PDA

View Full Version : MacWorld, Adobe and Macromedia


arn
Jun 20, 2002, 03:55 PM
MacCentral (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0206/20.adobe.php) is reporting that Adobe and Macromedia will not be attending MacWorld Expo New York 2002.


"Adobe is not exhibiting at the Macworld New York show this year, but will continue to exhibit at Macworld San Francisco," Kevin Burr, vice president of Corporate Communications

Adobe cites the current economy as reasons to cut back on trade shows. They are planning on attending MWSF.

Aqua OS X
Jun 20, 2002, 04:06 PM
SF is more important for graphic designers anyway. It has become fairly typical for these companies to stay clear of NewYork.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 20, 2002, 04:18 PM
I don't see how this could be. Adobe and Apple are pretty tight, and unless Apple is running MS Office benchmarks, we need Adobe there to speak about how fast our new DDR PowerMacs will be!

Quark
Jun 20, 2002, 04:29 PM
This is just a thought, but it is my understanding that Steve was really putting heat on Adobe to get Photoshop converted to work natively in OS X.

Could this just be Adobe getting back at Steve?

Steve even took a very public jab at Adobe when he commented how he wasn't able to edit a picture from iPhoto with Photoshop because it wasn't available. I remember everyone in the audience reacted with a very short, fraction of a second, hush, until someome began to say "ooo" and then everyone laughed it off.

Steve glanced back over his shoulder to what appeared to be the location where Adobe people were sitting/waiting to go on stage.

Unfortunately, Steve has a history of doing things like this. I know his intent was to push them a little, but if they were working as hard as they could -- then it hurt more then helped. And this could be the fallout.

Adobe can afford to do this. :(

Quark

Wry Cooter
Jun 20, 2002, 04:38 PM
If there was any real animosity, it would probably be around FCP vs Premiere.

If there was any real hidden excuse, it would be that they have no real big stuff in their kit bag to show off, Photoshop is already OS X ready, (and still carbon because of the installed base, and probably will remain carbon for several years because of this - you aren't going to see the pros really ditch classic until Quark is ready, despite adobe trying to push OS X ready InDesign... also Plug Ins, most of which are OS 9 only, are terribly important to Adobe functionality.

So I'm just going to go with their official statement, they can't afford the plane tickets and accomodations... The audience is presold anyway. And why go just to announce? Because Jaguar and the new iron will not be ready at MacWorld anyway, but later in the summer.

But perhaps there is a slight political dig involved. Also, they think that its okay if one other big guy says they can't make it, that they blow off the party as well. Here comes the avalanache!

Didn't Adobe pick up one of the 3d apps that Metacreations ditched a few years back, such as the Canoma? Like to see something done with that.

Arcady
Jun 20, 2002, 04:48 PM
Last time Adobe missed a show, they said the same thing. They want to save money? WTF? Trade shows are like advertising. you have to spend money to make money. A company that makes millions of dollars a year is worried about spending a few thousand on a trade show? It's pure bull.

jamesbhai
Jun 20, 2002, 05:01 PM
The cost to move shop on the trip from the West to the East coast to a MW that is definitely smaller is becoming less attractive in a bad economy. If it were on the West coast, they'd be there. It's smaller, much costlier and not practical right now. However, I'd love to see how much quicker Adobe and Macromedia products run in Jaguar. Alas.

Perhaps they will be showing how fast it is in a G5 in January. I'd take that. For now, I'll dream that.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 20, 2002, 07:06 PM
i'm more concerned about macromedia, just cause i'd love to see director come out for os x.. as i'm sure many others would.

adobe... 2 in a row though. oh well. ps is out, so i'm set.

MasterX (OSiX)
Jun 20, 2002, 08:10 PM
"pc load letter, what the **** does that mean?"

God I loved that movie

theaz
Jun 20, 2002, 08:28 PM
maybe they are a little miffed over apples recent software purchases...

tjwett
Jun 20, 2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
i'm more concerned about macromedia, just cause i'd love to see director come out for os x.. as i'm sure many others would.

adobe... 2 in a row though. oh well. ps is out, so i'm set.

i'm not so sure Macromedia will even continue to make Director anymore. Alot of the features have already begun to leak into Flash MX. Plus, the scripting(Lingo) for Director is much more complicated than actionscript. I think, over time, Flash will incorporate all of Director's features and then some and Macromedia will send Director packing. I'm not denying the power of Director or anything. It's an amazing application but it's uses will be increasingly able to be accomplished in much faster, and cheaper ways. I think it will be carbonized for OSX but i just can't picture a version 9. Even the shockwave plug-in is losing it's demand. i hope i'm wrong but i just have a feeling. look at the way Macromedia hide it's mere existence on their website. it gets none of the action the others do. we'll see i guess.

