Other than, of course, the millions of graphics designers who switched to Windows when Adobe started making crappy Mac software.
Well, I agree that Adobe's software hasn't been of the highest standard, however, it isn't limited to only their Mac software. Which is why your assertion that millions of graphic designers switched to Windows from Mac because of Adobe is completely absurd.
Well, I agree that Adobe's software hasn't been of the highest standard, however, it isn't limited to only their Mac software. Which is why your assertion that millions of graphic designers switched to Windows from Mac because of Adobe is completely absurd.
Let's see. Adobe makes a large public announcement that they are going to focus on Windows first and then maybe the Mac if they get around to it. They fail to take advantage of key Mac features like Altivec for a long, long time. A number of developers publicly stated that they were switching because Adobe had clearly dropped its interest in the Mac.
At that time, the Mac had a clear performance advantage (when properly written programs were used), so it wasn't about performance. On high end systems like key graphics designers use, Macs weren't significantly more expensive - and there was plenty of data that users gained enough in productivity to more than make up for any price difference.
So, given those facts, why do YOU think that we went from 90% of graphics designers using macs to under 50%?
Let's see. Adobe makes a large public announcement that they are going to focus on Windows first and then maybe the Mac if they get around to it. They fail to take advantage of key Mac features like Altivec for a long, long time. A number of developers publicly stated that they were switching because Adobe had clearly dropped its interest in the Mac.
At that time, the Mac had a clear performance advantage (when properly written programs were used), so it wasn't about performance. On high end systems like key graphics designers use, Macs weren't significantly more expensive - and there was plenty of data that users gained enough in productivity to more than make up for any price difference.
So, given those facts, why do YOU think that we went from 90% of graphics designers using macs to under 50%?
Where do you get these figures from? Are you a graphic designer?
I worked as a professional art director and graphic designer in NYC for 20+ years. I worked at large ad agencies and also did lots of freelance. Not one of the companies I worked at use PC/Windows in the design department. They all use Macs. ALL of them. So, I know for a fact that you are just making this shit up.
Where do you get these figures from? Are you a graphic designer?
I worked as a professional art director and graphic designer in NYC for 20+ years. I worked at large ad agencies and also did lots of freelance. Not one of the companies I worked at use PC/Windows in the design department. They all use Macs. ALL of them. So, I know for a fact that you are just making this shit up.
Grin.
Apple's increasing share of the PC marketplace is pretty meteoric. Buying Adobe in order to compel them to make marginally better Mac software in order to sell more computers to people who already buy those computers seems to be a weak commercial argument.
- Getting hardware down to a price that you consider 'cheap'.
- Getting better content deals. Apple hasn't been able to get great content pricing on iTunes, why do you think they'd get a great deal on 'the TV thing'?
- Dealing with competition. If Apple did get a reasonable content price, everyone and his brother would have at least as good a deal (or better if the way publishers are treating Amazon over music access is any indication). Quite a few people have a big head start over Apple.
-
Could Apple do something great? Sure. But the problem is trying to do something great that they could make money from. Jobs already said that they have no idea how to do that in the TV business. I'm not holding my breath.
An A4 based solution would be not dissimilar to an iPod touch without the screen, without buttons and without the battery. So small enough for the device to become invisible. Consumers don't want more boxes.
So cheap, it is cheap enough to give away with a content subscription. And the the price of zero is a magical psychological barrier, which lets you get a lot more units out there.
The presence of the App store on the device is another hook to bring customers in.
It's the number of units out there that in turn drives the content deals.
The current way content gets to TV screens is via broadcast technologies and disks. It is inevitable that in 20 years time, most content will arrive in your TeeVee via an internet-based distribution network.
Apple currently leads the internet distribution game. Either they can sit-back, do nothing and let someone else get there first, Or they can pro-actively aim to change the game.
There is really only one unanswered question. How to solve the advertising problem. This is the area where Apple do need to make acquisitions.
I don't recall what they said, but concentrating on Windows software was what they did. Not that the argument for Apple buying Adobe makes strategic sense either way.
