I understand your argument, but what are the implications? Does that mean that XP is a better platform to write high performance apps? Does it mean that the PC side has more mindshare?
What it means isn't necessarily very good, that's for sure. But, I think time will tell. If IBM puts some muscle behind a compiler we'll be in good shape. If Apple can improve relations with most software makers, we'll be in good shape. If Apple can get all of the "debug code"* out of their own OS, we'll be in good shape.
I'm not blind to the Mac's failures, I just happen to hate it when a reviewer purposes uses an uneven testing field.
*Old-skool joke. I do hope that OS 10.4 doesn't add a single new feature, but optimizes and threads the hell out of every single OS resource possible.
I know there are a lot of peope that have mastered Photoshop and that's great. But what we're talking about here is developing an app that is so modern in it's ways that productivity skyrockets. Peope respond to money. If your apps help them generate more money they will support you.
you have, in a nutshell, described a very similar battle between adobe and quark. now adobe might be seen by slightly disgruntled upgraders as having "plateaued out," so to speak. if a company were to com out with a competitive, compatible app and file format at an effective price point and some technologies too significant to ignore, you WILL knock them down a few notches.
Adobe has disowned the anti-Mac comments made by one one of its employees in a recent book. Adobe's PR director, Russell Brady, who joined the company afer working at Apple, strongly denied any deliberate snub to Apple or any lessening of commitment to the Mac.
When it comes to business productivity, the PC version of Office rules the roost. Marketing hype aside, the Mac version is not even close.
actually, i've watched our high-end PC's choke on huge PowerPoint files, only to have my Mac open them like nothing.
not sure pc's hold the real advantage over Mac's here.
and the PC version of Word does some really odd stuff to docs with photos in them, especially when they get to over 70+ pages.
when it comes to actually getting a job finished, the Mac version of Office wins hands down. why? because when the job needs to get done and done right, it always ends up on a Mac.
Adobe has disowned the anti-Mac comments made by one one of its employees in a recent book.
In the recently-published Illustrator CS for Dummies, Ted Alspach, Adobe's Group Product Manager for Illustration Products, wrote: 'As of 2003, Windows systems have taken a decisive lead over Macs when it comes to performance. The difference is most apparent with graphics applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator, but you'll notice it with other applications as well. If you're thinking of purchasing a new system, and speed and responsiveness is important (or at least more important than the feel of the OS, I suggest getting a zippy PC over a (comparably) sluggish Mac.'
But Adobe's PR director, Russell Brady, who joined the company afer working at Apple, strongly denied any deliberate snub to Apple or any lessening of commitment to the Mac.
'Ted Alspach's views do not reflect the views of Adobe. He shouldn't have written what he did and indentified those opinions with Adobe. It can be safely assumed that Ted won't be making any more statements like that,' said Brady.
'Any performance issues that might have been considered when he wrote his book have been made irrelevant by the Power Mac G5 launch. It's our view that in the creative pro space, the Mac is stronger than ever,' he added.
Alspach's comments follow the publication in March on Adobe's website of an article, titled the Great Render Race. In it Adobe asserted that in a series of tests using Adobe products 'the PC consistently outperformed the Macintosh machine, at an impressive rate.' Apple refuted the claims, while Adobe quickly withdrew the page.
Although Mac sales still account for around 28 per cent of Adobe's revenues, Alspach's comments only fuelled suspicions among many Mac users that Adobe would prefer to develop solely for the PC, and cut its R&D costs.
'Adobe only wants to have to write software for one platform. As long as a large chunk of their business is on Mac, they have to spend extra money to support the two platforms. They would obviously rather have everybody move towards Windows so that they could drop support for the Mac products and make twice as much money with significantly less expenditures on development,' read one posting on Mac Slash by a Mac-based graphic designer.
The relationship between Apple and Adobe has been tense ever since Apple launched programs like iMovie, Final Cut, and iPhoto, all of which compete with Adobe applications to varying degrees. Adobe stopped development of its Premiere video editing program on the Mac earlier this year, and the company, which was once partly owned by Apple, has recently launched several PC-only products.
People switched from Quark to InDesign in the masses.
If you count "masses" as, what, 10% of the market? After the second version was released?
Quote:
It would be difficult, but not impossible to shift people to a non-photoshop.
Not least because I haven't seen Photoshop or Adobe mentioned with near the rage and contempt reserved for XPress and Quark. And that's what I mean: Adobe would really have to screw up on the sort of scale that Quark has in order to give another app an opening, and even then it's going to be a hard row to hoe.