D0ct0rteeth
Jun 20, 2002, 10:57 PM
There is still some life in director yet.... it authorware that I would be worried about....

C-

iGav
Jun 21, 2002, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by tjwett


i'm not so sure Macromedia will even continue to make Director anymore. Alot of the features have already begun to leak into Flash MX. Plus, the scripting(Lingo) for Director is much more complicated than actionscript. I think, over time, Flash will incorporate all of Director's features and then some and Macromedia will send Director packing. I'm not denying the power of Director or anything. It's an amazing application but it's uses will be increasingly able to be accomplished in much faster, and cheaper ways. I think it will be carbonized for OSX but i just can't picture a version 9. Even the shockwave plug-in is losing it's demand. i hope i'm wrong but i just have a feeling. look at the way Macromedia hide it's mere existence on their website. it gets none of the action the others do. we'll see i guess.

I can't imagine Macromedia dropping Director anytime soon...... Director is infinitly more powerful and scalable than Flash...... and is still extremely popular for disc based applications....... as for Shockwave on web........ well consider that the 2 main browsers ship with it installed...... and that Shockwave plugin incorporates support for SWF files.... I really don't see the problem here.....

Making Flash more complicated by incorporating Director's features probably isn't the way to go as it'll then enter into the arena that Director currently is peerless in....... so why would they want to do this?? If Flash was to incorporate ALL of Directors features... it'd be more than a little bloated!!

Ultimately the 2 are not in direct competition....... (only people who can't use both to there full capacity think they are) if I was Macromedia I'd be more worried about how amazing LiveMotion is interms of productivity in comparison with Flash........ (Flash isn't half as intuitive as LiveMotion) coupled to the Fact that LiveMotion has an almost identical and incredibly intuitive interface like AE......... and that it incorporates features that took until version MX for Flash to obtain........ and can export as SWF......... Flash could well be in the *****.........

TechLarry
Jun 21, 2002, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Quark
This is just a thought, but it is my understanding that Steve was really putting heat on Adobe to get Photoshop converted to work natively in OS X.

Could this just be Adobe getting back at Steve?

Steve even took a very public jab at Adobe when he commented how he wasn't able to edit a picture from iPhoto with Photoshop because it wasn't available. I remember everyone in the audience reacted with a very short, fraction of a second, hush, until someome began to say "ooo" and then everyone laughed it off.

Steve glanced back over his shoulder to what appeared to be the location where Adobe people were sitting/waiting to go on stage.

Unfortunately, Steve has a history of doing things like this. I know his intent was to push them a little, but if they were working as hard as they could -- then it hurt more then helped. And this could be the fallout.

Adobe can afford to do this. :(

Quark

I don't think ANY of these big companies are working as hard as they can when it comes to the Mac.

They already have people running their software on MacOS 9. Re-developing Photoshop to run on X, when the only thing at the end of the tunnel is a minor upgrade fee, probably doesn't look good to them.

No, they would have waited for the next major release regardless of what Steve said, where the MAJOR upgrade fee's would be rolling in.

TL

evildead
Jun 21, 2002, 06:26 PM
They dont have anything new to show case and it is expensive to have a booth. But, I would think that they would find the scratch to show up, if not for anything else but to save face incase the other did show up. They both have some great products but they are expensive and if they want to maintain market share, they need to keep Apple users, using. Pepsi and Coke are the most reconised brands in the world, and they also spend the most on ads. I guess word of mouth is just not good enuph.

Wry Cooter
Jun 22, 2002, 03:24 PM
They are punishing us for not clicking through on their damn annoying InDesign PopUp ads.

FWIW, due to the state of the economy, -I- will not be attending MWNY either.... So Back at ya Adobe and Macromedia!:o

SeanPalma
Jun 23, 2002, 01:34 PM
Regarding Macromedia Director,

They are carbonizing 8.5 for OS X. Flash MX has brought some of the features previously found only in Director, but I would say it is more of a "light" version. Director is much more powerful.

Future releases of Director will have many new options, most notably DVD Authoring. So if you want to create some sort of hype regarding that in a DVDSP(apple) VS Director DVD Edition as to why they are not going to be participating...well than let the rumors rage on.

