Apple's got the dough, and although I'm not a fan of hostile takeovers, I think this would be a wise move.
I'm on the fence about this... It would be good to secure your core users with the software they need.. but on the other hand how much power should apple have over what we use?
"Speaking with 50 Adobe customers" hardly qualifies as a serious research.
Are these 50 customers Mac users searching for a replacements for their current mac systems? Or are they a mixed group? etc... A lot of questions un answered in this report..
Maybe we'll be seeing a graphics/photo editor as a new app in iLife 07... or maybe they'd want to release a pro version. Oooo... I love rampant speculation
I could have sworn that iLife already had a Photo Editor in it.
I don't really qualify iPhoto as a photo editor, although I guess it technically is. It functions much more as a photo organizer. I meant one that would do both!
I totally agreee. I don't like not having a choice...
I wonder if this makes apple nervous, I mean if adobe decides not to make CS4 for some reason.. apple would loose a lot of folks.
flick.
Perhaps a few of you should look at the Apple/Adobe history and in particular, the relationship between the two head honchos now. Adobe has admitted many times over that without Apple, there would be no Adobe.
If you go back and review Steve's keynote for the introduction of the Intel Mac and listen carefully to Adobe's response, it is extremely evident how close these two are As most knowledgeable pundits are saying, just wait till the next iteration of Adobe's Creative Suite. For sure it won't be like a Holiday Inn in Kansas, but more like a Trump Towers in Dubai.
Unfortunately, for some it will seem like it costs cost as such. Thus the difference between Apple and Adobe. Pure, simple and inexpensive vs. comprehensive, difficult and expensive. But hey, it is all relative.
Adobe waiting this long is just a cynical ploy to get everyone on intel macs to have to pay full pop for CS3 instead of just downloading an update, which is what they should have done.
Adobe is not waiting for anything other than the completion of the development of the next version of the Creative Suite. This is not a ploy, this is going to be a major update, even more so on the Mac than on Windows. Their entire codebase will be moved to Xcode, and there is a good chance that us Mac users will see great performace gains because of it.
Would it have been nice to have CS2 as a universal binary? Sure it would... but I for one am glad Adobe is focusing their efforts on making CS3 the best it can, rather than updating a soon to be outdated product. If they had already had ported their codebase to Xcode, Im sure they would have released a universal binary as soon as the first Intel Macs came out, but they hadnt, and if Apple hadnt moved to Intel chips, they probably still wouldnt have moved to Xcode. The move most certainly forced their hand and are now playing catch up (Im not making excuses for them, just stating facts).
I also dont understand why people are worried that Adobe will somehow leave the Mac platform. If those people were at all familiar with the industry, they would know that there are many Adobe employees that use the Mac as their primary platform of choice. Plus, the overwhelming majority (not all) of the top Adobe users (Bert Monroy, John Paul Caponigro, etc.) and top evangelists (Scott Kelby, Dave Cross, Russell Brown, Terry White, etc.) are Mac users. I think that speaks quite clearly to the fact that Adobe is devoted to the Mac platform.
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! But for the moment, these are (in my opinion) the best tools for the jobs they aim to accomplish.
I don't put much stock into this report. First of all you can come out with those numbers simply based on talking to 50 people. Secondly they said the same thing about the OS X and Photoshop. After Adobe came out with a OS X version sales did not pick up much. What will drive Mac sales will be the ability to run Windows and Mac at the same time.
well, os x was software. so i'm not sure how you track whether or not os x adoption went up with the release of a native version of photoshop. besides, photoshop and illustrator weren't all that late going to os x. the big laggard was quark. apple was selling machines capable of booting into os 9 for a year longer than they wanted because quark couldn't get their crap together.
i'm a creative pro who is waiting for cs3 to be released. i have two powerbooks and quad tower at the moment. none of these machines will be updated until native creative suite is released. i bought the newer powerbook and tower at the highest point in the specs for ppc machines specifically to wait out this transition. at this point there is absolutely no reason for me to upgrade even though my irrational mac fanboy side wants to buy a new macbook just for the hell of it. i figured i'd wait out the first generation of intel machines until creative suite was ready to roll natively.
as far as adobe is concerned, i have some insight into that as i have family that works there as programmers. the xcode development environment was really really bad for the programmers there and it caused a lot of delays in the work being ported over. also, a lot of the code in the main apps is very old. stuff that relied on pre-powerpc processors that has just been bondo'd over and over to work. it generally worked fine because they were at least still in the same processor ballpark. but the switch to intel is a much larger undertaking for them. i'm not suggesting that they're above some gamesmanship when it comes to forcing upgrades. but that's not the only reason why they're waiting for cs3 to go intel-native. it's not really something that can be "patched".
i'm fine with it really. the wait is a bit longer than i expected but the quad is humming along and my powerbook 1.67 isn't too frustrating yet. although i am anxiously awaiting the opportunity for some core2duo goodness in a mbp.
