remember how the PPC was gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps were rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
Yes. I remember that happening too.
remember when the G4 with its Velocity Engine was gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps were rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
Yes. I remember that happening too.
remember when OSX was gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps were rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
I don't think I ever recall OS X being marketed as a speed boost, if that's what you mean by "performance". If by "performance" you mean stability and productivity, OS X took a little while to get on it's feet, but as of Jaguar, maybe even later into 10.1, many could convincing argue the case (though it's certainly in part subjective) that OS X well outperformed anything Windows has to offer.
If by performance you mean higher security and less downtime related to viruses, OS X performance is now, has been, and for the foreseeable future will be way out in front of Windows.
now apparently the G5 is gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps are rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
For certain apps, the G5 is already doing this, without even waiting for rewrites. Rewrites are happening even as we speak to make the already-fast apps faster, and to bring the not-so-fast ones up to speed.
None of this means that the battle is ever won and won forever. The first PowerPCs were powerful compared to then-current x86 offerings. At the time the G4 came out, it was solid competition to Intel and Intel-like chips. Even as far as Apple eventually fell behind when Motorola stalled so badly, for a few Altivec-enhanced tasks, a G4 still didn't do so badly in the face of huge Wintel gigahertz speed gaps.
So other than the obvious fact that the tide of battle will often shift back and forth, did you have a point?
I don't think it's as simple as "getting other developers." Apple's doing that, anyway, because OS X is a dream operating system for developers.
There are two problems: First of all, all the nifty IDEs and sweet frameworks in the world won't make a Photoshop alternative easy to develop. That's a mammoth undertaking that would take several versions just to get in sight of the ballpark.
Second of all, there's dear old familiarity and compatibility. How many designers just know Photoshop inside out and backward? How many of them sling PSD files around? How many would be leery of something that isn't Photoshop, even if it was just because they'd have to learn a whole new interface? Even if someone busted ass and came out with an application that contended with Photoshop, how many people, honestly, would get that application from a new developer vs. Photoshop from Adobe? Basically, unless and until Adobe really screws up, Photoshop is the Word of graphic design, and it's got a lot of advantages over its competition besides its huge feature set; not least of which are the network effect, and plain old inertia.
I don't think it's as simple as "getting other developers." Apple's doing that, anyway, because OS X is a dream operating system for developers.
There are two problems: First of all, all the nifty IDEs and sweet frameworks in the world won't make a Photoshop alternative easy to develop. That's a mammoth undertaking that would take several versions just to get in sight of the ballpark.
Second of all, there's dear old familiarity and compatibility. How many designers just know Photoshop inside out and backward? How many of them sling PSD files around? How many would be leery of something that isn't Photoshop, even if it was just because they'd have to learn a whole new interface? Even if someone busted ass and came out with an application that contended with Photoshop, how many people, honestly, would get that application from a new developer vs. Photoshop from Adobe? Basically, unless and until Adobe really screws up, Photoshop is the Word of graphic design, and it's got a lot of advantages over its competition besides its huge feature set; not least of which are the network effect, and plain old inertia.
People switched from Quark to InDesign in the masses. It would be difficult, but not impossible to shift people to a non-photoshop. ALthough I guess Quark falls within your definition of really screwing up, because they certainly did, and I don't see adobe doing anything like that anytime soon.
"In his new book Illustrator CS for Dummies, Ted Alspach, Adobe's Group Product Manager for Illustration Products, advises new computer buyers to get a PC: 'As of 2003, Windows systems have taken a decisive lead over Macs when it comes to performance. The difference is most apparent with graphics applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator, but you'll notice it with other applications as well. If you're thinking of purchasing a new system, and speed and responsiveness is important (or at least more important than the feel of the OS, I suggest getting a zippy PC over a (comparably) sluggish Mac.?' "
okay, now i know steve said their relationship with adobe has never been better, but what exactly is their problem? i mean, i can understand maybe playing up advantages, but when they start using direct words like "sluggish" for the mac, it makes me very nervous...
p.s. thanks for the spelling fix, murbot.
