"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of ProTools I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Digidesign."
"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of Premiere I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Adobe."
"If Apple announced that it was making its own web browser I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Microsoft."
Blah...
Apple can do it. Apple should do it. Apple will do it. Pros (and regular users if applicable) will use it.
adobe seems to be the flagship of developers for the mac, i know there are probably bigger ones but when you think of good mac software usually adobe comes to mind.
so here's my question.
why doesnt adobe adhere to the guidlines of a mac os x application and use sheets? everytime i save anything in an adobe app there is no sheet, just that intrusive dialog box which haults my work in everything else in that app.
i've never understood it and perhaps someone has a good explination as to why there are no sheets in an adobe app to this day.
It's because Windows doesn't have sheets, and Adobe doesn't do anything different between platforms.
That's the move they've been preparing you for. Get ready.
Buy why? It's not like Adobe and Microsoft are the best of friends, are they? Do you foresee this happening because of the Apple/Adobe relationship or because of the cost of cross-platform support? You'd think it was in Adobe's best interest to maintain the Mac as a viable option to Windows. If for no other reason than competing against Microsoft on their own platform will surely kill you off. And Microsoft seem to want to compete with everyone... What's your and BuanRotto's reasoning behind this assertion?
I've only been watching for about five years now, but Adobe is definitely moving in the Windows direction. From what I know, they have always rolled their own with respect to UI, and admirably they have led they way on a couple of occasions.
I say blame Apple for ceding most of their marketshare, and with it, eventually their mindshare. Fact of the matter is that for mid level applications, the Mac is becoming a very closed platform.
One reason only for moving Adobe apps to Windows: money.
Money saved by not developing for two platforms. However similar, the two platform releases still need individual attention. By putting everyone into one OS platform, you can concentrate your resources. Adobe makes a lot more money from their Windows products, especially Acrobat but also from their consumer products, most of which aren't even available on Macs. While a majority a grpahic deign and advertising prods use Macs with their Adobe products, a lot more business professionals and hobbyists use PCs, and they make a lot more money from PCs. Adobe would like to concentrate their resources on developing for one platform, and naturally bring their pro Mac users along.
So if this happens, what routes are there for Apple. Either develop their own Photoshop/Illustrator software, or enable others to do it more easily (Core*).
My hopes is for Apple to pick up the gauntlet and develop the software themselves. But how would they topple Adobes apps?
As far as I know, what Apple has done in the past when breaking in to a pro-software segment has been to simply purchase the current leader with all of its assets and release them under their own name. This happened in both video and audio, right? But this is another game completely. They can't afford to buy Adobe or any of its leading software. How would they compete?
"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of ProTools I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Digidesign."
"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of Premiere I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Adobe."
"If Apple announced that it was making its own web browser I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Microsoft."
Blah...
Apple can do it. Apple should do it. Apple will do it. Pros (and regular users if applicable) will use it.
I don't know much about anything outwith design for print, so I can't comment on that, but there is no way Apple would be able to move in to the print industry in the next 3-5 years.
No way.
If somebody who is trusted within the design industry (Adobe) can't get the industry to accept a product that is far superior (InDesign) to what everyone's currently using (QuarkXpress), then there's little chance on Apple being able to crack the market.
I'd love to see Apple produce an alternative (it can only be good for the market) - I just think that there's more chance of angels flying out my arse!
Pro users just want to switch their machine on (be it Mac or PC) and rattle through their job list as quickly as possible. A lot of the printers that we send work to are still working with Quark on OS 9, because at the end of the day it works perfectly well, and it's predictable.
Personally, at this point, I'd be more interested in an Adobe platform independent OS targeted specifically at designers, than an Apple alternative to the Creative Suite.
But hey, that's probably just me.
I've saved a lot of time today by using InDesign over Quark, which means I can get away on time and have a play on my mountain bike!
The big difference between the video offering Apple made inroads with and the Adobe suite is that mid-range video was a relatively nascent market, whereas graphics is firmly entrenched. Apple's success with Logic is that they bought a well-established company but haven't disrupted the product or the team developing it much. So while audio was also a fairly entrenched market too, Apple simply bought into it rather than introducing another solution there. If Apple were to try muscling in on Photoshop or Quark, which are far more dominant in their respective markets than Logic was (and is) in its market, it would be really, really tough. Their best bet is to do what I think they're doing now: offer tech that maybe a third party can lead to success first. If that doesn't materialize, they would probably target the hobbyist/"prosumer" market by either going against Elements directly, or I would be willing to bet that they try to slip under Photoshop but over Elements, in the $300 range. I'm thinking an equivalent of Motion, modified for print/still graphics. They wouldn't bother competing with PS head to head, certainly not in the pro shops, but it's a potentially big opportunity for SOHO and hobbyists. If a product like that took off (remember, this is assuming other aveunes are exhausted), once that product is established, they might jockey for some foothold in the high end market. It's a pattern that I think is playing out with their current hardware and software offerings.
