Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.
FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.
Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.
I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.
Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.
But Adobe should.
Apple is doing what it has a responsibility to do. Gain market share in markets it doesn't already have, make the Mac a more attractive market and develop programs where no solution is present.
The problem is that Apple needs Adobe and Microsoft so can't compete with them - even when they do make inferior products. Keynote is directly competing with PowerPoint but because PowerPoint is so bad it doesn't effect Office sales. Also Excel and Word are needed (even though they are the most infuriating programs known to man!)
Adobe took out a key feature of Photoshop Elements for the Mac due to the popularity of iPhoto. Apple is slowly competing with more and more and this is causing problems because Apple does it best. However, Aperture doesn't compete with anything but iPhoto!
Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.
FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.
Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.
I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.
Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.
But Adobe should.
Actually, FCP was not aimed at Adobe at all. Adobe was just in the middle. Premier was an amateur program. I used it since ver 1, but it had gotten pretty confused after some years. It was never a Pro program until now on the PC with ver 7. Even so, it's a low end pro program.
Apple aimed FCP at Avid. Avid had moved away from Apple following its marketshare loss, and had come out with its highend programs only on NT. When Mac users complained, Avid said they hadn't forgotten their loyal Mac users, and came out with a small progran designed to help move those loyal users projects over to NT.
The uproar and loss of sales at Avid caused them to fire their entire top management team and reorganize the company. Afterwards they released their high end stuff for the Mac as well.
But, as a result of this situation, Apple decided to have its own editing suit and bought the program from Macromedia that became FCP. They had already bought the three DVD editing and production programs from Astarte that became DVD Studio.
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.
Anyone who thinks Adobe is going to replace it's current filter set with coreimage is FULL of crap, or has no access to advanced apple info or info from Adobe systems.
Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
Not surprisingly, the minimal hardware specifications require a CoreImage-compatible GFX chip. Aperture imho is the stick in Apple's carrot-and-stick strategy to move Adobe towards using Core* in its products.
The recommended system specs are mind-boggling, though:
no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.
No, I haven't read the previous pages, and no, I'm not a complete n00b.. okay well maybe I am at Macs.. but anyways how exactly does Aperture compare to Photoshop?
I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.
Avid and FCP are in many ways two entirely different animals. FCP is largely a software solution. Pro Avid gear is a hardware heavy system with real time-multistream-DVE hardware accelorators, its own RAID storage system that can cost $50,000.
When FCP v1 was released the cheapest Avid system (Avid Xpress) was about $20,000. FCP was in no way in the same league for features or speed with Avid at that point.
Where FCP did compete with Avid was in desktop DV editing. At that point Avid was the champ in multistream real time uncompressed SD, and Avid did not offer low cost DV software.
Over time Avid has released cheaper software based solutions. With improvments in desktop hardware and OS API's FCP has been able to adopt more of Avid's advantages.
Still at this time FCP is not at all the same as a top pro Avid system. FCP is good as a low cost solution for DV and uncompressed SD. It's getting better for HD.
Quote:
Apple is slowly competing with more and more and this is causing problems because Apple does it best.
Outside of the FCP-Premeire example, how do you see it causing a problems?
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.
Anyone who thinks Adobe is going to replace it's current filter set with coreimage is FULL of crap, or has no access to advanced apple info or info from Adobe systems.
[B]no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by sjk
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.
APPLE says that it requires min. 128 Video memory. Not us.
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.
Good point.
Unnecssarily rude, but I see your point.
I don't think its true that Apple doesn't care if Adobe uses CoreImage. All of Apple's graphic apps use Core Image Core Sound, that's the reason these tools are there.
The user of Aperture will be in this situation. Any manipulation in Aperture will be in Core Image, when that picture is imported to PS will then use Adobe API's.
On the same accord if you edit an image in Core Image then save it as a common image file. It will still be crossplatform.
I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.
Avid and FCP are in many ways two entirely different animals. FCP is largely a software solution. Pro Avid gear is a hardware heavy system with real time-multistream-DVE hardware accelorators, its own RAID storage system that can cost $50,000.
When FCP v1 was released the cheapest Avid system (Avid Xpress) was about $20,000. FCP was in no way in the same league for features or speed with Avid at that point.