Since the vast majority of people buying Illustrator CS for Dummies will already have a computer, hardware buying advice seems a bit out of place, and looks to me like it was put in there just to take a swipe at Apple. The wording of the paragraph implies that PCs are now, and forever will be, decisively faster then Macs -- that's just plain wrong.
Of course, at the time of that writing Macs had really fallen behind PCs. Even now, if you are truly neutral about the OS, the only Mac that really compares favorably to PCs is the Dual 2GHz G5. The rest of the Powermac line, as well as the iMacs, are crushed by PCs in price and performance. It is a sad situation that should be remedied sometime next year as the G5 matures and is put in the rest of the Apple line up.
I have to agree with Spooky. We're fooling ourselves if we think Apple will ever have a definitive advangtage in hardware speed.
They've never had a consistent advantage in speed over time. It's easy to claim victory as you announce a new machine but consumers have been falsely led to believe that Intel, AMD or IBM will someday break from the pack with hardware that is faster than it's competitors by a large margin.
History shows otherwise. None of these companies has any insurmountable lead in anything. The only key to moving forward at breakneck speed is to break with the current and blaze down a new path knowing that eventually your competition will catch up. Apple squandered their lead in the GUI environment. Will they ever have such a headstart in another paradigm altering technology. It's unlikely.
Forget the marketing. Apple will probably never exceed 6% marketshare at the present rate. It is almost impossible unless they were to offer features of such a compelling nature that users would flock. OSX isn't that feature because despite it's superiority over XP that alone isn't enough. Windows 3.x was garbage compared to OS7 and 8 yet it survived and flourished.
Adobe taking potshots at Apple signals just how weak Apple has become. 4.5 Billion in the bank sounds great until you contrast that with Microsofts 40 Billion. Bill Gates was right..it's always been about the Software and it's is Software in which Apple must define itself.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But Macworld has just added some credence to the claim that Macs are not quite up to speed. I just got my December, 03 edition. If you have a copy, start from page 60 and read until tears make reading impossible. The top PC hardware still outperforms the top Mac hardware in Photoshop. Macworld put together what appears to be a fair fight and they have no reason to skew results in the PC's favor. Other tests they did showed that the Mac was not even close. The Mac did do much better in encoding DVDs. Macworld put the best spin on things as they could, but clearly they were disappointed in many of the results. In these same tests, the G4 was an absolute embarrassment. Perhaps the Dual 3 Gig will finally catch us up with the PC. But clearly, the PM G5 is not the fastest personal computer on the block, not by a long shot. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
oh yeah, macworld's crappy benchmarking running 10.2.7 of all things, not 10.3, and running a bloated premiere in there as well, what i care about is REAL world performance, they're discussing this over at spymac, what good is few less seconds if the os is crap, xp is a good os, but i'm not ad productive in it as osx
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But Macworld has just added some credence to the claim that Macs are not quite up to speed. ... clearly, the PM G5 is not the fastest personal computer on the block, not by a long shot. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
hmmm... did that issue arrive in your mailbox, or did you get it on the retail shelf? i have a subscription, and would like to read that.
just for the record, macworld has gotten much less "apple positive spin" since apple/steve et al. dicked over macworld over the boston fiasco. deathridge laid into a few things apple-related with his back page editorial for a few months, and the reviews definitely took a turn for the sour. go ahead -- read the articles from spring to this fall, and you'll hear the difference in tone. don't get me wrong, i felt macworld was too "positive spin" before.
even mac design, run by scott kelby, has had issues with apple the past few issues. because even with their love affair with apple/mac, they're MARRIED to adobe, and that comes out in kelby's editorials lately.
Publication claims 'we must you Premiere and After Effects for a fair and balanced comparison because they're the only cross platform apps!'
When in reality they should use the best tools for each system and do a comparison.
