PDA

View Full Version : Adobe Revives Premiere for Mac




MacRumors
Jan 4, 2007, 01:53 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Macworld reports (http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/01/03/premiere/index.php) that Adobe is announcing a new Mac version of Premiere for Intel-based Macs that will be part of a package called Adobe Production Studio which also includes Adobe Encore DVD and Adobe Soundbooth.

Adobe dropped Premiere for the Mac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030707061039.shtml) in July of 2003, citing a small Mac marketshare for the product.

With Apple's switch to Intel and growing market, Adobe is changing its mind:

“If you look at the industry as a whole, Mac customers are very important to us,” said Simon Hayhurst, director of product management for dynamic media at Adobe. “Pulling Premiere from the Mac was probably the hardest decision we ever made. It was always our intention to bring that back, and Apple’s move to Intel made it easier.”

The new version of Premiere is said to be built from scratch and "would have everything that the Windows version has, including tight integration within the suite." The final package is expected to be released in mid-2007.

Adobe's choice to make Premiere Intel-based Mac only is consistent with their release of Soundbooth (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061030145020.shtml).

Adobe Premiere for the Mac will be demoed at Macworld San Francisco.



iMikeT
Jan 4, 2007, 01:56 AM
Unless this is priced significantly lower than Final Cut Pro, I predict that Premiere will still have little support on the Mac.

Freg3000
Jan 4, 2007, 01:56 AM
Competition = Awesome.

This is great news, and further shows Adobe's commitment to the Mac platform.

A good way to begin (a bit early) MWSF.

groovebuster
Jan 4, 2007, 02:02 AM
Another app that is intel only...

I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe. I am not impressed...

groovebuster

Squareball
Jan 4, 2007, 02:04 AM
Unless this is priced significantly lower than Final Cut Pro, I predict that Premiere will still have little support on the Mac.

I don't know, I think they are banking on switchers who are mid level video editors. I have a friend who has been on windows his whole life and hears all about the great things macs have to offer but since he makes his living doing video editing and uses premiere, he is hesitant to switch because he doesn't want the downtime of learning new software.

I will say though, FCP isn't all that hard to pick up if you already know video editing.. but I imagine it will be a draw for some switchers.. enough?? Not sure.

whoooaaahhhh
Jan 4, 2007, 02:04 AM
Unless this is priced significantly lower than Final Cut Pro, I predict that Premiere will still have little support on the Mac.

As an editor, it's mostly what each person prefers. I like FCP and I don't like AVID, the fact that it's several thousand dollars doesn't affect how much I like it, I just don't like it. Premiere is the same way, I don't like it because of the interface. But, I believe that there will be more support for Premiere on the Mac now because Premiere is still used by many small time houses that are slowly switching to mac but are unready to jump into FCP. Lots of wedding cutters and news cutters like the Premiere interface. It has a chance. But you are right, FCP is a much stronger contender and will almost assuredly knock Premiere's socks off.



I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe.


Really?

york2600
Jan 4, 2007, 02:07 AM
Another app that is intel only...

I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe. I am not impressed...

groovebuster

Adobe knows that if you're doing any graphics or video editing you're buying a computer every 2 years anyways. Why bother making a new app run on PowerPC. The people that actually buy the stuff won't mind shelling out some cash for at least a Mac Mini with a external hard drive array.

solvs
Jan 4, 2007, 02:07 AM
I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe.

Only half abandoned. The rest of their apps aren't even Universal yet. I suspect there will be people buying the bundle for the other apps, and I know After Effects will still be popular, but I doubt Premiere will make too much headway.

Then Adobe can cancel it again and claim lack of sales. :rolleyes:

AndyR
Jan 4, 2007, 02:10 AM
Wish Adobe but get of there backsides and sort out a UB version of Shockwave Player already!

From Win to Mac
Jan 4, 2007, 02:10 AM
The main reason i switched to Mac 5 years ago was when i started editing in "Premier" and it crashed so bad and sucked so much that I looked at Macs.

But I've used Premiere Pro, and it's a pretty solid product, so that's cool. The feature I miss the most was the Filmstrip Export.

bousozoku
Jan 4, 2007, 02:15 AM
Another app that is intel only...

I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe. I am not impressed...

groovebuster

They've gone from being lazy and cheap to being...ummm, lazy and cheap, except on the end user pricing, of course.

abbazaba
Jan 4, 2007, 02:29 AM
premiere was the first NLE i ever cut on...i absolutely love it, though i've used final cut pro exclusively since i switched to mac. this is great news!

Butthead
Jan 4, 2007, 02:50 AM
Adobe knows that if you're doing any graphics or video editing you're buying a computer every 2 years anyways. Why bother making a new app run on PowerPC. The people that actually buy the stuff won't mind shelling out some cash for at least a Mac Mini with a external hard drive array.

Not many Intel Mac users wanting to buy Premiere would be using a Mac Mini, perhaps a film school grad might use a MacBook at minimum.


Only half abandoned. The rest of their apps aren't even Universal yet. I suspect there will be people buying the bundle for the other apps, and I know After Effects will still be popular, but I doubt Premiere will make too much headway.

Then Adobe can cancel it again and claim lack of sales. :rolleyes:
Probably cancel it again, as fast as a new TV series which doesn't get good ratings immediately.

Adobe will probably not release any new software updates for PPC, all new software will proabably be only Intel, no 'universal binary' for them. They are cheap to the core.

so Adobe always intended to return (premier) to the Mac? What a load of BS, they return when they think (wrongly or rightfully in their predictions of sales #'s) there is potential for increasing sales. The second they think sales are dropping, they will abandon the Mac again.

groovebuster
Jan 4, 2007, 03:36 AM
Adobe knows that if you're doing any graphics or video editing you're buying a computer every 2 years anyways. Why bother making a new app run on PowerPC. The people that actually buy the stuff won't mind shelling out some cash for at least a Mac Mini with a external hard drive array.
Doesn't make sense...

a) If you are doing video editing on that level, you wouldn't work with a Mac mini. You would buy a pro machine.

b) The problem is that the classical graphic apps (Adobe Creative Suite) are not even UB so far. To work with CPU hungry apps under Rosetta is not really senseful... so that's a reason not to buy a Mac Pro so far.

c) My Quad G5 is not exactly an old machine already. I bought it in Dec. 2005 and I am pretty sure that it will be a good work station for another 2 or 3 years.

d) If you make the switch to an intel machine, you HAVE to update all your software to the newest version to avoid working under Rosetta (which in most cases should be avoided for productive work). This is adding up quickly to thousands of dollars extra just for software licenses at once. So if I intend to work with Premiere (because of which reason ever), I have to shell out a lot of extra money to get a fully productive workstation.

