Adobe and Macromedia now one company!

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
They are now shipping bundles that incorporate CS2 and Studio 8 as well as lesser bundles.



macromedia.com now looks really ugly and Adobe is offering losts of tutorials on its site.



In any case, big news.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    Yeah! Gooooooooooo Macrobe!!!
  • Reply 2 of 17
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Prediction: 3-6 months from now a new suit



    New Photoshop featuring better JPG and web stuff -- IMAGE READY WILL DIE



    Flash will now work flawlessly with PSD files



    Golive is dead - Dreamweaver is king...and WAY more expencive



    Updates to bridge and Version que for new formats.



    Adobe CS3

    PS, Illustrator, Indesign, Flash, Dreamweaver+contribute, InDesign, Acrobat Pro. $2399.99
  • Reply 3 of 17
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    Quote:

    Adobe CS3

    PS, Illustrator, Indesign, Flash, Dreamweaver+contribute, InDesign, Acrobat Pro. $2399.99




    Too expensive.



    Adobe will still offer two suites.



    A Print Publishing Suite- CS3



    A Web Publishing Suite- Studio 8



    eventually the two will integrate with each other but

    Adobe will likely keep the two as seperate bundles.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,792member
    My take on this is that the Government must be asleep at the switch.



    It should have been standard procedure to require GoLive, Imageready and Freehand be sold off before approval was granted.



    This is not rocket science.
  • Reply 5 of 17
    kaiwaikaiwai Posts: 246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    My take on this is that the Government must be asleep at the switch.



    It should have been standard procedure to require GoLive, Imageready and Freehand be sold off before approval was granted.



    This is not rocket science.




    Why so? anyone can enter the desktop publishing market, Indesign alone proves that even the most powerful company (Quark) can become sloppy and as a result, a competitior (InDesign) pull itself ahead.
  • Reply 6 of 17
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kaiwai

    Indesign alone proves that even the most powerful company (Quark) can become sloppy and as a result, a competitior (InDesign) pull itself ahead.



    Except that InDesign was created with a huge budget, destined to kill Quark, not to mention it was pretty much unusable in 1.0 and not much better in 1.5.
  • Reply 7 of 17
    Anti-trust we cannot trust, at least not in these times.



    As Apple is finding out with Aperture, even a great company like Apple cannot easily develop a compelling product from scratch (see Ars Technica's recent review) and hope that it will soar from the get-go. The field is narrowing at the high end of imaging and web and layout, or so it seems. At least Microsoft has not attempted to buy Adobe ... yet.
  • Reply 8 of 17
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,792member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kaiwai

    Why so? anyone can enter the desktop publishing market, Indesign alone proves that even the most powerful company (Quark) can become sloppy and as a result, a competitior (InDesign) pull itself ahead.



    Actually, that proves my point.



    Those of us who've been around DTP awhile know that Adobe bought their way into the market when they purchased Pagemaker from Aldus. (I still have the Aldus box in my office.)



    That purchase (along with millions more $$$ invested in Pagemaker) still couldn't dislodge Quark from the top of the heap until Quark decided to roll over and play dead by not upgrading their product for FOUR YEARS.



    If you're expecting anybody to launch a direct competitor to Adobe in the Print or Web markets now, you'll be waiting a long while.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    At least on the web side of things, Dreamweaver is totally unnecessary (I use CotEditor, CyberDuck and Firefox w/ Web Developer Toolbar extension). Dreamweaver's PHP support is... lacking. Flash is annoying and so "early 2000's." Freehand... I've never understood the point of. Seriously.



    Golive... was hot shit in 2000, was unintuitive and weak last time I used it (a very long time ago). Imageready I haven't used in years, as I've discovered that excessive tables and slicing images to do web page layout is amateurish as compared to CSS, which can be done in a text editor such as CotEditor or Smultron.



    Photoshop is the bomb, although it is beginning to suffer from "featuritis". Director is the shizzle, nuff said.



    But I'm still getting the heebie jeebies. At least it wasn't Microsoft who bought Macromedia.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R

    At least on the web side of things, Dreamweaver is totally unnecessary (I use CotEditor, CyberDuck and Firefox w/ Web Developer Toolbar extension). Dreamweaver's PHP support is... lacking. Flash is annoying and so "early 2000's." Freehand... I've never understood the point of. Seriously.



    Golive... was hot shit in 2000, was unintuitive and weak last time I used it (a very long time ago). Imageready I haven't used in years, as I've discovered that excessive tables and slicing images to do web page layout is amateurish as compared to CSS, which can be done in a text editor such as CotEditor or Smultron.