Where FCP did compete with Avid was in desktop DV editing. At that point Avid was the champ in multistream real time uncompressed SD, and Avid did not offer low cost DV software.
Over time Avid has released cheaper software based solutions. With improvments in desktop hardware and OS API's FCP has been able to adopt more of Avid's advantages.
Still at this time FCP is not at all the same as a top pro Avid system. FCP is good as a low cost solution for DV and uncompressed SD. It's getting better for HD.
Outside of the FCP-Premeire example, how do you see it causing a problems?
I missed this post, so mine is out of order.
Apple was showing, and has done it very well, that their equipment, which is also used in turn-key systems from Avid, could compete on Avids low end.
Apple has essencially made Avids low cost systems obsolete. With real time boards, they have been creaping upwards steadily. With the FC Suite they have cut into Avids feature set, and in a number of areas surpassed it. Avid's Express software has been playing catchup . Avids hardware has been pushed out of many editing suites.
Adobe's Premier is what we know as "collateral damage".
I wouldn't classify Apple's solution as competing against Avids hi end systems, but as FC Studio and the hardware solutions that have come onto the market to work with it have gotten more sophisticated, Apple's has taken more and more of Avids workload.
The Quad is going to reduce that difference even more. Many more effects will be realtime with that. It's one of the reasons I'm looking foward to getting it.
The thing here that is exciting about FC Studio is that about one third of all pro video editors are now using it. That includes the pro's who can't, because they work on PC's. I got that from a survey done, I think, by DV Magazine.
If this keeps moving upwards, and with the features Apple has been adding, it seems as though it will, then Avid will be squeezed into the hi end productivity corner. with so many studios using FC Studio, Avid will have to keep supporting the Mac. There is now too much custom software on the high end that is being ported over from Unix.
no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)
No offense? I simply made a statement about Aperture's hardware requirements relative to my iMac, which wasn't intended to imply I meant to purchase it for that system.
No, I haven't read the previous pages, and no, I'm not a complete n00b.. okay well maybe I am at Macs.. but anyways how exactly does Aperture compare to Photoshop?
That's a very general question. Maybe look through Photoshop-related comments in previous post here and similar comments on other sites (e.g. MacInTouch), then formulate specific questions that haven't already been answered?
When MS took Powerpoint years ago and put it into Office, it killed what was the best presentation program around; Adobe's Persuasion.
They did what they did to Netscape. Gave an app away that was being beaten in quality and sales.
They'll find it alot harder to 'kill' Apple. And Apple are making it harder to do so. This isn't the same Apple of 1997.
And Steve Jobs has been making this abundently clear to Adobe and M$.
Aperture may not be a direct competitor to Photoshop for now.
But to me, it's more Photoshop than Photoshop for the Photographer.
Aperture is a clear signal from Apple that if Adobe won't do it. Apple will. And with more style, simplicity and elegance and Power.
Apple's Pro and Consumer software is generally excellent and has, in general, sawn the legs off the competition. It will be interesting to see where Aperture goes...
I think it makes interfaces from Adobe and M$ embarrassing to look at...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. If Adobe or M$ were to pull the plug on Apple...I have no doubt that Apple would be there to answer the challenge. With Open Office for the Mac...and iWorks, it's clear Apple are on that track... And with Funhouse 'knocked up in Cocoa within a week' and Aperture...Apple is showing Adobe their monopolies are not invulnerable... Steve Jobs doesn't like being at the behest of others. The 'drop' Office threat and the '2nd place' attitude of Adobe to Macs... Personally, I think he's putting the pieces in Place from iPod to Aperture so he and Apple can do what they want...and teh finger to M$/Adobe and companies like them in the process... Just like Apple gave 'teh finger' to IBM. Apple just aren't going to be held to ransom or held down any more. I think that's a GOOD THING. TM.
PPS. Huh. Both M$ and Adobe seem to have forgotten where they have come from....
Even though FCP was twice as expensive. And what did Adobe do? They ran away!
Sissies
My comments to Adobe when they told me about it was that they should fix the program and lower the price to $449 list. The price had crept up to close to $600 over the years.
I thought it would sell in that range if it were fixed.
They'll find it alot harder to 'kill' Apple. And Apple are making it harder to do so. This isn't the same Apple of 1997.
And Steve Jobs has been making this abundently clear to Adobe and M$.
Aperture may not be a direct competitor to Photoshop for now.
