So, again, I wonder...why doesn't Apple just BUY Adobe?
They'd get the PS/PDF technology.
They'd keep Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign (even for Windows...well...probably). Kill off Premier? Maybe.
It seems this would be a good acquisition for Apple.
Of course there is a dilemma...
What if you buy Adobe and all you get is a bunch of crap (underneath the sheets). Say Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign really suck as applications?
Now you're stuck with them. On the other hand, you develop your own "better" versions and alienate your software partners (like Adobe).
Maybe this starts getting to an assumption that Apple NEEDs to have 3rd party developers (Adobe, MS, etc.) Why is this assumption held? Is it correct? What if it is not? What does that mean for Apple? For its customers?
We have become accustomed to this "horizontal" disintegration (CPU vendor, machine vendor, OS vendor, application vendor). But is this necessary?
Apple combines a couple of these (machine/OS/application) in certain areas. (Arguably also CPU to some extend, though they don't fab them, I'm guessing they strongly influence their design.)
What is the "evil" of a vertically integrated product/vendor? It need not be a totally closed system. In fact it can be an open system.
But here's the thing, doesn't Apple have as much right to try and compete for customers with a Photoshop equivalent? Sure they do. Why not?
Where things get tricky (a la MS) is when they are not really competing...but taking some unfair advantage.
This is an argument MS has made all along (allegations of "private, internal APIs" aside for a moment). They've said, we simply created a better product (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) than anyone else. Now...we can argue the truth of this "better-ness". But that is the argument.
Next time, read the post before firing off some dumbass reply.
Yeah, Apple just SUCKS. That's why you use the platform, right? I mean, DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro, A/G BLAST, Logic, XCode and Shake... they are all crappy consumer oriented products made by Apple.
Wait, that's right... You're wrong!
Barto
um dude... I read the post.. I'm just saying tho and also since when was shake, final cut PRO dvd studio PRO and logic consumer oriented apps? Um dude they are made for the pro market, yes your are correct sir...
but think for a second what would happen now if apple all of a sudden made everything... another microsoft but for the creative industry.
stop thinking consumer... think professional grade theres just no way 90% of the pre-press industry will turn take this sitting down without a reach around. After spending millions on investing in the adobe way of workflow... they'll just switch to ...
This is not just isolated to Adobe. The trend is there for all to see. Apple has all but decided to forget about its creative strongholds in favour of a doomed chase for the casual consumer. macromedia will be next. they're already producing software that functions better on windows. Bryce has gone. Poser is a dog even under a top end G4. Where is the rest of the stuff from Alias wavefront to put us in parity with intel?
Apple's history is one of creating fabulous stuff then sitting on their laurels congratulating themselves until the pc world supercedes them and then having to desperately pull a rabbit out of a hat. Time after time.
the two most important apps for us are Photoshop and Director. If photoshop goes I imagine apple would make something like elements but can't believe they'd manage a PS Killer (never mind persuade people to make/port plug ins for it). If Director suddenly started to aggressively go for DVD then how could we justify the cost of DVDSP for DVD and Director for CD? Why not use Director for all of it?
I guess I'm pessimistic becuase apple seems to be focussed almost entirely on the low end grandma bessie consumer apps or the ridiculously expensive and geeky interfaced Shake etc. We could afford After Effects but not Shake. In the meantime both in terms of hardware and software at the Power user level for colleges like us its been just barren. Why do we use premiere and not FCP? Becuase FCP is a video editor. Premiere lets us work with just about anything - not just straight video files.
I've never bought into the "OSX is so amazing that 3rd party developers will be overjoyed with the possibilities and we'll be awash with new software"
If anything it looks like our choices are narrowing.
I think spooky beats Matsu for the Doom and Gloom Award?.
Spooky, have you ever realized that maybe Apple is going for the better, now with the G5? The bias towards Intel has momentum, but by the time that the next version of PS is released, Adobe will have realized that the G5 is a great machine, and more people will go to that platform.
um dude... I read the post.. I'm just saying tho and also since when was shake, final cut PRO dvd studio PRO and logic consumer oriented apps? Um dude they are made for the pro market, yes your are correct sir...
