Yes, but did you actually SoundJam MP? iTunes shares some code, but the interface is thousands of times better.
The same goes for DVD Studio Pro, some of which can be read in http://writersblocklive.com/ . The product Apple bought was pretty terrible.
I'm assuming that Final Cut Pro went through the same process.
Logic and Shake are still dogs of course, but Shake's huge and what was eMagic apparently isn't particularly cooperative.
We'll have to wait and see where Adobe goes in the future (hopefully in the direction of Lightroom), but yeah, until then, it seems Adobe's pretty incapable of meeting basic needs that people have been asking for for years (like making 16-bit editing actually work, getting some more filters live like they are in After Effects, etc...), let alone making a decent interface.
Of course they underwent many changes. This will always happen.
I used the programs when Astarte first brought them over. for the time, they were considered to be fantastic. And were much cheaper than anything else out there.
I don't agree that Shake and Logic are dogs at all. You're just saying that becasue they haven't been changed much.
DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, iTunes, Shake, Logic Pro
Plus a couple of others I don't remember right now, and, oh yes,
OS X.
Apple doesn't innovate either, right?
The difference is that as Apple has bought or licensed other products, it has been working on innovating the OS, developed Core level features, created hardware innovations and taken pro apps into the consumer realm.
Adobe has innovated of course, but not to as great a degree. Working PS, InDesign, Illustrator, etc. into a suite of tools is quite an accomplishment, but it also had to buy out some of its biggest competitors along the way like Aldus and Macromedia. That would be comparable to Apple buying Sony Computer and Adobe itself - taking out mature competitors as opposed to acquiring small companies with specific tech and converting them to consumer-ready products.
Yes, I know Shake and Logic were mature and I think neither is a "dog" but those are the exceptions that define the rule.
PS And I think Apple/Steve had something to do with the predecessor to OSX.
Buying someone out is easy for a number of reasons.
First off, as you pointed out, most of the people in one are pretty experienced and focused on that particular task. Startups (at least these days) don't have cash to waste, and hire only the best. Apple would have a really hard time just finding people with extensive DVD or audio experience.
Also, in cases like Logic and Shake, they're buying a whole customer base. If Apple just came out with a new compositing tool, no one would buy it. But no Shake user is going to migrate away, probably not even now that Apple is rewriting the code (supposedly).
Finally, to answer your question, I was actually a little unclear: I meant terrible in regards to the interface. Fixing the interface is pretty quick once the functionality is all down. In all of the cases, the code itself was good.
The difference is that as Apple has bought or licensed other products, it has been working on innovating the OS, developed Core level features, created hardware innovations and taken pro apps into the consumer realm.
Adobe has innovated of course, but not to as great a degree. Working PS, InDesign, Illustrator, etc. into a suite of tools is quite an accomplishment, but it also had to buy out some of its biggest competitors along the way like Aldus and Macromedia. That would be comparable to Apple buying Sony Computer and Adobe itself - taking out mature competitors as opposed to acquiring small companies with specific tech and converting them to consumer-ready products.
Yes, I know Shake and Logic were mature and I think neither is a "dog" but those are the exceptions that define the rule.
PS And I think Apple/Steve had something to do with the predecessor to OSX.
Adobe has been one of the great software innovators. Postscript, Postscript Type 1 and 3 fonts, Photoshop (turning it from a small graphics conversion program to what it became), and Acrobat (PDF) would be enough to seal Adobe's place in history.
But, buying other companies is not a reason to be dismissive. Gregmightdothat's post was right on several counts as to why a company might want to buy another.
It also works when one established company buys another established company. Macromedia was on the block. It was well know that they were looking for buyers. They had some good products and technologies even if you don't think so. They just weren't big enough to afford the R&D needed to advance.
I was hoping that Apple would buy them.
What matters is what a company does with the products it acquires, not that it has acquired them.
Adobe has been one of the great software innovators. Postscript, Postscript Type 1 and 3 fonts, Photoshop (turning it from a small graphics conversion program to what it became), and Acrobat (PDF) would be enough to seal Adobe's place in history.
But, buying other companies is not a reason to be dismissive. Gregmightdothat's post was right on several counts as to why a company might want to buy another.
It also works when one established company buys another established company. Macromedia was on the block. It was well know that they were looking for buyers. They had some good products and technologies even if you don't think so. They just weren't big enough to afford the R&D needed to advance.
I was hoping that Apple would buy them.
What matters is what a company does with the products it acquires, not that it has acquired them.
Yes, Adobe was a great innovator and is still an innovator.
Yes, aquisition of mature companies, especially in a mature market is desireable.
I'm not arguing Business 101 crap. I'm sure Macromedia wanted to be bought and Adobe is wise to buy them. So what? I'm not dissmissing them.
My opinion is that Adobe's innovation has slowed down recently ... specifically their post production video applications (the whole point of this thread by the way). I would like to see Adobe innovate more and I'm sure they will now that CS2 development is behind them and they have begun playing with Macromedia code for a while.
My point: Adobe innovation = 6.5 (down from historic highs of 9) Apple innovation = 8.5
And sometimes when a company has more money than ideas, it buys those ideas from companies with more ideas than money. THAT is also in Business 101.
Yes, Adobe was a great innovator and is still an innovator.
Yes, aquisition of mature companies, especially in a mature market is desireable.
