Adobe to officially unveil Creative Suite 5 for Mac April 12

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Adobe on Tuesday revealed that its forthcoming Creative Suite 5 package for graphic, video and Web design professionals, including the debut of Photoshop for Mac as a 64-bit application, will be unveiled on April 12, and will ship about a month later.



For the April 12 introduction, Adobe will begin accepting preorders and has scheduled a launch event for CS5 at 11 a.m. Eastern. The event will be streamed on AdobeTV, allowing users the ability to see the features of the product. It is then the company will also announce its price and details.



The company's CS5 launch Web site has been outfitted with a clock counting down the days until users can get their first official look at CS5. A handful of "sneak peek videos" are also available.



Adobe Systems Inc. announced the date during its quarterly earnings report Tuesday, in which the company revealed its profits fell 19 percent in its fiscal first quarter. But Chief Executive Shantanu Narayen said the company expects better results next quarter, which will feature the debut of the latest Creative Suite.



"We will be giving many more details of CS5's features, functionality and pricing on April 12 with shipping of the English version about four weeks later," Narayan said with analysts Tuesday, according to The Wall Street Journal.



Investors are said to be optimistic about Adobe's next quarter, as CS5 is expected to outperform its predecessor. CS5 for Mac will feature a new version of the Photoshop graphics editor rewritten in Apple's 64-bit object-oriented Cocoa framework. The Windows version of Photoshop went 64-bit in 2008 with CS4.



Flash CS5, codenamed Viper, marks a new strategy for adobe in trying to maintain relevance among mobile developers. The latest version will give developers the ability to output native iPhone apps from existing Flash-related assets for release on Apple's App Store. Adobe will offer the porting feature in response to Apple's refusal to support Flash as a Web plugin runtime on the iPhone OS.



For more coverage, see AppleInsider's exclusive look at CS5 from February, in "Sources offer peek at Adobe Creative Suite 5 for Mac."







Also this week, Adobe released a second beta of Photoshop Lightroom 3, its photography software platform for Mac OS X and Windows. The company said more than 350,000 users have downloaded the first Lightroom 3 beta thus far.



"We've worked on improving several key areas and have prepared a second public beta of Lightroom 3 as we get closer to our final release," the company said. "Because this public beta is closer to our final release we are more focused on receiving feedback on the improvements we've made since the original public beta. And more importantly, by utilizing broader testing from a larger community of photographers we can help ensure that you can trust the quality of the final Lightroom 3.0 release."



The latest beta of Lightroom 3 features improved performance, faster loading of images, and native tethered shooting support for select Nikon and Canon DSLR cameras.



While other Adobe products will receive the 64-bit treatment with CS5, Photoshop Lightroom 2 was the company's first 64-bit application back in July of 2008.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 73
    I trust that I am not looking at another six hundred bucks or more to upgrade. 64-bit is what we expected for CS4. This had better be a much cheaper upgrade or we better be seeing many, many major new features.



    Well?
  • Reply 2 of 73
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... CS5 for Mac will feature a new version of the Photoshop graphics editor rewritten in Apple's 64-bit object-oriented Cocoa framework. ....



    I'm almost certain that this is not true or at least deeply misleading to put it that way.



    The way I heard it they are re-writing it in 64 bit, but *not* using Cocoa development tools or any of the Cocoa UI stuff. AFAIK they are also sticking with their own UI conventions, thumbing the nose at Mac users again, and using the same Flash-based crap for the panels and toolbars.



    Just for fun, I predict:



    It will have just enough differences to force you to upgrade, yet basically be the same product.

    The menu items and the keyboard shortcuts will all be completely re-organised for apparently no reason, (but still won't use any of the Mac conventions.)
    • It will still crash a lot and suck up resources like there's no tomorrow

    • It will still not recognise "spaces" on the Mac

    • It will still install many many gigabytes of unnecessary files

    • It will still install tens of thousands of tiny text files in the system library

    • The installer will still suck, and still use that tech from the early 90's

    Most importantly:



    It will still cost between 800 and a 1000 dollars for the full suite after taxes



  • Reply 3 of 73
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    I'm almost certain that this is not true or at least deeply misleading to put it that way.



    The way I heard it they are re-writing it in 64 bit, but *not* using Cocoa development tools or any of the Cocoa UI stuff. AFAIK they are also sticking with their own UI conventions, thumbing the nose at Mac users again, and using the same Flash-based crap for the panels and toolbars.



