Adobe releases Creative Suite 5.5 with iPad support for Photoshop

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Adobe on Tuesday released Creative Suite 5.5, the mid-cycle upgrade for its creative applications, with new features and functionality, including iPad applications for operating photoshop and subscription pricing.



Creative Suite 5.5 can now be purchased from Adobe, with upgrade pricing for CS5.5 Design Premium available for $399, and the CS5.5 Master Collection available for $549 for upgraders. New CS5.5 subscriptions also allow customers to pay as they go, with Photoshop and InDesign available separately for $35-per-month on a one-year plan.



Creative Suite 5.5 arrives along with three new iPad applications used to drive common Photoshop workflows: Adobe Color Lava, Adobe Eazel and Adobe Nav. These are designed to enable users to create custom swatches, and paint and drive popular Photoshop tools from tablet devices.



Adobe has also issued the Photoshop Touch Software Development Kit, which allows developers to create mobile and tablet applications that interact with Adobe Photoshop CS5 and Photoshop CS5 Extended software. The Photoshop Touch SDK and new scripting engine allow Android, BlackBerry Tablet OS and iOS applications to drive an interact with Photoshop on the desktop.



"Adobe is leading the charge for HTML5 authoring with new capabilities in Creative Suite 5.5 that will radically enhance the delivery of HTML content across multiple browsers -- on the desktop, tablets and smartphones," said David Wadhwani, senior vice president and general manager for Creative and Interactive Solutions at Adobe. "For creators of mobile apps on iOS, Android or BlackBerry Tablet OS, our latest Flash tools deliver stunning high-performance apps, without having to start from scratch for every device."







Adobe is also pushing Creative Suite 5.5 as the start of a "new era in digital publishing," allowing business publishers to create print and digital versions of their properties for the latest tablet devices, including Apple's iPad.



Using Adobe InDesign CS 5.5, in combination with the integrated Folio Producer toolset, designers can add new levels of interactivity to their page layouts targeted at tablet devices. Also available is the Adobe Digital Publishing suite, a turnkey solution that includes hosted services and viewer technology that allow publishers to cost-effectively publish content to Android tablets, BlackBerry PlayBook and Apple iPad.







The new Creative Suite product lineup is headlined by Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 Master Collection, which includes, in a single package, all of Adobe?s creative tools, such as Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, Flash Builder Premium, Flash Catalyst, Flash Professional, Dreamweaver, Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects. These products are available separately or as components of one or more of the five Creative Suite editions.



The complete Creative Suite 5 lineup includes Creative Suite 5.5 Master Collection, Creative Suite 5.5 Design Premium, Creative Suite 5.5 Web Premium, Creative Suite 5.5 Production Premium and Creative Suite 5.5 Design Standard.



Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 products are immediately available through Adobe Authorized Resellers, the Adobe Store online in North America and Adobe Direct Sales. Estimated street price for the suites is US$2599 for CS5.5 Master Collection, US$1899 for CS5.5 Design Premium, US$1799 for CS5.5 Web Premium, US$1699 for CS5.5 Production Premium and US$1299 for CS5.5 Design Standard. Upgrade pricing and volume licensing are available.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    rabbit_coachrabbit_coach Posts: 1,114member
    iPad Support! I might just give Adobe a second chance.
  • Reply 2 of 37
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post


    iPad Support! I might just give Adobe a second chance.



    Just be aware that it isn't anything close to the full photoshop app. These are tool bar apps that only work with photoshop, not on their own.
  • Reply 3 of 37
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    No, it's not the full Photoshop. But just look how much you can do without Flash.
  • Reply 4 of 37
    addicted44addicted44 Posts: 822member
    Adobe is a company that makes great tools, especially for designers and the like.



    The problem was that they had this crazy Microsoftian idea where they could also usurp the internet, and make it a Flash enclave.



    The quicker they get rid of their "world domination" plans, and the faster they return to their roots, the better off they will be.