Since when is Adobe Photoshop not a professional/prosumer title? At its price point (US$649.00), it is certainly not targeted at your typical Joe consumer. That's where your argument doesn't make sense.
Photoshop Elements is targeted at the consumer market, but only as an afterthought.
This is not just isolated to Adobe. The trend is there for all to see. Apple has all but decided to forget about its creative strongholds in favour of a doomed chase for the casual consumer.
Spooky...those consumers are the key to huge profits. Graphics Pros tend to think they are still the heartbeat of the platform and that is simply not true. Apple need to generate year 'round sales and that means marketing to consumers and professionals.
Quote:
Bryce has gone. Poser is a dog even under a top end G4. Where is the rest of the stuff from Alias wavefront to put us in parity with intel?
Bryce= toy that is replaced easily by vue d'esprit and the free Terragen.
Poser- another toy. Never seen any outstanding uses for it.
Don't lament the lack of Maya unlimited without mentioning the Renderman coming to OSX. It's easy to point out apps like Bryce, Poser and Maya unlimited but for a successful arguementative piece you might want to acknowledge the still viable competitors.
Quote:
Apple's history is one of creating fabulous stuff then sitting on their laurels congratulating themselves until the pc world supercedes them and then having to desperately pull a rabbit out of a hat. Time after time.
You've just backed my thesis statement with this. What you seem to be saying is "Apple creates cool stuff and then then places it on the back burner" isn't that what we're saying in a way. Apple faces a conundrum of sorts. They have fanastic tech but if they take advantage they're labled as "unpredictable" I say the hell with it and evance the art of software and hardware integration. Adobe and Macromedia are the old guard..honestly what has either company done in the last few years that has elicited any more than a murmur. New blood is always needed.
Quote:
Why do we use premiere and not FCP? Becuase FCP is a video editor. Premiere lets us work with just about anything - not just straight video files.
Apple didn't bail on you Adobe did. If Adobe wasn't such a primadonna Apple probably could develop a Shake Lite. But why should they if Adobe will cancel AE? It's obvious you see the contradiction. You want choices yet your software provider views choice as a personal affront.
Quote:
I've never bought into the "OSX is so amazing that 3rd party developers will be overjoyed with the possibilities and we'll be awash with new software"
You shouldn't have you're not a Developer. Go to WWDC to see the amazing choices that you have. Of course there are narrow choices in your genre. Adobe and Macromedia have pretty much ruled that roost for sometime, it's foolish to think some little upstart is going to threaten their hold on the market. But overall OSX has as many apps as OS9 did despite the fact that the OS has so many apps coming for free.
The choices are simple. Enjoy the software of Adobe or Macromedia. Or yearn for something new. I for one would like to see Apple's talents in
1 A Word Processor and Spreadsheet App. Cornerstones of business. A must have.
2. A graphics app. $300-399. I'd prefer a focus on Web Graphics and Video rather than print.
3. Mail Server. We have OSX Server we need an Exchange Server.
There's no rush into implementing these apps. Despite what we all may assume companies move very slow to upgrade their software. Next year is going to be great for new software. Apple is pointing to that.
Brad posted; "Yes, I can already hear the "but GIMP doesn't begin to compare with Photoshop" whines. I'll point those people squarely at Safari. Apple has done a damn fine job there."
You posted; "don't even mention haha GIMP... god that app doesn't even pale in comparison to Photoshop"
It's obvious you didn't READ what Brad posted.
Then you posted; "Trust me apple would make something for consumers and it'd piss off 85% of its business user base because of it"
I made fun of that by pointing out all the applications that Apple makes which are totally NOT for consumers, by calling them consumer apps.
You missed the sarcasm (you even missed "Wait, that's right... You're wrong!") and agreed with me.
