Adobe Creative Suite 3 not due till Q2 of 2007
Despite rumors to the contrary, Adobe Systems has no plans to release its much anticipated Creative Suite 3 for Intel Macs and Windows PCs later this year.
In an interview with Forbes, Adobe chief executive Bruce Chizen revealed that the software maker does not plan to launch Creative Suite 3 -- which will include the next generation of its applications like Photoshop -- until the second quarter of 2007.
"Acrobat is coming in the fourth quarter of 2006," Chizen said. "Creative Suite 3 will be introduced in the second quarter of 2007."
The Adobe chief went on to say that Acrobat will take advantage of the Macromedia assets acquired by the company and that "you'll see a lot of activity in the CS3 launch."
"There will be a lot of integration between [Macromedia] products and [Adobe] products as part of those offerings," he said. "By the time we launch CS3, the value of the two companies will be clear."
Commenting on specific applications, Chizen said the company is focusing Acrobat towards the architecture, construction and engineering market. The company is already working with manufacturers on Acrobat 3D, which it launched in January, he said.
On the other hand, Chizen refrained from making any specific announcement about what the company could potentially do with Photoshop.
"We've had a lot of customers coming to us and saying, 'We really love Photoshop for medical imaging, but it would be really cool if we could read the images coming out of the scanning system,' or, 'It would be really great if you had a measuring tool so I can measure with more exactness than I can today.' Or, or, or?," he said. "You can imagine us having a more sophisticated version of Photoshop that appeals to those unique industries. But other than that, we haven't said exactly what we're doing."
Earlier this month, overly-optomistic reports began to surface on Internet Web sites, suggesting Adobe could be ready to push Creative Suite 3 into market by the end of 2006.
In a February report, AppleInsider suggested that the software suite looked to be as many 14 months away at that point.
Adobe has also publicly stated that it will not deliver Intel Mac support of its Creative Suite applications until the 3.0 release.
In an interview with Forbes, Adobe chief executive Bruce Chizen revealed that the software maker does not plan to launch Creative Suite 3 -- which will include the next generation of its applications like Photoshop -- until the second quarter of 2007.
"Acrobat is coming in the fourth quarter of 2006," Chizen said. "Creative Suite 3 will be introduced in the second quarter of 2007."
The Adobe chief went on to say that Acrobat will take advantage of the Macromedia assets acquired by the company and that "you'll see a lot of activity in the CS3 launch."
"There will be a lot of integration between [Macromedia] products and [Adobe] products as part of those offerings," he said. "By the time we launch CS3, the value of the two companies will be clear."
Commenting on specific applications, Chizen said the company is focusing Acrobat towards the architecture, construction and engineering market. The company is already working with manufacturers on Acrobat 3D, which it launched in January, he said.
On the other hand, Chizen refrained from making any specific announcement about what the company could potentially do with Photoshop.
"We've had a lot of customers coming to us and saying, 'We really love Photoshop for medical imaging, but it would be really cool if we could read the images coming out of the scanning system,' or, 'It would be really great if you had a measuring tool so I can measure with more exactness than I can today.' Or, or, or?," he said. "You can imagine us having a more sophisticated version of Photoshop that appeals to those unique industries. But other than that, we haven't said exactly what we're doing."
Earlier this month, overly-optomistic reports began to surface on Internet Web sites, suggesting Adobe could be ready to push Creative Suite 3 into market by the end of 2006.
In a February report, AppleInsider suggested that the software suite looked to be as many 14 months away at that point.
Adobe has also publicly stated that it will not deliver Intel Mac support of its Creative Suite applications until the 3.0 release.
Comments
PPC Photoshop plugins won't work with new Intel Macs - check
Photoshop code and APIs used = dinosauric - check
Adobe not the Adobe it was 10-15 years ago - check
Adobe doesn't care about you - check
Developers, start your engines. This is your chance to topple Adobe. MS will be coming out with a PS alternative for Windows...you can too for the Mac. There won't be a monopoly in 2007...there will be a handful of decent alternatives to PS.
