Why should they when there's already plenty of similar software already available? This looks like a totally useless app.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Responds to Intel-Only Soundbooth
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why should they when there's already plenty of similar software already available? This looks like a totally useless app.
i'm going to go ahead and GUESS. but this is more than likely based off of cool edit pro. which was a great program in its day and was simple as hell to use. on windows machines. it became adobe audition when adobe bought it. now they seem to be FINALLY porting it over for use on x86 macs. while it does seem ****** that they're not putting it on both, i feel that is probably a good move for adobe. at the same time, its news rooms (such as local affiliates for major networks) that use products such as cool edit pro, and they are generally on a budget and won't want to fork over the money for the newest and greatest macs, which might make them stick with a dell to do their post production work on this (hopefully, if it stays true to cool edit) simple app.
Wrong.
The mac sales in adobes pro applications are about 50-70%,if i remember right.
As long as it stays like that,adobe will support the osx platform.
And with the rising mac sales, well, things are staying like that for the foreseable future.
Well, by year 2443 things might be a bit different,but getting that much ahead of things is not fruitfull.
bzgnyc said:
Well, wrong on that part too.
In my business area (photography) people are going over to the macintels (macpro,mbp) fast, regardless the fact that the CS2 runs under rosetta.
Just amongst my closest collagues there are 7 new machines in the last 2 months,including myself.
And all are advertizement/fashion/magazine photogs, high-end users and the CS2 under rosetta is good enough.
Obviously it could be better.
Obviously everyone will get CS3 asap it comes out.
Spot on. My glass is definitely half full.
The way Adobe have been sucking up to the Windows world in recent years, I'm surprised to see any new applications from them for the Mac, let alone an audio app.
If you are a PPC user (as I am) the applications available now, will be more than adequate for years to come.
"The mac sales in adobes pro applications are about 50-70%,if i remember right.
As long as it stays like that,adobe will support the osx platform.
And with the rising mac sales, well, things are staying like that for the foreseable future."
Adobe can do whatever they want to and that 50-70% Mac market will have no place to go. There are no competing products to Photoshop and Photoshop is the THE default professional graphics application. Adobe can announce tomorrow that they dropping all OS X support and that 50-70% of the market will have no choice but to either move to Windows (Intel Macs or Intel PCs) or go without. That 50-70% of the market would scream bloody murder but they would comply eventually. For that matter Apple could announce today that OS X is dead and Macs are now Windows only hardware. Neither company would suffer and would probably gain profits while lowering development costs. And there would be absolutely nothing any Mac user could do about it.
As long as it stays like that,adobe will support the osx platform.
And with the rising mac sales, well, things are staying like that for the foreseable future."
Adobe can do whatever they want to and that 50-70% Mac market will have no place to go. There are no competing products to Photoshop and Photoshop is the THE default professional graphics application. Adobe can announce tomorrow that they dropping all OS X support and that 50-70% of the market will have no choice but to either move to Windows (Intel Macs or Intel PCs) or go without. That 50-70% of the market would scream bloody murder but they would comply eventually. For that matter Apple could announce today that OS X is dead and Macs are now Windows only hardware. Neither company would suffer and would probably gain profits while lowering development costs. And there would be absolutely nothing any Mac user could do about it.
Jeebus,dude!!?
Whatever you are smoking, cut down a bit! Mmmkay?
Next you are suggesting that oil companies are gonna stop producing diesel and force people to use more expensive gasoline?
Or car companies are gonna start to make ONLY small 2 person cars?
It is good to be concerned about some companies and especially monopolies, but being that paranoid..
Even in the case if adobe would stop publishing photoshop, other companies would bring replacing applications in No-TimeTM.
It would be one of the fastest races in the history of software developement to find a replacement for it and the company to win it would hit a gold mine.
Even if it would be buggy and beta at start,it would be adopted by many.
So adobe counting for the 50-70% to transform from osX platform would loose,well,what? 50% of the "transfomers".
It would suddenly 25% of the revenue of the "pro applications" (if my math is right).
Would any company risk of losing that much revenue?
No.
I wouldn't worry...
I would consider this an isolated incident. If anything this just speaks to Adobe's arrogance and incompetence. I wouldn't even know how to begin to write an application that couldn't be compiled for PPC by checking off the box in Xcode - except by maybe writing native Intel assembly code.
Maybe some other Xcode developers can offer some real-world examples of how this could happen on a well-designed software project, but really the UNIX development analogy holds up here - if your code isn't write once, compile anywhere, you've screwed up royally.
Regardless, other developers are so far making good use of the Universal framework Apple has handed to them on a silver platter - and I think the prognosis for the G5 and G4 is very good for the next few years.
I would consider this an isolated incident. If anything this just speaks to Adobe's arrogance and incompetence. I wouldn't even know how to begin to write an application that couldn't be compiled for PPC by checking off the box in Xcode - except by maybe writing native Intel assembly code.
Maybe some other Xcode developers can offer some real-world examples of how this could happen on a well-designed software project, but really the UNIX development analogy holds up here - if your code isn't write once, compile anywhere, you've screwed up royally.
Regardless, other developers are so far making good use of the Universal framework Apple has handed to them on a silver platter - and I think the prognosis for the G5 and G4 is very good for the next few years.
Which Xcode box do you check...
That "check the Universal box" argument doesn't help a lot of cross-platform developers.
Not only has Apple dropped PPC products like a stone, the PPC systems are quite slow compared to most of the Intel systems.
