PDA

View Full Version : Some Mac loyalists turn against Adobe


MacBytes
Nov 1, 2006, 09:05 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Some Mac loyalists turn against Adobe (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061101220551)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

frankblundt
Nov 1, 2006, 09:15 PM
Apple Freehand! Now there's a dream worth dreaming.

primalman
Nov 1, 2006, 09:44 PM
Apple Freehand! Now there's a dream worth dreaming.

nightmare maybe…

dashiel
Nov 1, 2006, 10:00 PM
i don't understand these whiners. adobe was pretty explicit, pretty early on that the intel native version of photoshop was not coming out until CS3 was released. this isn't a surprise and getting angry at adobe is lame.

you know what would be worse, and what would annoy me, if adobe were to stick to their 18 month release schedule and release CS3 for windows first. i have a feeling that the extended development schedule exists solely to allow adobe's engineers the time they need to convert to an intel binary. i strongly suspect that CS3 is done feature wise and were it not for the switch to intel we'd be seeing CS3 right around now.

iMikeT
Nov 1, 2006, 11:22 PM
From my personal experience in the digital imaging field, there are definitely a couple of problems that I can think of off the top of my head:

1) So many users of Adobe Creative Suite products are Windoze users.

I think that it was a mistake for Adobe to make its products available to Windoze users. I realize that companies need to do what they can to survive. But to port its product to the Windoze platform is killing Adobe.

There are a couple of problems that arose from this move:

- Piracy
- Users that use the product for non-professional applications

It kills me every time I see Photoshop running on a Windoze-based PC.


2) Too many people are impatient.

I'm sure that the news of Apple switching the PPC in favor of Intel was just a surprise for developers as well as end users. For one company to have to re-compile their entire product line to run on a new platform is not easy.

CalCanuck
Nov 2, 2006, 12:27 AM
Apple Freehand! Now there's a dream worth dreaming.

I've been in the design profession for over 15 years, both print and Web, and there are only three applications I need Freehand, Photoshop and Flash. I would love it if Apple got their hands on Freehand -- yes wishful thinking. Adobe, I'm sure, has no idea what to do with Freehand as it is both Illustrator and InDesign in one -- plus or minus a few features here and there. Sadly, they will probably kill it now that they have a second chance.

It seems to me that Adobe just keeps adding bloat to their apps instead of actually improving them. I'd be happy not having any "new features" in favor of having an app that actually works well -- but pretty hard to charge for an upgrade if all they do is make the app work like it should have when it was first released.

Dunepilot
Nov 2, 2006, 04:46 AM
But to port its product to the Windoze platform is killing Adobe.

There are a couple of problems that arose from this move:

- Piracy
- Users that use the product for non-professional applications

It kills me every time I see Photoshop running on a Windoze-based PC.


Yep - this is the main problem as far as Adobe is concerned, in my view. They've cheapened the image of their products and now every kid who has a Myspace account also has a pirate copy of CS2

miniConvert
Nov 2, 2006, 04:54 AM
every kid who has a Myspace account also has a pirate copy of CS2
Come to think of it, I can't remember the last Windows machine I saw that didn't have Photoshop on it :/ Other than on educational machines I don't think I've ever seen a legal copy of Photoshop on Windows.

OhEsTen
Nov 2, 2006, 10:52 AM
- Piracy
- Users that use the product for non-professional applications


You are right.

I still use PS7 and I10 because every incarnation since then has been a bunch of fluff... there may be a couple of tools that I like, but not enough to get me to spend a couple hundred on upgrading...

Adobe clearly has a strained relationship with Apple and I think this is part of it. Adobe threw a crap fit when Apple released iPhoto and they REALLY didn't like FCP and remember their web page that was promoting PC's over Mac's a few years ago (someone refresh my memory).... I don't care if they had a legit point at the time - they were clearly being punks for some unknown reason.

I beleive if Adobe had a better relationship with Apple, they would have had a UB version ready by now... and since Adobe doesn't have any REAL competition they have a strangle-hold on the creative world - Not. Cool.

