I've been a Apple user since 1989 and I love my Mac but I need the creative suite to get my work done. If they merged, I would have to look into buying a PC as sad as that makes me. Damn, I hope this doesn't happen.
I guess an alternative would be to go buy the fastest mac I could afford and the latest version of the Creative Suite and see if I could wait out this tragedy until something changed. That should at least get me two years before I would have to make another hardware decision. It's like battening the hatches before the storm.
This is stupid. Both don't have anything to offer the other in the mobile market. MS needs hardware and software integration and Adobe is out of touch when it comes to mobile devices. Putting the two together will not solve anything.
Well it is a complex project and it would not be "easy." But Apple would not have great difficulty. Look how quickly they moved with Final Cut Pro and iWork.
My concern is that Apple tends to lose interest in software projects once they have developed them (I see FCP sort of languishing a bit over the last few years. And iWork has remained a bit subpar when it should be polished to a high gloss by now.)
FCP took years for it to get to the point where it is today, and let's not forget that the FCP project AND team were purchased and that the software was already somewhat laid-out and much of it was already developed. Apple merely bought the whole team and positioned them to code specifically for OSX. Adobe also holds many patents, here's are some just for Photoshop alone:
The implication of course is that, after acquiring Adobe, Microsoft would then kill off the Mac versions of all the Adobe product lines. This logic is faulty in that Mac products are a significant source of revenue for Adobe, as is Office for Microsoft. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Add to that the obvious anti-competitive ramifications and it would all but impossible for Ballmer to do this expressly to damage Apple.
Therefore the original poster's logic is ludicrous, as you imply.
It's not likely that they'll get away with that. The anti-trust case following such a move would most likely be fatal to the Adobe + Microsoft combination.
Yes, yes, very impressive. Patents on ideas they have had for software. But Final Cut Pro was produced in exactly the manner a CS substitute could be produced. Some inexpensive clever companies and technologies were purchased and put into service to produce a new and innovative offering built fresh from the ground up. And it was produced in less than a year. But on release, it was seen as a great and valuable product and the game changer it soon became. Adobe and Avid lost a ton of market. I'm sure Adobe and other "established giants" had equally impressive lists of patents on their video editing software as well, but it didn't pose a problem for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
FCP took years for it to get to the point where it is today, and let's not forget that the FCP project AND team were purchased and that the software was already somewhat laid-out and much of it was already developed. Apple merely bought the whole team and positioned them to code specifically for OSX. Adobe also holds many patents, here's are some just for Photoshop alone:
Anyone remember Netscape? Looks like MS might be panicking and devolving to the only MO that ever brought them success.
The best part about this is that Ballmer might actually think of this as a viable tactic in a fundamentally different environment. I hope they keep him around forever...
Huh? A punter and a placekicker perform two different types of kicking. And it's been a long time since I heard of a placekicker fumbling since he typically doesn't use his hands.
Moot point. If MSFT played football, they'd be tossing a puck around left field trying to find the basket.
Folks -- Microsoft buying Adobe does not automatically mean that Photoshop etc will no longer be on the Mac. Note that Microsoft is actually *improving* Office for the Mac with the upcoming release, bringing it to feature-parity with Windows for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and almost feature parity with Outlook. If MS were out to screw the Mac, why would they be doing that?
Microsoft would not be buying Adobe to hurt the Mac. They would be buying Adobe to compete with the iPhone. Although how they think that would help them compete with the iPhone, I really have no idea. What would Microsoft do with Silverlight? I think this really would be a bizarre strategy for MS to pursue. MS has the resources to compete with the iPhone without wasting a ton of money on Adobe. Sad if Balmer doesn't know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Many have joked Apple should have bought Adobe long ago ... now I wonder if this may have been a good idea.
See above. Let other companies merge out of desperation.
You see, Apple displays on both Mac OS X and iOS use display Postscript/PDF technology for which it has I believe an exclusive license from Adobe. Apple has enhanced this technology to allow it to zoom or shrink anything on an Apple display to any size without losing image quality.
I believe that Apple has an exclusive on the technology and I bet that Microsoft wants it. So the only way that Microsoft may be able to get this technology is by buying Adobe because Apple has an exclusive license from Adobe on the technology.
Adobe and Apple were at odds once before, about twenty years ago regarding Postscript and Type 1 font technology. Adobe was getting greedy with licensing fees, so Apple partnered with Microsoft to create a vector image engine and new font technology. Microsoft was to develop the image engine half (TrueImage) and Apple the font (TrueType). Well today, we know who the more competent company turned out to be. Soon after, TrueType took over Postscript Type 1 fonts on the desktop.
...
You have a hint of what happened between Apple and Adobe, but most of your facts are incorrect. Licensing fees may have been involved, but the major issue was Type 1 hinting. Apple wanted Adobe to adapt Type 1 hinting to low-resolution devices--laser printers and computer monitors. Adobe refused with the assertion that its primary market was professional typesetters.