    Its the Macromedia in Adobe that is hurting them.
  • Reply 5 of 37
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,523member
    It's a start...



    The iPad as a control surface for a complex app running on a Mac.



    I hope we see more of this when FCPX is released.
  • Reply 6 of 37
    magicjmagicj Posts: 406member
    Still way to expensive. The rental plan seems like a good idea, but even with that I'm not sure I'll switch from what I'm using now (GIMP, Acorn, Pixelmator) due to the subscription still being a lot more expensive.
  • Reply 7 of 37
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    This upgrade is ridiculous if not arrogant. I will wait for 6.
  • Reply 8 of 37
    neiltc13neiltc13 Posts: 182member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    Adobe is a company that makes great tools, especially for designers and the like.



    The problem was that they had this crazy Microsoftian idea where they could also usurp the internet, and make it a Flash enclave.



    The quicker they get rid of their "world domination" plans, and the faster they return to their roots, the better off they will be.



    Its the Macromedia in Adobe that is hurting them.



    Do you guys honestly believe this nonsense?



    Flash and Flash Player are responsible for a huge amount of the interactivity and multimedia content that has been on the web in the past 10+ years. Without it, we'd have a far less rich internet and massive fragmentation of plugins and media players.



    I doubt anyone at Adobe or Macromedia set out for "world domination" - they produced a truly excellent product that became popular because of how good it was.



    If you'd like to suggest an alternative technology that can deliver what the combination of Flash and Flash Player do, please enlighten us all.
  • Reply 9 of 37
    gustavgustav Posts: 824member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    Do you guys honestly believe this nonsense?



    Flash and Flash Player are responsible for a huge amount of the interactivity and multimedia content that has been on the web in the past 10+ years. Without it, we'd have a far less rich internet and massive fragmentation of plugins and media players.



    Yeah, like annoying flash ads.

    Quote:

    I doubt anyone at Adobe or Macromedia set out for "world domination" - they produced a truly excellent product that became popular because of how good it was.



    If you'd like to suggest an alternative technology that can deliver what the combination of Flash and Flash Player do, please enlighten us all.



    I get that Flash has brought capabilities to the web that we'd have not gotten elsewhere, except for video. Flash was late to the video game and only brought some security, forced ad watching, etc., which any of the incumbents could have added easily.



    But the question is, outside of a few gaming web sites, was Flash necessary? Did people need to have Flash menus on their web sites? Not really.
  • Reply 10 of 37
    gustavgustav Posts: 824member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    Still way to expensive. The rental plan seems like a good idea, but even with that I'm not sure I'll switch from what I'm using now (GIMP, Acorn, Pixelmator) due to the subscription still being a lot more expensive.



    If you can get buy with those apps, then I say go for it. But if you need more advanced features, CMYK support, etc. Photoshop is your best bet.



    That said, I can't stand GIMP - it's free and it shows - the UI is awful and does not lend itself to productivity. I couldn't work in GIMP more than a few minutes.
  • Reply 11 of 37
    Why doesn't Apple buy Adobe already? They could spin off the Pro apps company and have them focus on writing iPad versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, FCP etc.



    Has there really been a useful feature they've added to Photoshop since CS1?
  • Reply 12 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by heroinsmoker View Post


    Why doesn't Apple buy Adobe already? They could spin off the Pro apps company and have them focus on writing iPad versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, FCP etc.



    Has there really been a useful feature they've added to Photoshop since CS1?



    Spin off? Just take the After Effects team and make them slaves to the Motion team. Premier Pro? Slaves to Final Cut Pro. Same with Lightroom and Aperture.



    Photoshop? Keep the name exactly as it is. Stick it to the memory of Adobe. Same with Illustrator.



    Flash gets its own ten minute funeral at a Stevenote, just like Mac OS 9. Wake and celebration to follow.
  • Reply 13 of 37
    neiltc13neiltc13 Posts: 182member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    I get that Flash has brought capabilities to the web that we'd have not gotten elsewhere, except for video. Flash was late to the video game and only brought some security, forced ad watching, etc., which any of the incumbents could have added easily.