What Apple needs to do (or anyone for that matter) if give Adobe some damn competition. I would buy an alternative in a heart beat.

bousozoku
Nov 2, 2006, 11:28 AM
nightmare maybe…

I'd still rather use (a properly organised) Freehand than Illustrator--it's not nearly as confining.

i don't understand these whiners. adobe was pretty explicit, pretty early on that the intel native version of photoshop was not coming out until CS3 was released. this isn't a surprise and getting angry at adobe is lame.

you know what would be worse, and what would annoy me, if adobe were to stick to their 18 month release schedule and release CS3 for windows first. i have a feeling that the extended development schedule exists solely to allow adobe's engineers the time they need to convert to an intel binary. i strongly suspect that CS3 is done feature wise and were it not for the switch to intel we'd be seeing CS3 right around now.

Adobe are whining and they've yet to produce a decent version of applications to run on Mac OS X and they've had years. It's like the people who worked on the Eudora mail client. Every release it had some issue where they whined about Apple because they weren't good enough.

Software development is tough but when your name goes on it, it should be something of pride, not derision.

chatfan
Nov 2, 2006, 12:59 PM
Adobe waiting this long for a proper intel release is not cool but it does tell you a lot about their relationship with Apple. In the good old days Adobe would be the one releasing new softies the day Apple announced a new OS or CPu change. I wonder who is the power hungry one that messed this relationship up.

Personaly I like Photoshop better on windows but thats just me. I also think Photoshop improved a lot after they build some PC versions, ok up til version 5.5 that is anything after 5.5 is typical bloat. But CS2 is pretty decent and has some nice tools.

Especially version 5 with the extensis phototools was a brilliant combo and pretty cheap for what it had to offer. Should be cool if Apple could get their hands on Freehand and get Xpress as well :)

But consider this:

Microsoft got burned for producing Internet Explorer and shipping it with the OS, now Apple ships iPhoto, iTunes, iDVD iMovie etc. for free while Adobe is trying to sell Element versions of Photoshop.

Not that you can really compare iPhoto with PS elements but i'm sure a lot of average users think iPhoto is all they need to manage their digital collection and that might have upset Adobe.

So perhaps the Apple market got a lot smaller because of this.

As for illegal copies: 80% of the Photoshop users on Apple used illegal versions at one point. A lot of people end up buying the software they use when they turn pro, enought to make Adobe some nice cash. All the pro's i know started out this way and i think its why we stil see so many sites up handing out serials. Nobody is going to start out with a $1200 piece of software, they would all be using Paint Shop Pro or Gimp on windows if that was the choice.

How many have a copy of FCP around when all they really do is web and print?

Perhaps its time for Apple to buy the good old TVPaint and add its features to iPhoto. Actually i think iPhoto is rubbish and prefer ACDSee Pro, but thats yet another story.

On another note: I actually like Premiere Pro 2.0, it has some brilliantly simple tools that are nowhere to be found in FCP. So would love to see Adobe come back to the bright side and produce some lovely new Apple friendly versions of all their tools.

Dying to kick out my pcs and mac only but just like to much stuff better in windows flavor, sorry :P

steve_hill4
Nov 2, 2006, 02:18 PM
Adobe clearly has a strained relationship with Apple and I think this is part of it. Adobe threw a crap fit when Apple released iPhoto and they REALLY didn't like FCP and remember their web page that was promoting PC's over Mac's a few years ago (someone refresh my memory).... I don't care if they had a legit point at the time - they were clearly being punks for some unknown reason.

Yes, Adobe had a fit over Final Cut Pro and cut the Mac version of Premiere Pro didn't they. They weren't keen on competition on the Mac front and decided it was better to try and lure people across to Windows and Windows users into video editing with their packages.