But to me, it's more Photoshop than Photoshop for the Photographer.
Aperture is a clear signal from Apple that if Adobe won't do it. Apple will. And with more style, simplicity and elegance and Power.
Apple's Pro and Consumer software is generally excellent and has, in general, sawn the legs off the competition. It will be interesting to see where Aperture goes...
I think it makes interfaces from Adobe and M$ embarrassing to look at...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. If Adobe or M$ were to pull the plug on Apple...I have no doubt that Apple would be there to answer the challenge. With Open Office for the Mac...and iWorks, it's clear Apple are on that track... And with Funhouse 'knocked up in Cocoa within a week' and Aperture...Apple is showing Adobe their monopolies are not invulnerable... Steve Jobs doesn't like being at the behest of others. The 'drop' Office threat and the '2nd place' attitude of Adobe to Macs... Personally, I think he's putting the pieces in Place from iPod to Aperture so he and Apple can do what they want...and teh finger to M$/Adobe and companies like them in the process... Just like Apple gave 'teh finger' to IBM. Apple just aren't going to be held to ransom or held down any more. I think that's a GOOD THING. TM.
PPS. Huh. Both M$ and Adobe seem to have forgotten where they have come from....
I'm not talking about killing Apple. But it surely would hurt.
Apple has shown no interest in either Star Office or Open Office.
iWork has a nice little program in Pages. But almost no one is buying it. It sits on the shelf, and Apple has shown no interest in doing anything with it to make it competitive.
It takes years to build a program up to the point where it can start to replace a "standard". Look to the competition between Adobe and Quark.
Even though Quark has been universally vilified over many years. And even though from the very beginning, inDesign has been heralded as the better program, the much better program with each new release. With that, Adobe is praised for good customer relations. And even though Quark has been slow getting new and useful releases out of the door. And even with their totally reviled lack of customer support, and the lack of respect many companies and individual users have felt radiating from Quark, most of the publishing industry is STILL standardized on Quark Express.
Why is that?
Because once Quark established itself, and many third party software companies wrote software to extend and support the program, and after companies built their workflow's around the Quark Publishing System, It became extremely difficult to extricate themselves from it. Even though many want to.
Even if we believe, as Mac users, that Aperture is the most wonderful program of its type ever conceived, and even if we think that after several upgrades, the program can, in someway, compete with PS, it will still have a LONG way to go before most others think that.
It is also hobbled most seriously by the very fact that is IS a Mac only program. Apple would have to do what Adobe does, and release it on Windows as well. Remember that with only 27% of PS users on the Mac, this can't make any headway against PS as a one platform solution.
Apple would also need a viable publishing program as well as a vector drawing program. Even if this does turn into an image manipulation program as PS is, it won't be enough.
I'm not convinced that Apple, no matter what we might think, is considering any of that. And believe me, it would be needed. Industry is moving away from the stand-alone program.
It started with the Office Suite. It moved to the Corel Suite for graphics. Others did the same thing, such as Macromedia.
Apple then bought and wrote programs to complete the FC Suite. Adobe had that with CS, and now CS2.
Apple would have to have their own publishing suite as well.
I actually thought that they might be interested in doing that at one time, but they have passed up every opportunity to pick up programs that would help them in any way, even in graphics.
When MetaCreations sold off their graphics programs, Apple was thought of as a natural buyer. But Corel bought them. Again, when Corel then sold them more recently, and with Apple's big push into software, they again failed to pick any up.
When the word was out that Macromedia might be up for sale, I thought that Apple had a great chance of really moving in and solidifying important areas of their offerings.
Flash, the most widely used standard of its type could have been owned by Apple. Apple would have acquired Freehand. A program they would need to compete with Adobe - if they wanted to. Director, a VERY important content creation as a counterpart to DVD Studio.
Other area's of endeavor that Macromedia is expert in would have helped Apple come up to speed quickly.
But Apple has been conspicuous by its absence.
I don't think that Apple is thinking of competing directly with Adobe.
And, I don't think that it matters in the slightest where MS and Adobe came from. You could say that about many of Apple's longtime developers who have slipped over to Windows support, or have left entirely.
I don't think Apple wants to compete with MS and Adobe but I agree with LBB. If you push Apple they will quickly show you that they are indeed one of the best software houses in the biz.
Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.
When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.
Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.
Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.
Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.
Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.
I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.
Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.
I don't think Apple wants to compete with MS and Adobe but I agree with LBB. If you push Apple they will quickly show you that they are indeed one of the best software houses in the biz.
Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.
When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.
Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.
Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.
Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.
Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.
I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.
Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.
I agree that Apple has a lot of talent for seeing how a solution to a problem should be resolved in software. There isn't any question about that, if they put their best talent on the job, and continue to develop the product instead of dropping the ball, which they have done several times.
Quickdraw GX was brilliant. At the time MS had nothing at all of note in that area. Open GL was not much more than an organized set of primitives. GX was amazing. I still have all the old demos and programs that came out to take advantage of it.
But it is also an example of what I'm saying. It wasn't there to nudge Adobe. It was there because MS had recently bought (Geez, now I forget which program it was. SoftImage?) the most popular Unix based 3D program out there to push NT into 3d design. An area that it hadn't been at all. An area that Apple was beginning to get into. All 3D work used Open GL or some other proprietary software. Apple brought out GX to compete with GL. GX had high level routines for texture, etc. that GL didn't have. It was much more advanced - and much faster as well. I well remember Apple coming to my old user group here in NYC and demoing it while answering our questions.
But where is it now? Far away. Why? It was an Apple only standard. No major company supported it. So it died.
Office is very well done for the Mac. It's pretty much agreed that it is better on the Mac then on Windows. It has been since the OS X version. It just needs a database compatible with Access. But Filemaker takes care of 85% of that.
I don't think that Adobe would just drop Apple support. They might do what many other companies have done. Fail to release simultaneously. Fail to support speed enhancements.
Too many independent graphic artists have Adobe's programs as their life work. They won't give them up so easily. They will move to the PC instead.
The first thing Aperture would have to do is to support PS's layering environment the way inDesign and Illustrator do. Without that, no one would consider leaving PS. That might be a licensing issue.
Comments
Originally posted by TenoBell
Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.
FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.
Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.
I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.
Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.
But Adobe should.
Apple is doing what it has a responsibility to do. Gain market share in markets it doesn't already have, make the Mac a more attractive market and develop programs where no solution is present.
The problem is that Apple needs Adobe and Microsoft so can't compete with them - even when they do make inferior products. Keynote is directly competing with PowerPoint but because PowerPoint is so bad it doesn't effect Office sales. Also Excel and Word are needed (even though they are the most infuriating programs known to man!)
Adobe took out a key feature of Photoshop Elements for the Mac due to the popularity of iPhoto. Apple is slowly competing with more and more and this is causing problems because Apple does it best. However, Aperture doesn't compete with anything but iPhoto!
Originally posted by TenoBell
Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.
FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.
Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.
I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.
Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.
But Adobe should.
Actually, FCP was not aimed at Adobe at all. Adobe was just in the middle. Premier was an amateur program. I used it since ver 1, but it had gotten pretty confused after some years. It was never a Pro program until now on the PC with ver 7. Even so, it's a low end pro program.
Apple aimed FCP at Avid. Avid had moved away from Apple following its marketshare loss, and had come out with its highend programs only on NT. When Mac users complained, Avid said they hadn't forgotten their loyal Mac users, and came out with a small progran designed to help move those loyal users projects over to NT.
The uproar and loss of sales at Avid caused them to fire their entire top management team and reorganize the company. Afterwards they released their high end stuff for the Mac as well.
But, as a result of this situation, Apple decided to have its own editing suit and bought the program from Macromedia that became FCP. They had already bought the three DVD editing and production programs from Astarte that became DVD Studio.
Anyone who thinks Adobe is going to replace it's current filter set with coreimage is FULL of crap, or has no access to advanced apple info or info from Adobe systems.
Originally posted by Smircle
Not surprisingly, the minimal hardware specifications require a CoreImage-compatible GFX chip. Aperture imho is the stick in Apple's carrot-and-stick strategy to move Adobe towards using Core* in its products.
The recommended system specs are mind-boggling, though:
- Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster
- 2GB of RAM
- One of the following graphics cards:
* ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Originally posted by sjk
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.
Apple aimed FCP at Avid.
I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.
Avid and FCP are in many ways two entirely different animals. FCP is largely a software solution. Pro Avid gear is a hardware heavy system with real time-multistream-DVE hardware accelorators, its own RAID storage system that can cost $50,000.