I'm not arguing Business 101 crap. I'm sure Macromedia wanted to be bought and Adobe is wise to buy them. So what? I'm not dissmissing them.
My opinion is that Adobe's innovation has slowed down recently ... specifically their post production video applications (the whole point of this thread by the way). I would like to see Adobe innovate more and I'm sure they will now that CS2 development is behind them and they have begun playing with Macromedia code for a while.
My point: Adobe innovation = 6.5 (down from historic highs of 9) Apple innovation = 8.5
And sometimes when a company has more money than ideas, it buys those ideas from companies with more ideas than money. THAT is also in Business 101.
Good 'nuff
These things flow and ebb. It's impossible to continue innovating year after year.
Apple can't do that either. No one can.
Sometimes it's simply too expensive, and risky, to develop something from scratch. If good IP is available, then it's stupid not to buy it.
I've been upset over the years that Apple didn't buy some innovative programs when they came up for sale really cheap. Corel bought them instead, and couldn't afford to treat them right. Now they've been sold again. Too bad. These fit directly into Apple's needs.
Lightroom is just about the only Adobe effort in recent years that comes close to "trying to put out good products". Not that it's surprising, with a jackass like Chizen as CEO.
Lightroom is just about the only Adobe effort in recent years that comes close to "trying to put out good products". Not that it's surprising, with a jackass like Chizen as CEO.
I'm, er, glad to hear that. Perhaps you could explain to me why Photoshop still doesn't have a uniform interface for effects; some have previews, some don't, and some come in this huge window where you can mix some (but not all) together. Or why Photoshop still has a separate concept of manipulation layers, rather than allowing each effect to be applied as a live layer that you can separately toggle and modify afterwards.
The answer, of course, is cruft. It's an old software architecture that they haven't bothered to revamp in a long time, and why would they? They have all but eradicated competitors like LivePicture and X-RES, so they have no real incentive to actually work on the guts any more. It's a guaranteed cash cow.
I'm, er, glad to hear that. Perhaps you could explain to me why Photoshop still doesn't have a uniform interface for effects; some have previews, some don't, and some come in this huge window where you can mix some (but not all) together. Or why Photoshop still has a separate concept of manipulation layers, rather than allowing each effect to be applied as a live layer that you can separately toggle and modify afterwards.
The answer, of course, is cruft. It's an old software architecture that they haven't bothered to revamp in a long time, and why would they? They have all but eradicated competitors like LivePicture and X-RES, so they have no real incentive to actually work on the guts any more. It's a guaranteed cash cow.
I'll do the best I can.
PS is a rather large program. It was almost entirely rewritten back around ver. 5. That made it much easier to add and change features, and the way they are organized.
But, Adobe is constantly being assailed to add even more functionality. Sometimes we beta testers are at fault 8) .
But, it's tough to add these features in an even fashion. They put them where they think (not always correctly) that they best fit. As the program has expanded it's become even more difficult to add things, and keep the program orderly.
The programming model, much better than it used to be, may have to be revised again.
I do know that there had been some talk, a bit less than two years ago, of splitting the program into two, or even more parts, or modules. I don't know what's up with that. But it would entail a vast amount of work. for all I know, they are working on that in a parallel way, the way that Apple had x86 X working.
I also know that there has been discussion (arguments) of just how to revise the interface one more time.
This is such a big move that they are reluctant to rush into it.
The figuring, as much of it as I know, has been that people are so trained on the way the program works, that adding extras over time, even if it isn't in the best manner, is going to be easier on those already using the program than changing it, and confusing everybody. People live their lives inside this program. I used to use it anywhere from 4 to 12 hours a day myself.
Every couple of upgrades they rationalize the interface, and it gets better?for a while. Once more features get added, it begins to get crowded, and somewhat confusing again.
That's the best I can tell you. It's quite a job. It's one of the reasons why Adobe has been adding auxiliary programs, rather than simply adding the features directly to PS.
If it were simple, Lightroom might have become the new interface for PS. It might happen yet.
PS is a rather large program. It was almost entirely rewritten back around ver. 5. That made it much easier to add and change features, and the way they are organized.
Meanwhile, many of the effects date back in the interface to before version 5. Which, mind you, was released in 1998. So even if your assertion that it was "almost entirely rewritten [around that time]" is correct, that's almost a decade ago!
Quote:
But, Adobe is constantly being assailed to add even more functionality. Sometimes we beta testers are at fault 8) .
But, it's tough to add these features in an even fashion. They put them where they think (not always correctly) that they best fit. As the program has expanded it's become even more difficult to add things, and keep the program orderly.
The "patchwork" model of programming has never worked well. Microsoft Office is stumbling into that, and so is Adobe Photoshop. You keep adding features, finding some random empty spots to place them into the interface, and then wonder why the app keeps getting less and less usable.
Quote:
The programming model, much better than it used to be, may have to be revised again.
Ya think?
Quote:
I do know that there had been some talk, a bit less than two years ago, of splitting the program into two, or even more parts, or modules. I don't know what's up with that. But it would entail a vast amount of work. for all I know, they are working on that in a parallel way, the way that Apple had x86 X working.
I'm personally a strong proponent of such separation. Now that they have Lightroom, a lot of Photoshop's functionality is duplicated there anyway and could be removed from the "main app". Photoshop could then focus a lot better on editing, which is really what it should be all about.
Quote:
That's the best I can tell you. It's quite a job. It's one of the reasons why Adobe has been adding auxiliary programs, rather than simply adding the features directly to PS.