    Just for fun, I predict:



    It will have just enough differences to force you to upgrade, yet basically be the same product.

    The menu items and the keyboard shortcuts will all be completely re-organised for apparently no reason, (but still won't use any of the Mac conventions.)
    • It will still crash a lot and suck up resources like there's no tomorrow

    • It will still not recognise "spaces" on the Mac

    • It will still install many many gigabytes of unnecessary files

    • It will still install tens of thousands of tiny text files in the system library

    • The installer will still suck, and still use that tech from the early 90's

    Most importantly:



    It will still cost between 800 and a 1000 dollars for the full suite after taxes







    Exaggerate much?



    I think CS4 rocks. I have no problems at all and I use it non-stop everyday.

    I really can't figure out what your problem is. Is it something personal with Adobe?
  • Reply 4 of 73
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Exaggerate much?



    I think CS4 rocks. I have no problems at all and I use it non-stop everyday.

    I really can't figure out what your problem is. Is it something personal with Adobe?



    No exaggeration.



    Used PShop since version 3.0 on Windows. Used every version of the CS suite. Had the same issues with every version. Just because you like it and don't have problems with the awful design of the thing doesn't mean everyone else feels the same.



    If I'm honest I would say it's probably true that I have a teeny tiny bit of a *hate* on for Adobe as a company, but it's not unreasoned or uninformed. It's based on years and years of using their products. It's also based on years of using competitors products and seeing them bought up by Adobe, ruined or eliminated, and being forced to use Adobe's alternative. Freehand was, and probably still, is a much better vector design tool for instance. Who uses it now? Most people haven't even heard of it.



    The things I mentioned in my first post are mostly just the first five or six grievances that came to mind while I was typing. These are real grievances that vex me on a daily basis since I use CS4 on a daily basis.



    CS4 on the Mac is a croaking piece of shite that should be mothballed. CS5 will have to be half the price or ten times as good to justify purchasing it. I just kind of doubt that either of those will be true when they finally reveal it, but I'll probably have to buy it anyway, and use it anyway.



    If all of that isn't justification for being p*ssed off at Adobe, I don't know what would be.
  • Reply 5 of 73
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    CS4 on the Mac is a croaking piece of shite that should be mothballed. CS5 will have to be half the price or ten times as good to justify purchasing it. I just kind of doubt that either of those will be true when they finally reveal it, but I'll probably have to buy it anyway, and use it anyway.



    It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. As a professional, if a tool is unacceptable, it is still unacceptable at half the price. Find a better tool and use that instead or if no satisfactory tool exists make one yourself.



    Good luck with that hatred.
  • Reply 6 of 73
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    If all of that isn't justification for being p*ssed off at Adobe, I don't know what would be.



    I'm a lifer Adobe user as well and, for what it's worth, I'm 100% with you on this.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    It is a poor craftsperson who blames their tools. As a professional, if a tool is unacceptable, it is still unacceptable at half the price. Find a better tool and use that instead or if no satisfactory tool exists make one yourself.



    Good call. Because there are so many other options than the Creative Suite. So many different programs that you can use and then easily pass files off to other graphic designers or to printers, or that have had the chance to mature and become real competitors before Adobe bought and shut them down. No, but you're right, if we're frustrated with Adobe, we should make a better tool ourselves. I mean, that's why I went into graphic design: my profoundly excellent programming skills. Can't imagine why this option didn't occur to me already...
  • Reply 7 of 73
    bkpdevbkpdev Posts: 3member
    Just curious if there has been any official comment from Apple on iPhone executable code by third-party apps, and specifically flash.
  • Reply 8 of 73
    too999too999 Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkpdev View Post


    Apple decides not to allow non-Xcode generated App's in the app store?



    Seems to me that you are not sure of what you are talking about.
  • Reply 9 of 73
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkpdev View Post


    Apple decides not to allow non-Xcode generated App's in the app store?





    Complied application assembly language doesn't have "Made with Xcode" stamped on it. A compiler is a complier. Apple uses xcode and then gcc to compile it into an iPhone compatible executable. Adobe uses Flash and then compiles it into an iPhone executable.



    If they both produce the exact the same end result, on what grounds should they be rejected?
  • Reply 10 of 73
    bkpdevbkpdev Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by too999 View Post


    Seems to me that you are not sure of what you are talking about.



