The advocacy for Apple taking over Adobe seems to come from two camps. The first, as you say, are the revenge motivated. This of course is bad business. The second is the CS users who are perennially annoyed by Adobe's half-hearted commitment to Mac products. I can almost understand that reasoning, or I could if I thought that Apple's future was somehow lashed to CS. At one time this might have actually been true, but I can't see how that argument can be made today.
I don't see the argument either. Even though I'm a CS user, and have been using the products from when they first came out, I'm also a Quark user, and user of some competing products to Illustrator. Photoshop is the only product that is pretty much unchallenged.
This isn't the plan advanced by this writer, but even so, it is still not plausible that Apple could replace the entire purchase price within two years
This is just one article out of 3 and offered. There are many more opinions how to handle this. Mine is a much longer term evolution: continue selling Windows soft. for a while, and make legacy Adobe soft more Mac oriented.
The loss of revenue will be marginal and there will be some gain of migration to Mac.
But try to put dollar value on potential damage to Apple if Google buys Adobe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
AAPL would be slammed immediately by investors and for years afterwards if they ever tried to pull a stunt like that. The doubts over their ability to make it work would be enormous, and for good reason.
Investors seem to love anything Apple does. Mergers happen all the time and most of them work.
It's not as though Quark doesn't still have the majority of publishing content makers, because it does.
Not anymore. Careerbulder search produced 25 InDesign jobs postings and only 19 Quark jobs here in Chicago. Most of art/design schools now use inDesign because Adobe gave them away inDesign for free. It paid off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple is trying to depreciate Flash, why would they want to own it?
Apple is trying to depreciate Flash because Apple does not own it, can't make money out of it and it. I am not sure if Adobe still charges royalties for Flash video, but Adobe still sells best PDF and Flash authoring tools. That's what Adobe does: it sells software. It's a great source of high margin revenue.
I don't see the argument either. Even though I'm a CS user, and have been using the products from when they first came out, I'm also a Quark user, and user of some competing products to Illustrator. Photoshop is the only product that is pretty much unchallenged.
Illustrator is the industry standard illustration software holding probably over 95% of pro market well integrated with inDesign and Photoshop and the whole CS. What can compete with Illustrator? Only FreeHand used to be.
Not anymore. Careerbulder search produced 25 InDesign jobs postings and only 19 Quark jobs here in Chicago. Most of art/design schools now use inDesign because Adobe gave them away inDesign for free. It paid off.
This was my business, and I still keep in touch. Over 65% of all publishing work is done with Quark. It's amazing what inroads InDesign has made, but they have a long way to go.
Quote:
Apple is trying to depreciate Flash because Apple does not own it, can't make money out of it and it. I am not sure if Adobe still charges royalties for Flash video, but Adobe still sells best PDF and Flash authoring tools. That's what Adobe does: it sells software. It's a great source of high margin revenue.
Apple had a chance to buy Flash several years ago when Macromedia put themselves on the block. They chose not to bid. They could have gotten them, with the rest of their software, for under $4 billion. They did buy several years earlier than that, the precursor to FCP from Macromedia, because they WERE interested in that. It makes no sense to buy Adobe for over $20 billion, because that's what it will cost them at the usual 30% or so markup from the stock price to get Flash and a few other programs. The value isn't there.
Also, Apple isn't in the business of selling authoring tools, or licensing out the use of the results. It's not likely they want to get involved in that, and you haven't addressed my other reasons.
This is just one article out of 3 and offered. There are many more opinions how to handle this. Mine is a much longer term evolution: continue selling Windows soft. for a while, and make legacy Adobe soft more Mac oriented.
The loss of revenue will be marginal and there will be some gain of migration to Mac.
But try to put dollar value on potential damage to Apple if Google buys Adobe.
Why would Google want to buy Adobe? How would that fit into their plans?
Quote:
Investors seem to love anything Apple does. Mergers happen all the time and most of them work.
Nether of these assertions has any evidence to back it up. What investors love about Apple is their continued earnings growth. Throw a big wrench into that picture by introducing a huge risk and you'll see how quickly investors can stop loving Apple.
Big mergers are rarely smooth, and often disastrous. The one you suggest would be a horror show, more likely than not, if for no other reason than (and there are many), Adobe doesn't want to be bought by Apple.
