Folks -- Microsoft buying Adobe does not automatically mean that Photoshop etc will no longer be on the Mac. Note that Microsoft is actually *improving* Office for the Mac with the upcoming release, bringing it to feature-parity with Windows for Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and almost feature parity with Outlook. If MS were out to screw the Mac, why would they be doing that?
Microsoft would not be buying Adobe to hurt the Mac. They would be buying Adobe to compete with the iPhone. Although how they think that would help them compete with the iPhone, I really have no idea. What would Microsoft do with Silverlight? I think this really would be a bizarre strategy for MS to pursue. MS has the resources to compete with the iPhone without wasting a ton of money on Adobe. Sad if Balmer doesn't know that.
For those who think it's "easy" for Apple to come-up with a creative suite that rivals Adobe are failing to account for the complexity of such projects and the lack of unique talents and break-in periods. A project such as that would take years to mature to the point where it can compete with Adobe.
Well it is a complex project and it would not be "easy." But Apple would not have great difficulty. Look how quickly they moved with Final Cut Pro and iWork.
My concern is that Apple tends to lose interest in software projects once they have developed them (I see FCP sort of languishing a bit over the last few years. And iWork has remained a bit subpar when it should be polished to a high gloss by now.)
This is a scary thought for all us graphic designers that rely on Creative Suite to do our jobs.
If MS were to acquire Adobe I imagine the Adobe CS for Mac would have a status similar to the Mac BU-- updates coming somewhat later than on the PC, with some functionality and OS integration not available. (EDIT: as Blastdoor points out)
In other words, not terribly different than it is now. There is no way, however, that MS would simply terminate the Mac versions of Adobe's stuff-- there's good money to be made selling software to Mac users. Plus, Adobe is so entrenched in the Mac creative market, with their sales to that segment vastly disproportionate to the Mac percentage of the overall market, that it would be near suicidal-- I believe something like 50% of Adobe's CS sales are for the Mac.
But assuming that that's the case and the focus would be on mobile offerings (which, if MS is sufficiently unnerved to consider this, what else would it be?) what would be the point of a merger? To make Flash work really well on MS mobile devices? AFAIK Adobe is doing what it can to shoehorn an inefficient, processor intensive piece of software onto constrained hardware; does bringing them in-house really change that?
Does MS think that Flash on mobile is going to be a sufficient competitive advantage for them to make inroads in that space? How could it, unless they plan to cancel Flash for everyone else (and that's never going to happen)? I don't think they imagine that "Flash running somewhat better on MS devices than the competition" is really going to shake anything up.
Does MS have some particular interest in Adobe dev tools? I would say absolutely not, they've got that pretty well covered.
So if it's not desktop apps becoming exclusive to Windows, and it's not Flash becoming exclusive to WM7, and it's not development tools, what does Adobe have that MS could possibly want?
I've been a Apple user since 1989 and I love my Mac but I need the creative suite to get my work done. If they merged, I would have to look into buying a PC as sad as that makes me. Damn, I hope this doesn't happen.
I guess an alternative would be to go buy the fastest mac I could afford and the latest version of the Creative Suite and see if I could wait out this tragedy until something changed. That should at least get me two years before I would have to make another hardware decision. It's like battening the hatches before the storm.
Simmer Down Now! Don't get all worked up about idle talk.
They are sort-of the perfect marriage, though - two dinosaurs that choose not to innovate but rather to acquire the competition.
If, for the sake of argument, MS bought Adobe and axed the Creative Suite on the Mac, couldn't you just dual boot into Windows (from an Intel Mac) and use Creative Suite that way?
I've heard CS is better on Windows anyway, no? What would be the difference?
If Microsoft were to buyout Adobe, it won't be about Apple. Android's the biggest threat to Microsoft in the mobile space. Microsoft were hoping for status quo in the mobile space that they had in the desktop space i.e. Apple sells tightly coupled hardware/software and Microsoft sells just software with multiple hardware. But Google's come in and stolen Microsoft's way of business in the mobile space. So if anything, they will try and make sure that Flash doesn't work so well on Android if they do end up buying them out.