    Flash will remain on the web until someone comes up with a way to implement DRM in videos that use the HTML5 <video> tag.



    Quote:

    But the question is, outside of a few gaming web sites, was Flash necessary? Did people need to have Flash menus on their web sites? Not really.



    Today many developers make menus using one or more of HTML, CSS or JavaScript. Modern browsers do a relatively good job of rendering this consistently and to the specifications set out by organisations like W3C.



    However, Flash still remains as one of the only ways for web developers to ensure that their content is 100% consistent across devices. Even modern browsers struggle with some elements and just a few years ago there was massive disparity between what a developer would see in their browser and what a user would see in theirs.



    And that's not even considering that most users are not using the latest versions of their browsers...
  • Reply 14 of 37
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by neiltc13 View Post


    >>>>>>>>Even modern browsers struggle with some elements and just a few years ago there was massive disparity between what a developer would see in their browser and what a user would see in theirs.



    You were talking about Flash, right?



    Many people have seen "spinning Beach balls", turbine-screaming fans, security holes, browser and system-crashing, all due to "a designer's dream".



    Well I'm a designer... and MY dream is to get information as safe and sound to my client's potential customers. That is all. A word-wrap here or a sliding menu there... the content is what is important, not the Disney-fication of the presentation.



    IMHO.
  • Reply 15 of 37
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,411member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    Still way to expensive. The rental plan seems like a good idea, but even with that I'm not sure I'll switch from what I'm using now (GIMP, Acorn, Pixelmator) due to the subscription still being a lot more expensive.



    "Way too expensive"? If you make money using their products, you should be able to pay them off after one or two projects. If you just use their software to screw around, any price is too expensive.
  • Reply 16 of 37
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    The new iMac pages at Apple have some nice animations using Javascript, not Flash obviously. Probably a couple thousand lines of code and three or four frameworks, but what the hell they are almost up to comparable capabilities of Future Splash version 1. Not that it isn't nice...just saying.
  • Reply 17 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The new iMac pages at Apple have some nice animations using Javascript, not Flash obviously. Probably a couple thousand lines of code and three or four frameworks, but what the hell they are almost up to comparable capabilities of Future Splash version 1. Not that it isn't nice...just saying.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple's iMac Page


    Code:


    -webkit-transition-property: initial;

    -webkit-transition-delay: initial;

    -webkit-transition-timing-function: cubic-bezier(0.25, 0, 0.25, 1);

    -webkit-transition-duration: 1000ms;

    -webkit-transform: translate3d(0px, 0px, 0px);









    Ooh, look! A thousand lines of code!
  • Reply 18 of 37
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Ooh, look! A thousand lines of code!



    Very nice



    Would any Flash experts care to show the code to do the very same thing in Flash?



    I wont hold my breath... but I don't have all day either.
  • Reply 19 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


    Very nice



    Would any Flash experts care to show the code to do the very same thing in Flash?



    I wont hold my breath... but I don't have all day either.



    Granted, that's just the move-in for the first iMac on the first image in the slider, but everything else is the exact same. Heck, the whole thing isn't even in JavaScript; Apple handles the motion between slides with CSS3, as well.
  • Reply 20 of 37
    neiltc13neiltc13 Posts: 182member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


    Very nice



    Would any Flash experts care to show the code to do the very same thing in Flash?



    I wont hold my breath... but I don't have all day either.



    The "-webkit-" prefixes on all of these attributes indicate that they will only be displayed by WebKit browsers (mainly Chrome and Safari).



    That means that a maximum of 19.09% of users will see them (far less when you consider that not all users will be running versions of these browsers capable of displaying these animations).



    Had Apple implemented the same features in Flash then around 98% or 99% would see them.



    We'll be waiting a while until web developers can implement things like Apple has without spending time and money providing hacks and alternative versions for different browsers.
Sign In or Register to comment.