Let Apple just buy Adobe and squash this whole matter! Why shouldn't they? If one company like Adobe is going to have that much sway on the sales and development of Apple's current and future products, wouldn't Apple benefit greatly is using their massive war chest to buy out Chizen's little monopoly?
I fully expect Apple to come out with another app that chips away at Adobe's capabilities. They did it Final Cut, iPages, iWeb, Apeture, and Preview/PDF. So a more advanced image editing app than iPhoto and Apeture would seem natural (especially w/ CoreImage).
While that's all well and fine, I agree w/ an earlier post that Adobe's lineup is more universally accepted if not absolutely required for each field. Instead of developing a wannabe, Apple is better off taking over Adobe and controlling the farm.
The Acrobat line purchase alone would scare the heck out of Microsoft!
/
Sure! Great idea.
If Apple didn't buy them before Macromedia, they surely won't buy them now.
They should have bought Macromedia when they put themselves up for sale.
But, then, we don't know what Apple is thinking.
All I know is that they are only willing to spend very little on company purchases. They have passed up some incredible bargains over the years on programs that would have made a good deal of sense for them to buy.
I'm surprised how nobody has mentioned the tools that Adobe ripped off from Apple in their beta of CS3. Like the loop? That's a blatant rip-off if I've ever seen one. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lawsuit soon.
Oh please!
The evidence is that Adobe was working on Lightroom before Apple came out with Aperture. Besides, it's not a new idea, I've seen similar things before over the years. It's just the faster cpu's that make it practical now.
Just 27%...Adobe should abandon the Mac...I mean c'mon, just 27%.
The opposite, melgross, could certainly be true. Had Adobe abandoned the Mac a few years ago, it'd be in deep shit. In fact, at 27%, they'd still be in deep shit if they decided to drop Mac support today.
27% may not look like much to someone that doesn't know much about businesses but lemme tell you...abandoning 27% of your bread and butter customers can effectively kill a business or stop it dead in its tracks...Adobe certainly would certainly think twice about pouring R&D money into Lightroom and Soundbooth if 27% of your userbase was instantly wiped out.
Anyways...I don't care if Adobe abandons the Mac. It might hurt Apple in the short run but Apple would strike back in no time with a Pro app that does almost everything PS does and retain compatibility with PS. A lot might just migrate to Windows but if these guys have an Intel-based Mac, Apple can easily lure them back with its own app.
You are talking about abandoning Apple. I'm not.
I'm by far, NOT the first to recognize that Apple needs Adobe more than Adobe needs Apple.
If Adobe caters to Apple's needs, then its Windows customers cry out. If the opposite is true, the Mac users cry out.
For years the customer base was moving to Windows. While this might seem to be a shock, what should Adobe have done? Ignore that?
In the mid '90's, when Apple lost its dominance, Adobe was forced to take Windows more seriously. If not, they would have gone out of business with Apple. It was the right thing for them to do.
I remember when Apple came out with some new technologies, and Adobe refused to support them because they weren't available on Windows.
But they also refused to support Windows technologies that weren't available to the Mac. Even Steven! The program still works more seamlessly on a Mac though.
27% is still a big share.
But, it has been increasing since that low point. It's now somewhere in the low 30's.
I doubt very much if Boot camp, or Parallels, or VMware, will account for more than a very small percentage of pro graphics users.
but don't think that is will be easy, or even possible for Apple to compete head on with Adobe.
So far, Quark still has the lion's share of the publishing industry. Adobe is a far more capable competitor to Quark that Apple will be to Adobe. And yet, even with the distaste for Quark many in the industry have, and the preference they have for Adobe, InDesign has made only a minority move over. That's with the long history Adobe has had in that business too.
Aperture is an new category, along with Lightroom. Neither competes directly with PS.
Mel, given that Microsoft is about to unleash an assault on Adobe's graphics turf on Windows, I'd say that Adobe needs Apple now far more than is generally recognized.