The UB were intended to make the transition between platforms as smooth as possible and that the user/customer can decide when he wants to switch his hardware. Adobe's approach to this matter is absurd. At the moment I would only consider working with Premiere if all my other software was already UB and I would consider switching to a MacPro anyway... which will be not the case for at least another 12 months. And at that time my Quad G5 will probably still be a very usable machine for minor jobs, but will be still useless for apps that are intel only already today...

groovebuster

solvs
Jan 4, 2007, 03:43 AM
At the moment I would only consider working with Premiere if all my other software was already UB and I would consider switching to a MacPro anyway... which will be not the case for at least another 12 months. And at that time my Quad G5 will probably still be a very usable machine for minor jobs, but will be still useless for apps that are intel only already today...

That's because Premiere isn't meant for you.

Or, well, anyone else apparently. :p

groovebuster
Jan 4, 2007, 03:52 AM
That's because Premiere isn't meant for you.

Or, well, anyone else apparently. :p

:D

spookje
Jan 4, 2007, 04:16 AM
Nice, Premiere Pro would be nice for the Mac. Gone with the crappy Final Cut Pro that program sucks really hard or it could be the Decklink software for it, though. Just unstable. :(

popelife
Jan 4, 2007, 04:28 AM
The last two versions of Premiere for the Mac were monumentally awful (version 5 never worked), and I wasn't exactly devastated to see them dump the Mac version. Although I'm a fairly "casual" video editor, I moved to FCP and never looked back.

It's like a girlfriend/boyfriend who treats you really badly, then dumps you... and comes back two years later and says how much they miss you. You're not going to be that impressed (especially now you've got a much better-looking boyfriend/girlfriend that you actually enjoy spending time with).

pixelpp
Jan 4, 2007, 04:32 AM
This on DIGG: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070104025307.shtml

NickFalk
Jan 4, 2007, 04:51 AM
The last two versions of Premiere for the Mac were monumentally awful (version 5 never worked),
Neither did the Windows-version - the main reason why I became a macuser. Thanks Adobe!

As for anyone claiming FCP is unstable, I think you seriously need to check your system. FCP is the strongest challenger to Avid while Premiere (mostly because of Adobe's earlier failings) is considered something of a advanced toy by many...

siurpeeman
Jan 4, 2007, 04:53 AM
could this news be a reflection of increased mac marketshare?

Porco
Jan 4, 2007, 05:07 AM
Funny.

July 2003:


Adobe Systems Inc. on Monday announced a new version of its digital video application, Premiere. The new version adds features and is completely redesigned, but the company also dropped support for the Macintosh, citing financial considerations and Apple's continued foray into the software market as reasons for the decision
[....]
"If Apple's already doing an application, it makes the market for a third-party developer that much smaller," said David Trescot, senior director of Adobe's digital video products group. "I think you're going to find that more and more -- if Apple's in a software market, third-party vendors are going to skip it."

January 2007:

“If you look at the industry as a whole, Mac customers are very important to us,” said Simon Hayhurst, director of product management for dynamic media at Adobe. “Pulling Premiere from the Mac was probably the hardest decision we ever made. It was always our intention to bring that back, and Apple’s move to Intel made it easier.”

More and more but always their intention eh? :confused: :rolleyes:

CmdrLaForge
Jan 4, 2007, 05:13 AM
I think that this is really great news. I really love Final Cut but I think that competition can only make it better. Adobe has always great student deals and I do hope that they include After Effects in that package. That would be an awesome deal.

Cheers
LaForge

Passante
Jan 4, 2007, 05:14 AM
First Adobe canceled Premiere due to "small Mac marketshare for the product" :(

Now they release a new version only for Intel Macs, what is presently a small percentage of the Mac installed base. :confused:

A piece of the puzzle is missing. ;)

NickFalk
Jan 4, 2007, 05:22 AM
I think that this is really great news. I really love Final Cut but I think that competition can only make it better. Adobe has always great student deals and I do hope that they include After Effects in that package. That would be an awesome deal.
After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, Audition and Encore are all parts of the suite...

Danksi
Jan 4, 2007, 05:29 AM
First Adobe canceled Premiere due to "small Mac marketshare for the product" :(

Now they release a new version only for Intel Macs, what is presently a small percentage of the Mac installed base. :confused:

A piece of the puzzle is missing. ;)

Intel Mac may be a smaller % of the Mac base, but they have greater growth potential than the PowerPC Macs.

My newbie understanding of Universal Binary, was it was basically another check box on a compiler?

2ndPath
Jan 4, 2007, 05:29 AM
I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe. I am not impressed...

There is not really a point in devoting lots of resources to develop for a platform, which is already out of production for over half a year. Most of the people on PowerPC hardware doing video editing already have video editing software and are unlikely to buy another one.

Selling upgrades for existing software is another story. Here Adobe continues catering to PPC users: The CS3 software for example still should run fine on PPC machines.

so Adobe always intended to return (premier) to the Mac? What a load of BS, they return when they think (wrongly or rightfully in their predictions of sales #'s) there is potential for increasing sales. The second they think sales are dropping, they will abandon the Mac again.

This is not surprising. It's just a business decision. Maybe they wanted to return earlier, but if the market share is too small Adobe will loose money on a product. The time when they dropped out, the Mac market share was still decreasing (if I remember correctly) and the competition from FCP made the situation even worse. With the growing Mac market share there is a business perspective again.

psychofreak
Jan 4, 2007, 05:29 AM
First Adobe canceled Premiere due to "small Mac marketshare for the product" :(

Now they release a new version only for Intel Macs, what is presently a small percentage of the Mac installed base. :confused:

A piece of the puzzle is missing. ;)

By mid-07, most pros will probably be on intel machines.

Leemo
Jan 4, 2007, 05:31 AM
Gone with the crappy Final Cut Pro that program sucks really hard

You're joking, right?

-Leemo

2ndPath
Jan 4, 2007, 05:39 AM
My newbie understanding of Universal Binary, was it was basically another check box on a compiler?

This is probably true if the software is developed entirely in Apple's Xcode. But Adobe is probably not getting along with this alone, because they develop the same product for Windows and probably exchange a lot of code between the two versions. This make the situation more complicated. And if it was just a box to check they would very likely release a Universal Binary.

Roller
Jan 4, 2007, 06:14 AM
I guess that next they'll announce the revival of Persuasion and LiveMotion, two other products for which they dropped Mac support. :)

Well, at least this counters the argument that developers will just tell Mac users to run the Windows version of their software instead of releasing a Mac version.