Okay...I'm no power user, but what if Apple were to acquire Pixelmator & VectorDesigner, combine them in a suite with the layout abilities of Pages... could this be the potential beginnings of a creative suite that could compete at some point?
No need. All creative work will be done with HTML5 from now on.
Adobe and Apple were at odds once before, about twenty years ago regarding Postscript and Type 1 font technology. Adobe was getting greedy with licensing fees, so Apple partnered with Microsoft to create a vector image engine and new font technology. Microsoft was to develop the image engine half (TrueImage) and Apple the font (TrueType). Well today, we know who the more competent company turned out to be. Soon after, TrueType took over Postscript Type 1 fonts on the desktop.
I highly doubt that if Microsoft did purchase Adobe, they would stop development of Creative Suite for Mac. It is currently half of Adobe's revenue. And even if they did, it wouldn't take Apple much effort to either develop their own, buy up some smaller company or fork some open source project (I could definitely see Apple moving in and beefing up Gimp or Inkscape to better compete with Adobe's offerings, possibly even offering full native versions for both Windows and Macs).
Who cares... if Microsoft buy Adobe... Apple will simply have to buy Microsoft!
Joke aside, I think the pair would suit each other. Heart warming in a way. It's like two school retards finally hitting it off in later life, then getting married (then dropping stone dead during the honeymoon).
While the Mac vs. PC wars have raged for years, Apple's crusade against Adobe is more recent, beginning with the introduction of the first iPhone, and its exclusion of Flash, in 2007.
Uh, what "crusade" against Adobe? Apple said no Flash on iOS. That's it. But Apple says "no" to any and all third-party browser plug-ins on mobile Safari, so how is saying "no" to Adobe considered a "crusade" against them? Apple reversed itself on iOS middleware tools. Apple works with Adobe and even licenses Display-PDF from Adobe. Flash is ready to run on Mac OS X. Apple competes with Adobe in some "Pro" markets (Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc), but that doesn't count as a crusade, I don't get where AI is coming from on this.
In the mobile space Microsoft is a rounding error, and any alliance with adobe is a limited opportunity.
Honestly though Balmer could go down as the man who, through lack of vision, made the biggest and wealthiest tech firm irrelevant. They need a new CEO or they are toast in my opinion.
Well today, we know who the more competent company turned out to be. Soon after, TrueType took over Postscript Type 1 fonts on the desktop.
Never happened in professional DTP. We now use OpenType which came about as a partnership between MS and Adobe. Apple decided to tag along since they had nothing.
If, for the sake of argument, MS bought Adobe and axed the Creative Suite on the Mac, couldn't you just dual boot into Windows (from an Intel Mac) and use Creative Suite that way?
I've heard CS is better on Windows anyway, no? What would be the difference?
Workflow. Dual-booting would kill it.
I hate to imagine what it would run like in emulation.
While it's nice to think that Apple can do a CS Suite on their own, they haven't really proved it so far. Their Pro Apps aren't the same quality as Adobe's mainly because it's not their main earner. Apple makes revenue on hardware so that's what gets the attention. Software is all Adobe has so they have to put effort into it.
If Microsoft partnered or merged with Adobe and discontinued the Mac Suite or even just parts of it, it would have some impact on the Mac platform. I don't see it happening because Adobe themselves use Mac hardware. Plus we keep thinking about platform exclusivity. In 5 years time, if we all have 8-core processors with 200+ SP GPUs in the low-end with 256GB+ SSDs and 8GB RAM then we could be running most of our software from websites and licensing services rather than owning software.
The problem with software right now, especially the big apps is that companies charge lots of money up front, which customers grudge and then customers reluctantly pay once or steal and then don't pay again for a long time. Instead, pay per usage works for media so why not software? Instead of paying £2,000 for the CS Suite, you just visit www.adobe.com and get a local but encrypted version of the suite for £1 per app to use for that day. If you aren't covering your £1 per day with the work you use it for, you aren't using the software properly and for businesses they can have special deals.
No piracy, the developer makes more money, the user pays more eventually but in low amounts, over a number of years and based on usage and updates are continuous at no extra charge.