    I completely agree, which is why I posed the question (to garner other opinions and insight). It was my understanding that Apple could reject whatever they wanted from the App Store and if they decided they didn't want Adobe products being used to generate applications for the App Store it was within their right/privilege to do so.



    If this has already been addressed by Apple (the prospect of third-party tools being used to develop applications they approve of) then I apologize for the ignorance in my question.
  • Reply 11 of 73
    bkpdevbkpdev Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    Complied application assembly language doesn't have "Made with Xcode" stamped on it. A compiler is a complier. Apple uses xcode and then gcc to compile it into an iPhone compatible executable. Adobe uses Flash and then compiles it into an iPhone executable.



    If they both produce the exact the same end result, on what grounds should they be rejected?



    Apple has recently increased the threshold for what they deem acceptable apps based on content, and more recently it's been suggested on function (removal of web site apps), I guess to my thinking it isn't a stretch to think they may extend that threshhold to third-party tools (and especially Flash created ones which they have most recently been very strongly targeting with their comments, etc).



    Was just a thought that I had and I thought I'd see what people thought about it. Definitely didn't intend to touch a nerve or annoy with the thought.
  • Reply 12 of 73
    woohoo!woohoo! Posts: 291member
    WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!!



    The link in the AI article



    Quote:

    The company's CS5 launch Web site has been outfitted...





    Does not go directly to Adobe's website. Instead the link is this:



    http://www.tkqlhce.com/click-1989299-10766175





    The reputation of the site above is in very poor standards for some reason as you can see here:



    http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/tkqlhce.com





    Part of the ValueClick / Commission Junction IP 216.34.209.0 - 216.34.209.31
  • Reply 13 of 73
    nudistnudist Posts: 37member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by too999 View Post


    Seems to me that you are not sure of what you are talking about.



    he's talking about Flash is if you read between the lines
  • Reply 14 of 73
    wallywally Posts: 211member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    I'm almost certain that this is not true or at least deeply misleading to put it that way.



    The way I heard it they are re-writing it in 64 bit, but *not* using Cocoa development tools or any of the Cocoa UI stuff. AFAIK they are also sticking with their own UI conventions, thumbing the nose at Mac users again, and using the same Flash-based crap for the panels and toolbars.



    Just for fun, I predict:



    It will have just enough differences to force you to upgrade, yet basically be the same product.

    The menu items and the keyboard shortcuts will all be completely re-organised for apparently no reason, (but still won't use any of the Mac conventions.)
    • It will still crash a lot and suck up resources like there's no tomorrow

    • It will still not recognise "spaces" on the Mac

    • It will still install many many gigabytes of unnecessary files

    • It will still install tens of thousands of tiny text files in the system library

    • The installer will still suck, and still use that tech from the early 90's

    Most importantly:



    It will still cost between 800 and a 1000 dollars for the full suite after taxes







    Completely agree 100%. I too have used PS since 3.0 and was thrilled when Adobe finally gave Quark something to quake about when InDesign actually started to be a realistic alternative to Xpress, but have been totally disgusted with them ever since they vomited their craptastic "Creative Suite"



    With very few exceptions, there has been nothing worth upgrading for except for "native" versions. I upgraded to the first OS X "native" version of PS and AI, and then again with CS3 so I could have a "native" Intel version and have only watch what used to be wonderful design tools turn into bloated, buggy, inconsistent wastes of money. I make my living with their sh*t software and every day curse the fact that there are no real alternatives to PS, AI or In and Adobe has been exploiting that fact for many years.



    I loathe Adobe and the utter disgust they have for their Mac user base.
  • Reply 15 of 73
    stonefreestonefree Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post


    64-bit is what we expected for CS4.



    That was entirely Apple's fault. They promised 64 bit Carbon then yanked it at the last minute, waiting until WWDC even though the decision was likely made well before that, forcing developers to start from scratch. For all the hype Apple has given Cocoa, all of their pro apps (except Aperture) were still Carbon until a year ago. Since Windows' developer roadmap isn't tied to its CEO's mood swings, 64 bit was delivered on Windows first.
  • Reply 16 of 73
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    Unless they are going to pull out some considerable new features we don't know about, I don't think panoramic stitching and a new brush tool is going to convince people to slap down $1200 in this economy.



