Adobe to return to Mac?

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by AtHomeBoy_2000, Mar 15, 2006.

  1. AtHomeBoy_2000 macrumors 6502a

    AtHomeBoy_2000

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    #1
    http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0603adobeproductionstudio.html

     
  2. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #2
    They abandoned Premier before that. It's easy to blame someone else. Adobe could have upgraded and fixed Premier long before Apple brought out Final Cut Pro.

    I think it's too late for most people to care whether they do something about it or not.
     
  3. applefan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Location:
    No. Cal.
    #3
    I'd buy Premier Elements for Mac if they offered it. Considering price and features, I think it fits nice between iMovie and FCE.
     
  4. zim macrumors 65816

    zim

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    #4
    I agree. I will always be open to alternatives but I think that the Apple FC Studio will be pretty hard to compete with. The only benefit here for Adobe is people who will be switching to the Mac from PCs or for studios that need cross platform software.
     
  5. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #5
    Why don't they focus on, oh, I don't know, UNIVERSAL BINARIES instead of competing with Apple? :rolleyes:
     
  6. dornoforpyros macrumors 68040

    dornoforpyros

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    #6
    I Second that!
     
  7. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #7
    They want to do the easy stuff.
     
  8. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #8
    It's possible that Adobe's video applications are made by people who have nothing to do with the Creative Suite.

    But yeah, if Wolfram Research could crank out a Universal Binary of Mathematica in a few hours, what's the delay?

    Adobe wants to make money. They want people to have an incentive to buy CS3 when it comes out. Maybe there will be compelling reasons to upgrade outside of the UB factor. Most likely there won't be.
     
  9. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #9
    If I recall, it was never Final Cut Pro that got Adobe's hackles up, since it was pretty clear that these two strata of video producers had little overlap.

    Rather, it was Apple's introduction of Final Cut Express that was much more of a direct competitor to Premier and prompted Adobe to announce that they were dropping Mac Premier development.

    As far as universal binaries, I think that they've said that CS3 will be universal. But while we're writing up a to-do list for Adobe, I think it would be nice for them to come out with a Cocoa version of CS rather then the Carbonized thing they cling to now. :)
     
  10. kgarner macrumors 68000

    kgarner

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    #10
    Aren't Universal Binaries written in Cocoa already? I thought that was why Adobe was having a hard time with CS was that they had to rewrite everything in Cocoa. Maybe I am just mis-remembering things.
     
  11. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #11
    There's nothing that says that Universal Binaries have to be written in Cocoa. Carbon is just fine.

    The problem is that Adobe's applications are barely Carbon-ised. They don't support Carbon events, which is why they run so poorly and take up so many CPU resources when idle. So, basically, they're all System 6 applications patched to run on Mac OS X.
     
  12. theBB macrumors 68020

    theBB

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    #12
    Which features would that be? I have used Premiere Pro on my roomate's PC and it was quite powerful, but I don't know much about the Elements version.

    Does "Premiere Elements" have mutiple video track capability? That was very handy for me at the time, but I don't know whether I want to shell out $300 for FCE to get it.

    "Pro" did not copy and convert any of my video files during the editing phase, (just referencing to them somehow) until the time to export, so each project would take up only a few kB. Very easy on HD. If I am not mistaken, iMovie projects take up much more than that if you use, let's say, mpeg4 files for your clips. How about Premiere Elements?
     
  13. applefan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Location:
    No. Cal.
    #13
    I have Premiere Elements 1 for Windows, and it seems to have more titles and effects and features in general, but it's not quite as user friendly IMO.

    It supports 99 video and 99 audio tracks. It costs $99 as a stand alone or $149 bundled with PS Elements.

    Elements works the way you've described Pro, but the still uses space. It's just not tied exclusively to the project

    Check it out for yourself.

    http://www.adobe.com/products/premiereel/main.html
     
  14. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #14
    One thing to consider about Premier Elements for Macintosh--if it happens--is that it may not include a whole lot of the projects that the Windows version contains, just like Photoshop Elements.
     