Where do you get these figures from? Are you a graphic designer?
I worked as a professional art director and graphic designer in NYC for 20+ years. I worked at large ad agencies and also did lots of freelance. Not one of the companies I worked at use PC/Windows in the design department. They all use Macs. ALL of them. So, I know for a fact that you are just making this shit up.
How about Adobe's annual report? Is that good enough for you?
Greater than 50% of Adobe's revenues are now WIndows software. Whether your agency uses Windows or not is really not that relevant - unless you're pretending that you're a significant percentage of the entire market.
How about Adobe's annual report? Is that good enough for you?
Greater than 50% of Adobe's revenues are now WIndows software. Whether your agency uses Windows or not is really not that relevant - unless you're pretending that you're a significant percentage of the entire market.
Pretty much all of professional 2D production is on Macs. But that is not all that Adobe makes.
The 3D market is dominated by Windows PCs - So if Apple wanted to sell some computers to professionals, it would make more sense to acquire Autodesk, than Adobe.
Pretty much all of professional 2D production is on Macs. But that is not all that Adobe makes.
The 3D market is dominated by Windows PCs - So if Apple wanted to sell some computers to professionals, it would make more sense to acquire Autodesk, than Adobe.
Not really. First, there isn't even a Mac version of Autodesk software (although one is promised). If Apple acquired Autodesk, it would take a while to port the software. Then there's the problem that there are plenty of alternatives to Autodesk software. So if someone is using Autodesk, they can either switch to other software on their existing hardware or they can switch to Macs and continue to use Autodesk. Many people would stick with Windows. To make matters worse, very few people are able to do all their work with AutoCAD. They combine it with other software to complete their tasks. So if they wanted to switch to the Mac, they'd have to switch ALL their software, including some for which there are no Mac versions. It just wouldn't happen.
In the case of Adobe software, OTOH, almost everything already exists in both versions and many CS5 users don't use anything else (other than MS Office which also exists on the Mac). So if Apple made the Mac version good enough, they could switch with relatively little pain, other than the cost of new hardware. Since many high end users are replacing hardware very frequently, that's not that big a deal.
Not really. First, there isn't even a Mac version of Autodesk software (although one is promised). If Apple acquired Autodesk, it would take a while to port the software. Then there's the problem that there are plenty of alternatives to Autodesk software. So if someone is using Autodesk, they can either switch to other software on their existing hardware or they can switch to Macs and continue to use Autodesk. Many people would stick with Windows. To make matters worse, very few people are able to do all their work with AutoCAD. They combine it with other software to complete their tasks. So if they wanted to switch to the Mac, they'd have to switch ALL their software, including some for which there are no Mac versions. It just wouldn't happen.
In the case of Adobe software, OTOH, almost everything already exists in both versions and many CS5 users don't use anything else (other than MS Office which also exists on the Mac). So if Apple made the Mac version good enough, they could switch with relatively little pain, other than the cost of new hardware. Since many high end users are replacing hardware very frequently, that's not that big a deal.
My point is that if Apple's goal was selling more Macs to professional markets - then it would achieve more growth to move into a market where Macs have hardly any footprint (3D) than a market where Mac use is pretty much saturated (2D)
The truth is that Apple will do neither, because capturing these niche markets is time-consuming and expensive and ultimately will sell very few additional machines.
Instead, Apple chooses to focus on capturing a wider consumer market. It believes (rightly or wrongly) that is a more productive use of its resources.
Subscriptions and itunes is where the money is. Apple could sell an all in one media device as the living room hub for $99 in a razor/blades approach. They could offer a 'subscription' to itunes and make tons of profit from that. This all in one ios living room device would tap those that don't like watching movies on mobile devices like the ipad/iphone/ipod touch. There's a huge market out there of people that would like an all apple integrated system but would like to kick back and watch movies on their big screen. They could sell the box cheap and make the money on subscription fees.
Well I think if Apple is going to get into the cable STB business, smartest thing to do is buy Motorola.