I think adding auxiliary programs is just the right way to go, but they need to show willingness to get rid of the cruft in the main app. Heck, since they're apparently so intent on making it a whole brand of apps, why not get rid of Photoshop itself altogether? We already have Photoshop Album for lightweight management, and Photoshop Lightroom for high-end management and workflow. Now all we need is a Photoshop app that focuses on editing, and then bundle them together.
Still, none of what you say actually relates to the fundamental lack of features such as GPU-accelerated real-time editing, or lossless editing of separate filters simultaneously.
I still sincerely hope that a worthwhile competitor will turn up again.
Meanwhile, many of the effects date back in the interface to before version 5. Which, mind you, was released in 1998. So even if your assertion that it was "almost entirely rewritten [around that time]" is correct, that's almost a decade ago!
Yes. It was. If you were around back then (using the program, I mean), you would have noticed that there were few major new features in the program. Almost all the effort had gone into the rewrite.
Quote:
The "patchwork" model of programming has never worked well. Microsoft Office is stumbling into that, and so is Adobe Photoshop. You keep adding features, finding some random empty spots to place them into the interface, and then wonder why the app keeps getting less and less usable.
The rewrite back then solved many of those problems. The program is more modular now then it was before. It is essentially a module for filters to be hung onto.
But, the program has grown even beyond what Adobe though it would, so, new problems have cropped up with that programming model.
Quote:
Ya think?
Yup!
Quote:
I'm personally a strong proponent of such separation. Now that they have Lightroom, a lot of Photoshop's functionality is duplicated there anyway and could be removed from the "main app". Photoshop could then focus a lot better on editing, which is really what it should be all about.
I'm sure, from what I hear, that they are looking at that. But my answer will continue as a response to your next proprosition.
Quote:
I think adding auxiliary programs is just the right way to go, but they need to show willingness to get rid of the cruft in the main app. Heck, since they're apparently so intent on making it a whole brand of apps, why not get rid of Photoshop itself altogether? We already have Photoshop Album for lightweight management, and Photoshop Lightroom for high-end management and workflow. Now all we need is a Photoshop app that focuses on editing, and then bundle them together.
It's a question of what to remove from PS, and what to add to Lightbox.
Adobe is stuck with the problem that people won't like being forced to buy another program to get some of the features they expect to be in PS.
They can't get rid of PS, and split its functions amongst several other programs. That would drive most people crazy! Many of us use features from disparate areas of the program.
Quote:
Still, none of what you say actually relates to the fundamental lack of features such as GPU-accelerated real-time editing, or lossless editing of separate filters simultaneously.
GPU accelerated editing is not an easy thing to do. It would require an entire rewrite of the engines used in the program. They would then have to keep the old engines in place, as many people who use the program do not have high end graphics cards. That's one of the best features of the program now.
Quote:
I still sincerely hope that a worthwhile competitor will turn up again.
That would be interesting, but none ever has. Corel's was considered to be pretty good. In some areas it was even better. But overall, like all of the others, it fell short.
A company would have to come out with a new program fullgrown, like athena growing from the head of Zeus. I'm not sure it can happen. It would then have to be 100% compatable with all of the other programs that have grown around PS's workflow. I'm not sure that can happen either.
MS has been showing its programs around, and there are some very interesting features there. But, it will be tied inextricably to Windows. No way we will ever be able to use it without Windows as well.
Yes. It was. If you were around back then (using the program, I mean), you would have noticed that there were few major new features in the program. Almost all the effort had gone into the rewrite.
I still have disks of Photoshop 1.1. I was "around".
Quote:
Adobe is stuck with the problem that people won't like being forced to buy another program to get some of the features they expect to be in PS.
Yes, and, on the other hand, those that want integration with Creative Suite, which somewhat clashes. Perhaps that is Photoshop's biggest problem: it tries to be both for photographers and for "creatives", mostly of the publishing type. That's two rather different purposes, really.
Quote:
They can't get rid of PS, and split its functions amongst several other programs. That would drive most people crazy! Many of us use features from disparate areas of the program.
I would love it. This model has worked exceedingly well for Apple's Production Suite / Final Cut Studio. All sorts of little apps like LiveType, Soundtrack Pro and Compressor. Yes, you could put all encoding functionality into Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Compressor. And you could add audio editing to Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Soundtrack Pro. But Apple decidedly didn't. The result is a slimmer UI on all ends. So people have to switch between apps more often? I don't think that's a problem.
Quote:
GPU accelerated editing is not an easy thing to do. Ir would require an entire rewrite of the engines used in the program.
Exactly my point. There's a time when deep cuts are necessary.
Quote:
They would then have to keep the old engines in place, as many people who use the program do not have high end graphics cards. That's one of the best features of the program now.
If Apple can do it, so can Adobe; their budgets aren't that different. Core Image degrades to people without a capable GPU.
Quote:
That would be interesting, but none ever has. Corel's was considered to be pretty good. In some areas it was even better. But overall, like all of the others, it fell short.
A company would have to come out with a new program fullgrown, like athena growing from the head of Zeus. I'm not sure it can happen. It would then have to be 100% compatable with all of the other programs that have grown around PS's workflow. I'm not sure that can happen either.
Go ten years back and you'd say the same about Quark XPress. Then InDesign came.
I still have disks of Photoshop 1.1. I was "around".
Me too!