It seems the talks between Microsoft and Adobe are about the mobile space though not the big apps (there's little reason to do anything with the big apps beyond spite) and it seems like Adobe's desperate attempt to keep Flash strong in mobile devices after losing arguably the biggest player through their own negligence. Naturally Microsoft having similarly lost in the mobile space through negligence wants to strengthen their Windows 7 platform but I think it will end badly for them. Both companies just have the wrong mindset because they think like sales people. No innovation, no imagination and no style, they just want a feature-set to match a checklist of demands.
Comments
Microsoft would not be buying Adobe to hurt the Mac. They would be buying Adobe to compete with the iPhone. Although how they think that would help them compete with the iPhone, I really have no idea. What would Microsoft do with Silverlight? I think this really would be a bizarre strategy for MS to pursue. MS has the resources to compete with the iPhone without wasting a ton of money on Adobe. Sad if Balmer doesn't know that.
For those who think it's "easy" for Apple to come-up with a creative suite that rivals Adobe are failing to account for the complexity of such projects and the lack of unique talents and break-in periods. A project such as that would take years to mature to the point where it can compete with Adobe.
Well it is a complex project and it would not be "easy." But Apple would not have great difficulty. Look how quickly they moved with Final Cut Pro and iWork.
My concern is that Apple tends to lose interest in software projects once they have developed them (I see FCP sort of languishing a bit over the last few years. And iWork has remained a bit subpar when it should be polished to a high gloss by now.)
This is a scary thought for all us graphic designers that rely on Creative Suite to do our jobs.
If MS were to acquire Adobe I imagine the Adobe CS for Mac would have a status similar to the Mac BU-- updates coming somewhat later than on the PC, with some functionality and OS integration not available. (EDIT: as Blastdoor points out)
In other words, not terribly different than it is now. There is no way, however, that MS would simply terminate the Mac versions of Adobe's stuff-- there's good money to be made selling software to Mac users. Plus, Adobe is so entrenched in the Mac creative market, with their sales to that segment vastly disproportionate to the Mac percentage of the overall market, that it would be near suicidal-- I believe something like 50% of Adobe's CS sales are for the Mac.
But assuming that that's the case and the focus would be on mobile offerings (which, if MS is sufficiently unnerved to consider this, what else would it be?) what would be the point of a merger? To make Flash work really well on MS mobile devices? AFAIK Adobe is doing what it can to shoehorn an inefficient, processor intensive piece of software onto constrained hardware; does bringing them in-house really change that?
Does MS think that Flash on mobile is going to be a sufficient competitive advantage for them to make inroads in that space? How could it, unless they plan to cancel Flash for everyone else (and that's never going to happen)? I don't think they imagine that "Flash running somewhat better on MS devices than the competition" is really going to shake anything up.
Does MS have some particular interest in Adobe dev tools? I would say absolutely not, they've got that pretty well covered.
So if it's not desktop apps becoming exclusive to Windows, and it's not Flash becoming exclusive to WM7, and it's not development tools, what does Adobe have that MS could possibly want?
There wasn't Flash for ARM in 2007, only Flash Lite, which was a small subset of an older Flash engine.
Adobe only recently made the full Flash available and it runs like crap except on the most powerful handsets.
I've been a Apple user since 1989 and I love my Mac but I need the creative suite to get my work done. If they merged, I would have to look into buying a PC as sad as that makes me. Damn, I hope this doesn't happen.
I guess an alternative would be to go buy the fastest mac I could afford and the latest version of the Creative Suite and see if I could wait out this tragedy until something changed. That should at least get me two years before I would have to make another hardware decision. It's like battening the hatches before the storm.
Simmer Down Now! Don't get all worked up about idle talk.
They are sort-of the perfect marriage, though - two dinosaurs that choose not to innovate but rather to acquire the competition.
I've heard CS is better on Windows anyway, no? What would be the difference?
So help me, if a talking paperclip or puppy tries to "help" me use After Effects things will get very ugly very quickly.
Wow! I remember those! Ugggh!
Very funny observation!
but a MERGER?
BITCH PLEASE
must have been a hell of a party last night and today at the AppleInsider offices...
I'm starting to think the AppleInsider staff is just like most of the people on these forums - switchers from PC to Macs...