I think they just don't have anything to announce or preview...And it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in such an event, not a few thousand as stated by someone before.

All of this information is completely true and easily attained from Macromedia directly. I guess you just have to know how and who to ask.

iGav
Jun 24, 2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by SeanPalma
Regarding Macromedia Director,

They are carbonizing 8.5 for OS X. Flash MX has brought some of the features previously found only in Director, but I would say it is more of a "light" version. Director is much more powerful.

Future releases of Director will have many new options, most notably DVD Authoring. So if you want to create some sort of hype regarding that in a DVDSP(apple) VS Director DVD Edition as to why they are not going to be participating...well than let the rumors rage on.

I think they just don't have anything to announce or preview...And it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in such an event, not a few thousand as stated by someone before.

All of this information is completely true and easily attained from Macromedia directly. I guess you just have to know how and who to ask.

Aha.... you mentioned a couple of things that I hadn't really thought about that should be added to extend Directors functionality......

DVD authoring support would be most cool..... especially if it still supports Directors animation and 3D capabilities.... something that Apple DVD Studio Pro lacks...... but this would certainly make for some cool DVD's........

I don't doubt at all that Director will be carbonised........ it's just a matter of waiting........ but I really wish people would stop comparing Direcotr and Flash... they're 2 completely different packages aimed at 2 totally different markets........

Anyways... I can't wait for Macromedia to finally release Director for OSX........ :)

tjwett
Jun 24, 2002, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by iGAV


I can't imagine Macromedia dropping Director anytime soon...... Director is infinitly more powerful and scalable than Flash...... and is still extremely popular for disc based applications....... as for Shockwave on web........ well consider that the 2 main browsers ship with it installed...... and that Shockwave plugin incorporates support for SWF files.... I really don't see the problem here.....

Making Flash more complicated by incorporating Director's features probably isn't the way to go as it'll then enter into the arena that Director currently is peerless in....... so why would they want to do this?? If Flash was to incorporate ALL of Directors features... it'd be more than a little bloated!!

Ultimately the 2 are not in direct competition....... (only people who can't use both to there full capacity think they are) if I was Macromedia I'd be more worried about how amazing LiveMotion is interms of productivity in comparison with Flash........ (Flash isn't half as intuitive as LiveMotion) coupled to the Fact that LiveMotion has an almost identical and incredibly intuitive interface like AE......... and that it incorporates features that took until version MX for Flash to obtain........ and can export as SWF......... Flash could well be in the *****.........

I agree with you on this. Director is a monster and combining it with Flash would be silly but I just haven't heard much news about any Director updates. Maybe they are just being buried by all the recent Flash and MX hype. Anyway, LiveMotion is awesome and the AE style timeline is great. Adobe is really on the way to seamless intergration between it's apps. I think this is what Macro is shooting for with the whole MX thing. Live Motion is so much more productive and intuitive. Adobe products feel like artistic design products where Macro stuff always felt more like programmers tools to me. LiveMotion's only downfall in the past has been it's poor handling of actionscript. They are supposedly doing major things with the LiveMotion development team which could be good or bad. It never took off like it should have. One rumor i heard was that they were going to take LiveMotion and combine it with AE. I don't know if that's a good idea but it might be cool. Flash MX already allows you to add actionscript to video to add interactivity so maybe AE will do the same. I'd like to see LiveMotion become more popular. It has the potential of a Flash killer.

buffsldr
Jun 24, 2002, 08:40 PM
Obviously, Adobe and Macromedia believe not going will profit them more than going. Without all the information, how can we second guess that?

iGav
Jun 25, 2002, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by tjwett


I agree with you on this. Director is a monster and combining it with Flash would be silly but I just haven't heard much news about any Director updates. Maybe they are just being buried by all the recent Flash and MX hype. Anyway, LiveMotion is awesome and the AE style timeline is great. Adobe is really on the way to seamless intergration between it's apps. I think this is what Macro is shooting for with the whole MX thing. Live Motion is so much more productive and intuitive. Adobe products feel like artistic design products where Macro stuff always felt more like programmers tools to me. LiveMotion's only downfall in the past has been it's poor handling of actionscript. They are supposedly doing major things with the LiveMotion development team which could be good or bad. It never took off like it should have. One rumor i heard was that they were going to take LiveMotion and combine it with AE. I don't know if that's a good idea but it might be cool. Flash MX already allows you to add actionscript to video to add interactivity so maybe AE will do the same. I'd like to see LiveMotion become more popular. It has the potential of a Flash killer.