If Macworld really is using Premiere for a review then they're trying to make Apple look bad. How about they do a review of Final Cut Pro for both systems? I'll bet any one of you $10 Apple wins out over a Dell 100000 MHZ, and I'll even give you a 5 minute head start.
Any review based on an app like this is a review of the app not of the hardware.
If Macworld really is using Premiere for a review then they're trying to make Apple look bad. How about they do a review of Final Cut Pro for both systems? I'll bet any one of you $10 Apple wins out over a Dell 100000 MHZ, and I'll even give you a 5 minute head start.
potentially stupid question: is FCP even available for windows?
Basically, unless and until Adobe really screws up, Photoshop is the Word of graphic design, and it's got a lot of advantages over its competition besides its huge feature set; not least of which are the network effect, and plain old inertia.
True, it'll take years to detrone a standard.
Perhaps including a free Photoshop-like iApp in every new Mac might make a small dent. Not sure, but isn't that how MSWord started on it's dominant ways?
The top PC hardware still outperforms the top Mac hardware in Photoshop.
Just out of curiosity, is this using the same photoshop suite and methodology that they used to test the Macs in the November issue? The Dual G5 performed the 10 tasks on a 50MB file in 18 seconds, which hardly seems like enough time (or a large enough image) to show a definitive advantage in a real-world workflow. I remember that Apple's "twice as fast" claim was based on a 600MB image which really allows the G5's system bus advantage to shine... was this claim tested?
In any case, I'd be interested in knowing how big the test image was, as well as what actions were performed on it and the amount of RAM given each machine.
hmmm... did that issue arrive in your mailbox, or did you get it on the retail shelf? i have a subscription, and would like to read that.
Mailbox.
I really do not believe Macworld is being unfair on purpose. No matter how upset they get with Apple, they still need a strong Apple to survive as a publication. This review, no matter how misguided you may think it is, has to be taken seriously. Those who form opinions and make purchasing decisions from such publications will be swayed by this review. It will not cause anyone to switch, but it will continue the mantra that Macs are still not up to speed.
By the way, If Apple were to make a PC version of FCP, then Premiere would not be the only App for comparison purposes. No one will buy a Mac just to run FCP. At a $1,000 a pop, it seems like it would be a real money maker on the PC side.
By the way, If Apple were to make a PC version of FCP, then Premiere would not be the only App for comparison purposes.
Not true. Comparing the same app does just that, compares the same application, not the systems. I could write a program for the two platforms that shows a Mac being 100,000,000 times faster than a PC, but I wouldn't believe it were true.
If we're talking about editing video, which platform is best? Not a PC.
No one will buy a Mac just to run FCP. [/B][/QUOTE]
Again the hardware is not the issue. I don't even choose to argue this point.
Anyone who saw BeOS running on Dual 603e chips saw what highly threaded and optimized software could do without too much legacy cruft.
Apple has every legitimate right to claim the G5 is the fastest personal computer. It is a marketing statement that cannot be qualified. AMD and Intel can make the same arguement.
Hence my desire to see Apple address all areas in which they can affect the greatest amount of change. This is software and, bringing this thread back on topic, Adobes place in that puzzle.
To let Adobe denigrate the platform on the Web(promoting Dell) and no in Book form is rephrensible and must not go unchallenged. No one would dare attack Microsoft like that unless they planned for a stiff battle.
Look at the adverbs used "zippy pc" versus "sluggish Mac"
I've been around long enough to see the supposed "King of the Hills" fall off of said hill. Wars are always based on attrition. Macromedia did not have the desire to compete with Photoship for Xres, Live Picture didn't have the business strategy, TIFFany did not have the resources. Apple is hampered by neither of these maladies.
Apple could and should develop a Photoshop replacement with an eye on feature parity in 3-4 years. I don't believe it would be as hard as some make it out to be. Appropriate decent code first. Develop a framework for the app the is extensible ala OSX. Utilize the code and API available today. Entice 3rd parties to support your product with free licensing terms(plugins etc). Apple's goal is to sell more machines. Adobe's goal is to sell more apps. The two are diametrically opposed right now and clashing. Neither company needs the other to survive.
