Can you get Adobe CC subscription on iPad? Because that'd be the real reason Apple is playing so nice with Adobe. I really dislike the adobe subscription tears, because I don't use the suit enough to justify cost.
On the other hand Adobe seems to be copying a lot from Affinity, a company that was born from developing creative tools for the iPad and sell great products fairly priced. That's why I think is a bit sad Apple ended up working with Adobe, just making is stronger and letting them charge whatever they want; instead of supporting a smaller company which would benefit the industry and consumer a bit more.
This is a really good point. How folks quickly forget Steve Jobs’s war on Adobe. Not that anyone wants a permanent state of animosity, but this current lovefest is a but much. Too bad Apple didn’t showcase other image editing software!
Only because they wanted direct hardware access and hobbled Flash on OSX when Steve wouldn’t give it. Let’s hope Phil hasn’t had to drop his pants for this deal and Adobe will become Metal-friendly which should help both Intel & ARM Macs.
Could be big. Apple's A12 chip runs circles around Intel. But all the essential SW runs on IA. Perhaps Adobe and Apple have found a way to port to an all A12 and successor chip.
I keep hearing this baloney about Intel and the so called essential software there. The fact is in a very short time iPad has developed a fairly large software library of its own, including professional apps. You don't port to the iPad you leverage the platform to create new and interesting solutions. Even in this case I would expect that all Adobe apps coming to the iPad will be fresh code exploring new ways to do things.
I don’t know a lot about chips. Can one really do a direct compare between ARM and x86?
i just want to be able to manually select faces in my photos and label them. and add keywords. in the native app on the iPad. and I actually tweeted Phil this AM to ask him why I still can't do something that simple when Abode can put freaking photoshop on the device
I think soon we will see the final stroke of the master's pen... Steve Jobs started development of the iPhone back in 2002 and Apple had a solid vision to write a brand new operating system, nearly from scratch for ARM-based chips. A few years later, they unveiled the iPad with an A4 processor. If you think about It, the A4 was the fourth process Apple developed. Assuming Apple was doing this one per year, they were working on their own chips since about 2005 or so (assuming there is some lead time). They purchased PA Semi in 2008 and then released the first, production ready A-series chip in early 2010.
That being said, there's a reason Apple never merged the MacOS and iOS operating systems... Apple doesn't intend to develop MacOS forever. Instead, they want developers to port and build fresh on iOS. It's much cleaner and leaner than MacOS. Apple also wants to succeed where it tried to in the past by developing its own silicon. I suspect that we will see A-series powered everything in the next few years. Apple fully intends to leverage economies of scale and build out machines that are powerful and efficient running custom silicon. There's no reason developers can't port their apps over to iOS... and that's exactly what Adobe has proven by moving Photoshop to iOS. Other vendors will follow and I expect Apple to open up slowly but surely to allow iOS to become a more predominate operating system.
This is great news. In the short term to boost iPad Pro’s kudos & capability as hands down the best photographic post production tool (I couldn’t get my semi-pro photographer wife back to the Mac if I tried). But in the long term to get Adobe onto ARM & take Metal seriously at last.
I was thinking what would be the greatest barrier to an A12X MacBook? If Apple convinced MS & Adobe to support the new platform along with full availability of Apple’s 1st-party apps (done already I assume) all they need is a way to emulate x86/ClickOnce/.NET reasonably well (A12Xi ?) - job done. Once the performance is up then MBPs to follow.
The biggest barrier in my opinion is the I/O allotment and performance. Mac book really needs two high performance ports, ideally USB-C/TB. At the very least that requires PCI to be implemented on A12X. Once you have those it is just a matter of tweaking die space to give you the right combination of CPU cores and GPU cores.
On the CPU side I’d like to see 4 high performance cores and probably 2 maybe one low power cores. The obvious thing here is that performance is needed on the laptop but you still want very low standby power. (Standby power is why I’d love to see an ARM based Mini). The flip side is that this is still a Mac Book so we can’t blow out the number of high performance cores. Such a processor could easily power a iPad also. If the new iPad Pro is the big jump forward some think it is USB-C/TB would be huge.
For the iPad and the Mac Book any upgrade of the GPU would certainly be a step forward even the base A12 GPU is a step forward. I wouldn’t be surprised to see two extra GPU cores to give A12X a little something extra. Apple still needs to keep die space under control which is why deleting some of the low power cores makes sense.
I look at at it this way if they aren’t going ARM then why has so much of the Mac product line been ignored for so long?
Could be big. Apple's A12 chip runs circles around Intel. But all the essential SW runs on IA. Perhaps Adobe and Apple have found a way to port to an all A12 and successor chip.
I keep hearing this baloney about Intel and the so called essential software there. The fact is in a very short time iPad has developed a fairly large software library of its own, including professional apps. You don't port to the iPad you leverage the platform to create new and interesting solutions. Even in this case I would expect that all Adobe apps coming to the iPad will be fresh code exploring new ways to do things.