When FCP v1 was released the cheapest Avid system (Avid Xpress) was about $20,000. FCP was in no way in the same league for features or speed with Avid at that point.
Where FCP did compete with Avid was in desktop DV editing. At that point Avid was the champ in multistream real time uncompressed SD, and Avid did not offer low cost DV software.
Over time Avid has released cheaper software based solutions. With improvments in desktop hardware and OS API's FCP has been able to adopt more of Avid's advantages.
Still at this time FCP is not at all the same as a top pro Avid system. FCP is good as a low cost solution for DV and uncompressed SD. It's getting better for HD.
Apple is slowly competing with more and more and this is causing problems because Apple does it best.
Outside of the FCP-Premeire example, how do you see it causing a problems?
Originally posted by webmail
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.
Anyone who thinks Adobe is going to replace it's current filter set with coreimage is FULL of crap, or has no access to advanced apple info or info from Adobe systems.
I agree.
Originally posted by webmail
[B]no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by sjk
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.
APPLE says that it requires min. 128 Video memory. Not us.
Originally posted by webmail
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.
Good point.
Unnecssarily rude, but I see your point.
I don't think its true that Apple doesn't care if Adobe uses CoreImage. All of Apple's graphic apps use Core Image Core Sound, that's the reason these tools are there.
The user of Aperture will be in this situation. Any manipulation in Aperture will be in Core Image, when that picture is imported to PS will then use Adobe API's.
On the same accord if you edit an image in Core Image then save it as a common image file. It will still be crossplatform.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.
Avid and FCP are in many ways two entirely different animals. FCP is largely a software solution. Pro Avid gear is a hardware heavy system with real time-multistream-DVE hardware accelorators, its own RAID storage system that can cost $50,000.
When FCP v1 was released the cheapest Avid system (Avid Xpress) was about $20,000. FCP was in no way in the same league for features or speed with Avid at that point.
Where FCP did compete with Avid was in desktop DV editing. At that point Avid was the champ in multistream real time uncompressed SD, and Avid did not offer low cost DV software.
Over time Avid has released cheaper software based solutions. With improvments in desktop hardware and OS API's FCP has been able to adopt more of Avid's advantages.
Still at this time FCP is not at all the same as a top pro Avid system. FCP is good as a low cost solution for DV and uncompressed SD. It's getting better for HD.
Outside of the FCP-Premeire example, how do you see it causing a problems?
I missed this post, so mine is out of order.
Apple was showing, and has done it very well, that their equipment, which is also used in turn-key systems from Avid, could compete on Avids low end.
Apple has essencially made Avids low cost systems obsolete. With real time boards, they have been creaping upwards steadily. With the FC Suite they have cut into Avids feature set, and in a number of areas surpassed it. Avid's Express software has been playing catchup . Avids hardware has been pushed out of many editing suites.
Adobe's Premier is what we know as "collateral damage".
I wouldn't classify Apple's solution as competing against Avids hi end systems, but as FC Studio and the hardware solutions that have come onto the market to work with it have gotten more sophisticated, Apple's has taken more and more of Avids workload.
The Quad is going to reduce that difference even more. Many more effects will be realtime with that. It's one of the reasons I'm looking foward to getting it.
The thing here that is exciting about FC Studio is that about one third of all pro video editors are now using it. That includes the pro's who can't, because they work on PC's. I got that from a survey done, I think, by DV Magazine.
If this keeps moving upwards, and with the features Apple has been adding, it seems as though it will, then Avid will be squeezed into the hi end productivity corner. with so many studios using FC Studio, Avid will have to keep supporting the Mac. There is now too much custom software on the high end that is being ported over from Unix.
A problem with Adobe?
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.
Even though FCP was twice as expensive. And what did Adobe do? They ran away!
Sissies
Originally posted by webmail
no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)
No offense? I simply made a statement about Aperture's hardware requirements relative to my iMac, which wasn't intended to imply I meant to purchase it for that system.
Originally posted by Offspring
No, I haven't read the previous pages, and no, I'm not a complete n00b.. okay well maybe I am at Macs.. but anyways how exactly does Aperture compare to Photoshop?