Adobe believe that they no longer need Apple, or at least to the extent that they used to, however if you compared legal sales of CS2 for Windows and OSX, I bet it would be significantly higher as a percentage of Mac users than the overall Windows base. Sheer numbers may even still favour the Mac, but perhaps not so much anymore.

bousozoku
Nov 2, 2006, 02:19 PM
Adobe waiting this long for a proper intel release is not cool but it does tell you a lot about their relationship with Apple. In the good old days Adobe would be the one releasing new softies the day Apple announced a new OS or CPu change. I wonder who is the power hungry one that messed this relationship up.
...

Two things happened: they merged with Aldus, who were very arrogant, and they started producing products for Windows that gave them another outlet. (Yes, they also sold products for UNIX but those were Mac products with a Mac environment for UNIX.)

2ms
Nov 2, 2006, 03:50 PM
I'm almost surprised there hasnt been anti-trust action over the acquisition of Macromedia. Can anyone explain why there hasn't been any?

Super Macho Man
Nov 2, 2006, 04:02 PM
I've been thinking for a long time that Apple should buy Corel. Corel is like the classic case of a company with great products but no idea how to run its own business. Apple could acquire them for a song. Draw and Photo Paint with Apple logos on them, at the price they're selling at now, would fly out the door, and light a fire under Adobe just like Aperture is doing now. These are very mature, professional products that could bring Apple right up to Adobe's level, and even have a lot of refinements that Adobe's apps lack. It's a shame to see them being totally ignored. It is true that a port job would be necessary, but Corel only recently cancelled their OS X stuff, so it might only be a matter of updating the old Mac versions.

steve_hill4
Nov 2, 2006, 04:16 PM
I've been thinking for a long time that Apple should buy Corel. Corel is like the classic case of a company with great products but no idea how to run its own business. Apple could acquire them for a song. Draw and Photo Paint with Apple logos on them, at the price they're selling at now, would fly out the door, and light a fire under Adobe just like Aperture is doing now. These are very mature, professional products that could bring Apple right up to Adobe's level, and even have a lot of refinements that Adobe's apps lack. It's a shame to see them being totally ignored. It is true that a port job would be necessary, but Corel only recently cancelled their OS X stuff, so it might only be a matter of updating the old Mac versions.

Hmm, I'd still stick with Adobe, but I see your point. The question would be whether if they did as you described, should they stop Windows production of Corel's software too eventually as they have done with software from companies they have purchased in the past? Perhaps to truly compete with Adobe, they may need to embrace cross-platform applications more, but "concentrate" on the Mac versions. They've proven they can do it.

OhEsTen
Nov 2, 2006, 04:17 PM
I'm almost surprised there hasnt been anti-trust action over the acquisition of Macromedia. Can anyone explain why there hasn't been any?

2 words. George Bush. As long as there is a Republican tyranny in D.C. the DOJ has a nasty habbit of overlooking those sort of things....

Look how many HUGE mergers have happened in the past 7 years....

SBC/AT&T....

chatfan
Nov 2, 2006, 04:44 PM
Two things happened: they merged with Aldus, who were very arrogant, and they started producing products for Windows that gave them another outlet. (Yes, they also sold products for UNIX but those were Mac products with a Mac environment for UNIX.)

Aldus, I remember them, they pretty much thought they invented DTP. Well the few I talked to did.

I've been thinking for a long time that Apple should buy Corel. Corel is like the classic case of a company with great products but no idea how to run its own business. Apple could acquire them for a song. Draw and Photo Paint with Apple logos on them, at the price they're selling at now, would fly out the door, and light a fire under Adobe just like Aperture is doing now. These are very mature, professional products that could bring Apple right up to Adobe's level, and even have a lot of refinements that Adobe's apps lack. It's a shame to see them being totally ignored. It is true that a port job would be necessary, but Corel only recently cancelled their OS X stuff, so it might only be a matter of updating the old Mac versions.

Corel! Thats the one I was trying to remember when posting previously. Your right they got some pretty nice tools, Draw has some decent vector tools and they even own the Word Perfect suite of tools.

