Reread your history books. Adobe has done the bare minimum to support the Mac platform for over a decade now and has done far more to promote their Windows products for a long time now.
- Late to deliver OS X native apps
- Late to deliver Universal binaries
- Late to deliver 64-bit apps (and most of CS5 is still only 32-bit!)
- Acrobat Pro on the Mac has always been watered down and overpriced
- Adobe's engineers and marketing people have long pushed the Windows versions of their apps over the Mac versions. Their Illustrator and Photoshop people have definitely done this.
- And on and ond...
Maybe you should try opening the history books, pal.
CS3 was released as a Universal Binary, and was the first product released by Adobe after Apple made the switch to Intel. How can you complain about that? Did you expect them to fully re-program CS2?
Do you realize iTunes and Final Cut are still 32-bit apps, and Apple only updated Finder to 64-bit about 6 months ago?
If Adobe can deliver Premiere and After Effects as 64-bit apps while constrained by Apple's secrecy in telling people wtf is up with the platform's roadmap, while Apple itself hasn't updated FC to 64-bit, that should make it obvious that Adobe is working their asses off on the Apple Platform.
Acrobat Pro is identical on the PC and Mac other than cosmetic issues.
Please provide evidence of Adobe pushing Windows Versions over OSX. Their website doesn't mention operating systems, except as an option when purchasing, and most of the demo videos on their site are running OSX versions of CS5.
Do i even need to mention that Apple only opened exposed the basic API Adobe needs to get Flash performance/power consumption at Windows levels with 10.6.3 about a month ago?
Kevin Lynch, Adobe's chief technology officer, speaking at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco Wednesday, said Apple was engaged in a "legal game" in fighting Flash, suggesting the iPhone maker is more interested in playing politics than improving technology. He said Apple's approach embraces the walled garden, while Adobe wants to see software be written once and run on multiple devices.
That is an insane way to think. This guy needs a psychotherapist and should be fired for saying that. I sure as hell don't want my iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch running lowest common denominator Apps. That's why we buy Apple hardware because we know they are obsessive about making sure all Apps run better on their hardware than on anyone else's. Seriously the guy should have been bood off the podium and run out of the building for saying such nonsense. Adobe must be getting rally desperate wasting everyone's time and money over a ridiculous premise.
And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?
Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.
The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.
Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...
It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.
If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...
I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)
Side light to the railroad gauge metaphor. My grandfather was a pattern-maker who worked for the railroad. His job was to make adapter links between one gauge of rail and another. He carved the link out of wood so that it could be used to make a sand casting mold. I suppose some rails were close enough in size that cars could go from one to another.
I imagine they received a response from Steve like this:
"Here's how I see it, You know those handcars, the little machines that people stand on and pump to move along on the train tracks? That's Adobe. Apple is the steam train that owns the tracks."
And you know... Apple does own the tracks... so if Adobe doesn't like it maybe they should go build their own...
BTW, that is the response that Karelia claims that steve sent them.
Maybe you should try opening the history books, pal.
CS3 was released as a Universal Binary, and was the first product released by Adobe after Apple made the switch to Intel. How can you complain about that? Did you expect them to fully re-program CS2?
Do you realize iTunes and Final Cut are still 32-bit apps, and Apple only updated Finder to 64-bit about 6 months ago?
If Adobe can deliver Premiere and After Effects as 64-bit apps while constrained by Apple's secrecy in telling people wtf is up with the platform's roadmap, while Apple itself hasn't updated FC to 64-bit, that should make it obvious that Adobe is working their asses off on the Apple Platform.
Acrobat Pro is identical on the PC and Mac other than cosmetic issues.
Please provide evidence of Adobe pushing Windows Versions over OSX. Their website doesn't mention operating systems, except as an option when purchasing, and most of the demo videos on their site are running OSX versions of CS5.
Do i even need to mention that Apple only opened exposed the basic API Adobe needs to get Flash performance/power consumption at Windows levels with 10.6.3 about a month ago?
Anyways, feel free to go back to your Kool-Aid
I agree with everything... but I bet that Apple just opened up the API Adobe needed because Adobe just asked them to. If they had (cared and) asked for the API earlier then flash would have performed on par with windows earlier.
Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.
The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.
Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...
It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.
If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...
I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)
I guess it's a matter of opinion and choice. Your choice is clear and that is understood but funny how Final Cut Studio has become the "defacto" in premier film editing. And in "my opinion", getting better! Hey I am not saying Adobe does not have a right to make software. They do and it's pretty good although some users have said it is bloated! But this is a topic about tying down developers to an application that is "Flash". And CS is needed for Flash development.
Again I will say once more. Apple can give a shit about other mobile platforms. They just care about their own and if relying on a third party development tool is what some want them to do because "it's easy or cheaper" (if there is any real truth to that), well it's not in Apples interest or they feel in the end user best interest. They feel the tools are in place. Look the iPhone SDK is not "new". It's been around and is VERY vibrant. Just look at the Apps. Although I am sure Apple is proud of the many apps I would guess Apple would rather fewer stable great Apps over buggy, crappy, cross platform apps. But that's just my opinion.
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
Results: Apple leverages it's staff's experience in making 3rd party software [TIFFany 3.x] their deep knowledge of Desktop Publishing [plenty of staff that have worked on Framemaker, Quark, InDesign, even Lighthouse Design] and release a suite of tools, at half the price for the Mac.
Microsoft will be supporting the Canvas tag as they want to support WebGL.
Firefox will see it's share dwindled into oblivion.
Smartphone vendors will waste 18 months trying to work with Adobe to get that code base fixed and be that much farther behind Apple.
iAd will change the notion of what an Advertisement is and people will actually watch them.
"If you look at what's going on now, it's like railroads in the 1800s," Lynch said. "People were using different gauged rails. Your cars would literally not run on those rails."
But Adobe is the one that wants to build freight cars with different gauged rails then Apple's tracks support... Do they expect Apple to build another set of rails for everyone that want to run a different runtime? Sounds like they are comparing a set of rails to an operating system and the freight cars to the application... This sounds like an analogy that Apple should be using rather then Adobe...
I guess it's a matter of opinion and choice. Your choice is clear and that is understood but funny how Final Cut Studio has become the "defacto" in premier film editing. And in "my opinion", getting better! And a matter of opinion. Hey I am not saying Adobe does not have a right to make software. They do and it's pretty good although some users have said it is bloated! But this is a topic about tying down developers to an application that is "Flash". And CS is needed for Flash development.
Again I will say I once more. Apple can give a shit about other mobile platforms. They just care about their own and if relying on a third party development tool is what some want them to do because "it's easy or cheaper" (if there is any real truth to that), well it's not in Apples interest or they feel in the end user best interest. They feel the tools are in place. Look the iPhone SDK is not "new". It's been around and is VERY vibrant. Just look at the Apps. Although I am sure Apple is proud of the many apps I would guess Apple would rather fewer stable great Apps over buggy, crappy, cross platform apps. But that's just my opinion.
Look to add! Apple feels very confident of their decission. The same way they were criticised of taking the floppy off the iMac and choosing to use USB. Its a business choice they made and if they are wrong it will only affect them. I like many believe it to be a good decision and i do own an iPhone. And the ones that are complaining about Apples decission I bet most if not all of you do not even own an iPhone. So why are yal complaining? And if you do. Leave the platform and stop bitching like Adobe is!! It's not like Apple all of a sudden stop supporting flash! THEY NEVER HAVE!!
And for those saying that this is a "control" or "money" issue for Apple! I say look at the interest Adobe has in this. The reality is mobile app development has exploded since the iPhone and is a huge money maker. Adobe spent a lot of money to monopolize the "creative suite" arena. And Adobe sees dollars in application development! Adobe does not make there own mobile OS but if they could somehow control the App Development spectrum! Well that means big bucks for Adobe and a lot of control as well!! Do we really want that? I for one don't. Hey Adobe! You want a piece of the pie? Make your own freaking OS and get off my OS!!
Its apple's trains. They can run on whatever tracks they want. Forcing another company to support your proprietary standards is hardly an 'open' strategy. Fuck these fools.