I'm guessing that maybe Director because of it's complexities and authoring capabilities is just taking alittle longer to sort...... it's more of a specialist package than Flash and Dreamweaver.......

I do really ike the idea of it incorporating new technologies such as DVD authoring..... this would just be mind blowing as DVD is ripe for this kind of interactivity that Director could provide...... also If they could figure out away of making Projector files etc. Altivec aware..... so that they run even sweeter.... that would be a killer development.......

With regards to LiveMotion..... version 2 is an excellent package..... I can pretty much do everything with it that I can do in Flash....... but I much prefer the LiveMotion interface it really is sweet...... and with regards to timeline and producing time based animation..... Flash really doesn't have the same level of precise control...... I find that I can do stuff so much faster in LiveMotion than in Flash! I;ve been using Flash since version 1 and have always found it's interface on the clunky side in comparison to Director and AE..........

It's certainly going to be very difficult for LiveMotion to succeed considering the popularity of Flash...... I tend to feel that alot of Flash people generally won't entertain another package... they're too stuck in Flash to even consider checking anythng else out....... and I feel that this could be 1 thing that holds back LiveMotion......

drastik
Jun 26, 2002, 08:37 AM
I'm pretty stuck in flash myself, and I don't have much desire to change. I like the interface, I'm getting deeper into the scripting which is becoming more and more intuitive. Don't forget the huge compatability base ,too.

I'd love to see new Director stuff though.:D

tjwett
Jun 26, 2002, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by drastik
I'm pretty stuck in flash myself, and I don't have much desire to change. I like the interface, I'm getting deeper into the scripting which is becoming more and more intuitive. Don't forget the huge compatability base ,too.

I'd love to see new Director stuff though.:D

I hear ya. as he said earlier, people are just used to Flash. Hell, I work for a pretty advanced multi-media agency and when i got in there they gave me a bunch of Flash projects to work on(on a Windows machine, no less). I said that I had my Tibook with me and I prefer to work with Live Motion. They didn't even know what it was! I had to explain to them that when I was finished it would still be a swf and a swif is a swif is a swif. They let me use it but no one has shown a shread of interest. I really wish Macromedia would take some steps to improving their products on the Mac platform. But, as I always say "There's no Mac in Macromedia".

Wash!!
Jun 26, 2002, 11:55 AM
Where is Freehand UPDATE , It's about time Macromedia release an update to FH 10.

This is driving me crazy, as FH10 has some bugs that should be fix.:mad:

iGav
Jun 26, 2002, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by tjwett


I hear ya. as he said earlier, people are just used to Flash. Hell, I work for a pretty advanced multi-media agency and when i got in there they gave me a bunch of Flash projects to work on(on a Windows machine, no less). I said that I had my Tibook with me and I prefer to work with Live Motion. They didn't even know what it was! I had to explain to them that when I was finished it would still be a swf and a swif is a swif is a swif. They let me use it but no one has shown a shread of interest. I really wish Macromedia would take some steps to improving their products on the Mac platform. But, as I always say "There's no Mac in Macromedia".

I totally agree with what u've said....... I've had clients with a total hard on for anything Flash...... regardless of whether or not it's the best package for the project... unfortunately Flash became abit of a buzz software in the new media industry...... and alot of people believe it's the be all and end all......

It's also true that alot of people don't even know that LiveMotion exists.... or indeed what it does........ :(

tjwett
Jun 26, 2002, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by iGAV


I totally agree with what u've said....... I've had clients with a total hard on for anything Flash...... regardless of whether or not it's the best package for the project... unfortunately Flash became abit of a buzz software in the new media industry...... and alot of people believe it's the be all and end all......

It's also true that alot of people don't even know that LiveMotion exists.... or indeed what it does........ :(

Live Motion was breaking apart text before Flash. And it still has one amazing feature that Flash doesn't: you can scale bitmap images and keep them sharp very easily. I think Live Motion creates a much more cinematic experience than Flash. Like I said, Adobe is for artists and Macromedia is for Windows programmers. Viva Live Motion!

iGav
Jun 27, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by tjwett


Live Motion was breaking apart text before Flash. And it still has one amazing feature that Flash doesn't: you can scale bitmap images and keep them sharp very easily. I think Live Motion creates a much more cinematic experience than Flash. Like I said, Adobe is for artists and Macromedia is for Windows programmers. Viva Live Motion!