With low end graphics work on both platforms going to other vendors, Adobe has only the high end to count on right now. If Redmond starts to cut seriously into the Windows high end over the next 18-36 months, Apple may be forced to respond with their own suite of graphics apps.
I seriously doubt Adobe could fight on both fronts simultaneously, even with the Macromedia acquisition.
Mel, given that Microsoft is about to unleash an assault on Adobe's graphics turf on Windows, I'd say that Adobe needs Apple now far more than is generally recognized.
With low end graphics work on both platforms going to other vendors, Adobe has only the high end to count on right now. If Redmond starts to cut seriously into the Windows high end over the next 18-36 months, Apple may be forced to respond with their own suite of graphics apps.
I seriously doubt Adobe could fight on both fronts simultaneously, even with the Macromedia acquisition.
I did mention that.
But, MS has been showing that suite around for almost three years now. Maybe now that Vista is here (almost), they will dust it off.
from what I've seen, it has some new features, such as auto almost everything, but done from a pro's point of view.. Integration with the Office suite is a point as well.
But, the other features don't compete.
MS might have the same problem Apple would have in competing, except for the Office compatibility.
We don't know what Adobe has up its sleeve. Even those of us who have been working with Adobe for a long while aren't let into most of what they are doing, though sometimes we will be hit with some ideas.
What I think is that we will see what happens when CS3 actually does come out. If Apple's Mac Pro sales take off, from that, then Adobe might be more inclined to see that as something good for them as well.
But, if the sales are just replacements, then it will be a different story.
The bleeding from Apple's long time supporters must stop and be reversed quickly.
Adobe can't, nor should they, attempt to move users to the Mac. That's up to Apple. The days of major programs being exclusively on the Mac platform are over. The computers, and OS must sell itself.
Apple must do more for its pro customers. They are worse than the PC companies at that. Apple has to stop thinking that those users will gravitate towards Apple just because they are. They have to LISTEN. That's something that Apple, particularly with Jobs, fails to do.
When the users come, Adobe can have the excuse to be more supportive. Don't forget that version 3 of PS Elements for Mac was supposed to be the last. When enough people cried out for it, they relented. They can be moved.
But, they need sales.
If the sales aren't there, neither is the support.
The days of major programs being exclusively on the Mac platform are over. The computers, and OS must sell itself.
That's fine. But the problem with Adobe has long been that their offerings don't take advantage of the platforms they are on. Adobe's lateness in embracing the Mac's Firewire port got Premiere run off the platform.
It's all well and good to say you'll add a feature when it's on both platforms, but it does leave you vulnerable to attack. I would agree that 64-bit isn't a key feature at this point, but I think this anxiety Mac users are beginning to show with Adobe has a lot of parallels with what happened to Quark.
CS3 will do well in sales simply because it offers new Intel functionality and many pro users will jump in the first half of 2007. That doesn't mean they will convert the whole shop, but every major pro house will have a machine running Leopard and CS3 within three months of launch.
We have Sawtooth machines here still running InDesign 2. There were hardly any reasons to upgrade InDesign in the last two revisions. The performance benefits of the Intel jump, along with sufficiently new functionality (for us, CS2+CS3) will make the case for most pros who didn't invest in Dual or Quad G5s.
That's fine. But the problem with Adobe has long been that their offerings don't take advantage of the platforms they are on. Adobe's lateness in embracing the Mac's Firewire port got Premiere run off the platform.
It's all well and good to say you'll add a feature when it's on both platforms, but it does leave you vulnerable to attack. I would agree that 64-bit isn't a key feature at this point, but I think this anxiety Mac users are beginning to show with Adobe has a lot of parallels with what happened to Quark.
CS3 will do well in sales simply because it offers new Intel functionality and many pro users will jump in the first half of 2007. That doesn't mean they will convert the whole shop, but every major pro house will have a machine running Leopard and CS3 within three months of launch.