1 A Word Processor and Spreadsheet App. Cornerstones of business. A must have.
2. A graphics app. $300-399. I'd prefer a focus on Web Graphics and Video rather than print.
3. Mail Server. We have OSX Server we need an Exchange Server.
1 should be possible for anyone to do well as of Panther. The sad state of third party office applications has more to do with Cheetah and Puma and Jaguar's lack of maturity than anything else. Now that the Cocoa frameworks are robust and scaleable, the world is anyone's oyster.
2 should be possible for anyone to do, period. In fact, there are already a few contenders. If Apple gives a third party the tools to build a PS contender, they're in a much better position politically. The biggest problem is inertia. People who want Photoshop get Photoshop rather than, say, Canvas, even if Canvas can do everything they need. The hardest part of launching a PS competitor would be getting anyone to adopt it. The leader has to fumble pretty badly before there's an opening, and even then: Look at InDesign's adoption rate relative to Quark. What is it, 10% still? Yeah, there's Keynote, but Keynote struck a nerve because whole articles have been written on how much PowerPoint sucks.
3 There's already a mail server: Postfix. It's not Apple's and it doesn't need to be. They just need a pretty interface to it (and they have one). Exchange? Bleah. Client compatibility is important for Macs in Exchange environments, but on the server end Apple shouldn't go there. For one thing, the basic Exchange model (it's one app! it handles mail! it handles contacts! it handles calendars! it just fell down again!) is abysmally stupid. For another, it's proprietary. Maybe Apple will adopt an open source Exchange project when it matures (unless they know that it'll make MS go ballistic), but IMO they're much better off sticking with standards on the server side.
You missed the sarcasm (you even missed "Wait, that's right... You're wrong!") and agreed with me.
Proving my point.
Case closed.
Barto
I see your point.. gah shouldn't post while drinking, but you fail to see the big gaping whole there would be without photoshop, and I know that apple wouldn't be able to patch it time to save the platform from bleeding to death. I really wish someone would reincarnate that app from SGI.. ugh I can't remember the name of it. I do recall now that the developers from GIMP worked on this before.
Comments
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So, again, I wonder...why doesn't Apple just BUY Adobe?
They'd get the PS/PDF technology.
They'd keep Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign (even for Windows...well...probably). Kill off Premier? Maybe.
It seems this would be a good acquisition for Apple.
Of course there is a dilemma...
What if you buy Adobe and all you get is a bunch of crap (underneath the sheets). Say Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign really suck as applications?
Now you're stuck with them. On the other hand, you develop your own "better" versions and alienate your software partners (like Adobe).
Maybe this starts getting to an assumption that Apple NEEDs to have 3rd party developers (Adobe, MS, etc.) Why is this assumption held? Is it correct? What if it is not? What does that mean for Apple? For its customers?
We have become accustomed to this "horizontal" disintegration (CPU vendor, machine vendor, OS vendor, application vendor). But is this necessary?
Apple combines a couple of these (machine/OS/application) in certain areas. (Arguably also CPU to some extend, though they don't fab them, I'm guessing they strongly influence their design.)
What is the "evil" of a vertically integrated product/vendor? It need not be a totally closed system. In fact it can be an open system.
But here's the thing, doesn't Apple have as much right to try and compete for customers with a Photoshop equivalent? Sure they do. Why not?
Where things get tricky (a la MS) is when they are not really competing...but taking some unfair advantage.
This is an argument MS has made all along (allegations of "private, internal APIs" aside for a moment). They've said, we simply created a better product (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) than anyone else. Now...we can argue the truth of this "better-ness". But that is the argument.
Does this not also hold for Apple too?
Not sure.
Would Apple have enough money to do that?
Originally posted by Barto
Next time, read the post before firing off some dumbass reply.
Yeah, Apple just SUCKS. That's why you use the platform, right? I mean, DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro, A/G BLAST, Logic, XCode and Shake... they are all crappy consumer oriented products made by Apple.
Wait, that's right... You're wrong!