Multimedia
Jan 4, 2007, 07:20 AM
I posted this news Tuesday morning (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3201252&postcount=189) as a result of a conversation I had with an Adobe insider at a wedding reception Monday. I live only 35 miles from both Apple & Adobe world HQ so easy to bump into insiders here. Nice to beat the news for once. :p

Here's the press release article from Digital Media Net's Premiere Section:

Adobe Production Studio To Be Available for Both Mac and Windows • Adobe's Complete Video Post-Production Suite Goes Cross-Platform (http://premiere.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=92967)

Will be first publicly demoed at Adobe's MacWorld Expo Booth 901 next Tuesday-Friday in San Francisco. Looks like it will be Leopard minimum Intel Macs only.Unless this is priced significantly lower than Final Cut Pro, I predict that Premiere will still have little support on the Mac.According to my inside source at Adobe, the price will be significatly lower. ;)

Sdashiki
Jan 4, 2007, 07:30 AM
Premiere never had what I liked in an NLE.

After Effects was all I needed from Adobe on the video front. And even it has quirks that make no sense, but it does get the job done efficiently, when used right.

FCP vs Premiere is a moot point today as one is far more supported currently, the other not for years. This new version could be good, it could be just the same, I dont know as I havent used premiere in a decade because I hated its approach to editing so much.

Only time will tell.

:rolleyes:

failsafe1
Jan 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Cool. My apologies to the poster who mentioned inside information. Congrats. This can only be good news for everyone. PC users who like Premiere can now switch easier.

godrifle
Jan 4, 2007, 07:56 AM
Hence the price reduction for Final Cut Express HD. $299 for full retail, and only $99 for Academic users!

imikem
Jan 4, 2007, 08:02 AM
Competition is good for us consumers, even if we prefer FCP or whatever. I also suspect that among Adobe's reasons for coming back was that once they'd updated their code base for the Creative Suite apps, they found that relatively little additional effort was needed to bring Premiere along as well.

Adobe is a business with shareholders to please. They're entirely likely to do what their management thinks is most likely to maximize profits/growth. Geek OS religious wars do not figure prominently in their decision making. Rather, marketing and bean counters determined that likely revenue from a new version, presumably at a relatively low price point (has to be cheaper than the now entrenched FCP to stand any chance of significant adoption)> incremental cost of development and support over the typical version lifecycle.

failsafe1
Jan 4, 2007, 08:04 AM
Hence the price reduction for Final Cut Express HD. $299 for full retail, and only $99 for Academic users!

EDU prices where I work have always been $99.

westonharvey
Jan 4, 2007, 08:26 AM
Adobe knows that if you're doing any graphics or video editing you're buying a computer every 2 years anyways. Why bother making a new app run on PowerPC. The people that actually buy the stuff won't mind shelling out some cash for at least a Mac Mini with a external hard drive array.

Why bother? Because if you wrote your application with any regard to cross platform development methodology (which you should be doing even if you intend to target only one platform, it goes hand in hand with encapsulation and OO design) - you should only have to click the little "PPC" box in XCode and build.

They built this from "scratch", and can't get it to compile on PowerPC? What did they do, write half of it in assembler?

And I know people that still edit videos on their G3 iMacs, so don't tell me that dual core and Quad G5s are suddenly useless. A 2.0ghz dual G5 is still a high performance video editing box, and if it came down to having to buy a Mac Pro just to use Adobe's product, I'd stick with Final Cut.

Seriously uninspiring.

heisetax
Jan 4, 2007, 08:32 AM
Another app that is intel only...

I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe. I am not impressed...

groovebuster


Adobe had already abandoned Premiere on the Mac 3 1/2 years ago. This is not quite the same thing.

But as you say, it is just an example of what we will see in the future from other software writers. Most of the time it sounds like MS with its Mac Office 2007, they seem to be talking sbout a separate PPC & Intel versions of Mac Office. That could be to keep those that have both platforms from using one copy on both platforms, rather than purchasing 2 copies. Or it can be another company that is not expanding its PPC coverage, but rather cutting down.

By MacWorld 2008 I fully expect to see & hear Steve Jobs declaring the PPC Mac Dead & time to bury it. This will just accelerate the loss of not only new software for the PPC Mac, but also the updating of current PPC software. I may have an Intel Mac Pro, but I have several PPC PowerMacs & PowerBooks. I may like the expanded Intel Mac software, but I'm also afraid of the future for the PPC Mac software future.

I still remember several Mac OS 9 utilities that I hated to lose when I started changing to Mac OS X. That was part of the reason that I waited to Mac OS 10.2 before I used Mac OS X on a daily basis.

Those new to the Mac, either new to computers or switchers, will not have things as bad as those that are not ready to make yet another change in software platform. I'm not really ready for another software switch. Even though software developers can change their software by making it Universal. This costs them time & money. So most of them have to charge for this change just to keep in the black.

Bill the TaxMan

heisetax
Jan 4, 2007, 08:41 AM
You're joking, right?

-Leemo


Just because you like something, doen't mean that everyone will like it. I've been a 22+ year Mac User & I use Firefox as my browser, not Safari. This is just a matter of choice. Also Apple has a bad track record when it comes to long time support of hardware or software. Remember Steve Jobs declaring that OS 9 was dead. Just wait until MacWorld 2008 or maybe even before when Steve Jobs declared the PPC Mac dead. He'll say just like with OS 9, stop wasting money developing PPC Mac software & put it all into Intel Mac software.


Bill the TaxMan

Mac'Mo
Jan 4, 2007, 09:00 AM
ooo exciting, are htey gonna take on FCP?

puckhead193
Jan 4, 2007, 09:12 AM
i just hope the next version of final cut extreme or w.e. they call it totally kick premiere's butt! :D

shelterpaw
Jan 4, 2007, 09:42 AM
Unless this is priced significantly lower than Final Cut Pro, I predict that Premiere will still have little support on the Mac.I haven't had the chance to used FCP, but I've been using Premiere for years. I like it and it's easy enough. I am doing amateur video editing, so I don't have the need for FCP. I welcome back Premiere, one more reason to buy a new Mac. I hope they have an upgrade path for the old Premiere faithful. :p

rhett121
Jan 4, 2007, 09:46 AM
i just hope the next version of final cut extreme or w.e. they call it totally kick premiere's butt! :D

Even Final Cut Pro 3 still kicks Premiere's butt! Heck, iMovie is better than that turd of an app! I actually have a couple of unopened Premiere CD's that came with the Digital Video Pro bundle's. It's that bad, they had to throw it in for free!

