Adobe and John Nack's Blog Post

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by harveypooka, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. harveypooka macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    #1
    If any of you guys read MDN regularly you'll know the site to be a bit extreme in it's views regarding anyone that remotely criticises the Mac platform.

    You can read MDN's article, but here is a sample:

    "We'd like to see a lot less talk and a lot more action from Adobe as we're well past sick and tired of running Photoshop in Rosetta, thanks. Just how poorly is Photoshop coded, anyway? Adobe needs a serious attitude adjustment. There's no excuse for making a large portion of your users - the very users of the platform that made your company, by the way - wait for so long to run your products natively."

    I decided to contact John Nack about this and received a reply and also from the PR department.

    "John Nack, the Senior Product Manager for Adobe Photoshop, wrote an article on his blog about PowerPC chips, Universal Binaries and other Mac related things. A few websites reacted with sensationalist headlines and MDN finally topped it all off stating that perhaps Adobe shouldn't let people post such things on company blogs..."

    Head to my blog entry to read Adobe's response and a few of my thoughts.
     
  2. Bern macrumors 68000

    Bern

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #2
    You know I tend to agree with his point of view about Adobe. I haven't read his blog, but from the quoted text you have I agree with him.

    I'm a regular user of Photoshop, it's an essential part of my business, and I recall the CEO of Adobe getting up on stage and smugly saying to Steve ".. what took you so long?.." when Apple announced the Intel switch.

    Now Adobe are the ones dragging the chain. There are a lot of people using Photoshop and now that Adobe have the monopoly on the software they're letting the side down. Of course it will also mean they'll be able to put what ever price they like on it... there's no alternative for us. If only Aperture was.
     
  3. ksz macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #3
    I am 100% on Adobe's side on this one. I'm waiting for CS3 also, but Adobe has always said Spring 2007. Their Windows customers have to wait as well. I am looking forward to a well-produced upgrade.

    I am also reminded of how few patches there have been to Photoshop and various other members of the Suite. Adobe takes more time, but they tend to deliver a good product without rushing it to market to placate the whims of a few fanatical voices.

    I think Adobe has been very patient as well.
     
  4. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #4
    Adobe could have spent some time creating a universal version of CS2. They chose to roll it all into CS3 instead. I sympathize with other disgruntled users. Not only will there never be a (free or otherwise) universal version of CS2, but we've all go to wait and wait for UBs because they've decided to bunch the transition in with CS3, and THEN we've got to be happy with the forced upgrade after waiting so long.

    They should have gone universal first, and then moved on to adding CS3 features. Either way, it's taken far too long. My end of year technology purchases are in limbo for the second year in a row.
     
  5. harveypooka thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    #5
    Sure, everyone is waiting but what exactly is the length of time that Adobe should have taken? I mean, Russell said that it was the biggest engineering task they've ever undertaken - who knows how much time, effort and money would be involved to port CS2 and after all, Adobe are a business - not a charity!
     
  6. Bern macrumors 68000

    Bern

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    I guess that explains why Adobe's latest release of After Effects is PPC and not Universal?? :rolleyes:
     
  7. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #7
    That amount of time is hard to pin down... but the answer is obviously 'less'. My point is that they could have gotten a universal CS2 out the door faster than building to CS3. That would have been good business.

    I just read through the response from John you've posted... and I chuckled a little at the rational he's given. Windows users are waiting too? What? Windows users may be wating for CS3, but that doesn't have anything to do with universal binaries or any part of the main issue at hand. Screw CS3- just get universal. One thing at a time.
     
  8. harveypooka thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    #8
    That wasn't John's response, that was Russell the PR guys response. But why invest time making CS2 a Universal when the majority of Mac users aren't on Intel? Anyway, I can't answer this because I don't know - John said he would get back to me in a few days, I'll ask that question. :)
     
  9. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #9
    This is the chicken and the egg... I am not on an intel machine specifically BECAUSE there is no UB of CS. I would imagine this is the case for a large amount of people. Again, I've had to hold off company purchases because this UB is not available.
     
  10. harveypooka thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    #10
    Haha, you had to take the argument to a new (philosophical) level. Unfortunately I guess that Adobe decided to deliver a new product vs updating the old one for a minority of people.
     

Share This Page