Barto
um dude... I read the post.. I'm just saying tho and also since when was shake, final cut PRO dvd studio PRO and logic consumer oriented apps? Um dude they are made for the pro market, yes your are correct sir...
but think for a second what would happen now if apple all of a sudden made everything... another microsoft but for the creative industry.
stop thinking consumer... think professional grade
Apple's history is one of creating fabulous stuff then sitting on their laurels congratulating themselves until the pc world supercedes them and then having to desperately pull a rabbit out of a hat. Time after time.
the two most important apps for us are Photoshop and Director. If photoshop goes I imagine apple would make something like elements but can't believe they'd manage a PS Killer (never mind persuade people to make/port plug ins for it). If Director suddenly started to aggressively go for DVD then how could we justify the cost of DVDSP for DVD and Director for CD? Why not use Director for all of it?
I guess I'm pessimistic becuase apple seems to be focussed almost entirely on the low end grandma bessie consumer apps or the ridiculously expensive and geeky interfaced Shake etc. We could afford After Effects but not Shake. In the meantime both in terms of hardware and software at the Power user level for colleges like us its been just barren. Why do we use premiere and not FCP? Becuase FCP is a video editor. Premiere lets us work with just about anything - not just straight video files.
I've never bought into the "OSX is so amazing that 3rd party developers will be overjoyed with the possibilities and we'll be awash with new software"
If anything it looks like our choices are narrowing.
Originally posted by spooky
macromedia will be next. they're already producing software that functions better on windows.
Can you give solid examples?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I think spooky beats Matsu for the Doom and Gloom Award?.
Spooky, have you ever realized that maybe Apple is going for the better, now with the G5? The bias towards Intel has momentum, but by the time that the next version of PS is released, Adobe will have realized that the G5 is a great machine, and more people will go to that platform.
Originally posted by kraig911
um dude... I read the post.. I'm just saying tho and also since when was shake, final cut PRO dvd studio PRO and logic consumer oriented apps? Um dude they are made for the pro market, yes your are correct sir...
Since when is Adobe Photoshop not a professional/prosumer title? At its price point (US$649.00), it is certainly not targeted at your typical Joe consumer. That's where your argument doesn't make sense.
Photoshop Elements is targeted at the consumer market, but only as an afterthought.
This is not just isolated to Adobe. The trend is there for all to see. Apple has all but decided to forget about its creative strongholds in favour of a doomed chase for the casual consumer.
Spooky...those consumers are the key to huge profits. Graphics Pros tend to think they are still the heartbeat of the platform and that is simply not true. Apple need to generate year 'round sales and that means marketing to consumers and professionals.
Bryce has gone. Poser is a dog even under a top end G4. Where is the rest of the stuff from Alias wavefront to put us in parity with intel?
Bryce= toy that is replaced easily by vue d'esprit and the free Terragen.
Poser- another toy. Never seen any outstanding uses for it.
Don't lament the lack of Maya unlimited without mentioning the Renderman coming to OSX. It's easy to point out apps like Bryce, Poser and Maya unlimited but for a successful arguementative piece you might want to acknowledge the still viable competitors.
Apple's history is one of creating fabulous stuff then sitting on their laurels congratulating themselves until the pc world supercedes them and then having to desperately pull a rabbit out of a hat. Time after time.
You've just backed my thesis statement with this. What you seem to be saying is "Apple creates cool stuff and then then places it on the back burner" isn't that what we're saying in a way. Apple faces a conundrum of sorts. They have fanastic tech but if they take advantage they're labled as "unpredictable" I say the hell with it and evance the art of software and hardware integration. Adobe and Macromedia are the old guard..honestly what has either company done in the last few years that has elicited any more than a murmur. New blood is always needed.
Why do we use premiere and not FCP? Becuase FCP is a video editor. Premiere lets us work with just about anything - not just straight video files.