The only reason they are trying to back-peddle now is because they made a mistake and underestimated the market for Mac users and are running out of Windows users to con into buying their trash. Problem is... FCP is the greatest thing since sliced bread! (I just upgraded to the FCStudio 5 bundle) Even FCExpress is nice, just less features (that a non-pro might never need).

I say, too late for excuses Adobe, you've shown us your loyalty already.

LethalWolfe
Jan 4, 2007, 10:09 AM
Adobe knows that if you're doing any graphics or video editing you're buying a computer every 2 years anyways. Why bother making a new app run on PowerPC.
To the best of my knowledge I don't know a post house that upgrades their machines that frequently. Maybe some individuals might, but just two years isn't a very long life cycle especially if you take into account the big changes Apple has made in the last few years (pci-e/pci-x, PPC/Intel, etc.,) that can make 3rd party cards incompatible w/newer machines (thus significantly increasing the upgrade costs).

The people that actually buy the stuff won't mind shelling out some cash for at least a Mac Mini with a external hard drive array.
The people mentioned in first part of your post aren't gonna buy a freakin' Mac Mini.


Lethal

SpaceJello
Jan 4, 2007, 11:15 AM
I am a FCP user, tried premiere years ago and find it annoying and confusing. Does anyone here use Avid? How's that on the mac? I keep hearing different opinions whether Avid is still the "standard".

Leemo
Jan 4, 2007, 11:21 AM
Just because you like something, doen't mean that everyone will like it. I've been a 22+ year Mac User & I use Firefox as my browser, not Safari. This is just a matter of choice.

Of course, I'm not refuting that. But saying:

Gone with the crappy Final Cut Pro that program sucks really hard

Is an extremely strong opinion, and from a personal perspective when I've never had any problems with Final Cut but had *many* problems with both Adobe Premiere 1.5 + 2.0 (for Windows) I find it rather odd that someone should say that FCP 'sucks really hard'.

I'm not refuting that Adobe Premiere on Mac is a great idea, I'm forced to use Adobe Premiere for the majority of my coursework so it means I can sit in OSX rather than dual-booting - I'm just saying that a statement such as:

Gone with the crappy Final Cut Pro that program sucks really hard

Sounds rather like it's coming from someone who probably doesn't understand what they're taking about.

-Leemo

P.S: This post was posted using Firefox ;)

aftk2
Jan 4, 2007, 11:27 AM
If I recall correctly, when Soundbooth appeared (along with the accompanying uproar about it being Intel-only) it was revealed that Adobe had either licensed or purchased outright audio technology written, from the ground up, for x86 processors. I imagine they realized this, w/regard to Soundbooth (note: the numbers are purely for an example, they aren't meant to be real-world):

* It would cost us 0 dollars to not develop a Mac version of Soundbooth, and we would make 0 dollars by not doing so (heh, this is obvious - I just thought this sentence was funny.)
* It would cost us 10 million dollars (and lots of time) to make a completely, from-the-ground-up Universal version of Sound Booth, porting the library (if this is even possible) and we'd make 5 million dollars on sales.
* It would cost us 250 thousand dollars (2 programmers for nearly a year, or something) of time to create an Intel-only version of the software, and we'd make 2 million dollars on sales.

Seems to make sense to me. I'd imagine Premiere is similar (although even greater scale, since it's more popular.) Also, consider that they wouldn't have keep both PPC and x86 versions in parity, as they release upgrades, etc...

Although I doubt I'll ever use Premiere on an Intel Mac, I'm excited because Premiere is an application that frequently comes up in lists of software that don't exist on the Mac (in spite of the superiority of Final Cut Express/Pro).

ChrisA
Jan 4, 2007, 11:32 AM
Another app that is intel only...

I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe. I am not impressed...

groovebuster

Going Intel-only is not just being cheap or lazy. By raising the minimum system requirements they are making the software a better product. Had they designed the software so it would run on the majority of G4/G5 systems out there they would have had to compromise features.

Footage worth editing typically costs much then the price of an Intel Mac and any PPC mac will be at least 2 years old by the time this is out of Beta. People will need to buy a computer anyway

Sell you G5 now while it still has some value left

Leemo
Jan 4, 2007, 11:37 AM
Going Intel-only is not just being cheap or lazy. By raising the minimum system requirements they are making the software a better product. Had they designed the software so it would run on the majority of G4/G5 systems out there they would have had to compromise features.

Footage worth editing typically costs much then the price of an Intel Mac and any PPC mac will be at least 2 years old by the time this is out of Beta. People will need to buy a computer anyway

Sell you G5 now while it still has some value left

I completely agree - plus people seem to be forgetting, if people are happy with their G5s, they're probably happy with the software they also use on them for video editing - and if people are unwilling to upgrade to Intel they'll probably be unwilling to pay the price for new editing software as well.

Technology moves on, has Apple begun to neglect PPC? No, Adobe has, and I wouldn't exactly call it neglect, it's moving with the times - get over it.

-Leemo

Roderick Usher
Jan 4, 2007, 12:01 PM
If I recall correctly, when Soundbooth appeared (along with the accompanying uproar about it being Intel-only) it was revealed that Adobe had either licensed or purchased outright audio technology written, from the ground up, for x86 processors. I imagine they realized this, w/regard to Soundbooth (note: the numbers are purely for an example, they aren't meant to be real-world):

* It would cost us 0 dollars to not develop a Mac version of Soundbooth, and we would make 0 dollars by not doing so (heh, this is obvious - I just thought this sentence was funny.)
* It would cost us 10 million dollars (and lots of time) to make a completely, from-the-ground-up Universal version of Sound Booth, porting the library (if this is even possible) and we'd make 5 million dollars on sales.
* It would cost us 250 thousand dollars (2 programmers for nearly a year, or something) of time to create an Intel-only version of the software, and we'd make 2 million dollars on sales.

Seems to make sense to me. I'd imagine Premiere is similar (although even greater scale, since it's more popular.) Also, consider that they wouldn't have keep both PPC and x86 versions in parity, as they release upgrades, etc...

Although I doubt I'll ever use Premiere on an Intel Mac, I'm excited because Premiere is an application that frequently comes up in lists of software that don't exist on the Mac (in spite of the superiority of Final Cut Express/Pro).

Thank you. I wish more people in the Mac community would recognize this instead of the brickheaded knee-jerk crucifixion I see of so many Mac developers.