Yeah, basically it's like Apple has all the train tracks in California. It's the only state where Apple has train tracks, but there is asstons of gold to be had there. Adobe wants to buy a ticket on Apple's train and Apple says no. Adobe then goes to whine to Sir Topham Hatt.....yes I have kids
Yeah, basically it's like Apple has all the train tracks in California. It's the only state where Apple has train tracks, but there is asstons of gold to be had there. Adobe wants to buy a ticket on Apple's train and Apple says no. Adobe then goes to whine to Sir Topham Hatt.....yes I have kids
Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!
Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!
And when Apple adds more "cars" and "cargo" to it's trains. Will Adobe be there to "beef" up it's engines?! I think NOT!!
I don't know if you know this but MAC software is approximately 50% of Adobe's revenue. So, you can add to your scenario, Adobe drops revenue by 50% and stock crashes!!!! :-)
You forgot the bit where Adobe stock crashes and Apple swallows them whole on the cheap heh.
People keep repeating that 50% figure but I have not seen any official numbers. I do find it difficult to believe based on how many Windows business users have Acrobat Pro loaded. Sure a lot of the high end CS packages go to Mac, but a ton of Flash and Dreamweaver people are Windows based so 50% sounds high to me.
But some might say your addition should fall into the best case scenarios.
the closest thing i could find to an 'official' number from adobe is John Nack's response to a post from 2008 (a boatload of comments about adobe announcing no 64bit for the mac in CS4):
[The Mac is closer to 50% of our (Photoshop's) market share. --J.]
it's clearly not half of adobe's revenue, but probably half of their CS business. i'm asuming that's a big chunk nonetheless. adobe has over 70 'products' (i gave up trying to count them in the popup menu). no wonder they appear a little unfocused at times.
Comments
Reread your history books. Adobe has done the bare minimum to support the Mac platform for over a decade now and has done far more to promote their Windows products for a long time now.
- Late to deliver OS X native apps
- Late to deliver Universal binaries
- Late to deliver 64-bit apps (and most of CS5 is still only 32-bit!)
- Acrobat Pro on the Mac has always been watered down and overpriced
- Adobe's engineers and marketing people have long pushed the Windows versions of their apps over the Mac versions. Their Illustrator and Photoshop people have definitely done this.
- And on and ond...
Maybe you should try opening the history books, pal.
CS3 was released as a Universal Binary, and was the first product released by Adobe after Apple made the switch to Intel. How can you complain about that? Did you expect them to fully re-program CS2?
Do you realize iTunes and Final Cut are still 32-bit apps, and Apple only updated Finder to 64-bit about 6 months ago?
If Adobe can deliver Premiere and After Effects as 64-bit apps while constrained by Apple's secrecy in telling people wtf is up with the platform's roadmap, while Apple itself hasn't updated FC to 64-bit, that should make it obvious that Adobe is working their asses off on the Apple Platform.
Acrobat Pro is identical on the PC and Mac other than cosmetic issues.
Please provide evidence of Adobe pushing Windows Versions over OSX. Their website doesn't mention operating systems, except as an option when purchasing, and most of the demo videos on their site are running OSX versions of CS5.
Do i even need to mention that Apple only opened exposed the basic API Adobe needs to get Flash performance/power consumption at Windows levels with 10.6.3 about a month ago?
Anyways, feel free to go back to your Kool-Aid
Kevin Lynch, Adobe's chief technology officer, speaking at the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco Wednesday, said Apple was engaged in a "legal game" in fighting Flash, suggesting the iPhone maker is more interested in playing politics than improving technology. He said Apple's approach embraces the walled garden, while Adobe wants to see software be written once and run on multiple devices.
That is an insane way to think. This guy needs a psychotherapist and should be fired for saying that. I sure as hell don't want my iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch running lowest common denominator Apps. That's why we buy Apple hardware because we know they are obsessive about making sure all Apps run better on their hardware than on anyone else's. Seriously the guy should have been bood off the podium and run out of the building for saying such nonsense. Adobe must be getting rally desperate wasting everyone's time and money over a ridiculous premise.
And we all know how expensive CS is! Plus where is the competition to Adobe's CS? Who competes to bring down their price?
Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.
The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.
Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...
It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.
If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...
I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)
"Here's how I see it, You know those handcars, the little machines that people stand on and pump to move along on the train tracks? That's Adobe. Apple is the steam train that owns the tracks."