We have Sawtooth machines here still running InDesign 2. There were hardly any reasons to upgrade InDesign in the last two revisions. The performance benefits of the Intel jump, along with sufficiently new functionality (for us, CS2+CS3) will make the case for most pros who didn't invest in Dual or Quad G5s.
That was part of the point I was making. It's simply too expensive to try that. It also gets other customers angry.
Rather than take their anger out on Apple or MS for not having the features to support, they take it out on the software houses who are stuck in the middle. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
What happened to Quark? They still have about two thirds of the installations, and that won't change soon. And I don't know anyone who likes the company.
Sure, most houses will try one machine with 10.5, and pop CS3 on it as well. But it will take a year or more before enough are running 10.5 to matter. Most CS3 installs will be running on 10.4, with some on 10.3 until then.
Home users will be the first to use 10.5. That's as it always is. Same with MS. All of the home machines will have Vista. No way to get anything else for it. But corporate will still insist on their new machines coming with XP for as long as two years from now.
InDesign is a good program. Ver. 2 made a difference, but I do find major improvements in 3. I'm sure the same will be found for 4. Depends on the work you do. Any feature that saves time is required. Any feature that allows you to do something you couldn't do before, means you must upgrade to keep up with the competition.
You just know your client will ask you to do for them, what that other client your competitor has, had done for them.
I was aware of v4, but I don't know where to look to confirm that they didn't intend to make a fourth version. The only thing I was aware of was that it was delayed several months relative to the Windows version. Maybe that was before the time I started paying attention to Mac news, or I just missed it.
I was aware of v4, but I don't know where to look to confirm that they didn't intend to make a fourth version. The only thing I was aware of was that it was delayed several months relative to the Windows version. Maybe that was before the time I started paying attention to Mac news, or I just missed it.
They said that ver. 3 was to be the final Mac version. They were persuaded to continue.
Comments
Let Apple just buy Adobe and squash this whole matter! Why shouldn't they? If one company like Adobe is going to have that much sway on the sales and development of Apple's current and future products, wouldn't Apple benefit greatly is using their massive war chest to buy out Chizen's little monopoly?
I fully expect Apple to come out with another app that chips away at Adobe's capabilities. They did it Final Cut, iPages, iWeb, Apeture, and Preview/PDF. So a more advanced image editing app than iPhoto and Apeture would seem natural (especially w/ CoreImage).
While that's all well and fine, I agree w/ an earlier post that Adobe's lineup is more universally accepted if not absolutely required for each field. Instead of developing a wannabe, Apple is better off taking over Adobe and controlling the farm.
The Acrobat line purchase alone would scare the heck out of Microsoft!
/
Sure! Great idea.
If Apple didn't buy them before Macromedia, they surely won't buy them now.
They should have bought Macromedia when they put themselves up for sale.
But, then, we don't know what Apple is thinking.
All I know is that they are only willing to spend very little on company purchases. They have passed up some incredible bargains over the years on programs that would have made a good deal of sense for them to buy.
I'm surprised how nobody has mentioned the tools that Adobe ripped off from Apple in their beta of CS3. Like the loop? That's a blatant rip-off if I've ever seen one. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lawsuit soon.
Oh please!
The evidence is that Adobe was working on Lightroom before Apple came out with Aperture. Besides, it's not a new idea, I've seen similar things before over the years. It's just the faster cpu's that make it practical now.
Just 27%...Adobe should abandon the Mac...I mean c'mon, just 27%.
The opposite, melgross, could certainly be true. Had Adobe abandoned the Mac a few years ago, it'd be in deep shit. In fact, at 27%, they'd still be in deep shit if they decided to drop Mac support today.
27% may not look like much to someone that doesn't know much about businesses but lemme tell you...abandoning 27% of your bread and butter customers can effectively kill a business or stop it dead in its tracks...Adobe certainly would certainly think twice about pouring R&D money into Lightroom and Soundbooth if 27% of your userbase was instantly wiped out.