Because old Photoshop plugins won't work on the new Intel-based Macs, everyone's starting from scratch anyways...why not get a head start and release something clean and flexible (re: plugins) that uses CoreImage as the pixel-shading engine. Use the user's swelling hatred for Adobe to lure them to your product.
The estimate is Q2 '07...but who knows, it could be pushed back to Q3 or even Q4. Nobody wants to wait that long.
PS ...I hope Apple murders Adobe in its sleep. Oh...and Lightroom and Bruce sucks.
Years ahead of CS3!
Now, if we could only get it to 1.1.....
Originally posted by TednDi
Aperture!
Years ahead of CS3!
Now, if we could only get it to 1.1.....
Aperture doesn't do page layout or vector graphics, and although I'm not familiar with it, I'm pretty sure it doesn't do too much image manipulation and effects. If you're a photographer, none of this matters, but if you're a designer, CS3 is much more than just image editing. Why does everyone associate CS3 with just Photoshop? I buy it mainly for InDesign and Illustrator.
The Forbes article clearly states that Adobe's profits are down and that will effect its stock price. Adobe's reaction to this should be to get new software out as quickly as possible.
Adobe's best selling software won't see new versions for another year. Looking the situation they must have a good reason.
Why don't they just UB their CS2 and be done with it? FFS
Makes me wonder who owns the old Live Picture Code. Hell bring back TIFFany!
Something else to mention is that the power horses of the Apple line are still PowerPC only. These are the computers that most media developers are using at the moment and until these are Intel based, Adobe probably doesn't see much of need to hurry up. If you are selling a media solution at $1000, then you can only expect the pros to be donkeying up that money.
Didn't Apple warn Adobe almost 4 years ago to get started moving over to X Code?
The few code mac code geniuses left Adobe long ago, and they are unable to find quality replacements after all this time? It's a multi billion dollar company!
Adobe tried to get the creative industry to switch to the PC platform, have demanded feature parity between mac and windows versions of Photoshop even though the Mac platform offers far greater technological capabilities. Even MS Office offers better mac features than windows ones, and Adobe can't do the same?
I hope Aperture will become a Photoshop killer now. Adobe has no choice than to continue with mac development going forward, since they can't afford to lose further profits.
This delay for "quality reasons" is hurting mac creative professionals who want a hardware speed upgrade. Bad for Adobe, I'm afraid. Their horrid corporate decisions to screw the mac platform and hold it back is now biting them in the arse.
I don't blame Adobe: this sounds like a big release and legitimately a lot of work. This is just one of those things.
Personally, I think it's all about profits. Adobe wants to sell as many copies of CS3 as possible, so they're deliberately not realising a universal binary of CS2.
Light Room, on the other hand, didn't seem to cause them any problems (and remember, it's been in development for years on PPC, and they were literally able to make a universal binary in a couple of weeks).
Originally posted by hmurchison
Why don't they just UB their CS2 and be done with it? FFS
I'm pretty sure CS2 isn't a Cocoa Xcode application & :. can't be made into a UB so easily.
Hopefully, CS3 will be UB, though. When I moved over to PowerPC Mac in January, I put off cross-upgrading Windows CS to Mac CS2 in preference of a UB CS3 cross-upgrade. (Reason being that although my current Mac is PowerPC, any Mac I buy in future will be Intel - I want a long term investment for the $175 cross-upgrade charge!)
So, I'm kicking myself at the news that I'll have to wait another year for a UB Photoshop.
[EDIT:] I just noticed my comment here could be misunderstood: when I say, "Hopefully, CS3 will be UB", I mean, "Hopefully, CS3 will be backwards compatible with PowerPC systems" as opposed to, "Hopefully, CS3 will run natively on Intel"!
Most of their energy and attention is on the work at hand. Mostly the film/video industry lags a bit in new technology adoption.
I know quite a few people who are buying MacBooks. And its not really because of the Intel chips. Most are people who have never owned a Mac and don't know anything about processors. The minority are people replacing a 4 or 5 year old PowerBook that has finally run out of steam.