'Ted Alspach's views do not reflect the views of Adobe. He shouldn't have written what he did and indentified those opinions with Adobe. It can be safely assumed that Ted won't be making any more statements like that,' said Brady.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But Macworld has just added some credence to the claim that Macs are not quite up to speed. I just got my December, 03 edition. If you have a copy, start from page 60 and read until tears make reading impossible. The top PC hardware still outperforms the top Mac hardware in Photoshop. Macworld put together what appears to be a fair fight and they have no reason to skew results in the PC's favor. Other tests they did showed that the Mac was not even close. The Mac did do much better in encoding DVDs. Macworld put the best spin on things as they could, but clearly they were disappointed in many of the results. In these same tests, the G4 was an absolute embarrassment. Perhaps the Dual 3 Gig will finally catch us up with the PC. But clearly, the PM G5 is not the fastest personal computer on the block, not by a long shot. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
I'm sending them a letter to the editor. They admit that Premiere is unfair and sucks. Well, use Avid Express DV! Word sucks. Well, use a benchmark that counts!
And you might note that the G5 was 5 seconds behind a system that was $500 more.
It's real simple. Apple doesn't need to make a Photoshop killer, but rather a killer Photoshop plug-in. Something that makes pro users cream over what it can do. Then killer Illustrator and Indesign plug-ins. Problem solved. Apple locks up the graphics markets without having to write the Mother of All Graphics apps.
It's real simple. Apple doesn't need to make a Photoshop killer, but rather a killer Photoshop plug-in. Something that makes pro users cream over what it can do. Then killer Illustrator and Indesign plug-ins. Problem solved. Apple locks up the graphics markets without having to write the Mother of All Graphics apps.
Can a filter be made to only work on one platform?
FYI, to prevent the Adobe discussion from being further derailed, I have moved scavanger's posts and the discussion it spawned into a new thread. You can continue with it here:
Well then Apple should start to prove its graphics prowess to help and encourage Adobe to continue working with Apple. Then if Adobe ever backs out (unlikely) they'll know Apple could swoop in fairly easily with a strong contender.
It's real simple. Apple doesn't need to make a Photoshop killer, but rather a killer Photoshop plug-in. Something that makes pro users cream over what it can do. Then killer Illustrator and Indesign plug-ins. Problem solved. Apple locks up the graphics markets without having to write the Mother of All Graphics apps.
son of a gun, you may be onto something. that way, apple moves sales of adobe products, so adobe is happy, and sales of macs, because the plug-ins only work with mac os x. everybody's happy!
Yes but if Apple develops a killer plugin then they've merely traded one Software developers angst for another. Yes Adobe is large but keeping the "little guys" happy has to be a priority as well.
Comments
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I understand your argument, but what are the implications? Does that mean that XP is a better platform to write high performance apps? Does it mean that the PC side has more mindshare?
What it means isn't necessarily very good, that's for sure. But, I think time will tell. If IBM puts some muscle behind a compiler we'll be in good shape. If Apple can improve relations with most software makers, we'll be in good shape. If Apple can get all of the "debug code"* out of their own OS, we'll be in good shape.
I'm not blind to the Mac's failures, I just happen to hate it when a reviewer purposes uses an uneven testing field.
*Old-skool joke. I do hope that OS 10.4 doesn't add a single new feature, but optimizes and threads the hell out of every single OS resource possible.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I know there are a lot of peope that have mastered Photoshop and that's great. But what we're talking about here is developing an app that is so modern in it's ways that productivity skyrockets. Peope respond to money. If your apps help them generate more money they will support you.
you have, in a nutshell, described a very similar battle between adobe and quark. now adobe might be seen by slightly disgruntled upgraders as having "plateaued out," so to speak. if a company were to com out with a competitive, compatible app and file format at an effective price point and some technologies too significant to ignore, you WILL knock them down a few notches.
When it comes to business productivity, the PC version of Office rules the roost. Marketing hype aside, the Mac version is not even close.
actually, i've watched our high-end PC's choke on huge PowerPoint files, only to have my Mac open them like nothing.
not sure pc's hold the real advantage over Mac's here.
and the PC version of Word does some really odd stuff to docs with photos in them, especially when they get to over 70+ pages.
when it comes to actually getting a job finished, the Mac version of Office wins hands down. why? because when the job needs to get done and done right, it always ends up on a Mac.
Originally posted by Gyroscope
Adobe has disowned the anti-Mac comments made by one one of its employees in a recent book.
The correct URL is http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=50443, but the site requires you to fill some subscription form. Here's a copy of the article:
Adobe chastens Windows-favouring author
[PC Pro] 14:24
Adobe has disowned the anti-Mac comments made by one one of its employees in a recent book.
In the recently-published Illustrator CS for Dummies, Ted Alspach, Adobe's Group Product Manager for Illustration Products, wrote: 'As of 2003, Windows systems have taken a decisive lead over Macs when it comes to performance. The difference is most apparent with graphics applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator, but you'll notice it with other applications as well. If you're thinking of purchasing a new system, and speed and responsiveness is important (or at least more important than the feel of the OS, I suggest getting a zippy PC over a (comparably) sluggish Mac.'