I remember when I proposed a while back that Apple create it's own browser. That was met with "Too costly, not worth the effort". Today we have Safari. A very capable browser that has given Apple a modicum of independence for Web display.
Adobes comments slap the face of Mac Programmers and Enthusiasts who cheris the platform. Alspach is saying that Apple Engineers programming for an inferior platform. That's a direct challenge and should this happen too much more Apple needs to step up with an app that spanks Photoshop.
I know there are a lot of peope that have mastered Photoshop and that's great. But what we're talking about here is developing an app that is so modern in it's ways that productivity skyrockets. Peope respond to money. If your apps help them generate more money they will support you.
Not true. Comparing the same app does just that, compares the same application, not the systems. I could write a program for the two platforms that shows a Mac being 100,000,000 times faster than a PC, but I wouldn't believe it were true.
If we're talking about editing video, which platform is best? Not a PC.
No one will buy a Mac just to run FCP.
This certainly isn't true. [/B][/QUOTE]
I understand your argument, but what are the implications? Does that mean that XP is a better platform to write high performance apps? Does it mean that the PC side has more mindshare? When it comes to business productivity, the PC version of Office rules the roost. Marketing hype aside, the Mac version is not even close. There does not seem to be anything on the Mac side that can compete. When it comes to games, the PC owns the playing field and the ball. Ditto MP3 encoding. Pro photo work seems to still be in play. It depends on what you are doing at the time. Macworld did not choose to test aspects that they knew the Mac would excel in. They chose tests that seem to indicate that the fastest Mac can not quite keep up with the fastest PC in PS. I am not a PS pro so I do not know what that means. Music pros will do equally well on a PC or a Mac. The PC platform is every bit as good for this purpose. This is an area that I do know something about. What I am saying is that there does not seem to be overwhelming evidence that the Mac is the best platform based on the performance of available software. As far as FCP, it may well be the best of its kind in the industry today. But I do not know if I would base my opinion of an entire platform on the performance of one program. It needs to have a lot of "best in class" awards to attract the attention of true performance mavens of which I am not one right now. I am perfectly happy with my iBook G3 800.
Comments
Originally posted by spooky
Exactly how does the G5 change anything?
remember how the PPC was gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps were rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
Yes. I remember that happening too.
remember when the G4 with its Velocity Engine was gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps were rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
Yes. I remember that happening too.
remember when OSX was gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps were rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
I don't think I ever recall OS X being marketed as a speed boost, if that's what you mean by "performance". If by "performance" you mean stability and productivity, OS X took a little while to get on it's feet, but as of Jaguar, maybe even later into 10.1, many could convincing argue the case (though it's certainly in part subjective) that OS X well outperformed anything Windows has to offer.
If by performance you mean higher security and less downtime related to viruses, OS X performance is now, has been, and for the foreseeable future will be way out in front of Windows.
now apparently the G5 is gonna give us incredible performance over intel (just as soon as apps are rewritten to take advantage of its "amazing" power)
For certain apps, the G5 is already doing this, without even waiting for rewrites. Rewrites are happening even as we speak to make the already-fast apps faster, and to bring the not-so-fast ones up to speed.
None of this means that the battle is ever won and won forever. The first PowerPCs were powerful compared to then-current x86 offerings. At the time the G4 came out, it was solid competition to Intel and Intel-like chips. Even as far as Apple eventually fell behind when Motorola stalled so badly, for a few Altivec-enhanced tasks, a G4 still didn't do so badly in the face of huge Wintel gigahertz speed gaps.
So other than the obvious fact that the tide of battle will often shift back and forth, did you have a point?
There are two problems: First of all, all the nifty IDEs and sweet frameworks in the world won't make a Photoshop alternative easy to develop. That's a mammoth undertaking that would take several versions just to get in sight of the ballpark.