When the G5 was introduced in 2003 most post shops I know went on with their Power Mac dual G4. Most post houses I know made the switch to the G5 around late 2004 into early 2005.
The reason they decided the switch is because the new workflow proved more efficient and productive than their current workflow which justified the expense and upheaval of the new hardware.
Currently most are fine with their PM G5 workflow. I don't expect many to switch to Intel PM until mid 2007 into early 2008. Depending on the performance of the Intel Core vs G5.
All of that to say. In the film/video industry it doesn't really matter or impact so much when Adobe releases CS3.
As far as inDesign vs Quark, Adobe just shot themselves in the foot big time -- anyone still on the fence like me will obviously be sticking with Quark for at least another year, considering Intel support is right around the corner. Too bad there isn't an alternative to Photoshop or slow-even-when-not-emulated-Illustrator ...
Ooops, no creative suite for you all until mid 2007, unless you want slow-as-molasses performance.
Thanks, Adobe, for putting the mac platform on the backburner for all these years. Now we'll have to wait while you work on the "quality" of it all. Funny thing is, it still won't leverage the capabilities of mac os x.
Pros aren't keeping up with the intel news? Oh yeah?
I didn't say they weren't keeping up with the news. They know the Intel Mac's exist.
But when you run a business you don't buy new software or hardware merely because of its existence. New purchases need to add efficiency, functionality, productivity which over all adds sales.
Plus when shops add new hardware or software they are not buying a license for one machine. They are spending hundreds of thousands to build and support many machines.
I'm just thinking that if Apple introduces a new pro line that quite a few designers will be chomping at the bit to grab a new machine.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
CS3 not ready until Q2 '07 - check
PPC Photoshop plugins won't work with new Intel Macs - check
Photoshop code and APIs used = dinosauric - check
Adobe not the Adobe it was 10-15 years ago - check
Adobe doesn't care about you - check
Developers, start your engines. This is your chance to topple Adobe. MS will be coming out with a PS alternative for Windows...you can too for the Mac. There won't be a monopoly in 2007...there will be a handful of decent alternatives to PS.
Because old Photoshop plugins won't work on the new Intel-based Macs, everyone's starting from scratch anyways...why not get a head start and release something clean and flexible (re: plugins) that uses CoreImage as the pixel-shading engine. Use the user's swelling hatred for Adobe to lure them to your product.
The estimate is Q2 '07...but who knows, it could be pushed back to Q3 or even Q4. Nobody wants to wait that long.
PS ...I hope Apple murders Adobe in its sleep. Oh...and Lightroom and Bruce sucks.
Kim, there are a few good reasons why this won't be ready sooner.
First of all, it's not that Adobe doesn't care about its Mac customers. They are being a responsible company, and caring about their own product line first. That's the important thing to remember. They aren't (nor is any other company) a division of Apple.
Secondly, MS just announced that they won't be producing their "Photoshop killer" after all. Too difficult.
Three is that Adobe bought Macromedia, and as they have said, they want to integrate that software into the suite?a very good idea. But, that is adding a good quarter to the rollout timing.
Four concerns the fact that this will give plug-in companies more time to convert their own software to Universal Binaries in time for The Suite.
The rest of your statements are just coming from your dislike of Adobe for some reason, and are not something you can point to as facts.
There is NO user hatred for Adobe. This isn't Quark.
Originally posted by mugwump
WTF is up with Adobe proclaiming "What Took You So Long" when Apple announced the move to Intel, and two years later Adobe will not have a Universal Binary ready for Intel machines???
Didn't Apple warn Adobe almost 4 years ago to get started moving over to X Code?
The few code mac code geniuses left Adobe long ago, and they are unable to find quality replacements after all this time? It's a multi billion dollar company!
Adobe tried to get the creative industry to switch to the PC platform, have demanded feature parity between mac and windows versions of Photoshop even though the Mac platform offers far greater technological capabilities. Even MS Office offers better mac features than windows ones, and Adobe can't do the same?
I hope Aperture will become a Photoshop killer now. Adobe has no choice than to continue with mac development going forward, since they can't afford to lose further profits.
