Absolutely.
FCP splits the market 50/50 with Avid.
Logic Pro speaks for itself.
Have you used Aperture 3 yet?
Level playing field. With an interface that doesn't suck ass.
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 to sue Apple now?
- Thread starter netnothing
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely.
FCP splits the market 50/50 with Avid.
Logic Pro speaks for itself.
Have you used Aperture 3 yet?
Level playing field. With an interface that doesn't suck ass.when did Apple ever say that? they've always talked about using Objective-C/Cocoa Touch
1L means, basically, that you know almost nothing and think you know everything. I was like that also in my first year; one is basically insufferable at that stage. Have you even had your antitrust course yet? I doubt it.
I'm not any kind of law person.
Can someone link me to this lawsuit everybody is talking about ?
Can someone link me to this lawsuit everybody is talking about ?
No, the app store exists for a reason. Because of it, the iPhone OS has security that no other platform has. Allowing 3rd party app stores wrecks that security.
I remeber the same, that is why Iam pointing you to this, not on their word but on history.
I think you should review Apple's current sales breakdown and the projections for the future. Here, let me do it for you:
1Q 2010: Apple sold 3.36 million Macs (up 33%), they sold 8.7 million iPhones (up 100%) and 21 million iPods (down 8%). Apple is expected to sell over 40 million iPhones this year alone. Are you with me so far? Now, conservative estimates peg the iPad between 3 and 7 million for the first year. Of those 3.36 million Macs, how many do you think were sold to the publishing sector and art educational institutions? Apple doesn't give you those numbers, but I'm betting they are a static number, so the 33% increase is coming from somewhere else. Do the math. The percentages in that one sector are certainly declining and thus their importance to Apple's bottom line.
Your point about the iPad not being useful for development work is irrelevant to the importance of the product for Apple's future profits. You miss the point entirely. The point is that Macs being sold to professionals for professional work are currently a small percentage of Apple's overall profits, and with the advent of the iPad and possibly future mobile products are going to be even less so. Apple can clearly afford to lose the segment that Adobe services, because it's not as important to them as it once was. Adobe's future earnings however are intimately tied to it's Flash technology and now that is in jeopardy because Apple refuses to support it.
I'm sorry you're afraid that you might end up on a PC, but that's the way it goes I guess. Maybe you can join the chorus of folks hoping Apple will buy Adobe, but I wouldn't bet on it. If Adobe wants to cut off it's nose to spite it's face then I'm pretty sure Apple will let them.
I stand by my original proposition that Adobe needs Apple more than Apple needs Adobe. Apple is a 50 billion dollar company now. They didn't achieve that success by selling Macs to the publishing world.
True. Adobe can pull out tomorrow and it would change very, very little for Apple. In fact, I'd love to see Apple come up with their own Suite. If the other apps are anything like Aperture, FCP, Logic Pro . . . WOW. And we all know how Apple does integration.
I always find it amusing that Adobe shares its name with a specific type of mud, which they now appear to be stuck in.
The top five U.S. publicly-traded companies:
1. Exxon Mobil (XOM) - $324.16B
2. Microsoft (MSFT) - $267.06B
3. Apple (AAPL) - $219.83B
4. Wal-Mart (WMT) - $205.69B
5. Berkshire Hathaway (BRKA) - $199.34B
Selected companies' current market values:
• Google (GOOG) - $186.58B
• IBM (IBM) - $167.61B
• Cisco (CSCO) - $151.39B
• Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) - $126.12B
• Intel (INTC) - $125.78B
• Disney (DIS) - $69.51B
• Amazon (AMZN) - $62.31B
• Nokia (NOK) - $56.07B
• Research In Motion (RIMM) - $40.44B
• Sony (SNE) - $36.73B
• Dell (DELL) - $30.78B
• Yahoo! (YHOO) - $25.46B
• Adobe (ADBE) - $18.21B
• Motorola (MOT) - $17.14B
• Beleaguered Palm (PALM) - $870.78M
• RealNetworks (RNWK) - $604.07M
yet ANOTHER poster demonstrates they haven't actually read any of the linked articles.
this is NOTHING to do with flash in the safari browser, or a standalone flash player app. this is about using Adobe's tools to make fully functioning standalone apps in that already exist in the app store (and are quite highly regarded - e.g. the Wired app) instead of Apple's own tools. Apple want to squish that to enhance platform lock-in, and to put more pressure on Adobe (out of spite more than anything else, from the look of it).
the fact that 70% of the posters here are totally missing this point demonstrates just how well Apple's spin is working.
in my opinion -Apple have an effective monopoly in the mobile applications market (estimated by Gartner at 99.4% of mobile app sales in 2009), and are being strongly anti-competitive (in the same manner as Microsoft vs DR-DOS decades ago). whether or not the courts will agree is totally up in the air, but i bet Adobe can afford sufficiently decent lawyers to make it an interesting show.
Absolutely.
FCP splits the market 50/50 with Avid.
Logic Pro speaks for itself.
Have you used Aperture 3 yet?
You're crazy. Now your in my territory. I may not be a law expert cmaier has that down but you're nuts to say FCP and Avid split the market. Logic Pro come on ProTools dominates that area.
