Munster but he's putting a bit of a heavy cross-court topspin on this (to pull out a tennis analogy from thin air). He's saying that 87% of those polled are 50% or more likely to upgrade to CS3. However, this is Photoshop World, so what is the PC-Mac user breakdown of that? 50-50?

Also, the Mac Pro and iMac market as for graphic/ web design pros, not video/ composite/ motion graphics pros, is fairly small-ish. Like 300,000 units per quarter? My brain has melted with my consecutive posts (thanks for bearing with me), but the point I'm trying to make is yes, there is pent up demand, but the Mac - CS3 potential profits and unit sales for Apple is slimmer than the analysts are painting. Be warned, shareholders.
post #40 of 64
One more post... I swear it's the last in the row... You can bet your bottom dollar once the public beta of CS3 Universal + XP2/Vista is out, analysts will be all over "increased Mac Pro and iMac sales!!! Woooooooooo" and echoing each other worse than that canyon in Mars that's like 10x deeper/ more canyon-ey than the Grand Canyon.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Public beta of Adobe Creative Suite 3 may boost Mac sales