Apple then developed its new font technology with built-in hinting. It entered into a partnership with Microsoft on this new font venture. Apple was supposed to develop the font technology. Microsoft was supposed to develop a replacement for Adobe's PostScript PDL (page description language). These new technologies were supposed to work equally well on the Mac and Windows. Apple's contribution was developed the font technology in-house, which it rebranded as TrueType. Microsoft purchased a PostScript clone which it rebranded TrueImage. Before TrueType saw the light of day, Adobe released Adobe Type Manager which did what Apple asked Adobe to do--in a fashion. Few printers based on Microsoft's TrueImage PostScript clone were ever released. However, TrueType was an unqualified success. Ironically, it was a bigger hint on Windows than on the Mac.
Adobe had precipitated the Font Wars out of its own arrogance. Adobe lost the Font Wars--badly. When the Font Wars began, Adobe was the PostScript Printer Company. There is no stronger evidence of how badly Adobe lost than the fact that computer users today think of Adobe as the Flash Company.
So the Titanic and Lusitania are going to merge? Good luck with that Ballmer...Once again, Microcrap is showing they can't innovate so they need to bring in another company to help. Unfortunately it's a company that isn't that much better...
If Microsoft were to buyout Adobe, it won't be about Apple. Android's the biggest threat to Microsoft in the mobile space. Microsoft were hoping for status quo in the mobile space that they had in the desktop space i.e. Apple sells tightly coupled hardware/software and Microsoft sells just software with multiple hardware. But Google's come in and stolen Microsoft's way of business in the mobile space. So if anything, they will try and make sure that Flash doesn't work so well on Android if they do end up buying them out.
You make a good point that Google not Apple has taken Microsoft's place in the Mobile OS race. This is true in terms of business model except that Google does not charge a license fee.
I don't think flash is critical to Google's success with Android. From what I have seen, flash does not run very well on Android phones. It actually sucks.
May be Microsoft want's adobe to create publishing tools.
If anyone was talking merger in this meeting, it was Adobe. Microsoft needs Adobe in house now about as much as they need Nokia. Adobe is a large, expensive company who's product line is mature with limited growth (just like Nokia). Adobe wants Flash to be the mobile standard much like the desktop, but they were hampered by their own inability to deliver a working product for 3 years. And what would an Adobe+Microsoft alliance do for Flash? Clearly Microsoft already has Silverlight and is likely basing much of its developer platform for Windows Phone 7 around it. Bringing in Adobe would mean they have two incompatible code bases to deal with and neither would be on any of Apple's mobile products anyway. Combining forces wouldn't push further adoption of either company's products in the mobile space...there's just no synergy.
Not to mention that Microsoft's M&A strategy is a lot like Apple in that they usually buy smaller companies only occasionally that show a lot of upside value to them (in terms of multiples). Examples include Great Plains (which got Microsoft into the small business ERP space and Bungie, which launched Halo for the Xbox). Buying a behemoth like Adobe would return little upside value to shareholders in exchange for $25 billion dollars to Adobe investors. That money is best either reinvesting in home grown technologies, smaller more nimble acquisition targets or returning money to investors via the dividend.
Frankly, I wonder what Adobe & Microsoft even had to discuss at the CEO level.
Comments
I've been a Apple user since 1989 and I love my Mac but I need the creative suite to get my work done. If they merged, I would have to look into buying a PC as sad as that makes me. Damn, I hope this doesn't happen.
I guess an alternative would be to go buy the fastest mac I could afford and the latest version of the Creative Suite and see if I could wait out this tragedy until something changed. That should at least get me two years before I would have to make another hardware decision. It's like battening the hatches before the storm.
...told me to tell you hi.
Correct. the place kicker wiffs as the place holder fumbles the snap.
LOL! Just like Lucy and Charlie Brown in Peanuts!
Well it is a complex project and it would not be "easy." But Apple would not have great difficulty. Look how quickly they moved with Final Cut Pro and iWork.
My concern is that Apple tends to lose interest in software projects once they have developed them (I see FCP sort of languishing a bit over the last few years. And iWork has remained a bit subpar when it should be polished to a high gloss by now.)
FCP took years for it to get to the point where it is today, and let's not forget that the FCP project AND team were purchased and that the software was already somewhat laid-out and much of it was already developed. Apple merely bought the whole team and positioned them to code specifically for OSX. Adobe also holds many patents, here's are some just for Photoshop alone: Adobe is an established giant, not a push-over company. Proceed with caution!
The implication of course is that, after acquiring Adobe, Microsoft would then kill off the Mac versions of all the Adobe product lines. This logic is faulty in that Mac products are a significant source of revenue for Adobe, as is Office for Microsoft. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Add to that the obvious anti-competitive ramifications and it would all but impossible for Ballmer to do this expressly to damage Apple.
Therefore the original poster's logic is ludicrous, as you imply.
It's not likely that they'll get away with that. The anti-trust case following such a move would most likely be fatal to the Adobe + Microsoft combination.
FCP took years for it to get to the point where it is today, and let's not forget that the FCP project AND team were purchased and that the software was already somewhat laid-out and much of it was already developed. Apple merely bought the whole team and positioned them to code specifically for OSX. Adobe also holds many patents, here's are some just for Photoshop alone: Adobe is an established giant, not a push-over company. Proceed with caution!