Quote:
Yes, and, on the other hand, those that want integration with Creative Suite, which somewhat clashes. Perhaps that is Photoshop's biggest problem: it tries to be both for photographers and for "creatives", mostly of the publishing type. That's two rather different purposes, really.
It is a problem. But it's a tough nut to crack.
Quote:
I would love it. This model has worked exceedingly well for Apple's Production Suite / Final Cut Studio. All sorts of little apps like LiveType, Soundtrack Pro and Compressor. Yes, you could put all encoding functionality into Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Compressor. And you could add audio editing to Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Soundtrack Pro. But Apple decidedly didn't. The result is a slimmer UI on all ends. So people have to switch between apps more often? I don't think that's a problem.
Sure, if you're willing to buy the entire suite. But, if all you want or need is PS, then that won't work. You would be forcing people to buy the entire thing. Then they would complain (as many who use FCP have) that they are being forced to spend money on programs they don't need, or want.
Apple has also had the advantage of not having FCP around for 25 years. It was still fairly new, and all the "cruft" had not yet made its way into the program. so, when they added new ones, it was considered to be seperate, and extra.
Remember though, that earlier on they sold Cinema Tools seperately (I bought it). Then they gave it away for free. Then they integrated its functions within FCP. Some things are better within the main program.
One problem Premiere had was when Dv came out, there was no way to directly bring the material into the program. So Edit Dv sprang up (I bought that too). That worked very well, but had way too few features.
When Adobe did come out with input features, it was a seperate program, basically, strung onto Premeire. Clumsy.
FCP had all of that well thought out.
Quote:
Exactly my point. There's a time when deep cuts are necessary.
Agreed. But figuring out which ones is hard. Some people won't be happy.
Quote:
If Apple can do it, so can Adobe; their budgets aren't that different. Core Image degrades to people without a capable GPU.
Again, remember that PS was around long before FCP.
Quote:
Go ten years back and you'd say the same about Quark XPress. Then InDesign came.
Well, there always were numerous DP programs. I have most of them. So that isn't as much as an issue.
Also Adobe had Pagemaker from Aldus. While Adobe let it fall behind (not all their fault, as Aldus had almost let it die), it was well known. They also had Postscript, Type 1 fonts, PDF, etc. Adobe was not an interloper within the publishing business.
But, even today, it can be difficult to get a file from InDesign through the publishing process. Many firms still demand a Quark file. So far, InDesign has about 30+% of the market. So it still has a ways to go.
Sure, if you're willing to buy the entire suite. But, if all you want or need is PS, then that won't work. You would be forcing people to buy the entire thing. Then they would complain (as many who use FCP have) that they are being forced to spend money on programs they don't need, or want.
Can't please everyone.
Quote:
Remember though, that earlier on they sold Cinema Tools seperately (I bought it). Then they gave it away for free. Then they integrated its functions within FCP. Some things are better within the main program.
IIRC, that was for historic reasons. Cinema Tools had been bought and re-branded from another company, then first sold separately (another $999, no?), then bundled, and finally integrated. If they had originally made it in-house, they probably would have integrated it right from the start.
But yes, some things are indeed better left integrated.
Quote:
Again, remember that PS was around long before FCP.
Yes, of course. I wouldn't be surprised to see FCP hit the same wall in maybe five or ten years from now.
This isn't specific to Adobe. I'm not even saying it's incompetence on the engineers' part. They have a lot of capable people. However, the management seems very unwilling to allow for revolutionary changes, and prefer to stick to "proven cash-cows". I'm sure I would appreciate it if I were an Adobe stockholder, but instead, my perspectives are Usability and Software Development, and from that point of view, Adobe's apparent attitude bugs me to no end.
Quote:
Well, there always were numerous DP programs. I have most of them. So that isn't as much as an issue.
There were alternatives, but XPress was the de facto standard. There were so many XTensions, too.
Quote:
Also Adobe had Pagemaker from Aldus. While Adobe let it fall behind (not all their fault, as Aldus had almost let it die), it was well known. They also had Postscript, Type 1 fonts, PDF, etc. Adobe was not an interloper within the publishing business.
True.
Quote:
But, even today, it can be difficult to get a file from InDesign through the publishing process. Many firms still demand a Quark file. So far, InDesign has about 30+% of the market. So it still has a ways to go.
Admittedly, I have underestimated Quark's dominance even today.
IIRC, that was for historic reasons. Cinema Tools had been bought and re-branded from another company, then first sold separately (another $999, no?), then bundled, and finally integrated. If they had originally made it in-house, they probably would have integrated it right from the start.
But yes, some things are indeed better left integrated.
Yes, of course. I wouldn't be surprised to see FCP hit the same wall in maybe five or ten years from now.
This isn't specific to Adobe. I'm not even saying it's incompetence on the engineers' part. They have a lot of capable people. However, the management seems very unwilling to allow for revolutionary changes, and prefer to stick to "proven cash-cows". I'm sure I would appreciate it if I were an Adobe stockholder, but instead, my perspectives are Usability and Software Development, and from that point of view, Adobe's apparent attitude bugs me to no end.
There were alternatives, but XPress was the de facto standard. There were so many XTensions, too.
True.
Admittedly, I have underestimated Quark's dominance even today.
I think that we basically agree on most of these things, but with a somewhat different perspective.
It's an interesting conversation. (And for this group, an unusually calm one as well.)