Anyways...I don't care if Adobe abandons the Mac. It might hurt Apple in the short run but Apple would strike back in no time with a Pro app that does almost everything PS does and retain compatibility with PS. A lot might just migrate to Windows but if these guys have an Intel-based Mac, Apple can easily lure them back with its own app.
You are talking about abandoning Apple. I'm not.
I'm by far, NOT the first to recognize that Apple needs Adobe more than Adobe needs Apple.
If Adobe caters to Apple's needs, then its Windows customers cry out. If the opposite is true, the Mac users cry out.
For years the customer base was moving to Windows. While this might seem to be a shock, what should Adobe have done? Ignore that?
In the mid '90's, when Apple lost its dominance, Adobe was forced to take Windows more seriously. If not, they would have gone out of business with Apple. It was the right thing for them to do.
I remember when Apple came out with some new technologies, and Adobe refused to support them because they weren't available on Windows.
But they also refused to support Windows technologies that weren't available to the Mac. Even Steven! The program still works more seamlessly on a Mac though.
27% is still a big share.
But, it has been increasing since that low point. It's now somewhere in the low 30's.
I doubt very much if Boot camp, or Parallels, or VMware, will account for more than a very small percentage of pro graphics users.
but don't think that is will be easy, or even possible for Apple to compete head on with Adobe.
So far, Quark still has the lion's share of the publishing industry. Adobe is a far more capable competitor to Quark that Apple will be to Adobe. And yet, even with the distaste for Quark many in the industry have, and the preference they have for Adobe, InDesign has made only a minority move over. That's with the long history Adobe has had in that business too.
Aperture is an new category, along with Lightroom. Neither competes directly with PS.
With low end graphics work on both platforms going to other vendors, Adobe has only the high end to count on right now. If Redmond starts to cut seriously into the Windows high end over the next 18-36 months, Apple may be forced to respond with their own suite of graphics apps.
I seriously doubt Adobe could fight on both fronts simultaneously, even with the Macromedia acquisition.
Mel, given that Microsoft is about to unleash an assault on Adobe's graphics turf on Windows, I'd say that Adobe needs Apple now far more than is generally recognized.
With low end graphics work on both platforms going to other vendors, Adobe has only the high end to count on right now. If Redmond starts to cut seriously into the Windows high end over the next 18-36 months, Apple may be forced to respond with their own suite of graphics apps.
I seriously doubt Adobe could fight on both fronts simultaneously, even with the Macromedia acquisition.
I did mention that.
But, MS has been showing that suite around for almost three years now. Maybe now that Vista is here (almost), they will dust it off.
from what I've seen, it has some new features, such as auto almost everything, but done from a pro's point of view.. Integration with the Office suite is a point as well.
But, the other features don't compete.
MS might have the same problem Apple would have in competing, except for the Office compatibility.
We don't know what Adobe has up its sleeve. Even those of us who have been working with Adobe for a long while aren't let into most of what they are doing, though sometimes we will be hit with some ideas.
What I think is that we will see what happens when CS3 actually does come out. If Apple's Mac Pro sales take off, from that, then Adobe might be more inclined to see that as something good for them as well.
But, if the sales are just replacements, then it will be a different story.
The bleeding from Apple's long time supporters must stop and be reversed quickly.
Adobe can't, nor should they, attempt to move users to the Mac. That's up to Apple. The days of major programs being exclusively on the Mac platform are over. The computers, and OS must sell itself.
Apple must do more for its pro customers. They are worse than the PC companies at that. Apple has to stop thinking that those users will gravitate towards Apple just because they are. They have to LISTEN. That's something that Apple, particularly with Jobs, fails to do.
When the users come, Adobe can have the excuse to be more supportive. Don't forget that version 3 of PS Elements for Mac was supposed to be the last. When enough people cried out for it, they relented. They can be moved.