It's a sad fact that Apple are at the mercy of these bigger companies so whether or not the stats are ambiguous, the conclusion seems sound. In fact, it wouldn't matter if there hadn't been a survey at all.
We know how much creative people need the likes of Maya, the CS Suite, the Macromedia suite and Microsoft Office and Rosetta is not reliable enough to run a business with. IMO, CS3 will drive sales up quite a bit. What I really wish though is that Adobe would release their devkit for free so that more plugin developers would make plugins that support Mac.
One big kicker I see is that I doubt CS3 will even support CFM binaries just like Maya doesn't so that will immediately break every existing plugin for the Mac.
And if you think Apple doesn't have a secret prototype of a Photoshop competitor in their labs based on their work with Aperture, you are kidding yourself.
And if you think Apple doesn't have a secret prototype of a Photoshop competitor in their labs based on their work with Aperture, you are kidding yourself.
The problems are InDesign and (now) Dreamweaver, that's all.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
One can only hope Apple has a killer suite they've been working on.
I'm not sure what that means. But the document standard is PDF. It's integrated into the OS. The display technology is based on Apple's own technologies. Next had Display Postcript.
I'm over my head on this one, but I thought the Core graphics engine of OSX was entirely based on Adobe's technology (PDF). Perhaps you could explain exactly what PDF does or does not entail.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
One can only hope Apple has a killer suite they've been working on.
Ah, 88! I still have the "Adobe Illustrator 88 The Official Handbook For Designers" book on my shelf.
I'm over my head on this one, but I thought the Core graphics engine of OSX was entirely based on Adobe's technology (PDF). Perhaps you could explain exactly what PDF does or does not entail.
It would be too difficult for me to explain "exactly" what it is to Apple.
Apple's got the dough, and although I'm not a fan of hostile takeovers, I think this would be a wise move.
Imagine if they could integrate Shake, Final Cut, Motion, After Effects, Flash, Dreamweaver, iWeb. The world's best digital editing and content delivery suite. Then they'd make it for Mac, Linux and Windows. What I find is that people are more likely to support your systems if you support theirs.
For example Windows users who can't buy Final Cut just won't, they'll get Avid.
The thing is, if Apple don't buy the likes of Adobe then what's to stop Microsoft? Can you imagine what would happen to Apple if Microsoft did that just like Apple did with logic? I'd say the Adobe suite is probably the most important set of programs to Mac users.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
One can only hope Apple has a killer suite they've been working on.
Yeha after the suggestion about Line form i Dl'd it and gave it a shot.. it is hard to use, I like the rounded corner controls.. No masks makes it totally useless.
Imagine if they could integrate Shake, Final Cut, Motion, After Effects, Flash, Dreamweaver, iWeb. The world's best digital editing and content delivery suite. Then they'd make it for Mac, Linux and Windows. What I find is that people are more likely to support your systems if you support theirs.
For example Windows users who can't buy Final Cut just won't, they'll get Avid.
The thing is, if Apple don't buy the likes of Adobe then what's to stop Microsoft? Can you imagine what would happen to Apple if Microsoft did that just like Apple did with logic? I'd say the Adobe suite is probably the most important set of programs to Mac users.
Apple could have done it before Adobe's Macromedia aquisition, but now, it would be too expensive, and Apple would have to take on a lot of long term debt, which they are genetically opposed to.
They have had a lot of opportunities to cheaply buy critical programs over the years, and they have not done so, even though those programs would have significantly strenthened their graphics line-up, and would even have given them a much stronger iWork suite.
Spending perhaps $7 to $10 billion for Adobe is just not in the cards. They would also have to deal with all of those Windows programs which they likely don't want to do.
MS, being a monopoly owner of both Windows and Office, could probably not get approval to buy Adobe, even if they wanted to.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
I understand that any competitors will face maturity issues, but the fact that Lineform and now ZeusDraw have appeared on the Mac is a very good sign.
At least Adobe has some nimble competitors with software that is Xcode based, Intel-compatible and available right now.
Comments
Preview isn't useful creation software. PDF's can be made in almost ecery Mac program as Apple standardized on it. Editing is different.
Acrobat Reader competes with Preview. It is free.
Ahh, I thought the standard being talked about WAS the equivilent to Preview.. my bad.