Unfortunately, I have to get to bed, as I have to get up early. So, if you want to continue, I'll have to get back to you tomorrow.
Comments
Yes, but did you actually SoundJam MP? iTunes shares some code, but the interface is thousands of times better.
The same goes for DVD Studio Pro, some of which can be read in http://writersblocklive.com/ . The product Apple bought was pretty terrible.
I'm assuming that Final Cut Pro went through the same process.
Logic and Shake are still dogs of course, but Shake's huge and what was eMagic apparently isn't particularly cooperative.
We'll have to wait and see where Adobe goes in the future (hopefully in the direction of Lightroom), but yeah, until then, it seems Adobe's pretty incapable of meeting basic needs that people have been asking for for years (like making 16-bit editing actually work, getting some more filters live like they are in After Effects, etc...), let alone making a decent interface.
Of course they underwent many changes. This will always happen.
I used the programs when Astarte first brought them over. for the time, they were considered to be fantastic. And were much cheaper than anything else out there.
I don't agree that Shake and Logic are dogs at all. You're just saying that becasue they haven't been changed much.
I don't see why that's true.
Apple bought the predecessors to:
DVD Studio, Final Cut Pro, iTunes, Shake, Logic Pro
Plus a couple of others I don't remember right now, and, oh yes,
OS X.
Apple doesn't innovate either, right?
The difference is that as Apple has bought or licensed other products, it has been working on innovating the OS, developed Core level features, created hardware innovations and taken pro apps into the consumer realm.
Adobe has innovated of course, but not to as great a degree. Working PS, InDesign, Illustrator, etc. into a suite of tools is quite an accomplishment, but it also had to buy out some of its biggest competitors along the way like Aldus and Macromedia. That would be comparable to Apple buying Sony Computer and Adobe itself - taking out mature competitors as opposed to acquiring small companies with specific tech and converting them to consumer-ready products.
Yes, I know Shake and Logic were mature and I think neither is a "dog" but those are the exceptions that define the rule.
PS And I think Apple/Steve had something to do with the predecessor to OSX.
Buying someone out is easy for a number of reasons.
First off, as you pointed out, most of the people in one are pretty experienced and focused on that particular task. Startups (at least these days) don't have cash to waste, and hire only the best. Apple would have a really hard time just finding people with extensive DVD or audio experience.
Also, in cases like Logic and Shake, they're buying a whole customer base. If Apple just came out with a new compositing tool, no one would buy it. But no Shake user is going to migrate away, probably not even now that Apple is rewriting the code (supposedly).
Finally, to answer your question, I was actually a little unclear: I meant terrible in regards to the interface. Fixing the interface is pretty quick once the functionality is all down. In all of the cases, the code itself was good.
Thanks, that clears it up for me.
The difference is that as Apple has bought or licensed other products, it has been working on innovating the OS, developed Core level features, created hardware innovations and taken pro apps into the consumer realm.
Adobe has innovated of course, but not to as great a degree. Working PS, InDesign, Illustrator, etc. into a suite of tools is quite an accomplishment, but it also had to buy out some of its biggest competitors along the way like Aldus and Macromedia. That would be comparable to Apple buying Sony Computer and Adobe itself - taking out mature competitors as opposed to acquiring small companies with specific tech and converting them to consumer-ready products.
Yes, I know Shake and Logic were mature and I think neither is a "dog" but those are the exceptions that define the rule.
PS And I think Apple/Steve had something to do with the predecessor to OSX.
Adobe has been one of the great software innovators. Postscript, Postscript Type 1 and 3 fonts, Photoshop (turning it from a small graphics conversion program to what it became), and Acrobat (PDF) would be enough to seal Adobe's place in history.
But, buying other companies is not a reason to be dismissive. Gregmightdothat's post was right on several counts as to why a company might want to buy another.
It also works when one established company buys another established company. Macromedia was on the block. It was well know that they were looking for buyers. They had some good products and technologies even if you don't think so. They just weren't big enough to afford the R&D needed to advance.
I was hoping that Apple would buy them.
What matters is what a company does with the products it acquires, not that it has acquired them.
Adobe has been one of the great software innovators. Postscript, Postscript Type 1 and 3 fonts, Photoshop (turning it from a small graphics conversion program to what it became), and Acrobat (PDF) would be enough to seal Adobe's place in history.
But, buying other companies is not a reason to be dismissive. Gregmightdothat's post was right on several counts as to why a company might want to buy another.
It also works when one established company buys another established company. Macromedia was on the block. It was well know that they were looking for buyers. They had some good products and technologies even if you don't think so. They just weren't big enough to afford the R&D needed to advance.
I was hoping that Apple would buy them.
What matters is what a company does with the products it acquires, not that it has acquired them.
Yes, Adobe was a great innovator and is still an innovator.
Yes, aquisition of mature companies, especially in a mature market is desireable.
I'm not arguing Business 101 crap. I'm sure Macromedia wanted to be bought and Adobe is wise to buy them. So what? I'm not dissmissing them.
My opinion is that Adobe's innovation has slowed down recently ... specifically their post production video applications (the whole point of this thread by the way). I would like to see Adobe innovate more and I'm sure they will now that CS2 development is behind them and they have begun playing with Macromedia code for a while.
My point: Adobe innovation = 6.5 (down from historic highs of 9) Apple innovation = 8.5
And sometimes when a company has more money than ideas, it buys those ideas from companies with more ideas than money. THAT is also in Business 101.
