Apple's Beef with Adobe...

Discussion in 'Design and Graphics' started by lPHONE, Apr 22, 2010.

  1. lPHONE macrumors 6502a

    lPHONE

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    #1
    A few things don't add up:

    • If flash is banned from the iPhone, how can we watch YouTube videos?
    • Also, doesn't it seem premature to go to war with Adobe when most Mac user still use Photoshop?
    It just seems like  would time it better if they really wanted to shut down Adobe. You still can't do simple things in iPhoto like add a border to a picture.
     
  2. lPHONE thread starter macrumors 6502a

    lPHONE

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    #3
  3. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #4
    There's not a lot of discussion because
    a) Photoshop and iPhoto are different programs to fill different niches
    b) Apple's main concern with Adobe is Flash
    c) There are lots of iPhoto vs. Photoshop threads here.
     
  4. lPHONE thread starter macrumors 6502a

    lPHONE

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    #5
    Really... How long do you think that will last. After the Flash bloodbath, Photoshop will be next. I just think it would have been easier to take out the crown jewel first, but Apple seems to be doing it backwards.

    Really? I think Apple's main concern with Adobe is Adobe.
    *sigh*
    None like this... Is Photoshop not Abode's crown jewel?
    Both Photoshop and Flash are part of Creative Suite. You buy Design or Master collection and you've got it all. Even if you wanted just Photoshop and Illustrator you've got (hey what's this?) Flash in your Applications folder.

    I'm looking at a more broader picture than iPhoto vs Photoshop, I'm seeing CS5 vs iLife. See where I'm going with this? Apple could have beefed-up iWeb and iPhoto and had more of an edge, but maybe they don't want to take on Adobe... Or maybe they want to do it more discretely in small increments?

    Look at what  did to Avid... They used to cross promote for each other until Apple rolled out Final Cut to take on Avid and Logic to take on Pro Tools, but this is way old school...
     
  5. sigmadog macrumors 6502a

    sigmadog

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    near Spokane, WA
    #6
    It's hard to imagine how, and well nigh impossible to imagine why Apple would ban Photoshop from the Mac platform.

    Take a breath. You are getting all worked up for nothing.
     
  6. lPHONE thread starter macrumors 6502a

    lPHONE

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    #7
    if you read my posts... they're not really questions, but more like little clues. :cool:
     
  7. elfxmilhouse macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Northeast USA
    #8
    apple is not out to get adobe...
    they are just not supporting flash.

    what makes you think not supporting flash is a personal attack on adobe?
     
  8. sjinsjca macrumors 68000

    sjinsjca

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #9


    • You're kidding me.

      iPhone has never had Flash, but it's been able to play YouTube videos from Day One. Have you never used an iPhone?
     
  9. chaosbunny macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #10
    You are comparing iLife and Adobe CS5 and expect serious answers? That's like comparing a skateboard to a Boeing 747 ...

    That's why there is also the Design Standard collection and a standalone version of each programm.
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11
    CS5 vs. iLife. LMAO. That's like comparing Oops to…


    [​IMG]
     
  11. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #12
    ^ I agree. iLife and CS5 are two entirely different sorts of suites. iLife is not aimed at professionals, it's aimed at the family homebody who wants to make a graduation movie, or a "summer at the lake" movie like they always demo. The Adobe software is for people who design for a living.

    You can create home movies in After Effects and get a similar result, but the two are not in competition in the same markets.

    Correct. The beef is with the software, and the company itself only to the extent they are the manufacturers of it.
     
  12. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #13
    Apple will only go after Adobe if there is a threat (real or percieved) that they would discontinue their products for OS X. And that makes up 20% - 30% of Adobe's business. Can you think of any valid reason why a company would chop off 20 - 30% of their income?

    Secondly - if Apple were to come out with a desktop and web publishing suite tomorrow, it would easily take at least 5 years to mature.

    Don't get me wrong, I do think Adobe needs some competition.
     
  13. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #14
    ...and another 15 to achieve the sort of market penetration that Photoshop & company have.
     
  14. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #15
    This is a ridiculous thread. Apple in no way wants to take down Adobe. The OP is so mis-informed it borders on silliness or conspiracy theory. First off, the only reason that Apple has shut down Flash on the iPad is that that Flash is 3rd party code and Apple has no way to control that and it's often buggy or bloated. Apple is taking complete control over how applications run on their machines (specifically iPad and iPhone because that is their primary focus) so that they can have better control over efficiency and get profit from that development. If they allow Flash on the iPad, it may diminish the user experience because it's not optimized for that space. If Flash crashes on the iPad, people will think the iPad sucks. And Apple has no control over that! Get it? They don't want bloated crappy applications running on their fine tuned hardware. By forcing developers to use only Apple development tools, they can control the results.

    And by the way... Flash is not an open standard. Adobe owns it and you have to pay to use it. Apple hates that. Apple (and other companies) are supporting HTML5 as the new media standard for delivering video content. Not Flash.

    And the comment comparing iLife to CS5? Wow...! Apples and oranges comparison. Just the fact you even are thinking about that shows you don't know what you are talking about. Just because Flash is included with CS doesn't mean that Apple has to honor it. It's up to the developer of the software to figure out how to port it for the platform they want to run it on. But, I digress... In short, iLife is for the average family or small business owner. Adobe CS products are for large studios, professionals, or serious hobbyists. They are not even the same kind of products! You won't find a large design studio or print shop using iPhoto. That's just ludicrous!

    The OP needs to spend more time doing research on his shiny new iPad before posting silly threads like this one.
     
  15. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #16
    No, Apple is being hypocritical about Flash because it does the exact same thing.
     