That's a very general question. Maybe look through Photoshop-related comments in previous post here and similar comments on other sites (e.g. MacInTouch), then formulate specific questions that haven't already been answered?
When MS took Powerpoint years ago and put it into Office, it killed what was the best presentation program around; Adobe's Persuasion.
They did what they did to Netscape. Gave an app away that was being beaten in quality and sales.
They'll find it alot harder to 'kill' Apple. And Apple are making it harder to do so. This isn't the same Apple of 1997.
And Steve Jobs has been making this abundently clear to Adobe and M$.
Aperture may not be a direct competitor to Photoshop for now.
But to me, it's more Photoshop than Photoshop for the Photographer.
Aperture is a clear signal from Apple that if Adobe won't do it. Apple will. And with more style, simplicity and elegance and Power.
Apple's Pro and Consumer software is generally excellent and has, in general, sawn the legs off the competition. It will be interesting to see where Aperture goes...
I think it makes interfaces from Adobe and M$ embarrassing to look at...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. If Adobe or M$ were to pull the plug on Apple...I have no doubt that Apple would be there to answer the challenge. With Open Office for the Mac...and iWorks, it's clear Apple are on that track... And with Funhouse 'knocked up in Cocoa within a week' and Aperture...Apple is showing Adobe their monopolies are not invulnerable... Steve Jobs doesn't like being at the behest of others. The 'drop' Office threat and the '2nd place' attitude of Adobe to Macs... Personally, I think he's putting the pieces in Place from iPod to Aperture so he and Apple can do what they want...and teh finger to M$/Adobe and companies like them in the process... Just like Apple gave 'teh finger' to IBM. Apple just aren't going to be held to ransom or held down any more. I think that's a GOOD THING. TM.
PPS. Huh. Both M$ and Adobe seem to have forgotten where they have come from....
Originally posted by JLL
Even though FCP was twice as expensive. And what did Adobe do? They ran away!
Sissies
My comments to Adobe when they told me about it was that they should fix the program and lower the price to $449 list. The price had crept up to close to $600 over the years.
I thought it would sell in that range if it were fixed.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
They'll find it alot harder to 'kill' Apple. And Apple are making it harder to do so. This isn't the same Apple of 1997.
And Steve Jobs has been making this abundently clear to Adobe and M$.
Aperture may not be a direct competitor to Photoshop for now.
But to me, it's more Photoshop than Photoshop for the Photographer.
Aperture is a clear signal from Apple that if Adobe won't do it. Apple will. And with more style, simplicity and elegance and Power.
Apple's Pro and Consumer software is generally excellent and has, in general, sawn the legs off the competition. It will be interesting to see where Aperture goes...
I think it makes interfaces from Adobe and M$ embarrassing to look at...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. If Adobe or M$ were to pull the plug on Apple...I have no doubt that Apple would be there to answer the challenge. With Open Office for the Mac...and iWorks, it's clear Apple are on that track... And with Funhouse 'knocked up in Cocoa within a week' and Aperture...Apple is showing Adobe their monopolies are not invulnerable... Steve Jobs doesn't like being at the behest of others. The 'drop' Office threat and the '2nd place' attitude of Adobe to Macs... Personally, I think he's putting the pieces in Place from iPod to Aperture so he and Apple can do what they want...and teh finger to M$/Adobe and companies like them in the process... Just like Apple gave 'teh finger' to IBM. Apple just aren't going to be held to ransom or held down any more. I think that's a GOOD THING. TM.
PPS. Huh. Both M$ and Adobe seem to have forgotten where they have come from....
I'm not talking about killing Apple. But it surely would hurt.
Apple has shown no interest in either Star Office or Open Office.
iWork has a nice little program in Pages. But almost no one is buying it. It sits on the shelf, and Apple has shown no interest in doing anything with it to make it competitive.
It takes years to build a program up to the point where it can start to replace a "standard". Look to the competition between Adobe and Quark.
Even though Quark has been universally vilified over many years. And even though from the very beginning, inDesign has been heralded as the better program, the much better program with each new release. With that, Adobe is praised for good customer relations. And even though Quark has been slow getting new and useful releases out of the door. And even with their totally reviled lack of customer support, and the lack of respect many companies and individual users have felt radiating from Quark, most of the publishing industry is STILL standardized on Quark Express.
Why is that?