Good 'nuff
Yes, Adobe was a great innovator and is still an innovator.
Yes, aquisition of mature companies, especially in a mature market is desireable.
I'm not arguing Business 101 crap. I'm sure Macromedia wanted to be bought and Adobe is wise to buy them. So what? I'm not dissmissing them.
My opinion is that Adobe's innovation has slowed down recently ... specifically their post production video applications (the whole point of this thread by the way). I would like to see Adobe innovate more and I'm sure they will now that CS2 development is behind them and they have begun playing with Macromedia code for a while.
My point: Adobe innovation = 6.5 (down from historic highs of 9) Apple innovation = 8.5
And sometimes when a company has more money than ideas, it buys those ideas from companies with more ideas than money. THAT is also in Business 101.
Good 'nuff
These things flow and ebb. It's impossible to continue innovating year after year.
Apple can't do that either. No one can.
Sometimes it's simply too expensive, and risky, to develop something from scratch. If good IP is available, then it's stupid not to buy it.
I've been upset over the years that Apple didn't buy some innovative programs when they came up for sale really cheap. Corel bought them instead, and couldn't afford to treat them right. Now they've been sold again. Too bad. These fit directly into Apple's needs.
Shareholders first, good products second.
Of course! I would expect nothing else. But most companies actually try to put out good products. Some just do better than others.
Lightroom is just about the only Adobe effort in recent years that comes close to "trying to put out good products". Not that it's surprising, with a jackass like Chizen as CEO.
You're entitled to your opinion.
The answer, of course, is cruft. It's an old software architecture that they haven't bothered to revamp in a long time, and why would they? They have all but eradicated competitors like LivePicture and X-RES, so they have no real incentive to actually work on the guts any more. It's a guaranteed cash cow.
I'm, er, glad to hear that. Perhaps you could explain to me why Photoshop still doesn't have a uniform interface for effects; some have previews, some don't, and some come in this huge window where you can mix some (but not all) together. Or why Photoshop still has a separate concept of manipulation layers, rather than allowing each effect to be applied as a live layer that you can separately toggle and modify afterwards.
The answer, of course, is cruft. It's an old software architecture that they haven't bothered to revamp in a long time, and why would they? They have all but eradicated competitors like LivePicture and X-RES, so they have no real incentive to actually work on the guts any more. It's a guaranteed cash cow.
I'll do the best I can.
PS is a rather large program. It was almost entirely rewritten back around ver. 5. That made it much easier to add and change features, and the way they are organized.
But, Adobe is constantly being assailed to add even more functionality. Sometimes we beta testers are at fault 8) .
But, it's tough to add these features in an even fashion. They put them where they think (not always correctly) that they best fit. As the program has expanded it's become even more difficult to add things, and keep the program orderly.
The programming model, much better than it used to be, may have to be revised again.
I do know that there had been some talk, a bit less than two years ago, of splitting the program into two, or even more parts, or modules. I don't know what's up with that. But it would entail a vast amount of work. for all I know, they are working on that in a parallel way, the way that Apple had x86 X working.
I also know that there has been discussion (arguments) of just how to revise the interface one more time.
This is such a big move that they are reluctant to rush into it.
The figuring, as much of it as I know, has been that people are so trained on the way the program works, that adding extras over time, even if it isn't in the best manner, is going to be easier on those already using the program than changing it, and confusing everybody. People live their lives inside this program. I used to use it anywhere from 4 to 12 hours a day myself.
Every couple of upgrades they rationalize the interface, and it gets better?for a while. Once more features get added, it begins to get crowded, and somewhat confusing again.
That's the best I can tell you. It's quite a job. It's one of the reasons why Adobe has been adding auxiliary programs, rather than simply adding the features directly to PS.
If it were simple, Lightroom might have become the new interface for PS. It might happen yet.
I'll do the best I can.
PS is a rather large program. It was almost entirely rewritten back around ver. 5. That made it much easier to add and change features, and the way they are organized.
Meanwhile, many of the effects date back in the interface to before version 5. Which, mind you, was released in 1998. So even if your assertion that it was "almost entirely rewritten [around that time]" is correct, that's almost a decade ago!
But, Adobe is constantly being assailed to add even more functionality. Sometimes we beta testers are at fault 8) .
But, it's tough to add these features in an even fashion. They put them where they think (not always correctly) that they best fit. As the program has expanded it's become even more difficult to add things, and keep the program orderly.
The "patchwork" model of programming has never worked well. Microsoft Office is stumbling into that, and so is Adobe Photoshop. You keep adding features, finding some random empty spots to place them into the interface, and then wonder why the app keeps getting less and less usable.
The programming model, much better than it used to be, may have to be revised again.
Ya think?
I do know that there had been some talk, a bit less than two years ago, of splitting the program into two, or even more parts, or modules. I don't know what's up with that. But it would entail a vast amount of work. for all I know, they are working on that in a parallel way, the way that Apple had x86 X working.
I'm personally a strong proponent of such separation. Now that they have Lightroom, a lot of Photoshop's functionality is duplicated there anyway and could be removed from the "main app". Photoshop could then focus a lot better on editing, which is really what it should be all about.
That's the best I can tell you. It's quite a job. It's one of the reasons why Adobe has been adding auxiliary programs, rather than simply adding the features directly to PS.