But I'm pretty sure Apple would want to use their "core" technology on any new media creation tools, unless MS is going to copy core image developing windos tools is going to be more work. Unless they develope some open source core image / core sound / core video library everybody can use.

Personally I think the more Apple shares with windows the easier the argument is going to be: "you DO know you can run all this in a safe enviroment on a prop OS as well as on windows right?"

Also heard Adobe was thinking about building a Premiere version for OSX, any news on that?

OSX needs to step up its exposure of open source as well, use more of the FreeBSD community, Windows is a very Geek friendly world and its safe to say Apple does not expose its "tinker and tweak all you can" side enought.

0010101
Nov 2, 2006, 09:30 PM
I don't think Adobe is hurting, and I don't think making Photoshop available for the PC hurt them one bit.

If fact, if they had to rely soley on Mac customers for sales, Adobe would have been dead and burried years ago.

Piracy of Adobe products only happens on Windows?? Are you kidding me? Hop on a BitTracker site and do a search for CS2 OSX and see what pops up.

My local newspaper junked their Macs years ago. Lots of legal copies of Adobe software running on hundreds of PC's there.

I know several dozen professional photographers.. only about 30% still use Macs, most have gone to PC's, and all use CS2. Legal copies of CS2. Very expensive copies of CS2.

Adobe making PC versions of Photoshop certianly didn't hurt Adobe any.. but it gave alot of Photoshop users a pretty good excuse to jump ship to the PC platform.

bousozoku
Nov 2, 2006, 10:51 PM
Aldus, I remember them, they pretty much thought they invented DTP. Well the few I talked to did.

There were plenty of graphics applications on 8-bit machines before Aldus got involved. The problem was that every application had to provide its own printer drivers. This was also a problem with the IBM PC until Digital Research's GEM and much later, Windows.

Aldus was able to leverage a lot of things with Macintosh and did it more quickly than Ventura or anyone else did.


Corel! Thats the one I was trying to remember when posting previously. Your right they got some pretty nice tools, Draw has some decent vector tools and they even own the Word Perfect suite of tools.

But I'm pretty sure Apple would want to use their "core" technology on any new media creation tools, unless MS is going to copy core image developing windos tools is going to be more work. Unless they develope some open source core image / core sound / core video library everybody can use.

Personally I think the more Apple shares with windows the easier the argument is going to be: "you DO know you can run all this in a safe enviroment on a prop OS as well as on windows right?"

Also heard Adobe was thinking about building a Premiere version for OSX, any news on that?

OSX needs to step up its exposure of open source as well, use more of the FreeBSD community, Windows is a very Geek friendly world and its safe to say Apple does not expose its "tinker and tweak all you can" side enought.

Corel has the worst of the big name tools. Years ago, they bought Ventura Publisher and integrated a lot of its functionality into Corel Draw but missed the boat. I don't understand how a company can take good products and consistently make them into something less than they were. It's like you're buying from a feature list and ignoring precision and quality.

2ms
Nov 3, 2006, 04:07 PM
I'm just worried, Very worried, that MS is going to buy Adobe. Don't think for a second that MS is content having basically no media/design/art-related production/editing software whatsoever. And those softwares make big cash, MS's favorite thing.

And the way MS has always made its money is by giving away Windows and then charging arm and leg for Office (about the only profitable software they make, literally). But people arent buying Office like they used to. Truth is Office 95 is just as good as Office 2003 for 95% of people -- there's only so much to word processing and spreadsheets.

PCMacUser
Nov 3, 2006, 04:26 PM
I'm just worried, Very worried, that MS is going to buy Adobe. Don't think for a second that MS is content having basically no media/design/art-related production/editing software whatsoever. And those softwares make big cash, MS's favorite thing.
I think you'll find that cash is the favourite thing of most companies - Apple is no exception!
And the way MS has always made its money is by giving away Windows and then charging arm and leg for Office (about the only profitable software they make, literally). But people arent buying Office like they used to. Truth is Office 95 is just as good as Office 2003 for 95% of people -- there's only so much to word processing and spreadsheets.
Office 95 is nowhere near as good as Office 2003. Perhaps you could say that Office 2000 is as good as 2003 (with the exception of Outlook, which was overhauled for 2003), but certainly not 95.