Then apple should give Preview editing capabilities.
flick.
Apple's got the dough, and although I'm not a fan of hostile takeovers, I think this would be a wise move.
Apple should buy Adobe out.
Apple's got the dough, and although I'm not a fan of hostile takeovers, I think this would be a wise move.
I'm on the fence about this... It would be good to secure your core users with the software they need.. but on the other hand how much power should apple have over what we use?
flick.
Are these 50 customers Mac users searching for a replacements for their current mac systems? Or are they a mixed group? etc... A lot of questions un answered in this report..
I could have sworn that iLife already had a Photo Editor in it.
I don't really qualify iPhoto as a photo editor, although I guess it technically is. It functions much more as a photo organizer. I meant one that would do both!
I totally agreee. I don't like not having a choice...
I wonder if this makes apple nervous, I mean if adobe decides not to make CS4 for some reason.. apple would loose a lot of folks.
flick.
Perhaps a few of you should look at the Apple/Adobe history and in particular, the relationship between the two head honchos now. Adobe has admitted many times over that without Apple, there would be no Adobe.
If you go back and review Steve's keynote for the introduction of the Intel Mac and listen carefully to Adobe's response, it is extremely evident how close these two are As most knowledgeable pundits are saying, just wait till the next iteration of Adobe's Creative Suite. For sure it won't be like a Holiday Inn in Kansas, but more like a Trump Towers in Dubai.
Unfortunately, for some it will seem like it costs cost as such. Thus the difference between Apple and Adobe. Pure, simple and inexpensive vs. comprehensive, difficult and expensive. But hey, it is all relative.
Adobe waiting this long is just a cynical ploy to get everyone on intel macs to have to pay full pop for CS3 instead of just downloading an update, which is what they should have done.
Adobe is not waiting for anything other than the completion of the development of the next version of the Creative Suite. This is not a ploy, this is going to be a major update, even more so on the Mac than on Windows. Their entire codebase will be moved to Xcode, and there is a good chance that us Mac users will see great performace gains because of it.
Would it have been nice to have CS2 as a universal binary? Sure it would... but I for one am glad Adobe is focusing their efforts on making CS3 the best it can, rather than updating a soon to be outdated product. If they had already had ported their codebase to Xcode, Im sure they would have released a universal binary as soon as the first Intel Macs came out, but they hadnt, and if Apple hadnt moved to Intel chips, they probably still wouldnt have moved to Xcode. The move most certainly forced their hand and are now playing catch up (Im not making excuses for them, just stating facts).
I also dont understand why people are worried that Adobe will somehow leave the Mac platform. If those people were at all familiar with the industry, they would know that there are many Adobe employees that use the Mac as their primary platform of choice. Plus, the overwhelming majority (not all) of the top Adobe users (Bert Monroy, John Paul Caponigro, etc.) and top evangelists (Scott Kelby, Dave Cross, Russell Brown, Terry White, etc.) are Mac users. I think that speaks quite clearly to the fact that Adobe is devoted to the Mac platform.
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! But for the moment, these are (in my opinion) the best tools for the jobs they aim to accomplish.
I don't put much stock into this report. First of all you can come out with those numbers simply based on talking to 50 people. Secondly they said the same thing about the OS X and Photoshop. After Adobe came out with a OS X version sales did not pick up much. What will drive Mac sales will be the ability to run Windows and Mac at the same time.
well, os x was software. so i'm not sure how you track whether or not os x adoption went up with the release of a native version of photoshop. besides, photoshop and illustrator weren't all that late going to os x. the big laggard was quark. apple was selling machines capable of booting into os 9 for a year longer than they wanted because quark couldn't get their crap together.
i'm a creative pro who is waiting for cs3 to be released. i have two powerbooks and quad tower at the moment. none of these machines will be updated until native creative suite is released. i bought the newer powerbook and tower at the highest point in the specs for ppc machines specifically to wait out this transition. at this point there is absolutely no reason for me to upgrade even though my irrational mac fanboy side wants to buy a new macbook just for the hell of it. i figured i'd wait out the first generation of intel machines until creative suite was ready to roll natively.
as far as adobe is concerned, i have some insight into that as i have family that works there as programmers. the xcode development environment was really really bad for the programmers there and it caused a lot of delays in the work being ported over. also, a lot of the code in the main apps is very old. stuff that relied on pre-powerpc processors that has just been bondo'd over and over to work. it generally worked fine because they were at least still in the same processor ballpark. but the switch to intel is a much larger undertaking for them. i'm not suggesting that they're above some gamesmanship when it comes to forcing upgrades. but that's not the only reason why they're waiting for cs3 to go intel-native. it's not really something that can be "patched".
i'm fine with it really. the wait is a bit longer than i expected but the quad is humming along and my powerbook 1.67 isn't too frustrating yet. although i am anxiously awaiting the opportunity for some core2duo goodness in a mbp.