But, they need sales.
If the sales aren't there, neither is the support.
Don't forget that version 3 of PS Elements for Mac was supposed to be the last. When enough people cried out for it, they relented. They can be moved.
Was that confirmed?
The days of major programs being exclusively on the Mac platform are over. The computers, and OS must sell itself.
That's fine. But the problem with Adobe has long been that their offerings don't take advantage of the platforms they are on. Adobe's lateness in embracing the Mac's Firewire port got Premiere run off the platform.
It's all well and good to say you'll add a feature when it's on both platforms, but it does leave you vulnerable to attack. I would agree that 64-bit isn't a key feature at this point, but I think this anxiety Mac users are beginning to show with Adobe has a lot of parallels with what happened to Quark.
CS3 will do well in sales simply because it offers new Intel functionality and many pro users will jump in the first half of 2007. That doesn't mean they will convert the whole shop, but every major pro house will have a machine running Leopard and CS3 within three months of launch.
We have Sawtooth machines here still running InDesign 2. There were hardly any reasons to upgrade InDesign in the last two revisions. The performance benefits of the Intel jump, along with sufficiently new functionality (for us, CS2+CS3) will make the case for most pros who didn't invest in Dual or Quad G5s.
Was that confirmed?
Sure.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelmac/
That's fine. But the problem with Adobe has long been that their offerings don't take advantage of the platforms they are on. Adobe's lateness in embracing the Mac's Firewire port got Premiere run off the platform.
It's all well and good to say you'll add a feature when it's on both platforms, but it does leave you vulnerable to attack. I would agree that 64-bit isn't a key feature at this point, but I think this anxiety Mac users are beginning to show with Adobe has a lot of parallels with what happened to Quark.
CS3 will do well in sales simply because it offers new Intel functionality and many pro users will jump in the first half of 2007. That doesn't mean they will convert the whole shop, but every major pro house will have a machine running Leopard and CS3 within three months of launch.
We have Sawtooth machines here still running InDesign 2. There were hardly any reasons to upgrade InDesign in the last two revisions. The performance benefits of the Intel jump, along with sufficiently new functionality (for us, CS2+CS3) will make the case for most pros who didn't invest in Dual or Quad G5s.
That was part of the point I was making. It's simply too expensive to try that. It also gets other customers angry.
Rather than take their anger out on Apple or MS for not having the features to support, they take it out on the software houses who are stuck in the middle. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
What happened to Quark? They still have about two thirds of the installations, and that won't change soon. And I don't know anyone who likes the company.
Sure, most houses will try one machine with 10.5, and pop CS3 on it as well. But it will take a year or more before enough are running 10.5 to matter. Most CS3 installs will be running on 10.4, with some on 10.3 until then.
Home users will be the first to use 10.5. That's as it always is. Same with MS. All of the home machines will have Vista. No way to get anything else for it. But corporate will still insist on their new machines coming with XP for as long as two years from now.
InDesign is a good program. Ver. 2 made a difference, but I do find major improvements in 3. I'm sure the same will be found for 4. Depends on the work you do. Any feature that saves time is required. Any feature that allows you to do something you couldn't do before, means you must upgrade to keep up with the competition.
You just know your client will ask you to do for them, what that other client your competitor has, had done for them.
Sure.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelmac/
I was aware of v4, but I don't know where to look to confirm that they didn't intend to make a fourth version. The only thing I was aware of was that it was delayed several months relative to the Windows version. Maybe that was before the time I started paying attention to Mac news, or I just missed it.
I was aware of v4, but I don't know where to look to confirm that they didn't intend to make a fourth version. The only thing I was aware of was that it was delayed several months relative to the Windows version. Maybe that was before the time I started paying attention to Mac news, or I just missed it.
They said that ver. 3 was to be the final Mac version. They were persuaded to continue.