As for Windows XP, MS charges the OEMs for it, and it's not free to consumers either...

PCMacUser
Nov 3, 2006, 04:31 PM
From my personal experience in the digital imaging field, there are definitely a couple of problems that I can think of off the top of my head:

1) So many users of Adobe Creative Suite products are Windoze users.

I think that it was a mistake for Adobe to make its products available to Windoze users. I realize that companies need to do what they can to survive. But to port its product to the Windoze platform is killing Adobe.

There are a couple of problems that arose from this move:

- Piracy
- Users that use the product for non-professional applications

It kills me every time I see Photoshop running on a Windoze-based PC.

I don't think it matters which platform Creative Suite runs on, whether it's 'MS Windoze' or 'Apple OSuX'. Adobe's not likely to go bankrupt anytime soon.

steve_hill4
Nov 3, 2006, 05:16 PM
I'm just worried, Very worried, that MS is going to buy Adobe. Don't think for a second that MS is content having basically no media/design/art-related production/editing software whatsoever. And those softwares make big cash, MS's favorite thing.
I think this would be prevented in order to keep competition flowing. MS owning every halfway decent software comapny would favour nobody, not even those in Redmond.
Office 95 is nowhere near as good as Office 2003. Perhaps you could say that Office 2000 is as good as 2003 (with the exception of Outlook, which was overhauled for 2003), but certainly not 95.

As for Windows XP, MS charges the OEMs for it, and it's not free to consumers either...
Probably confusing it with those free downloads you find on Bittorrent. Anyway, I would say to an extent that they are suffciently improved in each iteration, but not to a level that most average users would have to jump on the latest version of Office. On my Windows boxes I still happily use 2000, (last version that had no activation and so no problem with one license, multiple machines), and even though I have used 2003 so much, I see little benefit for most switching.

I'd even say for most 97 or perhaps even 95 were adequate for their use.

chatfan
Nov 9, 2006, 06:52 PM
Just noticed:

Deep Thought, The universe's most powerful computer - Now running on 10.4.8

I guess the only answer to that is 42

scotpole
Nov 21, 2006, 01:27 AM
Aldus was one of the last software companies that gave customer service. You could call them and talk to a real person that actually spoke English. It was as if they cared.
And here lies the rub with Adobe and creative suite. Everyone seems to say that Apple has problems with Adobe. But Apple does not buy Adobe's software. It is the user or the users company that buys the software and is the customer of Adobe's software. I am the one that shelled out $700 for CS1, and I am the customer. This is a point that is lost on most software companies. They decide that they do not like a computer manufacturer and are slow or obstinante about producing their software for that platform. But Apple is not the customer and if Adobe screws the customer long enough, we will find alternatives.
If Apple would produce a program that would counter In Design, which in general is a bloated program (Pages may fill this bill), and a drawing program like MacPaint, which they used to give away, it would be questionable and uneconomical to own CS3.
For too long Adobe has charged too much and not realized who is buying their product. They also have not listned to Apple. Apple told its vendors to use the X11 system for writing code. Those that did not listen to Apple do not have code. Adobe has no code.
I know software vendors do not want to release trade secrets before it is time, but it would be nice to know what the minimum requirements for CS3 will be. That way computer purchasers could determine that if they bought a computer today it would run CS3 tomorrow.
Finally, FreeHand is a great program and by Adobe buying MacroMedia, they eliminated the competition, and could write whatever code they wanted whenever they wanted. Consolidation hurts the consumer and stifles competition.