I should add that Apple and the rest of the industry doesn't see much growth in the print/graphics market either. Apple might be willing to cede the graphics market if it comes to that so long as video and audio can continue to grow and make up for whatever they lose in the pro graphics industry. While graphics is a significant part of Apple's business, they don't sell as much pro graphics workstations as you might think since so many shops hold onto setups they know work for ages. It's very slow turnover in the graphics field in hardware as well as software, and that may not be worth the effort to try to either protect this market or wrest more control over it if it doesn't contribute enough to your quarterly numbers. One of the reasons that Adobe is pushing business and consumer products so much is because their bread and butter graphics suite, while it provides consistent revenues, has had fairly stagnant sales for a while. While some of that has to do with a sort of topping off of features from version to version recently, it also has to do with the saturation of the mature graphics market. They made InDesign to snag the piece of that pie that they don't own of course, but growth for that company is based primarily on Acrobat, and to a lesser extent on getting consumer products into lots of homes. Businesses are primarily on PCs and it would be pointless to compete with Apple's iLife products on the Mac. So where does that leave you? Windows only, unless Linux makes more inroads and shows a consistent pattern of growth too.
The big difference between the video offering Apple made inroads with and the Adobe suite is that mid-range video was a relatively nascent market, whereas graphics is firmly entrenched. Apple's success with Logic is that they bought a well-established company but haven't disrupted the product or the team developing it much. So while audio was also a fairly entrenched market too, Apple simply bought into it rather than introducing another solution there. If Apple were to try muscling in on Photoshop or Quark, which are far more dominant in their respective markets than Logic was (and is) in its market, it would be really, really tough. Their best bet is to do what I think they're doing now: offer tech that maybe a third party can lead to success first. If that doesn't materialize, they would probably target the hobbyist/"prosumer" market by either going against Elements directly, or I would be willing to bet that they try to slip under Photoshop but over Elements, in the $300 range. I'm thinking an equivalent of Motion, modified for print/still graphics. They wouldn't bother competing with PS head to head, certainly not in the pro shops, but it's a potentially big opportunity for SOHO and hobbyists. If a product like that took off (remember, this is assuming other aveunes are exhausted), once that product is established, they might jockey for some foothold in the high end market. It's a pattern that I think is playing out with their current hardware and software offerings.
I should add that Apple and the rest of the industry doesn't see much growth in the print/graphics market either. Apple might be willing to cede the graphics market if it comes to that so long as video and audio can continue to grow and make up for whatever they lose in the pro graphics industry. While graphics is a significant part of Apple's business, they don't sell as much pro graphics workstations as you might think since so many shops hold onto setups they know work for ages. It's very slow turnover in the graphics field in hardware as well as software, and that may not be worth the effort to try to either protect this market or wrest more control over it if it doesn't contribute enough to your quarterly numbers. One of the reasons that Adobe is pushing business and consumer products so much is because their bread and butter graphics suite, while it provides consistent revenues, has had fairly stagnant sales for a while. While some of that has to do with a sort of topping off of features from version to version recently, it also has to do with the saturation of the mature graphics market. They made InDesign to snag the piece of that pie that they don't own of course, but growth for that company is based primarily on Acrobat, and to a lesser extent on getting consumer products into lots of homes. Businesses are primarily on PCs and it would be pointless to compete with Apple's iLife products on the Mac. So where does that leave you? Windows only, unless Linux makes more inroads and shows a consistent pattern of growth too.
[PS: enjoy the biking!]
Very well put.
I totally agree that Apple might produce an iApp along the lines of Microsoft Publisher (not sure if that is still around). I can see that being a big success for them. But like you say, I don't see them trying to muscle in on Adobe in the pro market - it's just not worth it...
[B]I don't know much about anything outwith design for print, so I can't comment on that, but there is no way Apple would be able to move in to the print industry in the next 3-5 years.
No way.
If somebody who is trusted within the design industry (Adobe) can't get the industry to accept a product that is far superior (InDesign) to what everyone's currently using (QuarkXpress), then there's little chance on Apple being able to crack the market.
the major daily newspaper I worked for has bought into Creative Suite & Mac G5s. This represents a huge, huge leap of faith (and belief) for the company which owns the paper I work for. Clearly, they see the future.
btw: the corporation that owns my paper owns the vast majority of all print media in the US. What is good for my newspaper....will end up being used in many, many places across the U.S.