Second of all, there's dear old familiarity and compatibility. How many designers just know Photoshop inside out and backward? How many of them sling PSD files around? How many would be leery of something that isn't Photoshop, even if it was just because they'd have to learn a whole new interface? Even if someone busted ass and came out with an application that contended with Photoshop, how many people, honestly, would get that application from a new developer vs. Photoshop from Adobe? Basically, unless and until Adobe really screws up, Photoshop is the Word of graphic design, and it's got a lot of advantages over its competition besides its huge feature set; not least of which are the network effect, and plain old inertia.
Originally posted by Amorph
I don't think it's as simple as "getting other developers." Apple's doing that, anyway, because OS X is a dream operating system for developers.
There are two problems: First of all, all the nifty IDEs and sweet frameworks in the world won't make a Photoshop alternative easy to develop. That's a mammoth undertaking that would take several versions just to get in sight of the ballpark.
Second of all, there's dear old familiarity and compatibility. How many designers just know Photoshop inside out and backward? How many of them sling PSD files around? How many would be leery of something that isn't Photoshop, even if it was just because they'd have to learn a whole new interface? Even if someone busted ass and came out with an application that contended with Photoshop, how many people, honestly, would get that application from a new developer vs. Photoshop from Adobe? Basically, unless and until Adobe really screws up, Photoshop is the Word of graphic design, and it's got a lot of advantages over its competition besides its huge feature set; not least of which are the network effect, and plain old inertia.
People switched from Quark to InDesign in the masses. It would be difficult, but not impossible to shift people to a non-photoshop. ALthough I guess Quark falls within your definition of really screwing up, because they certainly did, and I don't see adobe doing anything like that anytime soon.
Originally posted by rok
according the thinksecret.com
"In his new book Illustrator CS for Dummies, Ted Alspach, Adobe's Group Product Manager for Illustration Products, advises new computer buyers to get a PC: 'As of 2003, Windows systems have taken a decisive lead over Macs when it comes to performance. The difference is most apparent with graphics applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator, but you'll notice it with other applications as well. If you're thinking of purchasing a new system, and speed and responsiveness is important (or at least more important than the feel of the OS, I suggest getting a zippy PC over a (comparably) sluggish Mac.?' "
okay, now i know steve said their relationship with adobe has never been better, but what exactly is their problem? i mean, i can understand maybe playing up advantages, but when they start using direct words like "sluggish" for the mac, it makes me very nervous...
p.s. thanks for the spelling fix, murbot.
Since the vast majority of people buying Illustrator CS for Dummies will already have a computer, hardware buying advice seems a bit out of place, and looks to me like it was put in there just to take a swipe at Apple. The wording of the paragraph implies that PCs are now, and forever will be, decisively faster then Macs -- that's just plain wrong.
Of course, at the time of that writing Macs had really fallen behind PCs. Even now, if you are truly neutral about the OS, the only Mac that really compares favorably to PCs is the Dual 2GHz G5. The rest of the Powermac line, as well as the iMacs, are crushed by PCs in price and performance. It is a sad situation that should be remedied sometime next year as the G5 matures and is put in the rest of the Apple line up.
They've never had a consistent advantage in speed over time. It's easy to claim victory as you announce a new machine but consumers have been falsely led to believe that Intel, AMD or IBM will someday break from the pack with hardware that is faster than it's competitors by a large margin.
History shows otherwise. None of these companies has any insurmountable lead in anything. The only key to moving forward at breakneck speed is to break with the current and blaze down a new path knowing that eventually your competition will catch up. Apple squandered their lead in the GUI environment. Will they ever have such a headstart in another paradigm altering technology. It's unlikely.
Forget the marketing. Apple will probably never exceed 6% marketshare at the present rate. It is almost impossible unless they were to offer features of such a compelling nature that users would flock. OSX isn't that feature because despite it's superiority over XP that alone isn't enough. Windows 3.x was garbage compared to OS7 and 8 yet it survived and flourished.