But Adobe's PR director, Russell Brady, who joined the company afer working at Apple, strongly denied any deliberate snub to Apple or any lessening of commitment to the Mac.
'Ted Alspach's views do not reflect the views of Adobe. He shouldn't have written what he did and indentified those opinions with Adobe. It can be safely assumed that Ted won't be making any more statements like that,' said Brady.
'Any performance issues that might have been considered when he wrote his book have been made irrelevant by the Power Mac G5 launch. It's our view that in the creative pro space, the Mac is stronger than ever,' he added.
Alspach's comments follow the publication in March on Adobe's website of an article, titled the Great Render Race. In it Adobe asserted that in a series of tests using Adobe products 'the PC consistently outperformed the Macintosh machine, at an impressive rate.' Apple refuted the claims, while Adobe quickly withdrew the page.
Although Mac sales still account for around 28 per cent of Adobe's revenues, Alspach's comments only fuelled suspicions among many Mac users that Adobe would prefer to develop solely for the PC, and cut its R&D costs.
'Adobe only wants to have to write software for one platform. As long as a large chunk of their business is on Mac, they have to spend extra money to support the two platforms. They would obviously rather have everybody move towards Windows so that they could drop support for the Mac products and make twice as much money with significantly less expenditures on development,' read one posting on Mac Slash by a Mac-based graphic designer.
The relationship between Apple and Adobe has been tense ever since Apple launched programs like iMovie, Final Cut, and iPhoto, all of which compete with Adobe applications to varying degrees. Adobe stopped development of its Premiere video editing program on the Mac earlier this year, and the company, which was once partly owned by Apple, has recently launched several PC-only products.
Paul Nesbitt
Maybe there is hope for Adobe after all.
Originally posted by progmac
People switched from Quark to InDesign in the masses.
If you count "masses" as, what, 10% of the market? After the second version was released?
It would be difficult, but not impossible to shift people to a non-photoshop.
Not least because I haven't seen Photoshop or Adobe mentioned with near the rage and contempt reserved for XPress and Quark. And that's what I mean: Adobe would really have to screw up on the sort of scale that Quark has in order to give another app an opening, and even then it's going to be a hard row to hoe.
Originally posted by Amorph
Adobe would really have to screw up on the sort of scale that Quark has
Would abandoning the Mac market be on that sort of scale?
Of course yes.
'Ted Alspach's views do not reflect the views of Adobe. He shouldn't have written what he did and indentified those opinions with Adobe. It can be safely assumed that Ted won't be making any more statements like that,' said Brady.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But Macworld has just added some credence to the claim that Macs are not quite up to speed. I just got my December, 03 edition. If you have a copy, start from page 60 and read until tears make reading impossible. The top PC hardware still outperforms the top Mac hardware in Photoshop. Macworld put together what appears to be a fair fight and they have no reason to skew results in the PC's favor. Other tests they did showed that the Mac was not even close. The Mac did do much better in encoding DVDs. Macworld put the best spin on things as they could, but clearly they were disappointed in many of the results. In these same tests, the G4 was an absolute embarrassment. Perhaps the Dual 3 Gig will finally catch us up with the PC. But clearly, the PM G5 is not the fastest personal computer on the block, not by a long shot. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
I'm sending them a letter to the editor. They admit that Premiere is unfair and sucks. Well, use Avid Express DV! Word sucks. Well, use a benchmark that counts!
And you might note that the G5 was 5 seconds behind a system that was $500 more.
We're doing pretty good, if you ask me.
Originally posted by HOM
It's real simple. Apple doesn't need to make a Photoshop killer, but rather a killer Photoshop plug-in. Something that makes pro users cream over what it can do. Then killer Illustrator and Indesign plug-ins. Problem solved. Apple locks up the graphics markets without having to write the Mother of All Graphics apps.
Can a filter be made to only work on one platform?
Originally posted by bunge
Can a filter be made to only work on one platform?
Sure.
Apple criticisms. Software, standards, etc.
Originally posted by Amorph
Sure.
Well then Apple should start to prove its graphics prowess to help and encourage Adobe to continue working with Apple. Then if Adobe ever backs out (unlikely) they'll know Apple could swoop in fairly easily with a strong contender.
Originally posted by HOM
It's real simple. Apple doesn't need to make a Photoshop killer, but rather a killer Photoshop plug-in. Something that makes pro users cream over what it can do. Then killer Illustrator and Indesign plug-ins. Problem solved. Apple locks up the graphics markets without having to write the Mother of All Graphics apps.
son of a gun, you may be onto something. that way, apple moves sales of adobe products, so adobe is happy, and sales of macs, because the plug-ins only work with mac os x. everybody's happy!
brilliant!
Originally posted by HOM
Apple doesn't need to make a Photoshop killer, but rather a killer Photoshop plug-in.
Brilliant indeed! Any examples of what plug-ins Apple could make?