When Soundbooth for Mac was first announced, they stated quite plainly that Apple's move to Intel was a Very Good Thing (TM) for Mac development, because the hardware base is then the same across PCs and Macs and it takes less resources for them to optimize the code for computationally intensive software (video/audio/design apps). Look at the long term, not the short term. Intel-only will be the standard for Mac software, perhaps not as soon as some would like, but it will happen. Spout all the anecdotal evidence you want about how quickly companies move to new hardware, the Intel standard is inevitable, and in the long term Mac software will benefit enormously from the fact that it's not nearly as much work/expense as it used to be for software companies to simultaneously develop for PCs and Macs. This is good.

First you had development split between two totally different platforms - PPC/OS X and x86/Windows. During this transition hump, it's PPC-x86/OS X and x86/Windows. Eventually it will be x86/OS X and x86/Windows.

Which do you think is going to be cheapest for developers? Which do you think will be the most beneficial to Mac users?

CmdrLaForge
Jan 4, 2007, 12:37 PM
After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, Audition and Encore are all parts of the suite...

Wow - then thats a heck of a suite even if you don't use Premiere itself but Final Cut instead.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 4, 2007, 12:37 PM
Why bother? Because if you wrote your application with any regard to cross platform development methodology (which you should be doing even if you intend to target only one platform, it goes hand in hand with encapsulation and OO design) - you should only have to click the little "PPC" box in XCode and build.

They built this from "scratch", and can't get it to compile on PowerPC? What did they do, write half of it in assembler?
Yes, they probably do have large sections of code written in assembler for the realtime and/or rendering speed that are x86 coded for the Win32 version of Premier already.

And I know people that still edit videos on their G3 iMacs, so don't tell me that dual core and Quad G5s are suddenly useless. A 2.0ghz dual G5 is still a high performance video editing box, and if it came down to having to buy a Mac Pro just to use Adobe's product, I'd stick with Final Cut.
I also use FCP 4 on a Dual G4 500Mhz (have used FCP 1, 2 and 3 on a G3 400 and G4 400 as well) - I'm quite happy editting since I usually only use cuts and disolves but when it comes to rendering for color correction or compositing and especially rendering the DVD, I yearn for a modern machine. Adobe is targeting a growing audience of Intel users rather than the us PPC users who's base will be shrinking.

SPUY767
Jan 4, 2007, 12:37 PM
Intel Mac may be a smaller % of the Mac base, but they have greater growth potential than the PowerPC Macs.

My newbie understanding of Universal Binary, was it was basically another check box on a compiler?

YOu have to follow some speci8fic coding rules, and the checkbox only applies if you're using XCode, adobe probably isn't, so no checkbox there.

CmdrLaForge
Jan 4, 2007, 12:47 PM
YOu have to follow some speci8fic coding rules, and the checkbox only applies if you're using XCode, adobe probably isn't, so no checkbox there.

Guys - it isn't really about that checkbox. Testing, testing, testing the applications cost not only a lot of time but money. With soo many flavors of PPC Macs out there you really have to test the app on many different models under different conditions. Btw - there was once an interesting article on a Microsoft Blog showing how they do it for the Mac. By making it Intel only there are really much fewer Macs out there.

SPUY767
Jan 4, 2007, 12:58 PM
Guys - it isn't really about that checkbox. Testing, testing, testing the applications cost not only a lot of time but money. With soo many flavors of PPC Macs out there you really have to test the app on many different models under different conditions. Btw - there was once an interesting article on a Microsoft Blog showing how they do it for the Mac. By making it Intel only there are really much fewer Macs out there.

I know it's not about the check box, I just didn't feel like giving an in depth analysis of programming practice. The elisive check box is made really for small time developers who make small apps like cute games and whatnot. These sorts of applications use little if any CPU specific code. Checking the box in that case is almost superfluous as small apps are going to use things like CI to do their graphics rendering and will inherently be UB because of exclusive use of OS calls for functionality. With most small developers, I'd say that the UB check box does little more that cause the finder to recognize the app as UB in the Get Info window. The check box is more marketing than anything else, and given the number of people citing the check box as the be all end all of computer programming, it appears to have worked.

faustfire
Jan 4, 2007, 01:00 PM
Neither did the Windows-version - the main reason why I became a macuser. Thanks Adobe!

As for anyone claiming FCP is unstable, I think you seriously need to check your system. FCP is the strongest challenger to Avid while Premiere (mostly because of Adobe's earlier failings) is considered something of a advanced toy by many...

I dont thing many people on this forum have used premire since it went "Premire Pro." Sounds like most used it when it was still using a b editing, not saying it is better than FCP, but it is much better now than it was when Adobe dropped it from the mac platform.

And FCP is very unstable. Granted, if all you are working on is a very simple project is works well, but once you dive into a complicated, long form project, bye bye stability, hello spinning ball of doom.:mad:

westonharvey
Jan 4, 2007, 01:11 PM
Guys - it isn't really about that checkbox. Testing, testing, testing the applications cost not only a lot of time but money. With soo many flavors of PPC Macs out there you really have to test the app on many different models under different conditions. Btw - there was once an interesting article on a Microsoft Blog showing how they do it for the Mac. By making it Intel only there are really much fewer Macs out there.

All this strange pro-Intel sentiment is ignoring some very obvious questions - especially this one -if it costs so much to test the application on PPC, why is everyone else out there building Universal applications?

If proper methodology is followed, there's no difference in running on either platform. The only testing issues will generally be ones of performance. The analogy is similar to a Java application - you don't fully test the application on every single platform possible, because your platform is the Java VM, not a particular CPU. In this case, since the platform developed against is the OS X system libraries and not the CPU - the bulk of any compatibility problems are going to be Apple's fault, and this is a rare or non-existent situation considering every single system library has been built on Intel from the same source code since 10.0.

I will accept that an application containing a million lines of x86 assembly language code might be too expensive to convert, but that begs the question - who the hell is writing that much assembly code in the 21st century?

Adobe deserves at least an ounce of criticism for this.

skellener
Jan 4, 2007, 01:18 PM
I agree westonharvey.

....Premiere for Intel-based Macs.....

This begs the question...why only Intel? Supposedly Apple's tools offer a compile for both PPC AND Intel. So to me this mean that Adobe still refuses to embrace Apple's Cocoa development tools.

What do you think?

nagromme
Jan 4, 2007, 01:24 PM
Great news. More competition--plus, I have many fond memories of Premiere from the 90s!

Peace
Jan 4, 2007, 01:27 PM
The reason for Intel only is because Rosetta is going bye-bye soon.

Look at Amazon's presale of iLife 07..
Notice the platform stated :

Mac OS X Intel, Mac OS X

SPUY767
Jan 4, 2007, 01:34 PM
All this strange pro-Intel sentiment is ignoring some very obvious questions - especially this one -if it costs so much to test the application on PPC, why is everyone else out there building Universal applications?