Because once Quark established itself, and many third party software companies wrote software to extend and support the program, and after companies built their workflow's around the Quark Publishing System, It became extremely difficult to extricate themselves from it. Even though many want to.
Even if we believe, as Mac users, that Aperture is the most wonderful program of its type ever conceived, and even if we think that after several upgrades, the program can, in someway, compete with PS, it will still have a LONG way to go before most others think that.
It is also hobbled most seriously by the very fact that is IS a Mac only program. Apple would have to do what Adobe does, and release it on Windows as well. Remember that with only 27% of PS users on the Mac, this can't make any headway against PS as a one platform solution.
Apple would also need a viable publishing program as well as a vector drawing program. Even if this does turn into an image manipulation program as PS is, it won't be enough.
I'm not convinced that Apple, no matter what we might think, is considering any of that. And believe me, it would be needed. Industry is moving away from the stand-alone program.
It started with the Office Suite. It moved to the Corel Suite for graphics. Others did the same thing, such as Macromedia.
Apple then bought and wrote programs to complete the FC Suite. Adobe had that with CS, and now CS2.
Apple would have to have their own publishing suite as well.
I actually thought that they might be interested in doing that at one time, but they have passed up every opportunity to pick up programs that would help them in any way, even in graphics.
When MetaCreations sold off their graphics programs, Apple was thought of as a natural buyer. But Corel bought them. Again, when Corel then sold them more recently, and with Apple's big push into software, they again failed to pick any up.
When the word was out that Macromedia might be up for sale, I thought that Apple had a great chance of really moving in and solidifying important areas of their offerings.
Flash, the most widely used standard of its type could have been owned by Apple. Apple would have acquired Freehand. A program they would need to compete with Adobe - if they wanted to. Director, a VERY important content creation as a counterpart to DVD Studio.
Other area's of endeavor that Macromedia is expert in would have helped Apple come up to speed quickly.
But Apple has been conspicuous by its absence.
I don't think that Apple is thinking of competing directly with Adobe.
And, I don't think that it matters in the slightest where MS and Adobe came from. You could say that about many of Apple's longtime developers who have slipped over to Windows support, or have left entirely.
Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.
When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.
Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.
Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.
Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.
Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.
I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.
Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I don't think Apple wants to compete with MS and Adobe but I agree with LBB. If you push Apple they will quickly show you that they are indeed one of the best software houses in the biz.
Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.
When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.
Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.
Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.
Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.
Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.
I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.
Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.
I agree that Apple has a lot of talent for seeing how a solution to a problem should be resolved in software. There isn't any question about that, if they put their best talent on the job, and continue to develop the product instead of dropping the ball, which they have done several times.
Quickdraw GX was brilliant. At the time MS had nothing at all of note in that area. Open GL was not much more than an organized set of primitives. GX was amazing. I still have all the old demos and programs that came out to take advantage of it.
But it is also an example of what I'm saying. It wasn't there to nudge Adobe. It was there because MS had recently bought (Geez, now I forget which program it was. SoftImage?) the most popular Unix based 3D program out there to push NT into 3d design. An area that it hadn't been at all. An area that Apple was beginning to get into. All 3D work used Open GL or some other proprietary software. Apple brought out GX to compete with GL. GX had high level routines for texture, etc. that GL didn't have. It was much more advanced - and much faster as well. I well remember Apple coming to my old user group here in NYC and demoing it while answering our questions.
But where is it now? Far away. Why? It was an Apple only standard. No major company supported it. So it died.
Office is very well done for the Mac. It's pretty much agreed that it is better on the Mac then on Windows. It has been since the OS X version. It just needs a database compatible with Access. But Filemaker takes care of 85% of that.
I don't think that Adobe would just drop Apple support. They might do what many other companies have done. Fail to release simultaneously. Fail to support speed enhancements.
Too many independent graphic artists have Adobe's programs as their life work. They won't give them up so easily. They will move to the PC instead.
The first thing Aperture would have to do is to support PS's layering environment the way inDesign and Illustrator do. Without that, no one would consider leaving PS. That might be a licensing issue.
Originally posted by melgross
APPLE says that it requires min. 128 Video memory. Not us.
Where have they said that? Not here, as I mentioned earlier.
Originally posted by sjk
Where have they said that? Not here, as I mentioned earlier.
Have you found any of those cards available with less memory?