I work at a cable company and most of STB are Motorola's, the DAC is by Motorola, we have a lot of Motorola stuff in the head end. Motorola is also looking to get out of the STB business.
But if I was Apple i'd wait til Tru2Way is truly functional. If Apple would also get its head out of its ass and use blu ray that would be awesome as well. Apple designs the ultimate set top box with apps from the iOS, blu ray player, dvr cable box all in one.
Have 32 GIG of flash on board for your apps, guide data, and settings. A 500 GIG laptop drive in there for the DVR and multimedia storage. I know there is a lot of you saying already thats not enough then get an external drive to attach to it.
Then with the right software stream it back to your computer and throw your recorded show on your iWhatever.
Your correct Motorola by far has the complete end to end solution thus the reason that been successful, which is also the down side. The current systems work well, but everyone is trying to move to an IP solution which does not relay on a Motorola only solution and they are having problems, just look all over Europe.
Tru2Way has failed, I believe Cable Labs has given up on trying to make this work, it was suppose to the be the solution to a true consume based STB that you could by at any electronic store and replace the cable card, well that is not going to happen any time soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
The partnering with ATT and U-Verse IMO is the most likely sinario if they want to start cannibalizing the traditional STB. But even that's a long shot. I could easily see the "App" format as the new way to market the aTV.
AT&T and U-Verse is a Microsoft solution and AT&T has made a huge investment in this, if the were smart they would kill it but I is not they simple for them. I highly double Apple and AT&T could work out a deal here unless they can some how work in parallel with U-Verse.
From biz point of view, it's bad form to keep all that cash laying around doing nothing. Either invest, lower margins to increase market share or give it to share holders.
IMO there is lots of room for improvement to core products. Like the idea of a media hub, but I think I read steve wants something alot faster than standard wifi. Also would like to see an ipadair(iPad laptop style, with a swivel screen that folds to iPad form factor).
making mobile me free would be a nice thing.
Lots of good ideas in the discussion, keep them coming.
why thank you !!
mobile is free for all the back end users
mobile me will be the true house that will connect us all together
Comments
Other than, of course, the millions of graphics designers who switched to Windows when Adobe started making crappy Mac software.
Well, I agree that Adobe's software hasn't been of the highest standard, however, it isn't limited to only their Mac software. Which is why your assertion that millions of graphic designers switched to Windows from Mac because of Adobe is completely absurd.
Well, I agree that Adobe's software hasn't been of the highest standard, however, it isn't limited to only their Mac software. Which is why your assertion that millions of graphic designers switched to Windows from Mac because of Adobe is completely absurd.
Let's see. Adobe makes a large public announcement that they are going to focus on Windows first and then maybe the Mac if they get around to it. They fail to take advantage of key Mac features like Altivec for a long, long time. A number of developers publicly stated that they were switching because Adobe had clearly dropped its interest in the Mac.
At that time, the Mac had a clear performance advantage (when properly written programs were used), so it wasn't about performance. On high end systems like key graphics designers use, Macs weren't significantly more expensive - and there was plenty of data that users gained enough in productivity to more than make up for any price difference.
So, given those facts, why do YOU think that we went from 90% of graphics designers using macs to under 50%?
Let's see. Adobe makes a large public announcement that they are going to focus on Windows first and then maybe the Mac if they get around to it. They fail to take advantage of key Mac features like Altivec for a long, long time. A number of developers publicly stated that they were switching because Adobe had clearly dropped its interest in the Mac.
At that time, the Mac had a clear performance advantage (when properly written programs were used), so it wasn't about performance. On high end systems like key graphics designers use, Macs weren't significantly more expensive - and there was plenty of data that users gained enough in productivity to more than make up for any price difference.
So, given those facts, why do YOU think that we went from 90% of graphics designers using macs to under 50%?
Where do you get these figures from? Are you a graphic designer?
I worked as a professional art director and graphic designer in NYC for 20+ years. I worked at large ad agencies and also did lots of freelance. Not one of the companies I worked at use PC/Windows in the design department. They all use Macs. ALL of them. So, I know for a fact that you are just making this shit up.