If proper methodology is followed, there's no difference in running on either platform. The only testing issues will generally be ones of performance. The analogy is similar to a Java application - you don't fully test the application on every single platform possible, because your platform is the Java VM, not a particular CPU. In this case, since the platform developed against is the OS X system libraries and not the CPU - the bulk of any compatibility problems are going to be Apple's fault, and this is a rare or non-existent situation considering every single system library has been built on Intel from the same source code since 10.0.

I will accept that an application containing a million lines of x86 assembly language code might be too expensive to convert, but that begs the question - who the hell is writing that much assembly code in the 21st century?

Adobe deserves at least an ounce of criticism for this.


One: Java VM is not analogous to writing codeon multiple platforms. Java IS the platform. It's designed to be emulated identically on every platform that the VM is run on.

Two: A hell of a lot of people are still writing assemnbly code as it is still the single fastest way to write extremely processor intensive code on any machine. Rendering, real time simulations, anything that you want to run as quickly as possible, you write it in assembly.

tk421
Jan 4, 2007, 01:36 PM
premiere was the first NLE i ever cut on...i absolutely love it, though i've used final cut pro exclusively since i switched to mac. this is great news!

Me too. I loved Premiere when I was just starting. That was before Premiere Pro and it was on a PowerMac 8600 or something (I don't think it was a G3 yet). Since then I've moved on to FCP and Avid.

SPUY767
Jan 4, 2007, 01:38 PM
I agree westonharvey.



This begs the question...why only Intel? Supposedly Apple's tools offer a compile for both PPC AND Intel. So to me this mean that Adobe still refuses to embrace Apple's Cocoa development tools.

What do you think?

It is quite likely that they are not using Apple's developer tools. Adobe is developing a Cross Platform application, not just an application that is designed to run on multiple CPU types under the same environment a la Universal Binary. Adobe has to use a windows friendly IDE and compiler in order to maintain parity between Mac and Win versions of the programs and to keep from having to have two entirely seperate development groups running simultaneously as they did in the past. You wonder why premiere of old sucked so much, it was because the group at Adobe developing the Mac version was a tenth the size of the group developing the Win version.

jettredmont
Jan 4, 2007, 01:44 PM
I dont thing many people on this forum have used premire since it went "Premire Pro." Sounds like most used it when it was still using a b editing, not saying it is better than FCP, but it is much better now than it was when Adobe dropped it from the mac platform.

And FCP is very unstable. Granted, if all you are working on is a very simple project is works well, but once you dive into a complicated, long form project, bye bye stability, hello spinning ball of doom.:mad:

Okay, I haven't used Premiere in a good long time, since I think it was 6.5 on Windows (tried the demo of 7.0, found it even less stable than 6.5, and decided to jump the ship before it was completely submerged). After having bought the app and two upgrades, I got completely fed up by its instability and the sheer amount of effort needed to get what I wanted (granted, had I invested in Premiere training I probably would have been able to use it far more efficiently).

I'm coming at this from a home user, definitely not pro level. FCP is a really nice system for me, has never crashed on me, and was easy enough to get up and running full speed (to the point that six months after switching over to it I was operating far more efficiently than I had been with Premiere). I'm obviously not taxing it as much as you are, although I generally use two video tracks and a dozen or more audio track pairs. Still, hearing pros (ie, people who pay for their FCP Studio upgrade in a weekend or less of work) talk about editing on FCP for "smaller" projects, it doesn't seem like they're running into stability problems either. Are you sure FCP is to blame, and not something else in your setup?


Also, a question: you say Premiere is not an A/B editing system? I'm confused. I always thought the "A/B" term was roughly synonymous with non-linear editing allowing for multiple tracks, and so far as I can tell Premiere Pro is pretty much the same as FCP in that regard. Can you point me to a good resource discussing this? Wikipedia doesn't seem to recognize the term at all.

BornAgainMac
Jan 4, 2007, 01:45 PM
I wonder what the revenue percentage that tiny Mac marketshare produces for Adobe with their other products. 5% marketshare != 5% revenue.

psychofreak
Jan 4, 2007, 01:59 PM
I wonder what the revenue percentage that tiny Mac marketshare produces for Adobe with their other products. 5% marketshare != 5% revenue.

Not true - the percentage of graphics people who use macs is higher than 5%, by quite a long way.

jholzner
Jan 4, 2007, 02:55 PM
The reason for Intel only is because Rosetta is going bye-bye soon.

Look at Amazon's presale of iLife 07..
Notice the platform stated :

Mac OS X Intel, Mac OS X

Rosetta has NOTHING to do with Universal binaries. If Apple killed Rosetta tomorrow and it was removed from ALL machines in some magical fashion, ALL UB's would still run perfectly. Rosetta is for PPC Apps that have NOT been written as a UB. I don't care either way, to be honest. Just trying to clear up some of the FUD flying around this issue.

Also, Amazon doesn't know Jack about iLife 07. It's just a place holder. They have no more an idea about it than I do.

CmdrLaForge
Jan 4, 2007, 03:03 PM
One: Java VM is not analogous to writing codeon multiple platforms. Java IS the platform. It's designed to be emulated identically on every platform that the VM is run on.

Two: A hell of a lot of people are still writing assemnbly code as it is still the single fastest way to write extremely processor intensive code on any machine. Rendering, real time simulations, anything that you want to run as quickly as possible, you write it in assembly.

Thanks for the clarification !

westonharvey
Jan 4, 2007, 03:11 PM
One: Java VM is not analogous to writing codeon multiple platforms. Java IS the platform. It's designed to be emulated identically on every platform that the VM is run on.

Two: A hell of a lot of people are still writing assemnbly code as it is still the single fastest way to write extremely processor intensive code on any machine. Rendering, real time simulations, anything that you want to run as quickly as possible, you write it in assembly.

My point was that you are abstracted away from the platform, using shared libraries and APIs identical across target platforms, not that a UB runs in a virtual machine. I know that the NSString class behaves the same on 10.4.8 Intel as it does on 10.4.8 PPC - I don't have to question it.

I'm willing to accept that this particular application has too much assembly to make porting practical. However, on a general note, this may be bad design. Critical optimizations written in assembler should be small, and thus trivial to port. Plus, the original specification should be prototyped in a high-level language - meaning, you should be able to use the high level implementation on another platform - at the expense of some performance, of course. This is a basic tenet of cross platform design methodology. And even when a only single platform is intended, it makes things easier to read and maintain if you have a high level prototype to fall back on.