And you know... Apple does own the tracks... so if Adobe doesn't like it maybe they should go build their own...
BTW, that is the response that Karelia claims that steve sent them.
Maybe you should try opening the history books, pal.
CS3 was released as a Universal Binary, and was the first product released by Adobe after Apple made the switch to Intel. How can you complain about that? Did you expect them to fully re-program CS2?
Do you realize iTunes and Final Cut are still 32-bit apps, and Apple only updated Finder to 64-bit about 6 months ago?
If Adobe can deliver Premiere and After Effects as 64-bit apps while constrained by Apple's secrecy in telling people wtf is up with the platform's roadmap, while Apple itself hasn't updated FC to 64-bit, that should make it obvious that Adobe is working their asses off on the Apple Platform.
Acrobat Pro is identical on the PC and Mac other than cosmetic issues.
Please provide evidence of Adobe pushing Windows Versions over OSX. Their website doesn't mention operating systems, except as an option when purchasing, and most of the demo videos on their site are running OSX versions of CS5.
Do i even need to mention that Apple only opened exposed the basic API Adobe needs to get Flash performance/power consumption at Windows levels with 10.6.3 about a month ago?
Anyways, feel free to go back to your Kool-Aid
I agree with everything... but I bet that Apple just opened up the API Adobe needed because Adobe just asked them to. If they had (cared and) asked for the API earlier then flash would have performed on par with windows earlier.
Final Cut Studio competes with the Adobe "Production Suite", but it costs $1000.
The adobe production suite costs $1700, and has all the same basic tools (although After Effects is much more powerful than anything in the Final Cut Bundle) but also includes Photoshop Extended, Illustrator, Flash, The Bridge, etc. etc.
Anyways, to me, the Adobe Suite looks like the better bargain, since basically all professionals using FC need to use Photoshop and Illustrator anyways...
It's just unrealistic for everyone to expect Adobe to charge $50 or whatever for their products - you're talking about Suites with 8-12 programs costing in the $1400-1700 range, which stacks up very well with Apple's pricing for FCStudio, LogicStudio, Aperture, as well as Microsoft Office, etc.
If it's too expensive, stick to FCExpress, OpenOffice and Rapidweaver, since you probably don't need the professional products if you're not earning enough with them to make them a reasonable business expense...
I still think it's relatively funny that people complain, when the alternatives just 10 years ago were about 10 times the price or more (think Avid workstations and non-digital development/editing...)
I guess it's a matter of opinion and choice. Your choice is clear and that is understood but funny how Final Cut Studio has become the "defacto" in premier film editing. And in "my opinion", getting better! Hey I am not saying Adobe does not have a right to make software. They do and it's pretty good although some users have said it is bloated! But this is a topic about tying down developers to an application that is "Flash". And CS is needed for Flash development.
Again I will say once more. Apple can give a shit about other mobile platforms. They just care about their own and if relying on a third party development tool is what some want them to do because "it's easy or cheaper" (if there is any real truth to that), well it's not in Apples interest or they feel in the end user best interest. They feel the tools are in place. Look the iPhone SDK is not "new". It's been around and is VERY vibrant. Just look at the Apps. Although I am sure Apple is proud of the many apps I would guess Apple would rather fewer stable great Apps over buggy, crappy, cross platform apps. But that's just my opinion.
Like in any war innocent bystanders are always caught in the crossfire. In addition to consumers being forced to choose sides, developers are also penalized if they have customers on each side of the conflict.
It's a lose, lose situation.
Worst case scenarios:
Adobe quits updating CS5 for Mac.
Microsoft never supports the canvas tag
Firefox does not support H.264
Every other smart phone supports Flash
Apple get sued by Feds
iAd become the nuisance that is now Flash banner ads
AAPL crashes
Results: Apple leverages it's staff's experience in making 3rd party software [TIFFany 3.x] their deep knowledge of Desktop Publishing [plenty of staff that have worked on Framemaker, Quark, InDesign, even Lighthouse Design] and release a suite of tools, at half the price for the Mac.
Microsoft will be supporting the Canvas tag as they want to support WebGL.
Firefox will see it's share dwindled into oblivion.
