Their Market value as of closing today is $23.3 Billion.
Apple's is $64.3 billion.
Adobe's sales in the quarter ending 9/2/2005 was $487 million. This doesn't include Macromedia. But getting info on them right now is a pain. Suffice to say that their sales were much smaller than Adobe's, as reflected the $3.4 bill acquisition cost.
Apple's sales in the quarter ending 9/24/2005 was $3.7 billion.
I'm sure that Apple could fairly easily acquire Adobe, ever heard of a leveraged buyout?
That said, I don't really see a reason for Apple to buy a company like Adobe, when instead they are gradually developing their own software over time. Aperature is a good example, and I'm sure that other apps will follow (e.g. "Numbers" spreadsheet being added to iWork suite).
Speaking of spreadsheets, I'm a business undergrad student, so I use Excel a great deal. One beef that I have with Excel is that generally speaking it doesn't generate very "sexy" graphs, I would personally like to see Numbers introduce some gorgeous graphs.
I'm sure that Apple could fairly easily acquire Adobe, ever heard of a leveraged buyout?
That said, I don't really see a reason for Apple to buy a company like Adobe, when instead they are gradually developing their own software over time. Aperature is a good example, and I'm sure that other apps will follow (e.g. "Numbers" spreadsheet being added to iWork suite).
Speaking of spreadsheets, I'm a business undergrad student, so I use Excel a great deal. One beef that I have with Excel is that generally speaking it doesn't generate very "sexy" graphs, I would personally like to see Numbers introduce some gorgeous graphs.
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
I would not want sexier graphs necessarily, but certainly less ugly ones. That should not hurt with the information transfer process.
But then, I am in science/engineering and my needs might be bit different and most often Excel is simply ruled out because its capabilities are lacking. The nicest graphs are, in my view, still produced by Igor (although with enough work put into them Matlab, Octave, R, Maple, Mathematica can also produce good stuff).
I was surprised by the financial information given in this thread, very interesting. I wonder how the two would compare if you compared just Apple's software divisions against Adobe. I'm sure the info is out there, but probably not relevant for anything but curiosity.
I wasn't aware that Apple had this much cash, I guess that means that they can't re-invest it quickly enough into new products and so on.
So now where are all those people who said that Photoshop can do everything Aperture does and a whole lot more?
Why does Adobe need to come out with this product? And why isn't it part of Photoshop/ACR/Bridge?
This just goes to prove the point that saying Photoshop is for photographers is like saying InDesign is for people who write a monthly 4-page newsletter. Well, yeah, but...
In any case, I'm glad Adobe's coming out with this for several reasons:
1. It'll keep Apple on its toes. Aperture desperately needs bug fixes, new camera support, and speed improvements.
2. Adobe is validating Aperture's existence. (For those boobs--like Dave Girard at ArsTechnica--who just didn't get it.)
3. How Adobe prices it may force Apple to lower the price, or not. (Will LightRoom be available separately? Part of Photoshop? Part of CS3 suite only?)
Competition is a very, very good thing. C'mon Adobe!
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
It's an analysts #1 trick. When you have nothing to say, wow them with a graph! Works like a charm
I was surprised by the financial information given in this thread, very interesting. I wonder how the two would compare if you compared just Apple's software divisions against Adobe. I'm sure the info is out there, but probably not relevant for anything but curiosity.
I wasn't aware that Apple had this much cash, I guess that means that they can't re-invest it quickly enough into new products and so on.
Based on the companies 10K Filing, their "software, services, and other" was $1.1B
For Adobe it was $1.6B, (including software and support servivces) however $500M of that was related to acrobat and licensing of the platform, so it is actually very close when you compare related products.
Photoshop cannot be compared to Aperture. If it could why would Adobe make their own version? Aperture is a cataloguing and post-production package.
i think the point jdbartlett was trying to make was that, as you answered yourself - Aperture only catalogues & post-produces. Photoshop is a much more rounded package; yet is only marginally more in cost.
Apple should not buy Adobe or Avid. They should keep developing their own software. It's more cost effective and we get a better product.
What exactly would Apple be buying? They already have a RAW image app. They already have a raster engine in Quartz. What Adobe product is even worth continuing other than Photoshop? GoLive?!