Adobe taking potshots at Apple signals just how weak Apple has become. 4.5 Billion in the bank sounds great until you contrast that with Microsofts 40 Billion. Bill Gates was right..it's always been about the Software and it's is Software in which Apple must define itself.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But Macworld has just added some credence to the claim that Macs are not quite up to speed. ... clearly, the PM G5 is not the fastest personal computer on the block, not by a long shot. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
hmmm... did that issue arrive in your mailbox, or did you get it on the retail shelf? i have a subscription, and would like to read that.
just for the record, macworld has gotten much less "apple positive spin" since apple/steve et al. dicked over macworld over the boston fiasco. deathridge laid into a few things apple-related with his back page editorial for a few months, and the reviews definitely took a turn for the sour. go ahead -- read the articles from spring to this fall, and you'll hear the difference in tone. don't get me wrong, i felt macworld was too "positive spin" before.
even mac design, run by scott kelby, has had issues with apple the past few issues. because even with their love affair with apple/mac, they're MARRIED to adobe, and that comes out in kelby's editorials lately.
Publication claims 'we must you Premiere and After Effects for a fair and balanced comparison because they're the only cross platform apps!'
When in reality they should use the best tools for each system and do a comparison.
If Macworld really is using Premiere for a review then they're trying to make Apple look bad. How about they do a review of Final Cut Pro for both systems? I'll bet any one of you $10 Apple wins out over a Dell 100000 MHZ, and I'll even give you a 5 minute head start.
Any review based on an app like this is a review of the app not of the hardware.
Originally posted by bunge
If Macworld really is using Premiere for a review then they're trying to make Apple look bad. How about they do a review of Final Cut Pro for both systems? I'll bet any one of you $10 Apple wins out over a Dell 100000 MHZ, and I'll even give you a 5 minute head start.
potentially stupid question: is FCP even available for windows?
But clearly, the PM G5 is not the fastest personal computer on the block, not by a long shot.
see thread about supercomputers. the G5 is the cheapest computer out there on a per Ghz basis.
Originally posted by Amorph
Basically, unless and until Adobe really screws up, Photoshop is the Word of graphic design, and it's got a lot of advantages over its competition besides its huge feature set; not least of which are the network effect, and plain old inertia.
True, it'll take years to detrone a standard.
Perhaps including a free Photoshop-like iApp in every new Mac might make a small dent. Not sure, but isn't that how MSWord started on it's dominant ways?
Originally posted by rok
potentially stupid question: is FCP even available for windows?
Nope, made by apple, for apples. And bananas.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
The top PC hardware still outperforms the top Mac hardware in Photoshop.
Just out of curiosity, is this using the same photoshop suite and methodology that they used to test the Macs in the November issue? The Dual G5 performed the 10 tasks on a 50MB file in 18 seconds, which hardly seems like enough time (or a large enough image) to show a definitive advantage in a real-world workflow. I remember that Apple's "twice as fast" claim was based on a 600MB image which really allows the G5's system bus advantage to shine... was this claim tested?
In any case, I'd be interested in knowing how big the test image was, as well as what actions were performed on it and the amount of RAM given each machine.
Originally posted by rok
hmmm... did that issue arrive in your mailbox, or did you get it on the retail shelf? i have a subscription, and would like to read that.
Mailbox.
I really do not believe Macworld is being unfair on purpose. No matter how upset they get with Apple, they still need a strong Apple to survive as a publication. This review, no matter how misguided you may think it is, has to be taken seriously. Those who form opinions and make purchasing decisions from such publications will be swayed by this review. It will not cause anyone to switch, but it will continue the mantra that Macs are still not up to speed.
By the way, If Apple were to make a PC version of FCP, then Premiere would not be the only App for comparison purposes. No one will buy a Mac just to run FCP. At a $1,000 a pop, it seems like it would be a real money maker on the PC side.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
By the way, If Apple were to make a PC version of FCP, then Premiere would not be the only App for comparison purposes.