Just like Apple's hardware transition occurred much faster than most expected, the decline of PPC support will be much faster as well.
And the important thing is - most Mac users won't care. They'll be happy with the new apps running on their MacIntels....
Which Xcode box do you check to create .NET (or even Win32) applications?
That "check the Universal box" argument doesn't help a lot of cross-platform developers.
I think that it's more likely that the tsunami of "Intel-only" products is on its way....
Not only has Apple dropped PPC products like a stone, the PPC systems are quite slow compared to most of the Intel systems.
Just like Apple's hardware transition occurred much faster than most expected, the decline of PPC support will be much faster as well.
And the important thing is - most Mac users won't care. They'll be happy with the new apps running on their MacIntels....
It is ridiculous... Adobe's spin on this one is laughable, it really is.
More interesting to me is that SoundBooth is truly terrible... they managed to create an application that doesn't appeal to low-end users, doesn't appeal to high-end users, and has a UI that only a mother could love.
I should have said 'NOW is the best time to sell your PPC Mac, if you wish to get the most money back on it.'
Obviously, if you just want to be on the cutting edge of tech and have a complete disregard for resale value then yes...sell when you are precisely done with a machine.
I think the vast majority are not in that boat and will sell before big shifts. This is the largest shift possible and it's just starting to really happen now. Universal binaries are a short term bridge, anybody thinking otherwise doesn't know the work involved to create them.
If I was on a quad now, I'd sell now. In two years it's value will be so much less and for me it wouldn't make sense to take that hit.
I don't get why everybody is so upset about it... 
If people need a nice and simple audio editing tool, there are alternatives.
What about Amadeus Pro?
And it is Universal too...
groovebuster
If people need a nice and simple audio editing tool, there are alternatives.
What about Amadeus Pro?
And it is Universal too...
groovebuster
A couple months back, my Powerbook died. I didn't want another laptop, so I was stuck with a choice between G5 and MacPro. I was afraid the MacPro wouldn't run the Adobe apps well - and I depend on them every day. But then again, I didn't want to spend all this $$ on a G5 that was going to be outdated very soon.
In the end, I went with the MacPro. With the default 1GB of RAM, using CS2 was pretty much brutal. Then I bumped the RAM up to 2GB and this thing runs like a whole new machine. Probably not as fast as a G5 Quad, but definitely way faster than my old Powerbook. I would say it feels comparable to the Dual 1.8 G5 that I used at my previous job.
Once CS3 comes out, this thing is gonna fly.
In the end, I went with the MacPro. With the default 1GB of RAM, using CS2 was pretty much brutal. Then I bumped the RAM up to 2GB and this thing runs like a whole new machine. Probably not as fast as a G5 Quad, but definitely way faster than my old Powerbook. I would say it feels comparable to the Dual 1.8 G5 that I used at my previous job.
Once CS3 comes out, this thing is gonna fly.
What I'm saying is that the posters who say "Adobe are idiots, why don't they check the UB option in Xcode" are clueless about large scale cross platform development and quality assurance issues.
For an OSX-only application that's already using Xcode, it's relatively easy to build a UB. (There's still the QA problem, but you can build it easily.)
Ahh...
So you're just talking about not Adobe not wanting to QA the app on PPC?
That makes more sense I guess.
Personally I'm now thinking that if this is really based off Cool Edit, there might be a significant amount of signal processing routines written in pure assembler - and if that's the case, I could see not wanting to expend the time and money to convert it.
And if that's the case, that supports my theory that this isn't necessarily a harbinger of a flood of Intel only apps to come.
So you're just talking about not Adobe not wanting to QA the app on PPC?
That makes more sense I guess.
Personally I'm now thinking that if this is really based off Cool Edit, there might be a significant amount of signal processing routines written in pure assembler - and if that's the case, I could see not wanting to expend the time and money to convert it.
And if that's the case, that supports my theory that this isn't necessarily a harbinger of a flood of Intel only apps to come.
If the codebase is non-Xcode, and has significant x86 optimizations, then I'd believe Adobe's claim about not porting new products to PPC.
Even for existing Xcode-base apps, however, QA and support are a very significant part of the lifecycle cost of a product.
The flood will occur when the bean counters decide that the added cost of building, QA and support for the PPC build is less than the revenue (less profit margin) from PPC sales.
This calculation will be different for each product.
In particular, if a product gets most of its revenue from new sales associated with new computers (as opposed to upgrades), then the PPC version will disappear rather quickly. (Obviously, no one is buying new PPC machines.)
For something like Photoshop, however, where a good percentage of users upgrade to the next version - then the bean counters will see the value in maintaining PPC support longer.
This is a friendlier version of Adobe Audition (as iPhoto is to Aperture). Audition is windows-only (i.e. Intel-only). They will likely be reusing a lot of code on a friendlier interface. It was likely more a decision of Mac-Intel or nothing.
That being said, Adobe isn't exactly known for OS-integration. It's easier to develop for multiple platforms if you have more control over your underlying libraries. Tying to objective-C or Accelerate.framework makes it harder for them to release a windows version. The entire CS suite still looks like carbon apps.
It's a wonder no one has created a mac-only photoshop clone that uses core-video, graphics etc. Might not have quite as many features, but would likely sport a friendlier price tag and feel more like a true mac app. Photoshop has more right to being called a mac app than most, but it's just feeling less and less like that everyday.
Just my two cents worth.