We know how much creative people need the likes of Maya, the CS Suite, the Macromedia suite and Microsoft Office and Rosetta is not reliable enough to run a business with. IMO, CS3 will drive sales up quite a bit. What I really wish though is that Adobe would release their devkit for free so that more plugin developers would make plugins that support Mac.
One big kicker I see is that I doubt CS3 will even support CFM binaries just like Maya doesn't so that will immediately break every existing plugin for the Mac.
And if you think Apple doesn't have a secret prototype of a Photoshop competitor in their labs based on their work with Aperture, you are kidding yourself.
If you think they do, that's wishful thinking.
An Illustrator competitor is available now.
Bundling it with every Mac Pro would be easy.
And if you think Apple doesn't have a secret prototype of a Photoshop competitor in their labs based on their work with Aperture, you are kidding yourself.
The problems are InDesign and (now) Dreamweaver, that's all.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
One can only hope Apple has a killer suite they've been working on.
I'm not sure what that means. But the document standard is PDF. It's integrated into the OS. The display technology is based on Apple's own technologies. Next had Display Postcript.
I'm over my head on this one, but I thought the Core graphics engine of OSX was entirely based on Adobe's technology (PDF). Perhaps you could explain exactly what PDF does or does not entail.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
One can only hope Apple has a killer suite they've been working on.
Ah, 88! I still have the "Adobe Illustrator 88 The Official Handbook For Designers" book on my shelf.
I'm over my head on this one, but I thought the Core graphics engine of OSX was entirely based on Adobe's technology (PDF). Perhaps you could explain exactly what PDF does or does not entail.
It would be too difficult for me to explain "exactly" what it is to Apple.
But their developers site has some good articles.
http://developer.apple.com/cgi-bin/s...ult_collection
Apple should buy Adobe out.
Apple's got the dough, and although I'm not a fan of hostile takeovers, I think this would be a wise move.
Imagine if they could integrate Shake, Final Cut, Motion, After Effects, Flash, Dreamweaver, iWeb. The world's best digital editing and content delivery suite. Then they'd make it for Mac, Linux and Windows. What I find is that people are more likely to support your systems if you support theirs.
For example Windows users who can't buy Final Cut just won't, they'll get Avid.
The thing is, if Apple don't buy the likes of Adobe then what's to stop Microsoft? Can you imagine what would happen to Apple if Microsoft did that just like Apple did with logic? I'd say the Adobe suite is probably the most important set of programs to Mac users.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
One can only hope Apple has a killer suite they've been working on.
Yeha after the suggestion about Line form i Dl'd it and gave it a shot.. it is hard to use, I like the rounded corner controls.. No masks makes it totally useless.
flick.
Imagine if they could integrate Shake, Final Cut, Motion, After Effects, Flash, Dreamweaver, iWeb. The world's best digital editing and content delivery suite. Then they'd make it for Mac, Linux and Windows. What I find is that people are more likely to support your systems if you support theirs.
For example Windows users who can't buy Final Cut just won't, they'll get Avid.
The thing is, if Apple don't buy the likes of Adobe then what's to stop Microsoft? Can you imagine what would happen to Apple if Microsoft did that just like Apple did with logic? I'd say the Adobe suite is probably the most important set of programs to Mac users.
Apple could have done it before Adobe's Macromedia aquisition, but now, it would be too expensive, and Apple would have to take on a lot of long term debt, which they are genetically opposed to.
They have had a lot of opportunities to cheaply buy critical programs over the years, and they have not done so, even though those programs would have significantly strenthened their graphics line-up, and would even have given them a much stronger iWork suite.
Spending perhaps $7 to $10 billion for Adobe is just not in the cards. They would also have to deal with all of those Windows programs which they likely don't want to do.
MS, being a monopoly owner of both Windows and Office, could probably not get approval to buy Adobe, even if they wanted to.
Lineform is nowhere near the quality of Illustrator, but it does have a few interesting features. I found it very difficult to use, and I've been using Illustrator ever since Illustrator 88. Adobe's Illustrator CS is not as good as v10, but at least it doesn't crash every 15 minutes.
I understand that any competitors will face maturity issues, but the fact that Lineform and now ZeusDraw have appeared on the Mac is a very good sign.
At least Adobe has some nimble competitors with software that is Xcode based, Intel-compatible and available right now.