Mostly because Adobe apps will be a year late vs a month late and will set you back 300-500$ rather than 50-100$ (or free in the case of Aperture).
Also...Apple hasn't complained about the whole deal. Only Adobe and MS have complained so far. For all we know, making a Universal Binary of these Pro apps wasn't a huge deal for Apple...the reasons for being late might simply be 1. completing features 2. squashing bugs.
'course, Apple would never complain about UBing an app because it would look rather bad on their part but...lets face the reality, all of these apps will be UB within the next month.
Heck, like I said, Shake was being demoed early March on Intel-based Macs...so, it's already UB...just not released. And I think I heard something similar about Aperture. So it's no unreasonable to conclude that UBing wasn't Apple biggest problems.
Would you agree that Apple has no excuse not to have all their pro apps UB by release of the new power macs? If this doesn't happen(and I think Apple probably will have them ready), I dont' see how anyone could bitch about Adobe.
Why is it that some of you guys are willing to give Apple leeway, but not Adobe?
If anything, it should be the other way around. At least Adobe gave us a timeline, and let us know that it will be a new version with many new features.
Apple has said nothing.
Uh yeah, Adobe said over a YEAR, and Microsoft originally planned to release Longhorn/Vista in 2004. 2004!
Wow, at least we got a timeline from Adobe and Microsoft.
Apologies for dragging Microsoft into this but AdobeMedia and Microsoft are the UniversalBinary babies we're all waiting on so I'll lump them together.
Oh, hi Melgross We appear to be on opposite sides of the "UB" fence this time round. I challenge thee to a duel! Adobe sucks ass! Apple coders rulz! *slaps Melgross with glove*
Apple did give a timeline, They said March, and the discussion here is because they just announced it was slipping into mid-April. The issue people have with Adobe and MS (unfair and unfounded as it may be) is with the length of their timeline.
No, Apple did NOT give a timeline for Shake, or FCE. We've been through that already.
Heck, like I said, Shake was being demoed early March on Intel-based Macs...so, it's already UB...just not released. And I think I heard something similar about Aperture. So it's no unreasonable to conclude that UBing wasn't Apple biggest problems. [/B]
Just where was it being demoed? You don't that it is ready. You're just guessing. Apple set a time for Aperture. If they miss it by two or three weeks, I'm not bothered. It's really no big deal.
But they never said anything about Shake or Express other than they will let us know sometime in the future. That's completely nebulous.
If they were anyway near being close, they would have said so. Just like they did with the FCP Suite.
I think that they have barely gotten started. I think that the heavy work was waiting for the team to finish the FCP Suite.
Hell, the code for Express is shared to a great extent with FCP, and there hasn't been an announcement about that either.
Waiting 30 more days as opposed to 180+. That is why I am cool with Apple. That and the fact I don't use Aperture or Shake, yet. Adobe and Office I am in every day. In fact, I am on my Core Duo mini right now (2 GB ram) and I have to say that both run well enough I am not complaining like I was. They run faster than my Mini G4 could run'em.
I am in FCS a lot as well, so it is a plus that went UB but I have decided to wait and see how the line shakes out before upgrading my 20" iMac G5 1.8 GHz (which is doing just fine). Memrom and quad cores are dancing in my head. I believe the motovating reasons Apple switched to Intel will show up in late 06 or 07. Then we will be like, yeah, what a great move. The Core DUO stuff now is great, so don't get me wrong. I just feel it is going to get a lot better.
Don't you guys read?
Screw Aperture being late. It doesn't matter. We're not talking about that.
Shake is far more important. Just because you don't use it doesn't lessen the point any. Guys here, who quite obviously don't use PS in any real way, have been complaining about Adobe.
It's the principle of blame we're talking about here, not whether one actually uses the program or not.
You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.
In my mind that's a seperate issue. Apple can discount the upgrade to UB on the pro software because they know it will drive sales on new powermacs. The delay in the release of UB software has been the topic of much heated debate here and is the crux of the matter IMO. Is 2007 a reasonable timeframe for CS3? I've thought not previously, but I'm going to see how fast Apple can get their lineup UB before my final judgement.
Uh yeah, Adobe said over a YEAR, and Microsoft originally planned to release Longhorn/Vista in 2004. 2004!
Wow, at least we got a timeline from Adobe and Microsoft.
Apologies for dragging Microsoft into this but AdobeMedia and Microsoft are the UniversalBinary babies we're all waiting on so I'll lump them together.
What's the timeline for Shake or Express?
What excuse does Apple have there?
They are on their own development tools, aren't they? It should be a breeze, right?
It doesn't even have a suite to be reconciled with.
Oh, hi Melgross We appear to be on opposite sides of the "UB" fence this time round. I challenge thee to a duel! Adobe sucks ass! Apple coders rulz! *slaps Melgross with glove*
Well, you lose this one.