I think adding auxiliary programs is just the right way to go, but they need to show willingness to get rid of the cruft in the main app. Heck, since they're apparently so intent on making it a whole brand of apps, why not get rid of Photoshop itself altogether? We already have Photoshop Album for lightweight management, and Photoshop Lightroom for high-end management and workflow. Now all we need is a Photoshop app that focuses on editing, and then bundle them together.
Still, none of what you say actually relates to the fundamental lack of features such as GPU-accelerated real-time editing, or lossless editing of separate filters simultaneously.
I still sincerely hope that a worthwhile competitor will turn up again.
Meanwhile, many of the effects date back in the interface to before version 5. Which, mind you, was released in 1998. So even if your assertion that it was "almost entirely rewritten [around that time]" is correct, that's almost a decade ago!
Yes. It was. If you were around back then (using the program, I mean), you would have noticed that there were few major new features in the program. Almost all the effort had gone into the rewrite.
The "patchwork" model of programming has never worked well. Microsoft Office is stumbling into that, and so is Adobe Photoshop. You keep adding features, finding some random empty spots to place them into the interface, and then wonder why the app keeps getting less and less usable.
The rewrite back then solved many of those problems. The program is more modular now then it was before. It is essentially a module for filters to be hung onto.
But, the program has grown even beyond what Adobe though it would, so, new problems have cropped up with that programming model.
Ya think?
Yup!
I'm personally a strong proponent of such separation. Now that they have Lightroom, a lot of Photoshop's functionality is duplicated there anyway and could be removed from the "main app". Photoshop could then focus a lot better on editing, which is really what it should be all about.
I'm sure, from what I hear, that they are looking at that. But my answer will continue as a response to your next proprosition.
I think adding auxiliary programs is just the right way to go, but they need to show willingness to get rid of the cruft in the main app. Heck, since they're apparently so intent on making it a whole brand of apps, why not get rid of Photoshop itself altogether? We already have Photoshop Album for lightweight management, and Photoshop Lightroom for high-end management and workflow. Now all we need is a Photoshop app that focuses on editing, and then bundle them together.
It's a question of what to remove from PS, and what to add to Lightbox.
Adobe is stuck with the problem that people won't like being forced to buy another program to get some of the features they expect to be in PS.
They can't get rid of PS, and split its functions amongst several other programs. That would drive most people crazy! Many of us use features from disparate areas of the program.
Still, none of what you say actually relates to the fundamental lack of features such as GPU-accelerated real-time editing, or lossless editing of separate filters simultaneously.
GPU accelerated editing is not an easy thing to do. It would require an entire rewrite of the engines used in the program. They would then have to keep the old engines in place, as many people who use the program do not have high end graphics cards. That's one of the best features of the program now.
I still sincerely hope that a worthwhile competitor will turn up again.
That would be interesting, but none ever has. Corel's was considered to be pretty good. In some areas it was even better. But overall, like all of the others, it fell short.
A company would have to come out with a new program fullgrown, like athena growing from the head of Zeus. I'm not sure it can happen. It would then have to be 100% compatable with all of the other programs that have grown around PS's workflow. I'm not sure that can happen either.
MS has been showing its programs around, and there are some very interesting features there. But, it will be tied inextricably to Windows. No way we will ever be able to use it without Windows as well.
There's nothing else on the horizon.
EDITED for spelling, etc. Sorry about that!
Yes. It was. If you were around back then (using the program, I mean), you would have noticed that there were few major new features in the program. Almost all the effort had gone into the rewrite.
I still have disks of Photoshop 1.1. I was "around".
Adobe is stuck with the problem that people won't like being forced to buy another program to get some of the features they expect to be in PS.
Yes, and, on the other hand, those that want integration with Creative Suite, which somewhat clashes. Perhaps that is Photoshop's biggest problem: it tries to be both for photographers and for "creatives", mostly of the publishing type. That's two rather different purposes, really.
They can't get rid of PS, and split its functions amongst several other programs. That would drive most people crazy! Many of us use features from disparate areas of the program.
I would love it. This model has worked exceedingly well for Apple's Production Suite / Final Cut Studio. All sorts of little apps like LiveType, Soundtrack Pro and Compressor. Yes, you could put all encoding functionality into Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Compressor. And you could add audio editing to Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Soundtrack Pro. But Apple decidedly didn't. The result is a slimmer UI on all ends. So people have to switch between apps more often? I don't think that's a problem.
GPU accelerated editing is not an easy thing to do. Ir would require an entire rewrite of the engines used in the program.
Exactly my point.
They would then have to keep the old engines in place, as many people who use the program do not have high end graphics cards. That's one of the best features of the program now.
If Apple can do it, so can Adobe; their budgets aren't that different. Core Image degrades to people without a capable GPU.
That would be interesting, but none ever has. Corel's was considered to be pretty good. In some areas it was even better. But overall, like all of the others, it fell short.
A company would have to come out with a new program fullgrown, like athena growing from the head of Zeus. I'm not sure it can happen. It would then have to be 100% compatable with all of the other programs that have grown around PS's workflow. I'm not sure that can happen either.
Go ten years back and you'd say the same about Quark XPress. Then InDesign came.
I still have disks of Photoshop 1.1. I was "around".
By "around", do you mean you were five?
I still have disks of Photoshop 1.1. I was "around".
Me too!
Yes, and, on the other hand, those that want integration with Creative Suite, which somewhat clashes. Perhaps that is Photoshop's biggest problem: it tries to be both for photographers and for "creatives", mostly of the publishing type. That's two rather different purposes, really.