    As a matter of fact, it's so underwhelming that I don't even want to bother going through the hassle of installing it.



    There are 2 problems with productivity on the Mac - Microsoft and Adobe. Neither "get it".
  • Reply 17 of 73
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stonefree View Post


    That was entirely Apple's fault. They promised 64 bit Carbon then yanked it at the last minute, waiting until WWDC even though the decision was likely made well before that, forcing developers to start from scratch. For all the hype Apple has given Cocoa, all of their pro apps (except Aperture) were still Carbon until a year ago. Since Windows' developer roadmap isn't tied to its CEO's mood swings, 64 bit was delivered on Windows first.



    i think all the sign posts on that roadmap pointed to cocoa since osx was released.

    that was when? 10 years ago?



    i'm curious who the other developers were that were caught by the cancellation of 64 bit carbon. i seem to remember that adobe was the only one that couldn't read the map.



    as for windows roadmaps being so much more predictable: remember cairo? longhorn? winmo?
  • Reply 18 of 73
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bkpdev View Post


    I completely agree, which is why I posed the question (to garner other opinions and insight). It was my understanding that Apple could reject whatever they wanted from the App Store and if they decided they didn't want Adobe products being used to generate applications for the App Store it was within their right/privilege to do so.



    If this has already been addressed by Apple (the prospect of third-party tools being used to develop applications they approve of) then I apologize for the ignorance in my question.



    i remember reading that there are already a few apps in the store that were made by compiling flash with adobe's new tool. i wouldn't worry about it.
  • Reply 19 of 73
    ozexigeozexige Posts: 215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wally View Post


    Completely agree 100%. I too have used PS since 3.0 and was thrilled when Adobe finally gave Quark something to quake about when InDesign actually started to be a realistic alternative to Xpress, but have been totally disgusted with them ever since they vomited their craptastic "Creative Suite"



    With very few exceptions, there has been nothing worth upgrading for except for "native" versions. I upgraded to the first OS X "native" version of PS and AI, and then again with CS3 so I could have a "native" Intel version and have only watch what used to be wonderful design tools turn into bloated, buggy, inconsistent wastes of money. I make my living with their sh*t software and every day curse the fact that there are no real alternatives to PS, AI or In and Adobe has been exploiting that fact for many years.



    I loathe Adobe and the utter disgust they have for their Mac user base.



    Couldn't agree more - but I'll try



    Picked up PS3 as inducement to purchase top of the range UMAX, great scanner and great software.

    Worked my way up thru to Ps8 and then CS3 ('web design premium' no less WFT?),

    wasn't entirely happy with CS3 at first and then began to find all the little 'add-ons'.

    Then with Snow Leopard in 64bit (I know, my bad) on a pre IPS 24" 'maxed-out' iMac it became a nightmare of crashes.

    Used in 32bit it ran better, however I've been turning to Ps8 (CS) often, as I find ImageReady

    one of the best all round utility Apps I have - and it's only typical of Adobe to drop it!



    So I didn't bother with CS4, happy I didn't and if Gazobee is proved correct, Adobe can shove CS5 up there with it.
  • Reply 20 of 73
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wally View Post


    Completely agree 100%. I too have used PS since 3.0 and was thrilled when Adobe finally gave Quark something to quake about when InDesign actually started to be a realistic alternative to Xpress, but have been totally disgusted with them ever since they vomited their craptastic "Creative Suite"



    With very few exceptions, there has been nothing worth upgrading for except for "native" versions. I upgraded to the first OS X "native" version of PS and AI, and then again with CS3 so I could have a "native" Intel version and have only watch what used to be wonderful design tools turn into bloated, buggy, inconsistent wastes of money. I make my living with their sh*t software and every day curse the fact that there are no real alternatives to PS, AI or In and Adobe has been exploiting that fact for many years.



    I loathe Adobe and the utter disgust they have for their Mac user base.



    I tend to agree with you. sad really. i've been using photoshop and illustrator since versions 1.0 and i'm disappointed to see how much my 'bread & butter tools' have descended into bloatware.



    my favourite version of illustrator is still version 10, mainly because it was the last version that properly maps keyboard shortcuts when you use the dvorak layout. it does however also run circles around all the later versions, despite running in rosetta.



    i dread the day when it gets broken by a new version of osx. so far so good in snow leopard. adobe doesn't even support CS3 in 10.6 anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.