Hey did ya hear? Britney Spears and Madonna are having a merger to fend off that trangender "Lady Ga Ga". It was on the bathroom wall at the gay club.
Just thought enterprising and creative minds would like to run with that.
You guys are a total effin HOOT.
Okay...I'm no power user, but what if Apple were to acquire Pixelmator & VectorDesigner, combine them in a suite with the layout abilities of Pages... could this be the potential beginnings of a creative suite that could compete at some point?
No need. All creative work will be done with HTML5 from now on.
I highly doubt that if Microsoft did purchase Adobe, they would stop development of Creative Suite for Mac. It is currently half of Adobe's revenue. And even if they did, it wouldn't take Apple much effort to either develop their own, buy up some smaller company or fork some open source project (I could definitely see Apple moving in and beefing up Gimp or Inkscape to better compete with Adobe's offerings, possibly even offering full native versions for both Windows and Macs).
Joke aside, I think the pair would suit each other. Heart warming in a way. It's like two school retards finally hitting it off in later life, then getting married (then dropping stone dead during the honeymoon).
While the Mac vs. PC wars have raged for years, Apple's crusade against Adobe is more recent, beginning with the introduction of the first iPhone, and its exclusion of Flash, in 2007.
Uh, what "crusade" against Adobe? Apple said no Flash on iOS. That's it. But Apple says "no" to any and all third-party browser plug-ins on mobile Safari, so how is saying "no" to Adobe considered a "crusade" against them? Apple reversed itself on iOS middleware tools. Apple works with Adobe and even licenses Display-PDF from Adobe. Flash is ready to run on Mac OS X. Apple competes with Adobe in some "Pro" markets (Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc), but that doesn't count as a crusade, I don't get where AI is coming from on this.
Honestly though Balmer could go down as the man who, through lack of vision, made the biggest and wealthiest tech firm irrelevant. They need a new CEO or they are toast in my opinion.
Well today, we know who the more competent company turned out to be. Soon after, TrueType took over Postscript Type 1 fonts on the desktop.
Never happened in professional DTP. We now use OpenType which came about as a partnership between MS and Adobe. Apple decided to tag along since they had nothing.
This is a scary thought for all us graphic designers that rely on Creative Suite to do our jobs.
Yes...
If, for the sake of argument, MS bought Adobe and axed the Creative Suite on the Mac, couldn't you just dual boot into Windows (from an Intel Mac) and use Creative Suite that way?
I've heard CS is better on Windows anyway, no? What would be the difference?
Workflow. Dual-booting would kill it.
I hate to imagine what it would run like in emulation.
I would rather run CS applications in OS X.
If Microsoft partnered or merged with Adobe and discontinued the Mac Suite or even just parts of it, it would have some impact on the Mac platform. I don't see it happening because Adobe themselves use Mac hardware. Plus we keep thinking about platform exclusivity. In 5 years time, if we all have 8-core processors with 200+ SP GPUs in the low-end with 256GB+ SSDs and 8GB RAM then we could be running most of our software from websites and licensing services rather than owning software.
The problem with software right now, especially the big apps is that companies charge lots of money up front, which customers grudge and then customers reluctantly pay once or steal and then don't pay again for a long time. Instead, pay per usage works for media so why not software? Instead of paying £2,000 for the CS Suite, you just visit www.adobe.com and get a local but encrypted version of the suite for £1 per app to use for that day. If you aren't covering your £1 per day with the work you use it for, you aren't using the software properly and for businesses they can have special deals.
No piracy, the developer makes more money, the user pays more eventually but in low amounts, over a number of years and based on usage and updates are continuous at no extra charge.
It seems the talks between Microsoft and Adobe are about the mobile space though not the big apps (there's little reason to do anything with the big apps beyond spite) and it seems like Adobe's desperate attempt to keep Flash strong in mobile devices after losing arguably the biggest player through their own negligence. Naturally Microsoft having similarly lost in the mobile space through negligence wants to strengthen their Windows 7 platform but I think it will end badly for them. Both companies just have the wrong mindset because they think like sales people. No innovation, no imagination and no style, they just want a feature-set to match a checklist of demands.