I don’t know a lot about chips. Can one really do a direct compare between ARM and x86?
Realistically you can compare anything to anything. You can compare an ARM chip to a pumpkin if you wanted. The question becomes does the comparison have any value?
with respect to computer chips it is perfectly valid to compare spec sheets and benchmarks. In fact originally much benchmarking was focused on comparing different chip architectures.
Ultimately what most people want to know is how their favored apps run on different platforms. Even in an Intel only line up such comparisons are very valuable. One example is comparing app performance with and without hyper threading enabled! In any event if you don’t compare across architectures how do you know when something like ARM has matured to the point that it can replace Intel.
Now given that all processors have weak points and strong points. Right now we have biased reporting that Apples ARM processors are excellent at single threaded performance. I say biased because they leave a lot of testing out of the picture to generate hot headlines.
So so what we have right now is some limited testing that demonstrates really good SINGLE THREADED performance out of Apples A12. More importantly Apple does this at low power and clock rates. What this indicates is a lot of potential for a very significant iPad upgrade and possibly the same chip in a Mac Book.
I am at the expo, it was such a surprise when Phil came up on stage! Unfortunately his speech was such a yawner, it sounded like he was kissing ass! Either way, I just hope Adobe also ports Adobe XD to the iPad. It'll be the super useful.
Totally hillarious. Photoshop will have all the same tools and be basically the same as the MacOS version, just with touch enabled for the iPad. And all the while, Apple continues to refuse to acknowledge that a lot of people still instinctively touch the screens of their Apple notebooks, thinking they are like every other device out there today. Fingerprints and other reasons why it's a bad idea aside, at some point, you either have to make the iPad as powerful as a Mac in terms of running full-featured Pro apps (preferably, without the monthly ball-and-chain subscription), or you have to release a touch-enabled Mac. Even if the entire CC suite came to the iPad, that alone would not make the iPad a Mac replacement.
Apple has been working with Adobe for years. There has been other adobe apps on the iPad. None of this changes anything with Flash. Flash is dead. Who cares about flash these days? I never have cared since I got my first iPhone. Never was a issue. Steve Jobs was right to keep that garbage off. It’s not even on Android these days. Adobe making full versions of their app(s) for iOS changes nothing for Flash.
2) My speculation is that at next year’s WWDC Apple will announce a touch screen iMac using an “A” chip running iOS. Apple is working with Adobe to make sure their crappy software works on it because Apple is desperate to move professionals away from MacOS so they can focus on making iOS their only OS.
And all the while, Apple continues to refuse to acknowledge that a lot of people still instinctively touch the screens of their Apple notebooks, thinking they are like every other device out there today.
Never seen this.
Hell, I haven’t even seen people with touch-screen laptops touch the screen.
As Cook often says, touching a screen mounted vertically is just bad ergonomics; that’s why people “instinctively” don’t do it.
It's easy to get the two companies confused. Both of their names are 5 letters long, both start with A, both and with E, and in the middle are similar looking letters: "pp" vs "db".
And all the while, Apple continues to refuse to acknowledge that a lot of people still instinctively touch the screens of their Apple notebooks, thinking they are like every other device out there today.
Never seen this.
Hell, I haven’t even seen people with touch-screen laptops touch the screen.
As Cook often says, touching a screen mounted vertically is just bad ergonomics; that’s why people “instinctively” don’t do it.
I do it by accident, because I spend most of my computing time on my iPad Pro, with a Smart Keyboard attached. When I use my MacBook Pro or my companion’s Windows laptop, I often reach most of the way the screen before realizing what I’m doing.
If Apple are so convinced about the bad ergonomics of this (and I agree), why the hell is the keyboard support so half-assed on iPad?
This is great news. In the short term to boost iPad Pro’s kudos & capability as hands down the best photographic post production tool (I couldn’t get my semi-pro photographer wife back to the Mac if I tried). But in the long term to get Adobe onto ARM & take Metal seriously at last.
I was thinking what would be the greatest barrier to an A12X MacBook? If Apple convinced MS & Adobe to support the new platform along with full availability of Apple’s 1st-party apps (done already I assume) all they need is a way to emulate x86/ClickOnce/.NET reasonably well (A12Xi ?) - job done. Once the performance is up then MBPs to follow.
The biggest barrier in my opinion is the I/O allotment and performance. Mac book really needs two high performance ports, ideally USB-C/TB. At the very least that requires PCI to be implemented on A12X. Once you have those it is just a matter of tweaking die space to give you the right combination of CPU cores and GPU cores.
On the CPU side I’d like to see 4 high performance cores and probably 2 maybe one low power cores. The obvious thing here is that performance is needed on the laptop but you still want very low standby power. (Standby power is why I’d love to see an ARM based Mini). The flip side is that this is still a Mac Book so we can’t blow out the number of high performance cores. Such a processor could easily power a iPad also. If the new iPad Pro is the big jump forward some think it is USB-C/TB would be huge.