Perhaps Apple would do well to buy any projects which fell out of the Macromedia merger like Freehand (like they did with FCP), but even then it may be better to write one from scratch using Quartz technologies.
Buying a company means more dead wood on the payroll and more debts burning a hole in your wallet.
I was surprised by the financial information given in this thread, very interesting. I wonder how the two would compare if you compared just Apple's software divisions against Adobe. I'm sure the info is out there, but probably not relevant for anything but curiosity.
I wasn't aware that Apple had this much cash, I guess that means that they can't re-invest it quickly enough into new products and so on.
Actually Apple's stash of cash has at times earned them more net revenue then their products given that their very high R&D costs eat into their typically 25%+ gross margins.
Apple has pretty carefully hoarded cash since Jobs came back. This has helped them quite a bit, and now it allows them a fair bit of freedom as regards buying other companies, not having to go into debt (they went debt free a while ago), etc...
Hey, when did that happen?! Oops! Must be the iPod 'cause I could have sworn that Adobe was almost twice as big a company in terms of revenue than Apple at one point.
Wasnt Adobe halfway there already? all they really need to do is beef up their raw tool and integrate/improve functionality of the bridge app, bridge+stacks+their raw tools = aperture, right?
Remember, this will be part of the suit, so you will have indesign+acrobat to do the layouts and golive/dreamweaver for web so this could easily smoke Aperture as a complete solution
This is an interesting development. This means that Adobe has been developing this new product for some time now.
All in all, the competition between the two companies should yield better products for consumers. If the competition gets fierce, I hope that Adobe doesn't drop Photoshop for Mac as it did with it's video editing products.
Shit, if that happens, I'll have no choice but to go Windows. Puh-leeeeeze don't let this be true!
Their Market value as of closing today is $23.3 Billion.
Apple's is $64.3 billion.
Adobe's sales in the quarter ending 9/2/2005 was $487 million. This doesn't include Macromedia. But getting info on them right now is a pain. Suffice to say that their sales were much smaller than Adobe's, as reflected the $3.4 bill acquisition cost.
Apple's sales in the quarter ending 9/24/2005 was $3.7 billion.
So, again, how is Adobe a LOT bigger than Apple?
Might Apple or Microsoft attempt a hostile takeover of Adobe at some point? What would have to happen for this to occur?
I would not want sexier graphs necessarily, but certainly less ugly ones. That should not hurt with the information transfer process.
But then, I am in science/engineering and my needs might be bit different and most often Excel is simply ruled out because its capabilities are lacking. The nicest graphs are, in my view, still produced by Igor (although with enough work put into them Matlab, Octave, R, Maple, Mathematica can also produce good stuff).
Deltagraph has some nice ones as well, if you really need them.
Apple should not buy Adobe or Avid. They should keep developing their own software. It's more cost effective and we get a better product.
What exactly would Apple be buying? They already have a RAW image app. They already have a raster engine in Quartz. What Adobe product is even worth continuing other than Photoshop? GoLive?!
Perhaps Apple would do well to buy any projects which fell out of the Macromedia merger like Freehand (like they did with FCP), but even then it may be better to write one from scratch using Quartz technologies.
Buying a company means more dead wood on the payroll and more debts burning a hole in your wallet.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you about Apple's developement, but it isn't correct to say that they develop all of their own software. At least not from scratch.
iTunes was bought from Casady & Greene. It was called SoundJam.
DVDStudio was bought (as three seperate programs) from Astarte, a German developer. Don't recall all of the names right now.
FCP was bought from Macromedia, program name unknown to me.
Shake was also bought.
Logic Pro, again, was bought.
Apple has also bought other programs in the past. Some ended up in the OS itself.
Companies rarely buy another company for their products. You are right that it would cost less to develop their own.
They buy them for their market. All of the customers who are already buying their products. It might cost 10 million to develop a medium sized program, but how much would it cost to buy the $500 million in sales a competitors brings in every year?
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Adobe is a LOT bigger than Apple.
In what way is Adobe bigger than Apple?
Their Market value as of closing today is $23.3 Billion.
Apple's is $64.3 billion.
Adobe's sales in the quarter ending 9/2/2005 was $487 million. This doesn't include Macromedia. But getting info on them right now is a pain. Suffice to say that their sales were much smaller than Adobe's, as reflected the $3.4 bill acquisition cost.