    Photoshop is the bomb, although it is beginning to suffer from "featuritis". Director is the shizzle, nuff said.



    But I'm still getting the heebie jeebies. At least it wasn't Microsoft who bought Macromedia.




    Director is terrible. It was semi-EOL'ed at Macromedia long ago... they have a grand total of four people working on it, and add the most trivial features just because for some reason people still upgrade every year



    Also, I believe you can setup ImageReady to use DIVs. Either way, using CSS by hand is pretty useless if you wanna slice up an image...
  • Reply 11 of 17
    celcocelco Posts: 211member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Yeah! Gooooooooooo Macrobe!!!



    Trying to note your sarcasm





    I think Adobe and macromedia is not just BAD Actually as a owner of an ad agency its screwed. Since when is less choice and healthy competition a good think. Fuckin Adobe are now worse than micro$oft. Macromedia had a culture based around developers and creatives. Adobe is about selling boxes. Now we will be suck with apps that have GUIs and features stuck in 1991.



  • Reply 12 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gregmightdothat

    Director is terrible. It was semi-EOL'ed at Macromedia long ago... they have a grand total of four people working on it, and add the most trivial features just because for some reason people still upgrade every year



    Also, I believe you can setup ImageReady to use DIVs. Either way, using CSS by hand is pretty useless if you wanna slice up an image...




    Well, Director is good for CDROM presentations, and is IMHO more powerful and cooler than flash. I used it to do interactive 3D menus and such, using Dave's 3D Engine, back in the day. I haven't used director since.



    Flash, IMHO, is utterly pointless. People use it to do ads (which I filter out) and make text scale up and down. Those two uses account for 99.999% of Flash on the net.



    I didn't know Imageready can output <div>... Again, haven't used it in years.
  • Reply 13 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R

    Well, Director is good for CDROM presentations, and is IMHO more powerful and cooler than flash. I used it to do interactive 3D menus and such, using Dave's 3D Engine, back in the day. I haven't used director since.



    Flash, IMHO, is utterly pointless. People use it to do ads (which I filter out) and make text scale up and down. Those two uses account for 99.999% of Flash on the net.



    I didn't know Imageready can output <div>... Again, haven't used it in years.




    Just because it's used for obnoxious ads doesn't make it pointless



    It's an all in one app. Director isn't. You have to import all your art into Director (usually from Flash).



    With the exception of 3D, Flash can do everything Director can. Director can't do nearly any of the stuff Flash can.
  • Reply 14 of 17
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    can someone please explain to me who exactly the über-bundle of all Adobe and Macromedia apps is aimed towards? The ONLY thing i can think is if you've just added a seat in your studio and need a new copy of everything under the sun.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Prediction: 3-6 months from now a new suit



    <snip>



    Adobe CS3

    PS, Illustrator, Indesign, Flash, Dreamweaver+contribute, InDesign, Acrobat Pro. $2399.99




    I stand corrected. a_greer you are correct. Adobe slapped the products together and created the mother of all bundles.



    http://www.adobe.com/products/bundles/web_bundle.html
  • Reply 16 of 17
    kaiwaikaiwai Posts: 246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Except that InDesign was created with a huge budget, destined to kill Quark, not to mention it was pretty much unusable in 1.0 and not much better in 1.5.



    But nothing ever stopped Quark from purchasing Macromedia and creating a complete suite that could compete with Adobe; the simple fact of the matter, the competition has sat on its ass and done nothing - just like it took an eternity for Office competitors to move their product to Windows, and by the time they did, Microsoft Office already had a strangle hold in the market.



    If there is a lack of competition, its because of crappy management by Adobes competitors and NOTHING to do with a lack of money.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Too expensive.



    Adobe will still offer two suites.





    That isnt the Adobe way...they will integrate the studio 8 apps into the CS workflow, put a few new token features in PS and Illistrator and change all the version numbers, call it CS 3 and sell it all or nothing unless you want to buy the individual apps and spend about 2x as much



    They will claim that the integraiton is value added plus they will be able to set the price artificially high because they are now the only player in the print+web+imaging+graphics space



    I imagine the price will skyrocket and the additude will be "Dont like it? whacha gonna do, move back to OS9 for quark and dual boot OSX for the Corel tools that no "pro" uses?" Seriously, what is the alternative for pros who need hi-quality web/print workflows with reliable, professional support (as this element rules out a good number of OSS products)
Sign In or Register to comment.