I have a hard time believing Adobe will drop the Mac market...now or ever...Unless, of course, apple runs their company into the ground..
Well, I don't think Adobe is going to force the issue, but I don't think they want to get caught up a river without a paddle, to use a cliche. They're planning for eventualities, and it's more likely that Macs will become unviable sooner than Windows. I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.
I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.
So in essence, Adobe will try as little as possible to adapt its software to the system it is in. Which means that we can't really expect its titles to become much better OS X citizens and gain more Mac-feel. This reminds me of a thing Amorph wrote a while back, that Adobe had Photoshop still relying on its own memory protection code rather than to leave that task upon Apple and Microsoft that has this area covered in their respective OSes by now. I also recall him saying that that memory protection system took away considerable resources from the task at hand: image manipulation.
Well, I don't think Adobe is going to force the issue, but I don't think they want to get caught up a river without a paddle, to use a cliche. They're planning for eventualities, and it's more likely that Macs will become unviable sooner than Windows. I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.
Way back a long time ago (1995 or so?) Adobe coded/supported Photoshop for SGI IRIX. I'm sure they still have that code to work with if they ever decide to create a Linux version.
This reminds me of a thing Amorph wrote a while back, that Adobe had Photoshop still relying on its own memory protection code rather than to leave that task upon Apple and Microsoft that has this area covered in their respective OSes by now.
Adobe apps effectively triple-buffer all window content because the Mac OS double-buffers all windows automatically, and Adobe's platform-independent code base also double-buffers the windows. Windows (the OS) doesn't do its own buffering (that's the the eraser effect when processes are hung), so Adobe smartly added this to their code so their apps would work well on Windows, but it's superfluous on a Mac. That sort of redundancy is all over the Adobe code, and this is the second or thid iteration of OS X native Adobe apps in some cases. It's not efficient and it affects performance most definitely. Imagine if someone with the resources to hang in the game could produce something akin to Photoshop's features, with a good GUI, and OS X native without the redundancies of Adobe' model. Yeah, that product would be locked into the fate of the OS, but the performance would potentially blow PS away. And PS does a good job with the heavy lifting it's doing already!
So, how many of you think that the big line in the sand, so to speak, will be the moment OSX goes fully 64-bit? Will Adobe spend the money to make 64-bit, OSX-only versions of Pshop, Illustrator, etc.? Or will that be the moment they cut further development for the Mac?
Or should we all start rooting for Miscrosoft to get that 64-bit version of Windows working so there might still be co-development for both platforms?
Comments
"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of ProTools I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Digidesign."
"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of Premiere I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Adobe."
"If Apple announced that it was making its own web browser I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Microsoft."
Blah...
Apple can do it. Apple should do it. Apple will do it. Pros (and regular users if applicable) will use it.
Originally posted by millhouse
adobe seems to be the flagship of developers for the mac, i know there are probably bigger ones but when you think of good mac software usually adobe comes to mind.
so here's my question.
why doesnt adobe adhere to the guidlines of a mac os x application and use sheets? everytime i save anything in an adobe app there is no sheet, just that intrusive dialog box which haults my work in everything else in that app.
i've never understood it and perhaps someone has a good explination as to why there are no sheets in an adobe app to this day.
It's because Windows doesn't have sheets, and Adobe doesn't do anything different between platforms.
Originally posted by Amorph
That's the move they've been preparing you for. Get ready.
Buy why? It's not like Adobe and Microsoft are the best of friends, are they? Do you foresee this happening because of the Apple/Adobe relationship or because of the cost of cross-platform support? You'd think it was in Adobe's best interest to maintain the Mac as a viable option to Windows. If for no other reason than competing against Microsoft on their own platform will surely kill you off. And Microsoft seem to want to compete with everyone... What's your and BuanRotto's reasoning behind this assertion?
I say blame Apple for ceding most of their marketshare, and with it, eventually their mindshare. Fact of the matter is that for mid level applications, the Mac is becoming a very closed platform.
Money saved by not developing for two platforms. However similar, the two platform releases still need individual attention. By putting everyone into one OS platform, you can concentrate your resources. Adobe makes a lot more money from their Windows products, especially Acrobat but also from their consumer products, most of which aren't even available on Macs. While a majority a grpahic deign and advertising prods use Macs with their Adobe products, a lot more business professionals and hobbyists use PCs, and they make a lot more money from PCs. Adobe would like to concentrate their resources on developing for one platform, and naturally bring their pro Mac users along.
So if this happens, what routes are there for Apple. Either develop their own Photoshop/Illustrator software, or enable others to do it more easily (Core*).