The best part about this is that Ballmer might actually think of this as a viable tactic in a fundamentally different environment. I hope they keep him around forever...
Huh? A punter and a placekicker perform two different types of kicking. And it's been a long time since I heard of a placekicker fumbling since he typically doesn't use his hands.
Moot point. If MSFT played football, they'd be tossing a puck around left field trying to find the basket.
I already heard that Microsoft would ditch Photoshop for MS Paint--but with a bigger color palette and multiple-lasso feature.
LOL, perhaps they could just use the now freely available MacPaint source code from the original Mac?
http://www.computerhistory.org/highlights/macpaint/
LOL! Just like Lucy and Charlie Brown in Peanuts!
No, that metaphor is reserved for Verizon iPhone rumors.
I think they would be a good fit, same basic software quality standards.
Super-collider of suck.
Folks -- Microsoft buying Adobe does not automatically mean that Photoshop etc will no longer be on the Mac. Note that Microsoft is actually *improving* Office for the Mac with the upcoming release, bringing it to feature-parity with Windows for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and almost feature parity with Outlook. If MS were out to screw the Mac, why would they be doing that?
Microsoft would not be buying Adobe to hurt the Mac. They would be buying Adobe to compete with the iPhone. Although how they think that would help them compete with the iPhone, I really have no idea. What would Microsoft do with Silverlight? I think this really would be a bizarre strategy for MS to pursue. MS has the resources to compete with the iPhone without wasting a ton of money on Adobe. Sad if Balmer doesn't know that.
Many have joked Apple should have bought Adobe long ago ... now I wonder if this may have been a good idea.
See above. Let other companies merge out of desperation.
I believe that Apple has an exclusive on the technology and I bet that Microsoft wants it. So the only way that Microsoft may be able to get this technology is by buying Adobe because Apple has an exclusive license from Adobe on the technology.
Time will tell.
Adobe and Apple were at odds once before, about twenty years ago regarding Postscript and Type 1 font technology. Adobe was getting greedy with licensing fees, so Apple partnered with Microsoft to create a vector image engine and new font technology. Microsoft was to develop the image engine half (TrueImage) and Apple the font (TrueType). Well today, we know who the more competent company turned out to be. Soon after, TrueType took over Postscript Type 1 fonts on the desktop.
...
You have a hint of what happened between Apple and Adobe, but most of your facts are incorrect. Licensing fees may have been involved, but the major issue was Type 1 hinting. Apple wanted Adobe to adapt Type 1 hinting to low-resolution devices--laser printers and computer monitors. Adobe refused with the assertion that its primary market was professional typesetters.
Apple then developed its new font technology with built-in hinting. It entered into a partnership with Microsoft on this new font venture. Apple was supposed to develop the font technology. Microsoft was supposed to develop a replacement for Adobe's PostScript PDL (page description language). These new technologies were supposed to work equally well on the Mac and Windows. Apple's contribution was developed the font technology in-house, which it rebranded as TrueType. Microsoft purchased a PostScript clone which it rebranded TrueImage. Before TrueType saw the light of day, Adobe released Adobe Type Manager which did what Apple asked Adobe to do--in a fashion. Few printers based on Microsoft's TrueImage PostScript clone were ever released. However, TrueType was an unqualified success. Ironically, it was a bigger hint on Windows than on the Mac.
Adobe had precipitated the Font Wars out of its own arrogance. Adobe lost the Font Wars--badly. When the Font Wars began, Adobe was the PostScript Printer Company. There is no stronger evidence of how badly Adobe lost than the fact that computer users today think of Adobe as the Flash Company.
If Microsoft were to buyout Adobe, it won't be about Apple. Android's the biggest threat to Microsoft in the mobile space. Microsoft were hoping for status quo in the mobile space that they had in the desktop space i.e. Apple sells tightly coupled hardware/software and Microsoft sells just software with multiple hardware. But Google's come in and stolen Microsoft's way of business in the mobile space. So if anything, they will try and make sure that Flash doesn't work so well on Android if they do end up buying them out.
You make a good point that Google not Apple has taken Microsoft's place in the Mobile OS race. This is true in terms of business model except that Google does not charge a license fee.
I don't think flash is critical to Google's success with Android. From what I have seen, flash does not run very well on Android phones. It actually sucks.
May be Microsoft want's adobe to create publishing tools.
Time will tell.
Not to mention that Microsoft's M&A strategy is a lot like Apple in that they usually buy smaller companies only occasionally that show a lot of upside value to them (in terms of multiples). Examples include Great Plains (which got Microsoft into the small business ERP space and Bungie, which launched Halo for the Xbox). Buying a behemoth like Adobe would return little upside value to shareholders in exchange for $25 billion dollars to Adobe investors. That money is best either reinvesting in home grown technologies, smaller more nimble acquisition targets or returning money to investors via the dividend.
Frankly, I wonder what Adobe & Microsoft even had to discuss at the CEO level.