bousozoku
Nov 21, 2006, 04:56 AM
Aldus was one of the last software companies that gave customer service. You could call them and talk to a real person that actually spoke English. It was as if they cared.
And here lies the rub with Adobe and creative suite. Everyone seems to say that Apple has problems with Adobe. But Apple does not buy Adobe's software. It is the user or the users company that buys the software and is the customer of Adobe's software. I am the one that shelled out $700 for CS1, and I am the customer. This is a point that is lost on most software companies. They decide that they do not like a computer manufacturer and are slow or obstinante about producing their software for that platform. But Apple is not the customer and if Adobe screws the customer long enough, we will find alternatives.
If Apple would produce a program that would counter In Design, which in general is a bloated program (Pages may fill this bill), and a drawing program like MacPaint, which they used to give away, it would be questionable and uneconomical to own CS3.
For too long Adobe has charged too much and not realized who is buying their product. They also have not listned to Apple. Apple told its vendors to use the X11 system for writing code. Those that did not listen to Apple do not have code. Adobe has no code.
I know software vendors do not want to release trade secrets before it is time, but it would be nice to know what the minimum requirements for CS3 will be. That way computer purchasers could determine that if they bought a computer today it would run CS3 tomorrow.
Finally, FreeHand is a great program and by Adobe buying MacroMedia, they eliminated the competition, and could write whatever code they wanted whenever they wanted. Consolidation hurts the consumer and stifles competition.

X11? I believe that you must mean Xcode, the development system. Adobe has had several years to modernise their code, even without Xcode but apparently did nothing.

Aldus had good customer service? I wouldn't know--they never answered the phone. They were more arrogant than Adobe or Quark, at least, in my experience.

Blue Velvet
Nov 21, 2006, 05:27 AM
One person's bloat is another's must-buy feature. Someone called InDesign bloated? Suggests to me that you'd be happier using an app for amateurs, not one for serious publishing.

Any design firm with even a slight eye on the news coming from Adobe would have known a long time ago that CS3 was some way off, May the 1st I believe. So why rush out and buy an Intel Mac before the software is ready particularly if your income depends on it?

Still running CS1 and Quark 6.5 on OS 10.3.4 on all the 2.5 duals at work and still reliably churning out good work that sells.

If there's one thing I can't stand it's early adopters whinging about the perils of being on the cutting edge.

And besides, I've never met a serious print designer that uses a PC. Lots of pretenders and kwik-print shops sure, and plenty of college kids but no-one established in the industry.

Nym
Nov 21, 2006, 08:55 AM
And besides, I've never met a serious print designer that uses a PC. Lots of pretenders and kwik-print shops sure, and plenty of college kids but no-one established in the industry.

Humm, I can't go that far, but I will tell you this, I work in a design company (both Print and Web) and we have 3 Mac's and 1 Pc, the Pc is only used by the person in the Commercial area for e-mail and testing web-pages.

I studied a Graphic Development and Multimedia Techniques course this past year and in all my teachers 80% used a Mac, Quark Xpress, InDesign, Freehand, Photoshop, Illustrator, Director MX, Flash 8 and etc, all of them used Mac's, the only ones who used PC's were the Digital Photography teacher and the PHP Coding one :)
But yes, I agree, now everyone with a Pc and CS2 running in it can be a "designer", at least they think so, however, design professionals usually opt for the Mac platform. I bought a 24" iMac and I'm working in Photoshop in Windows via Bootcamp until CS3 comes out, when it does, I will never look back :)
I guess my point is, the whole experience of working on a Mac is much better than on the PC, exposé comes quite handy when working with various design applications, and the stability of the OS really speaks for itself IMO.

PS - Freehand is a great application, it will never die for me as long as I can install it :p

bousozoku
Nov 21, 2006, 10:30 AM
...
And besides, I've never met a serious print designer that uses a PC. Lots of pretenders and kwik-print shops sure, and plenty of college kids but no-one established in the industry.

Those I've seen here who use Windows either are internal catalog developers and use Framemaker or the small shops that cut vinyl for car windows. Even the acrylic sign makers use Macs.