Apple's sales in the quarter ending 9/24/2005 was $3.7 billion.
So, again, how is Adobe a LOT bigger than Apple?
Originally posted by macFanDave
Number of Employees:
AAPL = 14,800
ADBE = 3,100
Another metric showing that, in fact, Apple is a LOT BIGGER than Adobe!
Not to one up you
AAPL Revenue = 13.9B
ADBE Revenue = 01.9B
AAPL Total Cash = 8.2B
ADBE Total Cash = 1.7B
AAPL Book Value Per Share = 8.94
ADBE Book Value Per Share = 3.77
Dave
That said, I don't really see a reason for Apple to buy a company like Adobe, when instead they are gradually developing their own software over time. Aperature is a good example, and I'm sure that other apps will follow (e.g. "Numbers" spreadsheet being added to iWork suite).
Speaking of spreadsheets, I'm a business undergrad student, so I use Excel a great deal. One beef that I have with Excel is that generally speaking it doesn't generate very "sexy" graphs, I would personally like to see Numbers introduce some gorgeous graphs.
Originally posted by Chagi
I'm sure that Apple could fairly easily acquire Adobe, ever heard of a leveraged buyout?
That said, I don't really see a reason for Apple to buy a company like Adobe, when instead they are gradually developing their own software over time. Aperature is a good example, and I'm sure that other apps will follow (e.g. "Numbers" spreadsheet being added to iWork suite).
Speaking of spreadsheets, I'm a business undergrad student, so I use Excel a great deal. One beef that I have with Excel is that generally speaking it doesn't generate very "sexy" graphs, I would personally like to see Numbers introduce some gorgeous graphs.
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
I would not want sexier graphs necessarily, but certainly less ugly ones. That should not hurt with the information transfer process.
But then, I am in science/engineering and my needs might be bit different and most often Excel is simply ruled out because its capabilities are lacking. The nicest graphs are, in my view, still produced by Igor (although with enough work put into them Matlab, Octave, R, Maple, Mathematica can also produce good stuff).
Originally posted by DaveGee
AAPL Total Cash = 8.2B
ADBE Total Cash = 1.7B
I was surprised by the financial information given in this thread, very interesting. I wonder how the two would compare if you compared just Apple's software divisions against Adobe. I'm sure the info is out there, but probably not relevant for anything but curiosity.
I wasn't aware that Apple had this much cash, I guess that means that they can't re-invest it quickly enough into new products and so on.
Why does Adobe need to come out with this product? And why isn't it part of Photoshop/ACR/Bridge?
This just goes to prove the point that saying Photoshop is for photographers is like saying InDesign is for people who write a monthly 4-page newsletter. Well, yeah, but...
In any case, I'm glad Adobe's coming out with this for several reasons:
1. It'll keep Apple on its toes. Aperture desperately needs bug fixes, new camera support, and speed improvements.
2. Adobe is validating Aperture's existence. (For those boobs--like Dave Girard at ArsTechnica--who just didn't get it.)
3. How Adobe prices it may force Apple to lower the price, or not. (Will LightRoom be available separately? Part of Photoshop? Part of CS3 suite only?)
Competition is a very, very good thing. C'mon Adobe!
Originally posted by melgross
Apple should have bought Macromedia. Controlling Flash was much more important. That's why Adobe bought them. The apps were of secondary importance.
I'm surprised that you want "sexy" charts. You're tought to keep presentations simple. It's been shown in numerous studies that these "sexy" charts, lower information transfer.
It's an analysts #1 trick. When you have nothing to say, wow them with a graph! Works like a charm
Originally posted by TednDi
Apple should buy Adobe
And Avid
Originally posted by JeffDM
I was surprised by the financial information given in this thread, very interesting. I wonder how the two would compare if you compared just Apple's software divisions against Adobe. I'm sure the info is out there, but probably not relevant for anything but curiosity.
I wasn't aware that Apple had this much cash, I guess that means that they can't re-invest it quickly enough into new products and so on.