There is NO excuse to be blaming one company without blaming the other one equally.
You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.
That's with NO upgrade. While the upgrade prices are pretty good, Adobe has made somewhat similar offers in the past.
Don't forget that these prices are really to get people to upgrade to the suite, not only the univ binaries. People who need to go Universal would do so anyway when the next version came out.
But, Apple has two reasons why they are willing to let so many do this cheaply.
One is to get as many people, as fast as possible, to buy Intel machines. This gives them a reason to do so. And for speed, it's necessary. It runs faster on x86.
The other is when moving them over to the suite, Apple gets much more upgrade money than before. If you upgraded just FCP, it cost between $299 and $349, depending on where you bought it. Now, the upgrade will be between $649 and $699.
Apple has just locked in all of those people who had NO intention of buying the other programs in the suite. Now, they have no choice.
It makes that suite deal (pun intended, look a lot less sweet over the next upgrade.
Adobe hasn't done that yet. I hope this doesn't give them the idea.
In my mind that's a seperate issue. Apple can discount the upgrade to UB on the pro software because they know it will drive sales on new powermacs. The delay in the release of UB software has been the topic of much heated debate here and is the crux of the matter IMO. Is 2007 a reasonable timeframe for CS3? I've thought not previously, but I'm going to see how fast Apple can get their lineup UB before my final judgement.
Fair enough, but come on - this is the second time Adobe has relied on an Apple update to sell stagnant software.
There is no doubt that converting big programs to UB's is a big job, no one here is saying it isn't. But, Adobe being a bunch of moron's really did nothing to prepare for this situation. And in one way or another, they are going to pay a price for that.
Fair enough, but come on - this is the second time Adobe has relied on an Apple update to sell stagnant software.
There is no doubt that converting big programs to UB's is a big job, no one here is saying it isn't. But, Adobe being a bunch of moron's really did nothing to prepare for this situation. And in one way or another, they are going to pay a price for that.
You haven't read the articles (actually, blogs) on this, have you/ They are thought to be very good.
These give a good understanding, from the developer's viewpoint as to why it ain't an easy decision.
"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "
Does he mean, a large Application like FCP? I'm sorry, but the truth is Adobe has not been proactive in moving to Xcode. You can make excuses for them all you want, and Adobe can make all the excuses for their laziness they want as well. But the truth is, I have never seen so much hatred and disgust for that pig of a company. The REALITY is, customers are tired of paying for these huge software upgrades simply for compatibility reason, when programs like Photoshop and Illustrator have evolved at a snails pace.
"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "
Does he mean, a large Application like FCP? I'm sorry, but the truth is Adobe has not been proactive in moving to Xcode. You can make excuses for them all you want, and Adobe can make all the excuses for their laziness they want as well. But the truth is, I have never seen so much hatred and disgust for that pig of a company. The REALITY is, customers are tired of paying for these huge software upgrades simply for compatibility reason, when programs like Photoshop and Illustrator have evolved at a snails pace.
FCP is a much smaller program than PS is.
Shake comes closer. And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?
Shake comes closer. And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?
This may seem like a stupid question but, don't you think that intel power mac sales will suffer until cs3 is released? I know this assumes that intel power macs will be released this fall, but give intel's roadmap this seems likely.
This may seem like a stupid question but, don't you think that intel power mac sales will suffer until cs3 is released? I know this assumes that intel power macs will be released this fall, but give intel's roadmap this seems likely.
To a certain extent, but not by as much as some people think. MBP sales certainly aren't suffering. Not everyone uses Macs for PS, even though according to the press, that seems to be "fact". Many Powermacs are used for video. Many are used in publishing. Some are used for audio. Some are used as servers in schools. InDesign works pretty well through Rosetta. Quark will be there. It's plug-in companies that also have to move their tails.
Powermac sales have suffered so much during the past two years that it's doubtful that they will suffer more once Intel versions come out. I think that we will see the surge in buying from enthusiasts, like myself, who either never used them for PS, or who don't really need them anymore, but want then anyway. That will sustain sales until the PS suite comes out in April, or so. If these machines use a new design case, as they are rumored to, that alone will sell a fair number of machines. It's shallow, I know. But, that's what Apple's whole line is predicated on, not just performance and OS.
Comments
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Mostly because Adobe apps will be a year late vs a month late and will set you back 300-500$ rather than 50-100$ (or free in the case of Aperture).
Also...Apple hasn't complained about the whole deal. Only Adobe and MS have complained so far. For all we know, making a Universal Binary of these Pro apps wasn't a huge deal for Apple...the reasons for being late might simply be 1. completing features 2. squashing bugs.
'course, Apple would never complain about UBing an app because it would look rather bad on their part but...lets face the reality, all of these apps will be UB within the next month.