Where do you get these figures from? Are you a graphic designer?
I worked as a professional art director and graphic designer in NYC for 20+ years. I worked at large ad agencies and also did lots of freelance. Not one of the companies I worked at use PC/Windows in the design department. They all use Macs. ALL of them. So, I know for a fact that you are just making this shit up.
Grin.
Apple's increasing share of the PC marketplace is pretty meteoric. Buying Adobe in order to compel them to make marginally better Mac software in order to sell more computers to people who already buy those computers seems to be a weak commercial argument.
C.
- Getting hardware down to a price that you consider 'cheap'.
- Getting better content deals. Apple hasn't been able to get great content pricing on iTunes, why do you think they'd get a great deal on 'the TV thing'?
- Dealing with competition. If Apple did get a reasonable content price, everyone and his brother would have at least as good a deal (or better if the way publishers are treating Amazon over music access is any indication). Quite a few people have a big head start over Apple.
-
Could Apple do something great? Sure. But the problem is trying to do something great that they could make money from. Jobs already said that they have no idea how to do that in the TV business. I'm not holding my breath.
An A4 based solution would be not dissimilar to an iPod touch without the screen, without buttons and without the battery. So small enough for the device to become invisible. Consumers don't want more boxes.
So cheap, it is cheap enough to give away with a content subscription. And the the price of zero is a magical psychological barrier, which lets you get a lot more units out there.
The presence of the App store on the device is another hook to bring customers in.
It's the number of units out there that in turn drives the content deals.
The current way content gets to TV screens is via broadcast technologies and disks. It is inevitable that in 20 years time, most content will arrive in your TeeVee via an internet-based distribution network.
Apple currently leads the internet distribution game. Either they can sit-back, do nothing and let someone else get there first, Or they can pro-actively aim to change the game.
There is really only one unanswered question. How to solve the advertising problem. This is the area where Apple do need to make acquisitions.
C.
Let's see. Adobe makes a large public announcement that they are going to focus on Windows first and then maybe the Mac if they get around to it.
Is that specifically what they said?
URL?
Is that specifically what they said?
URL?
I don't recall what they said, but concentrating on Windows software was what they did. Not that the argument for Apple buying Adobe makes strategic sense either way.
Where do you get these figures from? Are you a graphic designer?
I worked as a professional art director and graphic designer in NYC for 20+ years. I worked at large ad agencies and also did lots of freelance. Not one of the companies I worked at use PC/Windows in the design department. They all use Macs. ALL of them. So, I know for a fact that you are just making this shit up.
How about Adobe's annual report? Is that good enough for you?
Greater than 50% of Adobe's revenues are now WIndows software. Whether your agency uses Windows or not is really not that relevant - unless you're pretending that you're a significant percentage of the entire market.
How about Adobe's annual report? Is that good enough for you?
Greater than 50% of Adobe's revenues are now WIndows software. Whether your agency uses Windows or not is really not that relevant - unless you're pretending that you're a significant percentage of the entire market.
Pretty much all of professional 2D production is on Macs. But that is not all that Adobe makes.
The 3D market is dominated by Windows PCs - So if Apple wanted to sell some computers to professionals, it would make more sense to acquire Autodesk, than Adobe.
But it will not.
C.
Pretty much all of professional 2D production is on Macs. But that is not all that Adobe makes.
The 3D market is dominated by Windows PCs - So if Apple wanted to sell some computers to professionals, it would make more sense to acquire Autodesk, than Adobe.
Not really. First, there isn't even a Mac version of Autodesk software (although one is promised). If Apple acquired Autodesk, it would take a while to port the software. Then there's the problem that there are plenty of alternatives to Autodesk software. So if someone is using Autodesk, they can either switch to other software on their existing hardware or they can switch to Macs and continue to use Autodesk. Many people would stick with Windows. To make matters worse, very few people are able to do all their work with AutoCAD. They combine it with other software to complete their tasks. So if they wanted to switch to the Mac, they'd have to switch ALL their software, including some for which there are no Mac versions. It just wouldn't happen.