It is a problem. But it's a tough nut to crack.
I would love it. This model has worked exceedingly well for Apple's Production Suite / Final Cut Studio. All sorts of little apps like LiveType, Soundtrack Pro and Compressor. Yes, you could put all encoding functionality into Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Compressor. And you could add audio editing to Final Cut Pro itself, and get rid of Soundtrack Pro. But Apple decidedly didn't. The result is a slimmer UI on all ends. So people have to switch between apps more often? I don't think that's a problem.
Sure, if you're willing to buy the entire suite. But, if all you want or need is PS, then that won't work. You would be forcing people to buy the entire thing. Then they would complain (as many who use FCP have) that they are being forced to spend money on programs they don't need, or want.
Apple has also had the advantage of not having FCP around for 25 years. It was still fairly new, and all the "cruft" had not yet made its way into the program. so, when they added new ones, it was considered to be seperate, and extra.
Remember though, that earlier on they sold Cinema Tools seperately (I bought it). Then they gave it away for free. Then they integrated its functions within FCP. Some things are better within the main program.
One problem Premiere had was when Dv came out, there was no way to directly bring the material into the program. So Edit Dv sprang up (I bought that too). That worked very well, but had way too few features.
When Adobe did come out with input features, it was a seperate program, basically, strung onto Premeire. Clumsy.
FCP had all of that well thought out.
Exactly my point.
Agreed. But figuring out which ones is hard. Some people won't be happy.
If Apple can do it, so can Adobe; their budgets aren't that different. Core Image degrades to people without a capable GPU.
Again, remember that PS was around long before FCP.
Go ten years back and you'd say the same about Quark XPress. Then InDesign came.
Well, there always were numerous DP programs. I have most of them. So that isn't as much as an issue.
Also Adobe had Pagemaker from Aldus. While Adobe let it fall behind (not all their fault, as Aldus had almost let it die), it was well known. They also had Postscript, Type 1 fonts, PDF, etc. Adobe was not an interloper within the publishing business.
But, even today, it can be difficult to get a file from InDesign through the publishing process. Many firms still demand a Quark file. So far, InDesign has about 30+% of the market. So it still has a ways to go.
Sure, if you're willing to buy the entire suite. But, if all you want or need is PS, then that won't work. You would be forcing people to buy the entire thing. Then they would complain (as many who use FCP have) that they are being forced to spend money on programs they don't need, or want.
Can't please everyone.
Remember though, that earlier on they sold Cinema Tools seperately (I bought it). Then they gave it away for free. Then they integrated its functions within FCP. Some things are better within the main program.
IIRC, that was for historic reasons. Cinema Tools had been bought and re-branded from another company, then first sold separately (another $999, no?), then bundled, and finally integrated. If they had originally made it in-house, they probably would have integrated it right from the start.
But yes, some things are indeed better left integrated.
Again, remember that PS was around long before FCP.
Yes, of course. I wouldn't be surprised to see FCP hit the same wall in maybe five or ten years from now.
This isn't specific to Adobe. I'm not even saying it's incompetence on the engineers' part. They have a lot of capable people. However, the management seems very unwilling to allow for revolutionary changes, and prefer to stick to "proven cash-cows". I'm sure I would appreciate it if I were an Adobe stockholder, but instead, my perspectives are Usability and Software Development, and from that point of view, Adobe's apparent attitude bugs me to no end.
Well, there always were numerous DP programs. I have most of them. So that isn't as much as an issue.
There were alternatives, but XPress was the de facto standard. There were so many XTensions, too.
Also Adobe had Pagemaker from Aldus. While Adobe let it fall behind (not all their fault, as Aldus had almost let it die), it was well known. They also had Postscript, Type 1 fonts, PDF, etc. Adobe was not an interloper within the publishing business.
True.
But, even today, it can be difficult to get a file from InDesign through the publishing process. Many firms still demand a Quark file. So far, InDesign has about 30+% of the market. So it still has a ways to go.
Admittedly, I have underestimated Quark's dominance even today.
Can't please everyone.
IIRC, that was for historic reasons. Cinema Tools had been bought and re-branded from another company, then first sold separately (another $999, no?), then bundled, and finally integrated. If they had originally made it in-house, they probably would have integrated it right from the start.
But yes, some things are indeed better left integrated.
Yes, of course. I wouldn't be surprised to see FCP hit the same wall in maybe five or ten years from now.
This isn't specific to Adobe. I'm not even saying it's incompetence on the engineers' part. They have a lot of capable people. However, the management seems very unwilling to allow for revolutionary changes, and prefer to stick to "proven cash-cows". I'm sure I would appreciate it if I were an Adobe stockholder, but instead, my perspectives are Usability and Software Development, and from that point of view, Adobe's apparent attitude bugs me to no end.
There were alternatives, but XPress was the de facto standard. There were so many XTensions, too.
True.
Admittedly, I have underestimated Quark's dominance even today.
I think that we basically agree on most of these things, but with a somewhat different perspective.
It's an interesting conversation. (And for this group, an unusually calm one as well.)
Unfortunately, I have to get to bed, as I have to get up early. So, if you want to continue, I'll have to get back to you tomorrow.
I think that we basically agree on most of these things, but with a somewhat different perspective.
It's an interesting conversation. (And for this group, an unusually calm one as well.)
Indeed.