My hopes is for Apple to pick up the gauntlet and develop the software themselves. But how would they topple Adobes apps?
As far as I know, what Apple has done in the past when breaking in to a pro-software segment has been to simply purchase the current leader with all of its assets and release them under their own name. This happened in both video and audio, right? But this is another game completely. They can't afford to buy Adobe or any of its leading software. How would they compete?
Originally posted by johnq
I'm a pro user too, nyah-nyah...
"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of ProTools I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Digidesign."
"If Apple announced that it was marketing its equivalent of Premiere I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Adobe."
"If Apple announced that it was making its own web browser I don't think anybody would touch it. Apple just wouldn't have the track record within that field. And it's ALL about track record. Apple couldn't possibly justify the amount of expenditure and resources it would take to compete with Microsoft."
Blah...
Apple can do it. Apple should do it. Apple will do it. Pros (and regular users if applicable) will use it.
I don't know much about anything outwith design for print, so I can't comment on that, but there is no way Apple would be able to move in to the print industry in the next 3-5 years.
No way.
If somebody who is trusted within the design industry (Adobe) can't get the industry to accept a product that is far superior (InDesign) to what everyone's currently using (QuarkXpress), then there's little chance on Apple being able to crack the market.
I'd love to see Apple produce an alternative (it can only be good for the market) - I just think that there's more chance of angels flying out my arse!
Pro users just want to switch their machine on (be it Mac or PC) and rattle through their job list as quickly as possible. A lot of the printers that we send work to are still working with Quark on OS 9, because at the end of the day it works perfectly well, and it's predictable.
Personally, at this point, I'd be more interested in an Adobe platform independent OS targeted specifically at designers, than an Apple alternative to the Creative Suite.
But hey, that's probably just me.
I've saved a lot of time today by using InDesign over Quark, which means I can get away on time and have a play on my mountain bike!
See you guys later!
I should add that Apple and the rest of the industry doesn't see much growth in the print/graphics market either. Apple might be willing to cede the graphics market if it comes to that so long as video and audio can continue to grow and make up for whatever they lose in the pro graphics industry. While graphics is a significant part of Apple's business, they don't sell as much pro graphics workstations as you might think since so many shops hold onto setups they know work for ages. It's very slow turnover in the graphics field in hardware as well as software, and that may not be worth the effort to try to either protect this market or wrest more control over it if it doesn't contribute enough to your quarterly numbers. One of the reasons that Adobe is pushing business and consumer products so much is because their bread and butter graphics suite, while it provides consistent revenues, has had fairly stagnant sales for a while. While some of that has to do with a sort of topping off of features from version to version recently, it also has to do with the saturation of the mature graphics market. They made InDesign to snag the piece of that pie that they don't own of course, but growth for that company is based primarily on Acrobat, and to a lesser extent on getting consumer products into lots of homes. Businesses are primarily on PCs and it would be pointless to compete with Apple's iLife products on the Mac. So where does that leave you? Windows only, unless Linux makes more inroads and shows a consistent pattern of growth too.
[PS: enjoy the biking!]
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Besides, Adobe by far makes more revenue from PCs, nevermind that most pro firms still use Macs.
That's mainly because of Acrobat. On the CS front Adobe still gets about 30% of their revenue from Macs.
Acrobat is their cash cow now since it's used a lot in enterprise.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The big difference between the video offering Apple made inroads with and the Adobe suite is that mid-range video was a relatively nascent market, whereas graphics is firmly entrenched. Apple's success with Logic is that they bought a well-established company but haven't disrupted the product or the team developing it much. So while audio was also a fairly entrenched market too, Apple simply bought into it rather than introducing another solution there. If Apple were to try muscling in on Photoshop or Quark, which are far more dominant in their respective markets than Logic was (and is) in its market, it would be really, really tough. Their best bet is to do what I think they're doing now: offer tech that maybe a third party can lead to success first. If that doesn't materialize, they would probably target the hobbyist/"prosumer" market by either going against Elements directly, or I would be willing to bet that they try to slip under Photoshop but over Elements, in the $300 range. I'm thinking an equivalent of Motion, modified for print/still graphics. They wouldn't bother competing with PS head to head, certainly not in the pro shops, but it's a potentially big opportunity for SOHO and hobbyists. If a product like that took off (remember, this is assuming other aveunes are exhausted), once that product is established, they might jockey for some foothold in the high end market. It's a pattern that I think is playing out with their current hardware and software offerings.