Based on the companies 10K Filing, their "software, services, and other" was $1.1B
For Adobe it was $1.6B, (including software and support servivces) however $500M of that was related to acrobat and licensing of the platform, so it is actually very close when you compare related products.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Photoshop cannot be compared to Aperture. If it could why would Adobe make their own version? Aperture is a cataloguing and post-production package.
i think the point jdbartlett was trying to make was that, as you answered yourself - Aperture only catalogues & post-produces. Photoshop is a much more rounded package; yet is only marginally more in cost.
What exactly would Apple be buying? They already have a RAW image app. They already have a raster engine in Quartz. What Adobe product is even worth continuing other than Photoshop? GoLive?!
Perhaps Apple would do well to buy any projects which fell out of the Macromedia merger like Freehand (like they did with FCP), but even then it may be better to write one from scratch using Quartz technologies.
Buying a company means more dead wood on the payroll and more debts burning a hole in your wallet.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I was surprised by the financial information given in this thread, very interesting. I wonder how the two would compare if you compared just Apple's software divisions against Adobe. I'm sure the info is out there, but probably not relevant for anything but curiosity.
I wasn't aware that Apple had this much cash, I guess that means that they can't re-invest it quickly enough into new products and so on.
Actually Apple's stash of cash has at times earned them more net revenue then their products given that their very high R&D costs eat into their typically 25%+ gross margins.
Apple has pretty carefully hoarded cash since Jobs came back. This has helped them quite a bit, and now it allows them a fair bit of freedom as regards buying other companies, not having to go into debt (they went debt free a while ago), etc...
Remember, this will be part of the suit, so you will have indesign+acrobat to do the layouts and golive/dreamweaver for web so this could easily smoke Aperture as a complete solution
Originally posted by amac4me
This is an interesting development. This means that Adobe has been developing this new product for some time now.
All in all, the competition between the two companies should yield better products for consumers. If the competition gets fierce, I hope that Adobe doesn't drop Photoshop for Mac as it did with it's video editing products.
Shit, if that happens, I'll have no choice but to go Windows. Puh-leeeeeze don't let this be true!
Originally posted by melgross
In what way is Adobe bigger than Apple?
Their Market value as of closing today is $23.3 Billion.
Apple's is $64.3 billion.
Adobe's sales in the quarter ending 9/2/2005 was $487 million. This doesn't include Macromedia. But getting info on them right now is a pain. Suffice to say that their sales were much smaller than Adobe's, as reflected the $3.4 bill acquisition cost.
Apple's sales in the quarter ending 9/24/2005 was $3.7 billion.
So, again, how is Adobe a LOT bigger than Apple?
Might Apple or Microsoft attempt a hostile takeover of Adobe at some point? What would have to happen for this to occur?
Originally posted by noirdesir
I would not want sexier graphs necessarily, but certainly less ugly ones. That should not hurt with the information transfer process.
But then, I am in science/engineering and my needs might be bit different and most often Excel is simply ruled out because its capabilities are lacking. The nicest graphs are, in my view, still produced by Igor (although with enough work put into them Matlab, Octave, R, Maple, Mathematica can also produce good stuff).
Deltagraph has some nice ones as well, if you really need them.
Originally posted by strobe
Apple should not buy Adobe or Avid. They should keep developing their own software. It's more cost effective and we get a better product.
What exactly would Apple be buying? They already have a RAW image app. They already have a raster engine in Quartz. What Adobe product is even worth continuing other than Photoshop? GoLive?!
Perhaps Apple would do well to buy any projects which fell out of the Macromedia merger like Freehand (like they did with FCP), but even then it may be better to write one from scratch using Quartz technologies.
Buying a company means more dead wood on the payroll and more debts burning a hole in your wallet.
I'm not saying that I disagree with you about Apple's developement, but it isn't correct to say that they develop all of their own software. At least not from scratch.
iTunes was bought from Casady & Greene. It was called SoundJam.
DVDStudio was bought (as three seperate programs) from Astarte, a German developer. Don't recall all of the names right now.
FCP was bought from Macromedia, program name unknown to me.
Shake was also bought.
Logic Pro, again, was bought.
Apple has also bought other programs in the past. Some ended up in the OS itself.
Companies rarely buy another company for their products. You are right that it would cost less to develop their own.
They buy them for their market. All of the customers who are already buying their products. It might cost 10 million to develop a medium sized program, but how much would it cost to buy the $500 million in sales a competitors brings in every year?