Not true. Comparing the same app does just that, compares the same application, not the systems. I could write a program for the two platforms that shows a Mac being 100,000,000 times faster than a PC, but I wouldn't believe it were true.
If we're talking about editing video, which platform is best? Not a PC.
No one will buy a Mac just to run FCP. [/B][/QUOTE]
This certainly isn't true.
Anyone who saw BeOS running on Dual 603e chips saw what highly threaded and optimized software could do without too much legacy cruft.
Apple has every legitimate right to claim the G5 is the fastest personal computer. It is a marketing statement that cannot be qualified. AMD and Intel can make the same arguement.
Hence my desire to see Apple address all areas in which they can affect the greatest amount of change. This is software and, bringing this thread back on topic, Adobes place in that puzzle.
To let Adobe denigrate the platform on the Web(promoting Dell) and no in Book form is rephrensible and must not go unchallenged. No one would dare attack Microsoft like that unless they planned for a stiff battle.
Look at the adverbs used "zippy pc" versus "sluggish Mac"
I've been around long enough to see the supposed "King of the Hills" fall off of said hill. Wars are always based on attrition. Macromedia did not have the desire to compete with Photoship for Xres, Live Picture didn't have the business strategy, TIFFany did not have the resources. Apple is hampered by neither of these maladies.
Apple could and should develop a Photoshop replacement with an eye on feature parity in 3-4 years. I don't believe it would be as hard as some make it out to be. Appropriate decent code first. Develop a framework for the app the is extensible ala OSX. Utilize the code and API available today. Entice 3rd parties to support your product with free licensing terms(plugins etc). Apple's goal is to sell more machines. Adobe's goal is to sell more apps. The two are diametrically opposed right now and clashing. Neither company needs the other to survive.
I remember when I proposed a while back that Apple create it's own browser. That was met with "Too costly, not worth the effort". Today we have Safari. A very capable browser that has given Apple a modicum of independence for Web display.
Adobes comments slap the face of Mac Programmers and Enthusiasts who cheris the platform. Alspach is saying that Apple Engineers programming for an inferior platform. That's a direct challenge and should this happen too much more Apple needs to step up with an app that spanks Photoshop.
I know there are a lot of peope that have mastered Photoshop and that's great. But what we're talking about here is developing an app that is so modern in it's ways that productivity skyrockets. Peope respond to money. If your apps help them generate more money they will support you.
Originally posted by bunge
Not true. Comparing the same app does just that, compares the same application, not the systems. I could write a program for the two platforms that shows a Mac being 100,000,000 times faster than a PC, but I wouldn't believe it were true.
If we're talking about editing video, which platform is best? Not a PC.
No one will buy a Mac just to run FCP.
This certainly isn't true. [/B][/QUOTE]
I understand your argument, but what are the implications? Does that mean that XP is a better platform to write high performance apps? Does it mean that the PC side has more mindshare? When it comes to business productivity, the PC version of Office rules the roost. Marketing hype aside, the Mac version is not even close. There does not seem to be anything on the Mac side that can compete. When it comes to games, the PC owns the playing field and the ball. Ditto MP3 encoding. Pro photo work seems to still be in play. It depends on what you are doing at the time. Macworld did not choose to test aspects that they knew the Mac would excel in. They chose tests that seem to indicate that the fastest Mac can not quite keep up with the fastest PC in PS. I am not a PS pro so I do not know what that means. Music pros will do equally well on a PC or a Mac. The PC platform is every bit as good for this purpose. This is an area that I do know something about. What I am saying is that there does not seem to be overwhelming evidence that the Mac is the best platform based on the performance of available software. As far as FCP, it may well be the best of its kind in the industry today. But I do not know if I would base my opinion of an entire platform on the performance of one program. It needs to have a lot of "best in class" awards to attract the attention of true performance mavens of which I am not one right now. I am perfectly happy with my iBook G3 800.