Finally ..sane commentary on Apple acquiring Adobe
http://daringfireball.net/2008/05/wh...wont_buy_adobe
Excellent points that really seem more like common sense that groundbreaking thought. There's little upside and too much downside to spending 20+ Billion to pick up Adobe. If Apple wanted to create competing apps they could. It took Indesign what 6 years or so to supplant Quark? Which proves that when given sufficient resources devoted to a good product change can happen quite quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruber
What does Adobe have that Apple would want to own? Flash seems to be the most common answer amongst those who think Apple covets Adobe. Do you really think Flash is the best of anything? Or, more relevantly, do you really think Jobs and Apple?s engineering management think so? Flash is ubiquitous, but that doesn?t make it good. It?s the same reason why iPhone app development is based on Objective-C rather than a more popular, more ubiquitous language like, say, Java ? because the decision-makers at Apple genuinely believe it to be decidedly better. If Apple wanted to own a technology like Flash they?d build their own technically superior version and distribute it to Windows users with iTunes. This goes double for AIR, which Apple, I?m certain, thinks they could do better than, and which unlike Flash doesn?t yet have any significant popularity.
The CS apps, you say? Why? To make sure there there are good photo-editing, illustration, and desktop publishing apps for the Mac? Adobe is already doing that themselves, as an independent company. The only argument I?ve ever heard that makes sense for an Apple acquisition of Adobe is the idea that Apple fears that Microsoft might buy Adobe first, and then torpedo the Mac versions of the CS suite. But that would be a totally defensive move, and Steve Jobs is not a defensive thinker. Jobs plays offense. If it ever became necessary, Jobs surely believes that Apple could create their own replacements for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. And the whole idea doesn?t make much sense anyway, given that if Microsoft wanted to sink a suite of popular big-ticket Mac apps, they don?t need to buy Adobe.
And so if Apple, under Jobs, is tightly focused, what is it that they?re focused on? It?s not the pro market. It?s mobility ? iPhone, iPod, MacBook Air. Adobe is a good company with good products, but they don?t fit into Apple?s focus at all.
What does Adobe have that Apple would want to own? Flash seems to be the most common answer amongst those who think Apple covets Adobe. Do you really think Flash is the best of anything? Or, more relevantly, do you really think Jobs and Apple?s engineering management think so? Flash is ubiquitous, but that doesn?t make it good. It?s the same reason why iPhone app development is based on Objective-C rather than a more popular, more ubiquitous language like, say, Java ? because the decision-makers at Apple genuinely believe it to be decidedly better. If Apple wanted to own a technology like Flash they?d build their own technically superior version and distribute it to Windows users with iTunes. This goes double for AIR, which Apple, I?m certain, thinks they could do better than, and which unlike Flash doesn?t yet have any significant popularity.
The CS apps, you say? Why? To make sure there there are good photo-editing, illustration, and desktop publishing apps for the Mac? Adobe is already doing that themselves, as an independent company. The only argument I?ve ever heard that makes sense for an Apple acquisition of Adobe is the idea that Apple fears that Microsoft might buy Adobe first, and then torpedo the Mac versions of the CS suite. But that would be a totally defensive move, and Steve Jobs is not a defensive thinker. Jobs plays offense. If it ever became necessary, Jobs surely believes that Apple could create their own replacements for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. And the whole idea doesn?t make much sense anyway, given that if Microsoft wanted to sink a suite of popular big-ticket Mac apps, they don?t need to buy Adobe.
And so if Apple, under Jobs, is tightly focused, what is it that they?re focused on? It?s not the pro market. It?s mobility ? iPhone, iPod, MacBook Air. Adobe is a good company with good products, but they don?t fit into Apple?s focus at all.
Excellent points that really seem more like common sense that groundbreaking thought. There's little upside and too much downside to spending 20+ Billion to pick up Adobe. If Apple wanted to create competing apps they could. It took Indesign what 6 years or so to supplant Quark? Which proves that when given sufficient resources devoted to a good product change can happen quite quickly.