Heck, like I said, Shake was being demoed early March on Intel-based Macs...so, it's already UB...just not released. And I think I heard something similar about Aperture. So it's no unreasonable to conclude that UBing wasn't Apple biggest problems.
Would you agree that Apple has no excuse not to have all their pro apps UB by release of the new power macs? If this doesn't happen(and I think Apple probably will have them ready), I dont' see how anyone could bitch about Adobe.
Originally posted by backtomac
Perhaps Melgross is right. Maybe we should see how fast Apple release it's universal apps before 'throwing stones' at Adobe.
I'm throwing fracking big ass boulders at AdobeMedia
Apple just slipped a few weeks. No worries mateys. End of April latest.
Originally posted by melgross
Why is it that some of you guys are willing to give Apple leeway, but not Adobe?
If anything, it should be the other way around. At least Adobe gave us a timeline, and let us know that it will be a new version with many new features.
Apple has said nothing.
Uh yeah, Adobe said over a YEAR, and Microsoft originally planned to release Longhorn/Vista in 2004. 2004!
Wow, at least we got a timeline from Adobe and Microsoft.
Apologies for dragging Microsoft into this but AdobeMedia and Microsoft are the UniversalBinary babies we're all waiting on so I'll lump them together.
Originally posted by backtomac
Perhaps Melgross is right. Maybe we should see how fast Apple release it's universal apps before 'throwing stones' at Adobe.
You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.
Originally posted by jasong
Apple did give a timeline, They said March, and the discussion here is because they just announced it was slipping into mid-April. The issue people have with Adobe and MS (unfair and unfounded as it may be) is with the length of their timeline.
No, Apple did NOT give a timeline for Shake, or FCE. We've been through that already.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Heck, like I said, Shake was being demoed early March on Intel-based Macs...so, it's already UB...just not released. And I think I heard something similar about Aperture. So it's no unreasonable to conclude that UBing wasn't Apple biggest problems. [/B]
Just where was it being demoed? You don't that it is ready. You're just guessing. Apple set a time for Aperture. If they miss it by two or three weeks, I'm not bothered. It's really no big deal.
But they never said anything about Shake or Express other than they will let us know sometime in the future. That's completely nebulous.
If they were anyway near being close, they would have said so. Just like they did with the FCP Suite.
I think that they have barely gotten started. I think that the heavy work was waiting for the team to finish the FCP Suite.
Hell, the code for Express is shared to a great extent with FCP, and there hasn't been an announcement about that either.
Originally posted by aplnub
Waiting 30 more days as opposed to 180+. That is why I am cool with Apple. That and the fact I don't use Aperture or Shake, yet. Adobe and Office I am in every day. In fact, I am on my Core Duo mini right now (2 GB ram) and I have to say that both run well enough I am not complaining like I was. They run faster than my Mini G4 could run'em.
I am in FCS a lot as well, so it is a plus that went UB but I have decided to wait and see how the line shakes out before upgrading my 20" iMac G5 1.8 GHz (which is doing just fine). Memrom and quad cores are dancing in my head. I believe the motovating reasons Apple switched to Intel will show up in late 06 or 07. Then we will be like, yeah, what a great move. The Core DUO stuff now is great, so don't get me wrong. I just feel it is going to get a lot better.
Don't you guys read?
Screw Aperture being late. It doesn't matter. We're not talking about that.
Shake is far more important. Just because you don't use it doesn't lessen the point any. Guys here, who quite obviously don't use PS in any real way, have been complaining about Adobe.
It's the principle of blame we're talking about here, not whether one actually uses the program or not.
Originally posted by sunilraman
I'm throwing fracking big ass boulders at AdobeMedia
Apple just slipped a few weeks. No worries mateys. End of April latest.
Come on Sunil, read back. It isn't aperture that's the problem.
Originally posted by the cool gut
You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.
In my mind that's a seperate issue. Apple can discount the upgrade to UB on the pro software because they know it will drive sales on new powermacs. The delay in the release of UB software has been the topic of much heated debate here and is the crux of the matter IMO. Is 2007 a reasonable timeframe for CS3? I've thought not previously, but I'm going to see how fast Apple can get their lineup UB before my final judgement.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Uh yeah, Adobe said over a YEAR, and Microsoft originally planned to release Longhorn/Vista in 2004. 2004!
Wow, at least we got a timeline from Adobe and Microsoft.
Apologies for dragging Microsoft into this but AdobeMedia and Microsoft are the UniversalBinary babies we're all waiting on so I'll lump them together.
What's the timeline for Shake or Express?
What excuse does Apple have there?
They are on their own development tools, aren't they? It should be a breeze, right?
It doesn't even have a suite to be reconciled with.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Oh, hi Melgross
Well, you lose this one.
There is NO excuse to be blaming one company without blaming the other one equally.