Another minor point is that if developers write huge monolithic sections of assembler code, instead of using efficient chunks of it to optimize, they're almost certainly writing slower code, as well as creating a maintenance nightmare. It is difficult these days for a human being to outsmart a modern compiler.

zioxide
Jan 4, 2007, 03:37 PM
blah.


I'll stick with final cut. Premiere is/was overrated, Final Cut is much easier to use.

faustfire
Jan 4, 2007, 04:14 PM
Okay, I haven't used Premiere in a good long time, since I think it was 6.5 on Windows (tried the demo of 7.0, found it even less stable than 6.5, and decided to jump the ship before it was completely submerged). After having bought the app and two upgrades, I got completely fed up by its instability and the sheer amount of effort needed to get what I wanted (granted, had I invested in Premiere training I probably would have been able to use it far more efficiently).

I'm coming at this from a home user, definitely not pro level. FCP is a really nice system for me, has never crashed on me, and was easy enough to get up and running full speed (to the point that six months after switching over to it I was operating far more efficiently than I had been with Premiere). I'm obviously not taxing it as much as you are, although I generally use two video tracks and a dozen or more audio track pairs. Still, hearing pros (ie, people who pay for their FCP Studio upgrade in a weekend or less of work) talk about editing on FCP for "smaller" projects, it doesn't seem like they're running into stability problems either. Are you sure FCP is to blame, and not something else in your setup?


Also, a question: you say Premiere is not an A/B editing system? I'm confused. I always thought the "A/B" term was roughly synonymous with non-linear editing allowing for multiple tracks, and so far as I can tell Premiere Pro is pretty much the same as FCP in that regard. Can you point me to a good resource discussing this? Wikipedia doesn't seem to recognize the term at all.

We have FCP running on many different machines at work, and I have it running on a macbook pro and a dual 2.5 g5 at home and FCP is pretty unstable on all of them, so I dont think it is the system.

I'm not sure if I'm using A/B editing in the right way, when I use it I'm referring to the way Premire used to have one track on top, a middle track for transitions, and a third track on the bottom.:)

islanders
Jan 4, 2007, 04:42 PM
Lets hope they bring back FrameMaker for OSX as well. There is no other solution.

3CCD
Jan 4, 2007, 06:21 PM
This is great. FCP is an awesome program right now, and with Premiere it gives other people a chance to enjoy Macs and not be forced over to PC b/c they like programs such as Adobe Premiere. I'm not sure how the two programs stand up one to one since all of my experience has been with FCP and Express but it will be interesting to see how this all works out.

NickFalk
Jan 5, 2007, 12:57 AM
I dont thing many people on this forum have used premire since it went "Premire Pro." Sounds like most used it when it was still using a b editing, not saying it is better than FCP, but it is much better now than it was when Adobe dropped it from the mac platform.
Fair enough. I was burnt badly by Adobe selling earlier Premiere versions as a "pro" application though. The wound (and my wallet) is still aching. I did initialy think their first "pro" attempt looked promising. Then I learned that nested sequences weren't available until v.2 WTF!? How could they sell a pro-editing-program without nesting sequences. No doubt it has turned into a fairly able program since then, but Adobe have been constantly over-selling Premiere to such an extent I find it hard to give it another go.
And FCP is very unstable. Granted, if all you are working on is a very simple project is works well, but once you dive into a complicated, long form project, bye bye stability, hello spinning ball of doom.:mad:
My last project consisted of Animation-codec-files, image-sequences turned into film-clips (from security cameras) mixed with DV-footage and graphic files. Total running time (when cut) 25 minutes.

My aging dual G4 didn't experience any problems, granted I had to wait for it to render overnight at times, but the stability was top notch. FCP has been proven to be a viable alternative to Avid on bigger projects. I recommend Walter Murch's Behind the Seen (http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Seen-Walter-Edited-Mountain/dp/0735714266) to anyone interested in details. It tells the story about his endavours when editing "Cold Mountain" with FCP - despite Apple's less than overwhealming support for the idea...

GregA2
Jan 5, 2007, 03:55 AM
Then I learned that nested sequences weren't available until v.2 WTF!?

You learned WRONG. Premiere Pro has had nested sequences from the beginning. It also has many other pro-level features like support for uncompressed 10-bit video, extensive color correction tools, 32-bit-per-channel color processing, serial device control, waveform and vectorscope monitors, and many others. It also has 5.1 channel audio editing built in.
The integration with other Adobe apps is also much better than before. You can open a Premiere pro project in After Effects and the nested sequences become nested comps. The motion controls in PPro are now just like AE, and they also carry over. In the newest version of the Production studio, you can now bring an AE comp into Premiere Pro without having to render it first. And you can bring a Photoshop image into Premiere Pro without having to create an alpha channel first, and the transparency will be recognized- as well as all layer styles applied to it.
Premiere Pro was used to edit the film "Dust to Glory" which came out last summer. It was also used to capture the HDCAM footage for Superman Returns. I read somewhere it was also used for video on a recent Madonna tour. This is not the same Premiere you knew and loved (or hated) before. The title of this thread is misleading- They are not bringing back the Mac version of Premiere... They are bringing Premiere Pro to the Mac for the first time.

NickFalk
Jan 5, 2007, 04:13 AM
You learned WRONG. Premiere Pro has had nested sequences from the beginning.
Could be, could be - if so, my bad.

I do however stick by my claim that Adobe have oversold Premiere many times over, I've experienced this myself and got stung really badly. It will take something really special for Adobe to lure me back to Premiere as my main editing-app. The integration with the other Adobe apps sounds truly wonderfull though.

Despite my feelings towards Premiere in general I am really excited about the news. No the least because the whole Suite is amazing value for money. Finally I won't have to pay full price for both After Effects and Photoshop. I also get to check if there is a full-blown alternative to DVD Studio Pro in there. Heck, I'll probably even give Premiere Pro a try when I get my hands on it.

Digitalclips
Jan 5, 2007, 08:06 AM
Another app that is intel only...