It's such a refreshing change to find someone that loves and uses LiveMotion...... ;) although I believe Flash has it's uses..... IMHO Flash work suffers from a generic look and feel........ you can spot a flash generated site a mile off....... it seems to invite a certain style of animation and interactivity... this is another area that LiveMotion kicks its
a*se....... :D

tjwett
Jun 27, 2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by iGAV


It's such a refreshing change to find someone that loves and uses LiveMotion...... ;) although I believe Flash has it's uses..... IMHO Flash work suffers from a generic look and feel........ you can spot a flash generated site a mile off....... it seems to invite a certain style of animation and interactivity... this is another area that LiveMotion kicks its
a*se....... :D

my main reason for choosing LM over Flash is that working in Flash feels like working in OS 8.0 after using OS X. it just feels very unintuitive. by the time i'm done creating guide layers and making movie clips and graphic symbols i've lost my ideas and my inspiration. Live Motion makes me feel like i'm creating in a comfortable environment, like photoshop. it's an art tool. not a programmers tool. Flash MX is indeed an improvement but I stil cant get to grips with that timeline. i work in After Effects alot so when i need to switch to LM i still feel at home. Macromedia is a sketchy company anyway. Adobe has been down with the Mac since day one. I know what you mean about Flash having a certain look and feel. It seems to compel people to use a lot of the same designs, alot of which look very 1998.

Wry Cooter
Jun 27, 2002, 02:55 PM
[quote][B]
It's also true that alot of people don't even know that LiveMotion exists.... or indeed what it does........
[B][\quote]

What is important to know that it creates work playable in a flash player, no?

Just hope that both Macromedia and Adobe keep their particular standards OPEN and try to compete on the interface of their creative tools.

Take their battle down to the first big battle, Illustrator vs Freehand... Freehand used to have a better interface in my opinion, then it was made less so in the war to either merge functionality, or separate functionality between the two apps.

Seeing Go Live, I would probably still prefer DreamWeaver, although I prefer Illustrator to Freehand these days.

Even with the integration with other Adobe apps, I still think I would prefer Quark to InDesign, given a certain efficient unchanging economy to the simple basics of Quarks interface. (Then other methods, such as how the companies do business with their customers, come to the forefront as to which is used. Many enjoy and wish to continue to use, suites of products from all of the above.

tjwett
Jun 27, 2002, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter
[quote][B]
It's also true that alot of people don't even know that LiveMotion exists.... or indeed what it does........
[B][\quote]

What is important to know that it creates work playable in a flash player, no?

Just hope that both Macromedia and Adobe keep their particular standards OPEN and try to compete on the interface of their creative tools.

Take their battle down to the first big battle, Illustrator vs Freehand... Freehand used to have a better interface in my opinion, then it was made less so in the war to either merge functionality, or separate functionality between the two apps.

Seeing Go Live, I would probably still prefer DreamWeaver, although I prefer Illustrator to Freehand these days.

Even with the integration with other Adobe apps, I still think I would prefer Quark to InDesign, given a certain efficient unchanging economy to the simple basics of Quarks interface. (Then other methods, such as how the companies do business with their customers, come to the forefront as to which is used. Many enjoy and wish to continue to use, suites of products from all of the above.

It blew my mind when Quark 5 was released without OSX support. I know a bunch of people that switched to InDesign just for this reason alone. That was a weird move indeed.

Wry Cooter
Jun 27, 2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by tjwett


It blew my mind when Quark 5 was released without OSX support. I know a bunch of people that switched to InDesign just for this reason alone. That was a weird move indeed.

I was surprised they bothered with an upgrade at that point,considering a multitude clamoring for OS X apps only, but they are concerned of InDesign coming in anyway and thought they had to address the Make it once publish it in print or WEB paradigm as a stop gap measure. They called practically all their registered customers.

But it isn't surprising as to their customer base. Quark has to keep working in a daily working environment, with legacy imagesetters, old rips, easily accessible fonts, quirky networks and raids, and bread and butter plug ins over which Quark has no control. It is vital that they keep one foot firmly set in the status quo.

You will probably see a big leap around MWSF, when there is new hardware, and Jaguar.

I haven't even bothered trying to pull over fonts or upgrade my graphics apps yet for similar reasons. Classic is working out fine, and will continue to do so as my stuff is upgraded incrementally. Emotionally I can't wait, but the economy isn't playing along, financially I can.