I should add that Apple and the rest of the industry doesn't see much growth in the print/graphics market either. Apple might be willing to cede the graphics market if it comes to that so long as video and audio can continue to grow and make up for whatever they lose in the pro graphics industry. While graphics is a significant part of Apple's business, they don't sell as much pro graphics workstations as you might think since so many shops hold onto setups they know work for ages. It's very slow turnover in the graphics field in hardware as well as software, and that may not be worth the effort to try to either protect this market or wrest more control over it if it doesn't contribute enough to your quarterly numbers. One of the reasons that Adobe is pushing business and consumer products so much is because their bread and butter graphics suite, while it provides consistent revenues, has had fairly stagnant sales for a while. While some of that has to do with a sort of topping off of features from version to version recently, it also has to do with the saturation of the mature graphics market. They made InDesign to snag the piece of that pie that they don't own of course, but growth for that company is based primarily on Acrobat, and to a lesser extent on getting consumer products into lots of homes. Businesses are primarily on PCs and it would be pointless to compete with Apple's iLife products on the Mac. So where does that leave you? Windows only, unless Linux makes more inroads and shows a consistent pattern of growth too.
[PS: enjoy the biking!]
Very well put.
I totally agree that Apple might produce an iApp along the lines of Microsoft Publisher (not sure if that is still around). I can see that being a big success for them. But like you say, I don't see them trying to muscle in on Adobe in the pro market - it's just not worth it...
Originally posted by Northgate
Can Apple afford to buy Adobe?
I think they're about the same size of company.
Originally posted by Amorph
That's the move they've been preparing you for. Get ready.
EH?!
Are you joking? I'd love to see a little more light shone on your statement, Amorph.
Originally posted by Messiah
[B]I don't know much about anything outwith design for print, so I can't comment on that, but there is no way Apple would be able to move in to the print industry in the next 3-5 years.
No way.
If somebody who is trusted within the design industry (Adobe) can't get the industry to accept a product that is far superior (InDesign) to what everyone's currently using (QuarkXpress), then there's little chance on Apple being able to crack the market.
the major daily newspaper I worked for has bought into Creative Suite & Mac G5s. This represents a huge, huge leap of faith (and belief) for the company which owns the paper I work for. Clearly, they see the future.
btw: the corporation that owns my paper owns the vast majority of all print media in the US. What is good for my newspaper....will end up being used in many, many places across the U.S.
I have a hard time believing Adobe will drop the Mac market...now or ever...Unless, of course, apple runs their company into the ground..
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.
So in essence, Adobe will try as little as possible to adapt its software to the system it is in. Which means that we can't really expect its titles to become much better OS X citizens and gain more Mac-feel. This reminds me of a thing Amorph wrote a while back, that Adobe had Photoshop still relying on its own memory protection code rather than to leave that task upon Apple and Microsoft that has this area covered in their respective OSes by now. I also recall him saying that that memory protection system took away considerable resources from the task at hand: image manipulation.
Originally posted by Messiah
And what the hell is going on with my G5?
The fans just decided to kick-in at full speed for a minute there...?
It was those 5 laughing smilies you posted. Safari chokes on groups of animated gifs.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Well, I don't think Adobe is going to force the issue, but I don't think they want to get caught up a river without a paddle, to use a cliche. They're planning for eventualities, and it's more likely that Macs will become unviable sooner than Windows. I think if Linux really takes off, they'd jump onto that platform, again, holding the system hooks at arm's length except where absolutely necessary.
Way back a long time ago (1995 or so?) Adobe coded/supported Photoshop for SGI IRIX. I'm sure they still have that code to work with if they ever decide to create a Linux version.
Originally posted by Gavriel
This reminds me of a thing Amorph wrote a while back, that Adobe had Photoshop still relying on its own memory protection code rather than to leave that task upon Apple and Microsoft that has this area covered in their respective OSes by now.
Adobe apps effectively triple-buffer all window content because the Mac OS double-buffers all windows automatically, and Adobe's platform-independent code base also double-buffers the windows. Windows (the OS) doesn't do its own buffering (that's the the eraser effect when processes are hung), so Adobe smartly added this to their code so their apps would work well on Windows, but it's superfluous on a Mac. That sort of redundancy is all over the Adobe code, and this is the second or thid iteration of OS X native Adobe apps in some cases. It's not efficient and it affects performance most definitely. Imagine if someone with the resources to hang in the game could produce something akin to Photoshop's features, with a good GUI, and OS X native without the redundancies of Adobe' model. Yeah, that product would be locked into the fate of the OS, but the performance would potentially blow PS away. And PS does a good job with the heavy lifting it's doing already!
Or should we all start rooting for Miscrosoft to get that 64-bit version of Windows working so there might still be co-development for both platforms?