This delay for "quality reasons" is hurting mac creative professionals who want a hardware speed upgrade. Bad for Adobe, I'm afraid. Their horrid corporate decisions to screw the mac platform and hold it back is now biting them in the arse.
Two years? Maybe 18 months. No one started development in June of last year, except makers of rather small programs.
There are good reasons why it will take as long as it will. I gave some reasons why in my last post. There are more.
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html
Apple themselves are still coding some programs on MetroWorks. They are just now moving off. It's one of the reasons why AppleWorks is dead.
Adobe never tried to get the industry to switch to PC's. People were switching, and Adobe had to accommodate them. Most people in Adobe are themselves Mac users.
Give up this nonsense about Aperture! This has been settled. It is NOT a PS killer.
Stop talking like a fanboi.
Originally posted by james808
Over another year! This totally sucks. This has to be the longest interval between updates in forever for Adobe. Any other time I finally get workarounds for all the bugs figured out just as a new version comes out.
As far as inDesign vs Quark, Adobe just shot themselves in the foot big time -- anyone still on the fence like me will obviously be sticking with Quark for at least another year, considering Intel support is right around the corner. Too bad there isn't an alternative to Photoshop or slow-even-when-not-emulated-Illustrator ...
i don't understand this logic. so you're likely to buy an intel machine that supports a ub version of your layout app, but runs your image editing app in emulation? that makes no sense. photoshop is by far the most processor-intensive application in the whole workflow of graphic design and publishing. who in their right mind would buy ub quark to run on an intel mac but still run photoshop under rosetta?
it's more likely that people who depend on photoshop and indesign/quark would have bought machines of the last generation of power pc to tide them over through the transition. sure i'd like to have a mac book pro but it's just not logical right now for the things i do on it. until photoshop runs natively on intel macs, most graphics people just won't switch. so quark's universal binary-ness is basically moot.
Originally posted by admactanium
i don't understand this logic. so you're likely to buy an intel machine that supports a ub version of your layout app, but runs your image editing app in emulation? that makes no sense. photoshop is by far the most processor-intensive application in the whole workflow of graphic design and publishing. who in their right mind would buy ub quark to run on an intel mac but still run photoshop under rosetta?
it's more likely that people who depend on photoshop and indesign/quark would have bought machines of the last generation of power pc to tide them over through the transition. sure i'd like to have a mac book pro but it's just not logical right now for the things i do on it. until photoshop runs natively on intel macs, most graphics people just won't switch. so quark's universal binary-ness is basically moot.
Well I am a graphic designer and I am buying a MacBook. I love apple, but no amount of Kool-Aid would have convinced me to by a lame two generation old G4 "powerbook" anytime in the last two years.
When I really need to do work with Adobe programs, I will use my desktops. Given that Quark will run decently on the MacBook, and I will be moving jobs back and forth, that is why Indesign will be an afterthought for the foreseeable future for me -- I want to be able to do SOMETHING productive on my laptop and not be constantly chained to my work area
BTW Illustrator is a much greater resource hog then Photoshop in my book. On a dual g5, Photoshop is no problem even with 500-750mb files. Try editing text in Illustrator, that will really grind your machine to a halt in a hurry!
Originally posted by admactanium
sure i'd like to have a mac book pro but it's just not logical right now for the things i do on it. until photoshop runs natively on intel macs, most graphics people just won't switch. so quark's universal binary-ness is basically moot.
Haha, look, there's the precise reasoning that Adobe is using to justify their delayed release of CS3!!
Power user: I don't NEED an Intel Mac till I can buy a UB version of CS, which won't be for a while.
Adobe: Our users won't be buying an Intel Mac for a while, so we really don't NEED to put out a UB version of CS for a while.
What if you pulled a Copernicus on that? Would a lot of Pro users buy the first generation Mac Pro dual core Intel running at 3GHz each (benched at 1.5x faster than current G5 quads) this August if Adobe shipped CS3 (or released a UB CS2) at the same time?
I think the answer would be yes.