I wouldn't have guessed that the PowerPC would be abandoned so fast by Adobe. I am not impressed...

groovebuster

Oh come on cheer up! Look I admit CS2 and Intel Mac is a sore point however, but for the Intel move Apple would be going down the pan about now. Move with the times and be happy. OS X which is really what Apple (plus great hardware of course) is all about and OS X on Intel moves Apple forward and saves us from an all Windows world (ok and Linux). Griping about the CPU is rediculous, heck I have several old pre Power PC Macs (remember the moans about the 'new' Power PC from Luddites?) as well as several Power PC Macs (like Dual G5s) and they are great fun to dust off once in a while but after powering up and using for a while I can't believe I ever used them .. OK the Dual G5s are still sweet :). Now is the time to put yours with the other antiques and go buy a new Intel Mac after MW, hell I bet the quad or maybe 8 cores will blaze even CS2 in emulation :). Counting the days to CS3 ... and AAPL $110 :)

Digitalclips
Jan 5, 2007, 08:17 AM
You learned WRONG. Premiere Pro has had nested sequences from the beginning. It also has many other pro-level features like support for uncompressed 10-bit video, extensive color correction tools, 32-bit-per-channel color processing, serial device control, waveform and vectorscope monitors, and many others. It also has 5.1 channel audio editing built in.
The integration with other Adobe apps is also much better than before. You can open a Premiere pro project in After Effects and the nested sequences become nested comps. The motion controls in PPro are now just like AE, and they also carry over. In the newest version of the Production studio, you can now bring an AE comp into Premiere Pro without having to render it first. And you can bring a Photoshop image into Premiere Pro without having to create an alpha channel first, and the transparency will be recognized- as well as all layer styles applied to it.
Premiere Pro was used to edit the film "Dust to Glory" which came out last summer. It was also used to capture the HDCAM footage for Superman Returns. I read somewhere it was also used for video on a recent Madonna tour. This is not the same Premiere you knew and loved (or hated) before. The title of this thread is misleading- They are not bringing back the Mac version of Premiere... They are bringing Premiere Pro to the Mac for the first time.

I am glad to hear it's not the Mac version they are brining back version lol. I edited two years worth of ESPN shows on a Quadra 840 with Premiere 1.0 (or was it 0.9?) through some higher number before graduating to a Media 100. I still wake up sweating after nightmares about making one just one small, last change and ... CRASH! Losing three days work. It only happened once i should add, after that we sat and waited daily for DLT tape back ups to be made from the massive 8 GIG RAID ;) ... OK, I can laugh now (now it is day light!). Oh and now I remember, did someone say the audio is of sync? aaaggghh! Ah, happy days :eek:

westonharvey
Jan 5, 2007, 09:25 AM
Oh come on cheer up! Look I admit CS2 and Intel Mac is a sore point however, but for the Intel move Apple would be going down the pan about now. Move with the times and be happy. OS X which is really what Apple (plus great hardware of course) is all about and OS X on Intel moves Apple forward and saves us from an all Windows world (ok and Linux). Griping about the CPU is rediculous, heck I have several old pre Power PC Macs (remember the moans about the 'new' Power PC from Luddites?) as well as several Power PC Macs (like Dual G5s) and they are great fun to dust off once in a while but after powering up and using for a while I can't believe I ever used them .. OK the Dual G5s are still sweet :). Now is the time to put yours with the other antiques and go buy a new Intel Mac after MW, hell I bet the quad or maybe 8 cores will blaze even CS2 in emulation :). Counting the days to CS3 ... and AAPL $110 :)

Not sure it's ridiculous to gripe about this. A lot of people recently spent $3000-$5000 (or more) on an "antiquity" that would be more than capable of running this software.

50548
Jan 6, 2007, 05:14 PM
Competition = Awesome.

This is great news, and further shows Adobe's commitment to the Mac platform.

A good way to begin (a bit early) MWSF.

Nope, this just means they have to eat a lot of crow following the fantastic growth of the Mac's market share...FCP will keep reigning in the Apple platform...shove it, Adobe!

ShiggyMiyamoto
Jan 6, 2007, 10:41 PM
Nope, this just means they have to eat a lot of crow following the fantastic growth of the Mac's market share...FCP will keep reigning in the Apple platform...shove it, Adobe!

That's not necessarily true. Before Final Cut Pro (or Express for that matter), and iMovie came out Premiere was king, and it was the industry standard for video editing and [post] production. I for one like it better than FCP and Express partly because I grew up on it. I briefly tried FCP and I couldn't figure it out. I tried to apply my Premiere skills to it, but that didn't work. I can see that you're an FCP fanboy/fangirl, but give Adobe some credit. They've been holding out strong in the graphics and web design department, and now they feel with the new Intel Mac platform that Premiere is ready to run on Macs again.

NickFalk
Jan 8, 2007, 07:50 AM
...Before Final Cut Pro (or Express for that matter), and iMovie came out Premiere was king, and it was the industry standard for video editing and [post] production.
Sorry, but that's pure nonsense. Admitidly Adobe jumped on the NLE-bandawagon quite early but "standard" me think not. The standard have "always" been and is still Avid. Premiere, prior to "pro" was always an advanced toy for advanced hobbyist with a few wedding-videographers thrown into the mix.

Final Cut 1 really put Adobe to shame and Adobe knows it. I still remember comming from Premiere 5.1c to FCP 2. It was in a word "unbelievable". Earthshattering. Really, comparable to comming from windows 3.11 to OSX in functionality, stability and user friendlyness...

That's why the threw out the complete code-base for Premiere and started over with the "Pro" version.

failsafe1
Jan 8, 2007, 07:53 AM
That's not necessarily true. Before Final Cut Pro (or Express for that matter), and iMovie came out Premiere was king, and it was the industry standard for video editing and [post] production. I for one like it better than FCP and Express partly because I grew up on it. I briefly tried FCP and I couldn't figure it out. I tried to apply my Premiere skills to it, but that didn't work. I can see that you're an FCP fanboy/fangirl, but give Adobe some credit. They've been holding out strong in the graphics and web design department, and now they feel with the new Intel Mac platform that Premiere is ready to run on Macs again.

Avid is king and FCP is a distant second in the world I work in. The pros around me are TV station guys who work on Macs with Avid. They would use FCP if they had to but don't need to switch at the moment.

Sdashiki
Jan 8, 2007, 08:41 AM
Avid = not same ballpark as FCP if you want to say "what is truly PRO"

ONLY because of the price differences.

Avid = FCP in terms of what it can/cant do, well almost

I mean, Avid is very very $, and should be for what it can do. but FCP can do pretty much the same thing, cheaper, but it only runs on OSX...

:D

virus1
Jan 8, 2007, 08:42 AM
i am expecting a lot from apple at NAB this year because last year was so disappointing.

shellbryson
Jan 8, 2007, 10:50 AM
First Adobe canceled Premiere due to "small Mac marketshare for the product" :(

Now they release a new version only for Intel Macs, what is presently a small percentage of the Mac installed base. :confused:

A piece of the puzzle is missing. ;)


There is a turn around. There is a larger percentage of machines being sold now... that's why there are so many Apple stores opening this year. It's become very "cool" to own anything Apple, on the back of the storming success of iPods. Apple get a lot of positive press. Yes their machines are expensive, but they are very desirable. I think Vista will drive a lot of new folks to Apple too.