In the case of Adobe software, OTOH, almost everything already exists in both versions and many CS5 users don't use anything else (other than MS Office which also exists on the Mac). So if Apple made the Mac version good enough, they could switch with relatively little pain, other than the cost of new hardware. Since many high end users are replacing hardware very frequently, that's not that big a deal.
Not really. First, there isn't even a Mac version of Autodesk software (although one is promised). If Apple acquired Autodesk, it would take a while to port the software. Then there's the problem that there are plenty of alternatives to Autodesk software. So if someone is using Autodesk, they can either switch to other software on their existing hardware or they can switch to Macs and continue to use Autodesk. Many people would stick with Windows. To make matters worse, very few people are able to do all their work with AutoCAD. They combine it with other software to complete their tasks. So if they wanted to switch to the Mac, they'd have to switch ALL their software, including some for which there are no Mac versions. It just wouldn't happen.
In the case of Adobe software, OTOH, almost everything already exists in both versions and many CS5 users don't use anything else (other than MS Office which also exists on the Mac). So if Apple made the Mac version good enough, they could switch with relatively little pain, other than the cost of new hardware. Since many high end users are replacing hardware very frequently, that's not that big a deal.
My point is that if Apple's goal was selling more Macs to professional markets - then it would achieve more growth to move into a market where Macs have hardly any footprint (3D) than a market where Mac use is pretty much saturated (2D)
The truth is that Apple will do neither, because capturing these niche markets is time-consuming and expensive and ultimately will sell very few additional machines.
Instead, Apple chooses to focus on capturing a wider consumer market. It believes (rightly or wrongly) that is a more productive use of its resources.
C.
Well I think if Apple is going to get into the cable STB business, smartest thing to do is buy Motorola.
I work at a cable company and most of STB are Motorola's, the DAC is by Motorola, we have a lot of Motorola stuff in the head end. Motorola is also looking to get out of the STB business.
But if I was Apple i'd wait til Tru2Way is truly functional. If Apple would also get its head out of its ass and use blu ray that would be awesome as well. Apple designs the ultimate set top box with apps from the iOS, blu ray player, dvr cable box all in one.
Have 32 GIG of flash on board for your apps, guide data, and settings. A 500 GIG laptop drive in there for the DVR and multimedia storage. I know there is a lot of you saying already thats not enough then get an external drive to attach to it.
Then with the right software stream it back to your computer and throw your recorded show on your iWhatever.
Your correct Motorola by far has the complete end to end solution thus the reason that been successful, which is also the down side. The current systems work well, but everyone is trying to move to an IP solution which does not relay on a Motorola only solution and they are having problems, just look all over Europe.
Tru2Way has failed, I believe Cable Labs has given up on trying to make this work, it was suppose to the be the solution to a true consume based STB that you could by at any electronic store and replace the cable card, well that is not going to happen any time soon.
The partnering with ATT and U-Verse IMO is the most likely sinario if they want to start cannibalizing the traditional STB. But even that's a long shot. I could easily see the "App" format as the new way to market the aTV.
AT&T and U-Verse is a Microsoft solution and AT&T has made a huge investment in this, if the were smart they would kill it but I is not they simple for them. I highly double Apple and AT&T could work out a deal here unless they can some how work in parallel with U-Verse.
agree, focus on the core items
From biz point of view, it's bad form to keep all that cash laying around doing nothing. Either invest, lower margins to increase market share or give it to share holders.
IMO there is lots of room for improvement to core products. Like the idea of a media hub, but I think I read steve wants something alot faster than standard wifi. Also would like to see an ipadair(iPad laptop style, with a swivel screen that folds to iPad form factor).
making mobile me free would be a nice thing.
Lots of good ideas in the discussion, keep them coming.
why thank you !!
mobile is free for all the back end users
mobile me will be the true house that will connect us all together
9
here's wishing you a speedy recovery, brucep!
thank you
i got better
9