Comments
Excellent points that really seem more like common sense that groundbreaking thought. There's little upside and too much downside to spending 20+ Billion to pick up Adobe. If Apple wanted to create competing apps they could. It took Indesign what 6 years or so to supplant Quark? Which proves that when given sufficient resources devoted to a good product change can happen quite quickly.
I don't know if Apple will buy or should buy Adobe. But I think that Gruber is a bit naive to think that Apple could easily develop competitors to flash and PS. It can be done but would be expensive and take a long time. Just developing a flash alternative and distributing it with iTunes does not ensure its success. It would need to be better and offer a compelling reason for change.
While I can't say that Adobe is on the cutting edge of change, I doubt they would completely fall asleep at the wheel like Quark did if a competitor muscled in on their space.
While I can't say that Adobe is on the cutting edge of change, I doubt they would completely fall asleep at the wheel like Quark did if a competitor muscled in on their space.
If Apple only did so because MS Adobe axed Mac support Apple wouldn't technically be in their space.
It?s the same reason why iPhone app development is based on Objective-C rather than a more popular, more ubiquitous language like, say, Java ? because the decision-makers at Apple genuinely believe it to be decidedly better. If Apple wanted to own a technology like Flash they?d build their own technically superior version and distribute it to Windows users with iTunes.
I don't agree. What he is comparing are languages that were tried and tested where Apple came along and picked the best one for the job. Not to mention, Objective-C comes from Next, which Apple bought over and I'm sure most of their development team are familiar with. Then there's the fact Obj-C apps don't run in a VM so they run faster with less resource overhead.
To say that's equivalent to Apple being able to cook up an equivalent to Flash, which is not simply an interactive AJAX-like piece of software, it's an entire IDE with graphics capabilities and a full blown scripting language dedicated to graphics animation, which not only allows people to develop almost desktop app-like interactivity but optimize it so that it works well enough on websites, is just very misguided.
They need a plugin that is widely supported, they need an optimized file format, they need an IDE to design the layouts that offers what the Flash IDE does and they need a detailed language reference. It seems clear that Apple have chosen Web 2.0 & AJAX and that falls way short of what Flash offers.
But that would be a totally defensive move, and Steve Jobs is not a defensive thinker. Jobs plays offense. If it ever became necessary, Jobs surely believes that Apple could create their own replacements for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. And the whole idea doesn?t make much sense anyway, given that if Microsoft wanted to sink a suite of popular big-ticket Mac apps, they don?t need to buy Adobe.
Maybe not but the CS Suite are much more important than Office. As we know, Macs aren't popular business computers but they are very important creative computers and the CS suite is essential. I wouldn't be using a Mac without the CS suite at work anyway nor would any of the designers I know.
And so if Apple, under Jobs, is tightly focused, what is it that they?re focused on? It?s not the pro market. It?s mobility ? iPhone, iPod, MacBook Air. Adobe is a good company with good products, but they don?t fit into Apple?s focus at all.
That again simplifies the issue too much. If the focus is mobility then what about the Apple TV and why don't they ditch the pro line instead of trying to keep it up to date with the best tech available? Apple have stated plainly they are a multi-focus company, hence the reason they are Apple Inc. Their Final Cut Suite has some of the industry standard apps that directly compete with Adobe's.
I think a better reason why they won't buy them is that Apple need as many reasons to make the Mac experience better than anything else. If they buy a multi-platform supporting Adobe with apps that compete with their own products, they either have to discontinue Adobe's apps, which they won't want or make their own software multi-platform in which case they lose some Mac superiority.
I reckon it's a case of they can't feasibly buy them with any real benefit and they can't afford to lose them to another company. I think we should start to worry when Adobe are struggling though and now isn't that time. When/if that time comes, there will likely be other factors to take into account. Computers will be very different a few years down the line and who knows, platforms may be irrelevant - they almost are already.