At my current job most of our Broadcast machines are Avid machines. We use FCP for Post. The amount of Avid vs. FCP is substantial. We have entire Avid teams, and an entire VLAN dedicated to our vast Avid Broadcast machines. I used to work for a large Music School, MI. I built there Mac infrastructure. Lets just say the only people who used Logic were the "Mac Heads". The courses taught at MI, ProTools based. Logic is great, I use it, I love it BUT to put that up against ProTools currently, its not even close.
I've pointed this out so many times. Adobe = Flash, poop terrible. Apple = God, Steve, is, Jesus. End of Story. You disagree? You're a troll and know absolutely nothing, or are hired by Microsoft.
Absolutely.
FCP splits the market 50/50 with Avid.
Logic Pro speaks for itself.
Have you used Aperture 3 yet?
I see you missed the whole point. You listed six links, but really only three core pieces of software. I see you're not disputing this shady presentation.
I use FCP, but it's the only Apple software I use. And yeah I've used Aperture. And then closed it. If I'm going to use a RAW editor, Lightroom is my pick. It's also the pick of every institution I've dealt with, and roughly 95% of photographers from around the world that I've interacted with.
Because, I actually work in the photography industry.
So we're in agreement that Apple is going to become a glorified gadget company?
I'm not afraid of using a PC. I'd rather not, but if Apple can no longer be useful to professionals, then a piece of hardware won't outweigh the need for the software to actually create. I'd rather not have Apple controlling all of professional software, given their track record of dumbing software down and removing functionality in their general products, in addition to letting other software die. Or producing software that just doesn't compete with industry standards. FCP is the only software that I'll actually use from Apple, because they (bought) got it right. Still, not a good track record, percentage wise.
You can stand by your original proposition all you want, but you're wrong. You're dealing strictly in numbers of institutional purchases and upgrades, but are also obviously neglecting the interaction purchases. Institutions provide exposure to hardware, in addition to requiring students to purchase their own computers. This is a yearly wave of new purchases that would instantly vanish if Apple turned their back on Adobe.
But keep tapping away on your idevices. In time, it may be the only options you have with an Apple logo. Maybe you'd be delighted, who knows.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10465202-37.html
As for Aperture 3, it's completely caught up to Lightroom, and in fact surpasses it. The question now is whether it suits your particular tastes in terms of workflow.
Apple could eat Adobe's lunch in this area in less than a year. Easy.
As for Aperture 3, it's completely caught up to Lightroom, and in fact surpasses it. The question now is whether it suits your particular tastes in terms of workflow.
Apple could eat Adobe's lunch in this area in less than a year. Easy.
You misunderstand his point. Apple software would not need to overtake Adobe's offerings; they'd simply need a back-up to fill that need for Mac users -- so creatives using the Mac platform don't have the futures tied to the whimsy of Adobe. Apple is betting that their users are more loyal to Apple than they are to Adobe. I'd wager they are right.
It's very similar with what happened with Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro.
And you've demonstrated that you haven't read any of the responses.
Adobe claims that the iPhone isn't fast enough to run the Flash plug-in. That's not me, that's Adobe - they list Cortex A8 as the minimum.
Now, do you think adding a runtime layer by converting Flash to an app is going to make Flash faster or slower? Since the answer is obviously slower, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Flash for iPhone will EVER work.
Funny how the Apple haters are never able to come up with anything but name calling, koolaid, fanboi, and other stupid arguments.
Did it ever occur to you to stick to facts rather than ad hominem attacks?
I've stated that several times.
Unless over half the people here have some law school experience, then a first year law student IS above average for this group on legal matters.
Why don't you try arguing the facts rather than personal attacks?
And, yet, many people (including 85 MILLION iDevice users and some number of Click to Flash users) get by just fine without Flash. Why is it that you know their needs better than they do?
Not to mention, of course, that those media sites are dropping Flash faster than a hot potato. CBS, NYT, WSJ all dropping Flash. YouTube is now available in html 5 and Hulu isn't far behind.
Apart from smaller funds?
In all seriousness though, I find very few people that use Photoshop/Illustrator/Dreamweaver/Flash etc to their full extent.
No, we're not in agreement that Apple is becoming a glorified gadget company. I'm not sure where that idea is coming from; you seem to think the only reason professional Macs exist is because of Adobe software. I personally think Apple makes the best computers and has the best OS currently available; and they're not going to stop just because they are enjoying success in the mobile space, and they certainly aren't going to stop making great computers for professional use because Adobe stops making software for them. There are plenty of professional uses of Macs that don't require software from Adobe and plenty of educational contexts for their use beyond art and publishing.
But all this is pointless because Adobe isn't going to stop making software for Macs. They can't afford it.
sigh... this is nothing to do with a mobile flash browser plugin. this is about using Adobe's tools to make apple apps.
THIS ALREADY WORKS, AND IT WORKS FINE! (and has since last year).
see? http://www.macworld.com/article/146490/2010/02/wired_ipad.html - that's the sort of thing Apple are trying to block.
this is Apple trying to smash Adobe's balls, nothing more or less. Apple could have done this quietly, simply by refusing to approve anything in the app store that looked like it was built using bits of the Flash runtime. instead they've gone directly for the throat. the timing is especially nasty (Adobe announced this about a year ago, and Apple changing their license agreement two weeks out from launch is just pure spite).
suing
Or like the company that makes Burger King's grills suing McDonald's because they won't flame broil their burgers too. Pointless.
Or like the company that makes Burger King's grills suing McDonald's because they won't flame broil their burgers too. Pointless.