Illustrator is the industry standard illustration software holding probably over 95% of pro market well integrated with inDesign and Photoshop and the whole CS. What can compete with Illustrator? Only FreeHand used to be.
Illustrator is a very good program. I've been using it since Illustrator 88. But there are plenty of vector drawing programs out there. Most are aimed towards architecture, but contain all the tools Illustrator has, and much more. There are programs that are oriented towards advertising that are popular as well. It's not a market like Photoshop is in. Canvas is popular, and I use that. CorelDraw Graphics Suite is still popular, despite the fact that Mac people don't use it. I also have MultiAd Creator Professional; A very good program. If there were a demand, those developers could split off a similar version. I know people who don't use Illustrator and use these other tools instead. I would say that Illustrator owns maybe 70% of the market.
The point is that there are a lot of companies making good illustration software besides Adobe.
Big mergers are rarely smooth, and often disastrous. The one you suggest would be a horror show, more likely than not, if for no other reason than (and there are many), Adobe doesn't want to be bought by Apple.
Now, we take a company that doesn't want to be bought, or merged in a hostile takeover, and the situation becomes worse. Hostile takeovers are rarely successful.
This was my business, and I still keep in touch. Over 65% of all publishing work is done with Quark. It's amazing what inroads InDesign has made, but they have a long way to go.
65%? Do you have any data in support of this number? Just go monster or careerbuilder and search and you will see yourself how small demand is for Quark. It's the other way around. Quark has now about one third of market share and its getting worth. This is overall trend:
Quark may be a good product but, but young designers come out of art schools with InDesign skills. Plus one-stop shopping is easier: you get entire the CS suite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple had a chance to buy Flash several years ago when Macromedia put themselves on the block. They chose not to bid. They could have gotten them, with the rest of their software, for under $4 billion. They did buy several years earlier than that, the precursor to FCP from Macromedia, because they WERE interested in that. It makes no sense to buy Adobe for over $20 billion.
That time Macromedia/Apple market cap ratio was much smaller and Apple had no cash in bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Also, Apple isn't in the business of selling authoring tools, or licensing out the use of the results.
Until recently Apple was not in business of selling phones, music, ebooks, apps, mobile ads, semiconductor manufacturing, etc either.
There are assumptions about migration that aren't all that well understood. Adobe makes products that other companies make in a number of areas. Why the assumption that those customers would migrate to Apple, rather than to other software while keeping their PCs? It's a bad assumption.
Adobe still offers the best suite of creative software: easy one stop shopping.
Software skills much harder to obtain vs. OS skills, so when your favorite software migrates to another OS - it's easy switch.
Job market demands software skills to greater extend vs. OS skills.
Apple hardware already dominate art schools.
Also Apple slowly over 5-7 years would make these apps more Mac centered: more features, better integration, etc.
Illustrator is a very good program. I've been using it since Illustrator 88. But there are plenty of vector drawing programs out there. Most are aimed towards architecture, but contain all the tools Illustrator has, and much more. There are programs that are oriented towards advertising that are popular as well. It's not a market like Photoshop is in. Canvas is popular, and I use that. CorelDraw Graphics Suite is still popular, despite the fact that Mac people don't use it. I also have MultiAd Creator Professional; A very good program. If there were a demand, those developers could split off a similar version. I know people who don't use Illustrator and use these other tools instead. I would say that Illustrator owns maybe 70% of the market.
The point is that there are a lot of companies making good illustration software besides Adobe.
It's not enough to be 'good program'. You need powerful company behind you, dominant educational presence, wealth of training literature published, integration with other apps, etc.
All bad ideas. Let Google make those mistakes instead of Apple.
Not that bad.
Diversification of business with high margin software sales is good for Google. Who knows for how long the search party? For instance, AOL party is ended.
Porting best creative suite to Chrome OS while fading it out on Apple side is good for Google: suddenly new sleek Chrome OS looks attractive for creative pros and for general consumer - typical Apple market.
Then Google uses Adobe software expertise building full range of other apps for Chrome OS, making Chrome OS a major player.
All of this is good for Google and bad for Apple and even bad for Microsoft.
It's not enough to be 'good program'. You need powerful company behind you, dominant educational presence, wealth of training literature published, integration with other apps, etc.