  16. Jim Campbell macrumors 6502a

    Jim Campbell

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Location:
    A World of my Own; UK
    #17
    I have to say that I disagree with this specific statement above.

    Remember that Adobe were able to knock over Quark's total dominance of the DTP scene in a relatively short period of time because:

    1) Quark were releasing bloated, unstable versions of their software

    2) Each release brought little or nothing in the way of compelling new features, but did require you to buy it in order to maintain your upgrade path

    3) Quark was unresponsive to customer feedback to the point of seeming arrogance

    4) Quark's pricing structure was outrageous.

    In the ultimate irony, Adobe have become Quark. It would be somewhat poetic if someone taught them the same lesson that they themselves taught Quark not so very long ago.

    Cheers!

    Jim
     
  17. jaw04005 macrumors 601

    jaw04005

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    AR
    #18
    While all of those points were (and still are) true about Quark, InDesign took over because Adobe bundled it with Photoshop, Acrobat and Illustrator to form Creative Suite.

    At least where I worked, we were already purchasing most of those applications separately anyway.

    Adobe sold the first edition of Creative Suite for a ridiculously low price too something like $500 street for Photoshop owners (of any version!) before any volume or bulk discounts.

    That’s how they killed QuarkXPress. You basically got InDesign for free with the purchase of a normal Photoshop and Illustrator upgrade.
     
  18. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    You are correct about the motivation for moving to InDesign at your firm. However, Jim Campbell is correct about everyone else.
     
  19. Jim Campbell macrumors 6502a

    Jim Campbell

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Location:
    A World of my Own; UK
    #20
    As I recall, a complete CS1 package cost slightly less than one single-user Quark license, at least here in the UK.

    But even if InDesign had been free, no-one would have used it if:

    1) it wasn't good, but it was ...

    2) Quark hadn't been so unresponsive. IIRC, you still had to boot into Classic to run Quark where CS1 gave you a complete OSX native suite.

    This is my point. Dissatisfaction levels with Adobe are very high -- perhaps not at the same levels as they were with Quark in the early 00s, but not far off.

    This makes Adobe acutely vulnerable to a well-priced, well-featured competitor. They seem to think market dominance is enough to defend their product when they themselves disproved this with Quark.

    Ironically, as someone who was a strong advocate of InDesign from 2.0 and who dragged two separate businesses kicking and screaming from a Quark/Postscript workflow to an InDesign/PDF one, I've been using Quark 8 recently and I really rather like it.

    Cheers!

    Jim
     
  20. lPHONE thread starter macrumors 6502a

    lPHONE

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    #21
    This I know, but none the less, before iLife, the average user had to buy an Adobe product just to do simple things like crop, cut/paste or make a simple web-page. You guys are designers so you're not seeing what Apple saw, that not everybody needs 100,000 features and nobody wants to wait 30 seconds for Photoshop to load, only to find that the drag/drop file to the dock icon didn't even open the damn photo! :cool:

    So are Macs. Again, the "homebody" market is 10x bigger than the professional market.

    Apple's very sneaky in how it operates. They hit schools to get the kids hooked when their young. See, nobody wakes up and says "I'm going to go produce records with GarageBand"- no, they tinker with it, learn the GUI and the key commands and if/when they find they need something more powerful, here's Logic and at the core, it operates on the same principles you learned in GarageBand plus it will import all your tracks.

    really now?
    Are you serious? Apple doesn't just hide out in the lab developing products, they have an accompanying war strategy to go along with it. Don't underestimate Apple. Remember how they took over the music industry? demolished Palm and cornered the smartphone market? That took a whole 3 months.

    Apple has Adobe exactly where they want them. Behind the scenes, this whole Flash ordeal is the get leverage. Say what you want, but I know these things and it's not because I'm some software genius (obviously, as I didn't know iPhone supported h.264) but because I've played the AAPL stock for 10 years... I'll come back next year and bump this topic.
     
  21. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #22
    Nonsense. There were and are non-Apple alternatives to Adobe products for non-professionals. Adobe has pretty much driven the professional alternatives out of the market. More troubling to me is that the prosumer market has disappeared across broad categories of applications.

    Whether they run Windows or MacOS X, most of this market appears to be satisfied with what ships with their computers.

    I'm having a hard time seeing where Apple is being sneaky here. It appears to be fairly up front.

    Sh-h-h-h! The sky is blue, but don't tell anybody. Sh-h-h-h!

    Really.

    OK, I'll play along. Based on your keen understanding of Apple's diabolical machinations, what does Apple plan to leverage from Adobe? Inquiring minds want to know.
     
  22. Compile 'em all macrumors 601

    Compile 'em all

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    #23
    I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has been secretly developing a PS equivalent and just waiting for the right moment and feature set to be completed. PS usability is horrendous and is the very definition of bloatware. Most designers actually use it because there is nothing else out there. They would jump ship if anything else is released.
     
  23. lPHONE thread starter macrumors 6502a

    lPHONE

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    #24
    dude. it's apple. It's probably already done.
     
  24. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #25
    Here is a way to sum up and make things simple:

    -Apple doesn't hate Adobe, they hate Adobe's lazy programming. Apple wants Adobe to use the APIs they have provided to make a less buggy flash but Adobe doesn't want to cave.

    -Adobe has turned to **** since buying out Macromedia, their only competition. CS3 and CS4 were insanely buggy (CS3 more-so) and don't even get me started on the installers...Luckily, it looks like Adobe may have listed with CS5. Only time will tell.

    -Apple is fussy and wants everything to work their way. This is actually a good thing, its why Apple has such as stable OS. Developers can't crawl into every nook and cranny and change things (windows registry I'm looking at you!).
     

Share This Page