For the iPad and the Mac Book any upgrade of the GPU would certainly be a step forward even the base A12 GPU is a step forward. I wouldn’t be surprised to see two extra GPU cores to give A12X a little something extra. Apple still needs to keep die space under control which is why deleting some of the low power cores makes sense.
I look at at it this way if they aren’t going ARM then why has so much of the Mac product line been ignored for so long?
I think that, despite a monster neural engine, the die space was actually reduced due to process shrink. I reckon the A12X will follow previous X versions and add at least one more performance core and double the GPU core count for the iPad.
For the MacBook I’d like to see 4+4 as the low power cores can run OS & services. MacOS runs 120+ threads after booting so they should keep/increase the small core count.
On I/O would the prosumer MacBook need TB? Or would USB3.2 be enough? If they made it 12GB as standard it wouldn’t need RAM upgrades.
It is excitement What is right driving force. Passion and ignorance are two forces behind all human problems and conflicts. Cause off all clashes between parents, families, clans, states, religions and so on.
Can you get Adobe CC subscription on iPad? Because that'd be the real reason Apple is playing so nice with Adobe.
The insignificant amount of money they'd make off CC subscriptions if they were available on the iPad?
(And no, you can't buy them there, you pay for the subscription on the web, so Apple gets no cut).
On the other hand Adobe seems to be copying a lot from Affinity
A company that went out producing Photoshop and Illustrator alternatives? Yeah, sure, Adobe is the one copying them.
(Not to mention they probably infringe on 100s of Adobe patents).
Comments
That being said, there's a reason Apple never merged the MacOS and iOS operating systems... Apple doesn't intend to develop MacOS forever. Instead, they want developers to port and build fresh on iOS. It's much cleaner and leaner than MacOS. Apple also wants to succeed where it tried to in the past by developing its own silicon. I suspect that we will see A-series powered everything in the next few years. Apple fully intends to leverage economies of scale and build out machines that are powerful and efficient running custom silicon. There's no reason developers can't port their apps over to iOS... and that's exactly what Adobe has proven by moving Photoshop to iOS. Other vendors will follow and I expect Apple to open up slowly but surely to allow iOS to become a more predominate operating system.
On the CPU side I’d like to see 4 high performance cores and probably 2 maybe one low power cores. The obvious thing here is that performance is needed on the laptop but you still want very low standby power. (Standby power is why I’d love to see an ARM based Mini). The flip side is that this is still a Mac Book so we can’t blow out the number of high performance cores. Such a processor could easily power a iPad also. If the new iPad Pro is the big jump forward some think it is USB-C/TB would be huge.
For the iPad and the Mac Book any upgrade of the GPU would certainly be a step forward even the base A12 GPU is a step forward. I wouldn’t be surprised to see two extra GPU cores to give A12X a little something extra. Apple still needs to keep die space under control which is why deleting some of the low power cores makes sense.
I look at at it this way if they aren’t going ARM then why has so much of the Mac product line been ignored for so long?
with respect to computer chips it is perfectly valid to compare spec sheets and benchmarks. In fact originally much benchmarking was focused on comparing different chip architectures.
Ultimately what most people want to know is how their favored apps run on different platforms. Even in an Intel only line up such comparisons are very valuable. One example is comparing app performance with and without hyper threading enabled! In any event if you don’t compare across architectures how do you know when something like ARM has matured to the point that it can replace Intel.
Now given that all processors have weak points and strong points. Right now we have biased reporting that Apples ARM processors are excellent at single threaded performance. I say biased because they leave a lot of testing out of the picture to generate hot headlines.
So so what we have right now is some limited testing that demonstrates really good SINGLE THREADED performance out of Apples A12. More importantly Apple does this at low power and clock rates. What this indicates is a lot of potential for a very significant iPad upgrade and possibly the same chip in a Mac Book.
Either way, I just hope Adobe also ports Adobe XD to the iPad. It'll be the super useful.
2) My speculation is that at next year’s WWDC Apple will announce a touch screen iMac using an “A” chip running iOS. Apple is working with Adobe to make sure their crappy software works on it because Apple is desperate to move professionals away from MacOS so they can focus on making iOS their only OS.
Hell, I haven’t even seen people with touch-screen laptops touch the screen.
As Cook often says, touching a screen mounted vertically is just bad ergonomics; that’s why people “instinctively” don’t do it.
If Apple are so convinced about the bad ergonomics of this (and I agree), why the hell is the keyboard support so half-assed on iPad?
For the MacBook I’d like to see 4+4 as the low power cores can run OS & services. MacOS runs 120+ threads after booting so they should keep/increase the small core count.
On I/O would the prosumer MacBook need TB? Or would USB3.2 be enough? If they made it 12GB as standard it wouldn’t need RAM upgrades.