Comments
The advocacy for Apple taking over Adobe seems to come from two camps. The first, as you say, are the revenge motivated. This of course is bad business. The second is the CS users who are perennially annoyed by Adobe's half-hearted commitment to Mac products. I can almost understand that reasoning, or I could if I thought that Apple's future was somehow lashed to CS. At one time this might have actually been true, but I can't see how that argument can be made today.
I don't see the argument either. Even though I'm a CS user, and have been using the products from when they first came out, I'm also a Quark user, and user of some competing products to Illustrator. Photoshop is the only product that is pretty much unchallenged.
This isn't the plan advanced by this writer, but even so, it is still not plausible that Apple could replace the entire purchase price within two years
This is just one article out of 3 and offered. There are many more opinions how to handle this. Mine is a much longer term evolution: continue selling Windows soft. for a while, and make legacy Adobe soft more Mac oriented.
The loss of revenue will be marginal and there will be some gain of migration to Mac.
But try to put dollar value on potential damage to Apple if Google buys Adobe.
AAPL would be slammed immediately by investors and for years afterwards if they ever tried to pull a stunt like that. The doubts over their ability to make it work would be enormous, and for good reason.
Investors seem to love anything Apple does. Mergers happen all the time and most of them work.
It's not as though Quark doesn't still have the majority of publishing content makers, because it does.
Not anymore. Careerbulder search produced 25 InDesign jobs postings and only 19 Quark jobs here in Chicago. Most of art/design schools now use inDesign because Adobe gave them away inDesign for free. It paid off.
Apple is trying to depreciate Flash, why would they want to own it?
Apple is trying to depreciate Flash because Apple does not own it, can't make money out of it and it. I am not sure if Adobe still charges royalties for Flash video, but Adobe still sells best PDF and Flash authoring tools. That's what Adobe does: it sells software. It's a great source of high margin revenue.
I don't see the argument either. Even though I'm a CS user, and have been using the products from when they first came out, I'm also a Quark user, and user of some competing products to Illustrator. Photoshop is the only product that is pretty much unchallenged.
Illustrator is the industry standard illustration software holding probably over 95% of pro market well integrated with inDesign and Photoshop and the whole CS. What can compete with Illustrator? Only FreeHand used to be.
Not anymore. Careerbulder search produced 25 InDesign jobs postings and only 19 Quark jobs here in Chicago. Most of art/design schools now use inDesign because Adobe gave them away inDesign for free. It paid off.
This was my business, and I still keep in touch. Over 65% of all publishing work is done with Quark. It's amazing what inroads InDesign has made, but they have a long way to go.
Apple is trying to depreciate Flash because Apple does not own it, can't make money out of it and it. I am not sure if Adobe still charges royalties for Flash video, but Adobe still sells best PDF and Flash authoring tools. That's what Adobe does: it sells software. It's a great source of high margin revenue.
Apple had a chance to buy Flash several years ago when Macromedia put themselves on the block. They chose not to bid. They could have gotten them, with the rest of their software, for under $4 billion. They did buy several years earlier than that, the precursor to FCP from Macromedia, because they WERE interested in that. It makes no sense to buy Adobe for over $20 billion, because that's what it will cost them at the usual 30% or so markup from the stock price to get Flash and a few other programs. The value isn't there.
Also, Apple isn't in the business of selling authoring tools, or licensing out the use of the results. It's not likely they want to get involved in that, and you haven't addressed my other reasons.
This is just one article out of 3 and offered. There are many more opinions how to handle this. Mine is a much longer term evolution: continue selling Windows soft. for a while, and make legacy Adobe soft more Mac oriented.
The loss of revenue will be marginal and there will be some gain of migration to Mac.
But try to put dollar value on potential damage to Apple if Google buys Adobe.
Why would Google want to buy Adobe? How would that fit into their plans?
Investors seem to love anything Apple does. Mergers happen all the time and most of them work.
Nether of these assertions has any evidence to back it up. What investors love about Apple is their continued earnings growth. Throw a big wrench into that picture by introducing a huge risk and you'll see how quickly investors can stop loving Apple.
Big mergers are rarely smooth, and often disastrous. The one you suggest would be a horror show, more likely than not, if for no other reason than (and there are many), Adobe doesn't want to be bought by Apple.