  15. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #15
    Although the latest Photoshop Elements-4 for Mac seems to have re-introduced the missing pieces of Elements-3, such as file manager (iPhoto) and Photobooks/Calendars and Cards (again iPhoto services).
     
  16. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #16
    Well, you have to have iPhoto to produce those with version 4.0 on Mac while the Windows version has those.
     
  17. theBB macrumors 68020

    theBB

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    #17
    I wish I could, but I don't think my XP laptop can handle it and I have not installed XP on my iMac, yet. :)

    Thanks for the info though. I am planning to put together a few home videos using the mpeg4 clips from my camera, but I am just afraid each iMovie project will copy the clips and convert them into DV, wasting a ton of space. I would just check a few test sequences to see if it makes sense to use iMovie, but I have to wait until April for the appropriate QT codec to come out in universal format.
     
  18. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    IIRC, both Premiere Pro and FCE came out in 2003 so I don't think the canceling of Premiere on the Mac was in response to FCE. Final Cut Pro pulled away Premiere users away in droves (by the time Adobe axed it only 10% of Premiere users used the Mac version). The two primarily shared the same demographic until about FCP 3.0 and that's when I think Final Cut really started expanding upwards. Premiere was just dog tired by that point and it's biggest selling point was its integration w/AE and PS. You know you have a problem if your programs biggest selling point has nothing to do w/the app itself.


    Lethal
     
  19. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #19
    Are you sure? You certainly had to with version-3 (which is what I have) but according to Adobe's site it now uses it's own browser and Kodak's print services (for books/calendars etc).
     
  20. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #20
    Version 3.0 had its own browser, too, which wasn't Bridge, but more like the file browser from Photoshop 7. Version 4.0 has Bridge. I've included a screenshot.

    Also, I haven't found any projects in PSE but the plug-ins for the web photo gallery, picture package, contact sheet, etc. are still there. I've included a screenshot of the File menu as well.

    The Kodak print services are available through Bridge but since I'm not going to sign up for an account, I won't be able to tell you how they work. It's completely unlike PhotoDeluxe where the projects were part of the application, though.
     

    Attached Files:

  21. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #21
    Interesting, but if only 5% of users are on Macs, doesn't a 10% share mean that Premier had a larger portion of Mac users than the general market? Isn't that a good thing? I wonder just what the sales proportions of Adobe's other products is.

    Unquestionably.
     
  22. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #22
    But their is much more parity (if not a still a solid Mac lead) in the "creative" world (graphics, video/film/TV, music, etc.,) than there is in the general computing population. Before Final Cut Pro Adobe pretty much ruled the roost in prosumer video editing (at the time it was pretty much either $1000 + computer for a prosumer solution or $100,000 for a pro solution as there really wasn't a middle ground before FCP) and I would guess the majority of their sales of Premiere went to the Mac. So going from the majority of sales to just about 10% in only a few years means yer product sucks. :D Which is why Adobe built Premiere Pro from the ground up.


    Lethal
     
  23. weg macrumors 6502a

    weg

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    nj
    #23
    Isn't Mathematica an application that is available for something like 10 different platforms? Of course it's easy to port a program that has been written with portability in mind... but something like Photoshop, which is highly optimized for the platform needs a bit more effort (I'm sure Apple wouldn't be happy about a Photoshop Universal Binary version that's significantly slower than the Windows version on a comparable PC ;-).
     
  24. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #24
    It's true that Mathematica had been re-written at some point for portability and Adobe applications are still stuck in the past after more than 15 years with no more than patches. Believe it or not, developers and managers and professors did talk about writing an application for portability before Adobe was a company. It's just an idea but when they ported their applications to Windows, they might have re-worked them so that they were more portable on both platforms.
     

Share This Page