Originally posted by the cool gut
You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.
That's with NO upgrade. While the upgrade prices are pretty good, Adobe has made somewhat similar offers in the past.
Don't forget that these prices are really to get people to upgrade to the suite, not only the univ binaries. People who need to go Universal would do so anyway when the next version came out.
But, Apple has two reasons why they are willing to let so many do this cheaply.
One is to get as many people, as fast as possible, to buy Intel machines. This gives them a reason to do so. And for speed, it's necessary. It runs faster on x86.
The other is when moving them over to the suite, Apple gets much more upgrade money than before. If you upgraded just FCP, it cost between $299 and $349, depending on where you bought it. Now, the upgrade will be between $649 and $699.
Apple has just locked in all of those people who had NO intention of buying the other programs in the suite. Now, they have no choice.
It makes that suite deal (pun intended
Adobe hasn't done that yet. I hope this doesn't give them the idea.
How many here have been thinking about that?
Originally posted by backtomac
In my mind that's a seperate issue. Apple can discount the upgrade to UB on the pro software because they know it will drive sales on new powermacs. The delay in the release of UB software has been the topic of much heated debate here and is the crux of the matter IMO. Is 2007 a reasonable timeframe for CS3? I've thought not previously, but I'm going to see how fast Apple can get their lineup UB before my final judgement.
Fair enough, but come on - this is the second time Adobe has relied on an Apple update to sell stagnant software.
There is no doubt that converting big programs to UB's is a big job, no one here is saying it isn't. But, Adobe being a bunch of moron's really did nothing to prepare for this situation. And in one way or another, they are going to pay a price for that.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Fair enough, but come on - this is the second time Adobe has relied on an Apple update to sell stagnant software.
There is no doubt that converting big programs to UB's is a big job, no one here is saying it isn't. But, Adobe being a bunch of moron's really did nothing to prepare for this situation. And in one way or another, they are going to pay a price for that.
You haven't read the articles (actually, blogs) on this, have you/ They are thought to be very good.
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...24/560461.aspx
These give a good understanding, from the developer's viewpoint as to why it ain't an easy decision.
Originally posted by melgross
You haven't read the articles (actually, blogs) on this, have you/ They are thought to be very good.
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...24/560461.aspx
These give a good understanding, from the developer's viewpoint as to why it ain't an easy decision.
"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "
Does he mean, a large Application like FCP? I'm sorry, but the truth is Adobe has not been proactive in moving to Xcode. You can make excuses for them all you want, and Adobe can make all the excuses for their laziness they want as well. But the truth is, I have never seen so much hatred and disgust for that pig of a company. The REALITY is, customers are tired of paying for these huge software upgrades simply for compatibility reason, when programs like Photoshop and Illustrator have evolved at a snails pace.
Originally posted by the cool gut
"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "
Does he mean, a large Application like FCP? I'm sorry, but the truth is Adobe has not been proactive in moving to Xcode. You can make excuses for them all you want, and Adobe can make all the excuses for their laziness they want as well. But the truth is, I have never seen so much hatred and disgust for that pig of a company. The REALITY is, customers are tired of paying for these huge software upgrades simply for compatibility reason, when programs like Photoshop and Illustrator have evolved at a snails pace.
FCP is a much smaller program than PS is.
Shake comes closer. And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?
Originally posted by melgross
FCP is a much smaller program than PS is.
Shake comes closer. And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?
This may seem like a stupid question but, don't you think that intel power mac sales will suffer until cs3 is released? I know this assumes that intel power macs will be released this fall, but give intel's roadmap this seems likely.
Originally posted by backtomac
This may seem like a stupid question but, don't you think that intel power mac sales will suffer until cs3 is released? I know this assumes that intel power macs will be released this fall, but give intel's roadmap this seems likely.
To a certain extent, but not by as much as some people think. MBP sales certainly aren't suffering. Not everyone uses Macs for PS, even though according to the press, that seems to be "fact". Many Powermacs are used for video. Many are used in publishing. Some are used for audio. Some are used as servers in schools. InDesign works pretty well through Rosetta. Quark will be there. It's plug-in companies that also have to move their tails.
Powermac sales have suffered so much during the past two years that it's doubtful that they will suffer more once Intel versions come out. I think that we will see the surge in buying from enthusiasts, like myself, who either never used them for PS, or who don't really need them anymore, but want then anyway. That will sustain sales until the PS suite comes out in April, or so. If these machines use a new design case, as they are rumored to, that alone will sell a fair number of machines. It's shallow, I know. But, that's what Apple's whole line is predicated on, not just performance and OS.
Originally posted by melgross
FCP is a much smaller program than PS is.
Shake comes closer. And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?
Please let me know which of Apples offerings are you going to run Shake on, the Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, or the iMac? Thanks in advance.