Smartphone vendors will waste 18 months trying to work with Adobe to get that code base fixed and be that much farther behind Apple.
iAd will change the notion of what an Advertisement is and people will actually watch them.
APPL reaches 400-500 before splitting.
But Adobe is the one that wants to build freight cars with different gauged rails then Apple's tracks support... Do they expect Apple to build another set of rails for everyone that want to run a different runtime? Sounds like they are comparing a set of rails to an operating system and the freight cars to the application... This sounds like an analogy that Apple should be using rather then Adobe...
I guess it's a matter of opinion and choice. Your choice is clear and that is understood but funny how Final Cut Studio has become the "defacto" in premier film editing. And in "my opinion", getting better! And a matter of opinion. Hey I am not saying Adobe does not have a right to make software. They do and it's pretty good although some users have said it is bloated! But this is a topic about tying down developers to an application that is "Flash". And CS is needed for Flash development.
Again I will say I once more. Apple can give a shit about other mobile platforms. They just care about their own and if relying on a third party development tool is what some want them to do because "it's easy or cheaper" (if there is any real truth to that), well it's not in Apples interest or they feel in the end user best interest. They feel the tools are in place. Look the iPhone SDK is not "new". It's been around and is VERY vibrant. Just look at the Apps. Although I am sure Apple is proud of the many apps I would guess Apple would rather fewer stable great Apps over buggy, crappy, cross platform apps. But that's just my opinion.
Look to add! Apple feels very confident of their decission. The same way they were criticised of taking the floppy off the iMac and choosing to use USB. Its a business choice they made and if they are wrong it will only affect them. I like many believe it to be a good decision and i do own an iPhone. And the ones that are complaining about Apples decission I bet most if not all of you do not even own an iPhone. So why are yal complaining? And if you do. Leave the platform and stop bitching like Adobe is!! It's not like Apple all of a sudden stop supporting flash! THEY NEVER HAVE!!
Apple wants to conform to HTML specification. That would be like running on the standard tracks.
Adobe wants everyone to use their Flash, which only they can make. Just like custom gauge rails.
Sounds like Adobe's argument backfired to me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBzVG...om=PL&index=16
Its apple's trains. They can run on whatever tracks they want. Forcing another company to support your proprietary standards is hardly an 'open' strategy. Fuck these fools.
Yeah, basically it's like Apple has all the train tracks in California. It's the only state where Apple has train tracks, but there is asstons of gold to be had there. Adobe wants to buy a ticket on Apple's train and Apple says no. Adobe then goes to whine to Sir Topham Hatt.....yes I have kids
Yeah, basically it's like Apple has all the train tracks in California. It's the only state where Apple has train tracks, but there is asstons of gold to be had there. Adobe wants to buy a ticket on Apple's train and Apple says no. Adobe then goes to whine to Sir Topham Hatt.....yes I have kids
Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!
Exactly!! Apple laid the "tracks", "the rail cars", etc. Now Adobe wants to be the "engine" that drives it! Hey Adobe! Maybe your engine is not "big" enough!!
And when Apple adds more "cars" and "cargo" to it's trains. Will Adobe be there to "beef" up it's engines?! I think NOT!!
I don't know if you know this but MAC software is approximately 50% of Adobe's revenue. So, you can add to your scenario, Adobe drops revenue by 50% and stock crashes!!!! :-)
You forgot the bit where Adobe stock crashes and Apple swallows them whole on the cheap heh.
People keep repeating that 50% figure but I have not seen any official numbers. I do find it difficult to believe based on how many Windows business users have Acrobat Pro loaded. Sure a lot of the high end CS packages go to Mac, but a ton of Flash and Dreamweaver people are Windows based so 50% sounds high to me.
But some might say your addition should fall into the best case scenarios.
the closest thing i could find to an 'official' number from adobe is John Nack's response to a post from 2008 (a boatload of comments about adobe announcing no 64bit for the mac in CS4):
[The Mac is closer to 50% of our (Photoshop's) market share. --J.]
at http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04...hop_lr_64.html
it's clearly not half of adobe's revenue, but probably half of their CS business. i'm asuming that's a big chunk nonetheless. adobe has over 70 'products' (i gave up trying to count them in the popup menu). no wonder they appear a little unfocused at times.