If Apple only did so because MS Adobe axed Mac support Apple wouldn't technically be in their space.
If Apple did develop a competing product and it gained traction in the marketplace, I would bet it would get MS/Adobe attention even if it wasn't offered on the Mac platform.
I guess that's debatable though.
I don't agree. What he is comparing are languages that were tried and tested where Apple came along and picked the best one for the job. Not to mention, Objective-C comes from Next, which Apple bought over and I'm sure most of their development team are familiar with. Then there's the fact Obj-C apps don't run in a VM so they run faster with less resource overhead.
Yes it's hard to qualify this because there are Developers that think Java or .Net are the Best of Breed development tools.
To say that's equivalent to Apple being able to cook up an equivalent to Flash, which is not simply an interactive AJAX-like piece of software, it's an entire IDE with graphics capabilities and a full blown scripting language dedicated to graphics animation, which not only allows people to develop almost desktop app-like interactivity but optimize it so that it works well enough on websites, is just very misguided.
If Apple attacks Flash it'll be through SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) and a mix of other W3C toolset wrapped up in some Apple lickable GUI love. Of course SVG has been the "Next Big Thing" for half a decade now.
They need a plugin that is widely supported, they need an optimized file format, they need an IDE to design the layouts that offers what the Flash IDE does and they need a detailed language reference. It seems clear that Apple have chosen Web 2.0 & AJAX and that falls way short of what Flash offers.
I'm going to be watching to see what focus Apple puts on Web design at this years WWDC. I still think they're going to deliver a Pro App centered around Web design and SVG could play a part as Apple's rumored to be adding SVG support to the iPhone.
Maybe not but the CS Suite are much more important than Office. As we know, Macs aren't popular business computers but they are very important creative computers and the CS suite is essential. I wouldn't be using a Mac without the CS suite at work anyway nor would any of the designers I know.
Indeed. There is no competitor worthy of replacing CS Suite with. However if Adobe made CS Suite 4 the last Mac application it would take years before it really hurt the platform giving Apple time to deliver a replacement roadmap. I don't think this is ever going to happen but if Apple was able to keep project Star Trek going ..who's to say they don't have a core group of half built graphics apps ready to devote attention to?
That again simplifies the issue too much. If the focus is mobility then what about the Apple TV and why don't they ditch the pro line instead of trying to keep it up to date with the best tech available? Apple have stated plainly they are a multi-focus company, hence the reason they are Apple Inc. Their Final Cut Suite has some of the industry standard apps that directly compete with Adobe's.
I think Apple has chosen its battles very wisely which is where the focus comes from. They simply do not see an avenue where they can add so much value to creative applications that people leave Adobe.
I think a better reason why they won't buy them is that Apple need as many reasons to make the Mac experience better than anything else. If they buy a multi-platform supporting Adobe with apps that compete with their own products, they either have to discontinue Adobe's apps, which they won't want or make their own software multi-platform in which case they lose some Mac superiority.
Yes ...logistically it's a nightmare to think about the two companies merging. The cultural differences and product mismatches wouldn't bode well IMO
I reckon it's a case of they can't feasibly buy them with any real benefit and they can't afford to lose them to another company. I think we should start to worry when Adobe are struggling though and now isn't that time. When/if that time comes, there will likely be other factors to take into account. Computers will be very different a few years down the line and who knows, platforms may be irrelevant - they almost are already.
Yes ..personally I like seeing Adobe do well and I like seeing Apple push them by competing every now and then. When Adobe left the Mac video market I thought they were acting like chumps. Now they're back with a vengence and a nice Production Premium bundle. THAT's the Adobe I like..aggressive. When Xres and LivePicture were trying to eat Photoshops lunch Adobe was rocking. They are a company that needs a fire under their ass and Apple is all to willing to put that fire in certain areas.
These two companies are Co-opetition if I've ever seen it manifested so succinctly.