Illustrator is the industry standard illustration software holding probably over 95% of pro market well integrated with inDesign and Photoshop and the whole CS. What can compete with Illustrator? Only FreeHand used to be.
Illustrator is a very good program. I've been using it since Illustrator 88. But there are plenty of vector drawing programs out there. Most are aimed towards architecture, but contain all the tools Illustrator has, and much more. There are programs that are oriented towards advertising that are popular as well. It's not a market like Photoshop is in. Canvas is popular, and I use that. CorelDraw Graphics Suite is still popular, despite the fact that Mac people don't use it. I also have MultiAd Creator Professional; A very good program. If there were a demand, those developers could split off a similar version. I know people who don't use Illustrator and use these other tools instead. I would say that Illustrator owns maybe 70% of the market.
The point is that there are a lot of companies making good illustration software besides Adobe.
Big mergers are rarely smooth, and often disastrous. The one you suggest would be a horror show, more likely than not, if for no other reason than (and there are many), Adobe doesn't want to be bought by Apple.
Exactly!
http://195.92.228.61/Insight/viewCon...&history=false
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-30959386_ITM
I could go on and on with this.
Now, we take a company that doesn't want to be bought, or merged in a hostile takeover, and the situation becomes worse. Hostile takeovers are rarely successful.
This was my business, and I still keep in touch. Over 65% of all publishing work is done with Quark. It's amazing what inroads InDesign has made, but they have a long way to go.
65%? Do you have any data in support of this number? Just go monster or careerbuilder and search and you will see yourself how small demand is for Quark. It's the other way around. Quark has now about one third of market share and its getting worth. This is overall trend:
http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=in...=san+francisco
Quark may be a good product but, but young designers come out of art schools with InDesign skills. Plus one-stop shopping is easier: you get entire the CS suite.
Apple had a chance to buy Flash several years ago when Macromedia put themselves on the block. They chose not to bid. They could have gotten them, with the rest of their software, for under $4 billion. They did buy several years earlier than that, the precursor to FCP from Macromedia, because they WERE interested in that. It makes no sense to buy Adobe for over $20 billion.
That time Macromedia/Apple market cap ratio was much smaller and Apple had no cash in bank.
Also, Apple isn't in the business of selling authoring tools, or licensing out the use of the results.
Until recently Apple was not in business of selling phones, music, ebooks, apps, mobile ads, semiconductor manufacturing, etc either.
There are assumptions about migration that aren't all that well understood. Adobe makes products that other companies make in a number of areas. Why the assumption that those customers would migrate to Apple, rather than to other software while keeping their PCs? It's a bad assumption.
Illustrator is a very good program. I've been using it since Illustrator 88. But there are plenty of vector drawing programs out there. Most are aimed towards architecture, but contain all the tools Illustrator has, and much more. There are programs that are oriented towards advertising that are popular as well. It's not a market like Photoshop is in. Canvas is popular, and I use that. CorelDraw Graphics Suite is still popular, despite the fact that Mac people don't use it. I also have MultiAd Creator Professional; A very good program. If there were a demand, those developers could split off a similar version. I know people who don't use Illustrator and use these other tools instead. I would say that Illustrator owns maybe 70% of the market.
The point is that there are a lot of companies making good illustration software besides Adobe.
It's not enough to be 'good program'. You need powerful company behind you, dominant educational presence, wealth of training literature published, integration with other apps, etc.
Why would Google want to buy Adobe? How would that fit into their plans?
Reasons:
Resons:
All bad ideas. Let Google make those mistakes instead of Apple.
All bad ideas. Let Google make those mistakes instead of Apple.
Not that bad.
- Diversification of business with high margin software sales is good for Google. Who knows for how long the search party? For instance, AOL party is ended.
- Porting best creative suite to Chrome OS while fading it out on Apple side is good for Google: suddenly new sleek Chrome OS looks attractive for creative pros and for general consumer - typical Apple market.
- Then Google uses Adobe software expertise building full range of other apps for Chrome OS, making Chrome OS a major player.
All of this is good for Google and bad for Apple and even bad for Microsoft.It's not enough to be 'good program'. You need powerful company behind you, dominant educational presence, wealth of training literature published, integration with other apps, etc.
I agree, but to say it can't be done is wrong.