Apple didn't bail on you Adobe did. If Adobe wasn't such a primadonna Apple probably could develop a Shake Lite. But why should they if Adobe will cancel AE? It's obvious you see the contradiction. You want choices yet your software provider views choice as a personal affront.
I've never bought into the "OSX is so amazing that 3rd party developers will be overjoyed with the possibilities and we'll be awash with new software"
You shouldn't have you're not a Developer. Go to WWDC to see the amazing choices that you have. Of course there are narrow choices in your genre. Adobe and Macromedia have pretty much ruled that roost for sometime, it's foolish to think some little upstart is going to threaten their hold on the market. But overall OSX has as many apps as OS9 did despite the fact that the OS has so many apps coming for free.
The choices are simple. Enjoy the software of Adobe or Macromedia. Or yearn for something new. I for one would like to see Apple's talents in
1 A Word Processor and Spreadsheet App. Cornerstones of business. A must have.
2. A graphics app. $300-399. I'd prefer a focus on Web Graphics and Video rather than print.
3. Mail Server. We have OSX Server we need an Exchange Server.
There's no rush into implementing these apps. Despite what we all may assume companies move very slow to upgrade their software. Next year is going to be great for new software. Apple is pointing to that.
Brad posted; "Yes, I can already hear the "but GIMP doesn't begin to compare with Photoshop" whines. I'll point those people squarely at Safari. Apple has done a damn fine job there."
You posted; "don't even mention haha GIMP... god that app doesn't even pale in comparison to Photoshop"
It's obvious you didn't READ what Brad posted.
Then you posted; "Trust me apple would make something for consumers and it'd piss off 85% of its business user base because of it"
I made fun of that by pointing out all the applications that Apple makes which are totally NOT for consumers, by calling them consumer apps.
You missed the sarcasm (you even missed "Wait, that's right... You're wrong!") and agreed with me.
Proving my point.
Case closed.
Barto
Originally posted by hmurchison
1 A Word Processor and Spreadsheet App. Cornerstones of business. A must have.
2. A graphics app. $300-399. I'd prefer a focus on Web Graphics and Video rather than print.
3. Mail Server. We have OSX Server we need an Exchange Server.
1 should be possible for anyone to do well as of Panther. The sad state of third party office applications has more to do with Cheetah and Puma and Jaguar's lack of maturity than anything else. Now that the Cocoa frameworks are robust and scaleable, the world is anyone's oyster.
2 should be possible for anyone to do, period. In fact, there are already a few contenders. If Apple gives a third party the tools to build a PS contender, they're in a much better position politically. The biggest problem is inertia. People who want Photoshop get Photoshop rather than, say, Canvas, even if Canvas can do everything they need. The hardest part of launching a PS competitor would be getting anyone to adopt it. The leader has to fumble pretty badly before there's an opening, and even then: Look at InDesign's adoption rate relative to Quark. What is it, 10% still? Yeah, there's Keynote, but Keynote struck a nerve because whole articles have been written on how much PowerPoint sucks.
3 There's already a mail server: Postfix. It's not Apple's and it doesn't need to be. They just need a pretty interface to it (and they have one). Exchange? Bleah. Client compatibility is important for Macs in Exchange environments, but on the server end Apple shouldn't go there. For one thing, the basic Exchange model (it's one app! it handles mail! it handles contacts! it handles calendars! it just fell down again!) is abysmally stupid. For another, it's proprietary. Maybe Apple will adopt an open source Exchange project when it matures (unless they know that it'll make MS go ballistic), but IMO they're much better off sticking with standards on the server side.
Originally posted by Barto
kraig911, you make NO sense.
You missed the sarcasm (you even missed "Wait, that's right... You're wrong!") and agreed with me.
Proving my point.
Case closed.
Barto
I see your point.. gah shouldn't post while drinking, but you fail to see the big gaping whole there would be without photoshop, and I know that apple wouldn't be able to patch it time to save the platform from bleeding to death. I really wish someone would reincarnate that app from SGI.. ugh I can't remember the name of it. I do recall now that the developers from GIMP worked on this before.