MacDaillyNews: Apple and Adobe at War?

[harveypooka]

Once again the world of Apple is commented upon by MDN, this time, the lack of Adobe's Creative Suite universals. They say:

"Adobe needs an 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."

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/apple_and_adobe_at_war/

Your thoughts? My thoughts - yes, I kind of agree but MDN always approach it in such an annoying fashion that I find myself disagreeing with whatever they say. I know this is wrong, but...but I can't help it! I hate MDN!

Anyway - I wonder what the real issue at Adobe is? Surely if (as MDN say) Photoshop on the Mac is 40-50% of their total sales, they'd be pushing the bugger out the door?

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of MDN either. I used to read their site religiously before getting involved in the forum here. They are pretty whiny and seem to take personal offense anytime anyone says anything remotely negative about Apple.

 

[harveypooka]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of MDN either. I used to read their site religiously before getting involved in the forum here. They are pretty whiny and seem to take personal offense anytime anyone says anything remotely negative about Apple.

Haha, 100% correct. It's like religious fervor over there....stay away!

 

[iGary]

I hate MDN, but I have to agree Adobe sucks ass.

Bruce stood up there on stage during the Intel announcement and said something along the lines of "We were first with applications for the Mac and we'll be on be of the first for this switch."

Uh huh.

CS3 better be freaking spectacular.

 

[PlaceofDis]

i will agree that if Apple does release their own Photoshop (whatever it would be called) it would immediately sell well. Apple make great pro software. i don't neccissarily think that Apple and Adobe are at war, but rather both know that they need each other and as such each always have their backs up and guard ready. its a shame really.

if Apple would've given Adobe and others notice before announcing the Intel Transition so they could get a jumpstart... then i don't think we'd be waiting this long for a UB. i doubt Adobe uses Xcode or even wants to use it for their programming and they probably feel cornered due to the shifts that Apple has made. and these are huge applications so i can see why it is taking so long.

do two wrongs make a right? no.

 

[Queso]

I used to post on there a lot, still do occasionally (including today on that article funnily enough), but as with others here, I got tired of the constant "Apple, Apple, Ra-Ra-Ra!!!" mentality, as if Steve and Co. never mess up, so I don't visit often anymore.

I think the lack of UB CS2 is a mistake by Adobe, but if CS3 is fantastic because of that mistake, then it will make up for it. However, allowing a potential competitor to emerge in a market you effectively own is never a good idea.

 

[harveypooka]

i will agree that if Apple does release their own Photoshop (whatever it would be called) it would immediately sell well. Apple make great pro software. i don't neccissarily think that Apple and Adobe are at war, but rather both know that they need each other and as such each always have their backs up and guard ready. its a shame really.

if Apple would've given Adobe and others notice before announcing the Intel Transition so they could get a jumpstart... then i don't think we'd be waiting this long for a UB. i doubt Adobe uses Xcode or even wants to use it for their programming and they probably feel cornered due to the shifts that Apple has made. and these are huge applications so i can see why it is taking so long.

do two wrongs make a right? no.

Is Aperture any comparison to Lightroom? The last I read about Aperture was it's horrendous treatment with images (messing up colours and degrading quality over time) and the RAW file format. This was pre-update though.

Do you think Apple could make a good Photoshop contender? It would be great to see, it can only spur Adobe to make a better, faster and better priced product...

 

[FleurDuMal]

Am I alone in thinking that Adobe were quite justified in holding off a UB version of CS2?!? The Mac Pro - which is probably what most of Adobe's user-base are now using or are planning to buy - was only released a couple of months ago. By that time it was obvious that Adobe had CS3 in the pipeline, and were probably ploughing all their resources into getting the Mac version perfect. If holding off on a UB CS2 means that CS3 is even better than it would have been, I think Adobe will be vindicated in their decision. On the other hand, if it is ropey, full of bugs, and offers little improvement over CS2, then there is clearly something amiss.

Anyway, the raw power of the Mac Pro meant that running CS2 under Rosetta was still quite impressive (I don't know if the same could be said of the other Intel Mac's though).

 

[PlaceofDis]

Is Aperture any comparison to Lightroom? The last I read about Aperture was it's horrendous treatment with images (messing up colours and degrading quality over time) and the RAW file format. This was pre-update though.

Do you think Apple could make a good Photoshop contender? It would be great to see, it can only spur Adobe to make a better, faster and better priced product...

i haven't used either, to be honest. but from what i've seen of it, yes its better than Lightroom, you'll have to ask the pros about it though.

 

[Earendil]

*snip*

if Apple would've given Adobe and others notice before announcing the Intel Transition so they could get a jumpstart... then i don't think we'd be waiting this long for a UB.

They gave everyone 6 months before the foirst intel Mac was released, and said it would be an entire 12 before every mac was Intel.

Also, if Adobe was up on stage, you think they might have known about it at least a little bit earlier? Or do you think Steve dragged him on stage and said: "talk about this, on and btw, we are switching to Intel"

Adobe has already had an entire year, and they are waiting for CS3 to be released. I.E. CS2 will (probably) never be native. They aren't upgrading, they are just writing a new app and having people buy it if they want to run it native on their new machines.

 

[harveypooka]

Or do you think Steve dragged him on stage and said: "talk about this, on and btw, we are switching to Intel"

Haha, I really want this to be true...

 

[Bern]

Look Adobe got up on stage and arrogantly asked Steve, "What took you so long?" They had ample time to know Apple was going Intel, they didn't just find out during Steve's keynote.

The problem is when Adobe went to CS they wrote it for Windows and ported it over to the Mac as opposed to what they use to do prior to that when writing their software. The Intel transition for Adobe is taking so long because they have a suite of software with so much arbitrary code in it it needs an entire rewrite just to get it workable for us Intel Mac users (kind of like XP going to Vista). It has not much to do with them creating something new.

Personally I'm rather irritated Adobe are screwing us over the way they are. They're unable to release UB patches because they put windows users first with their CS and CS2 and now they'll force our hands deep into our pockets so we can have something some of us need.

CS2 was a farce in itself, they should never have released CS in the first place as it was incomplete (as was evident in the release of CS2) and now that they own Macromedia they have a virtual monopoly. I'd love Apple to come up with a PS alternative I'd buy it in a heart beat, but that stills leaves Adobe's grip on my bank account when it comes to everything else in that suite of applications.

 

[disconap]

i will agree that if Apple does release their own Photoshop (whatever it would be called) it would immediately sell well. Apple make great pro software. i don't neccissarily think that Apple and Adobe are at war, but rather both know that they need each other and as such each always have their backs up and guard ready. its a shame really.

What pro-apps has Apple made that are great? Aside from Quicktime, I don't know of any (and a lot of that is made up from third party elements anyway). Now, apps they have purchased....

if Apple would've given Adobe and others notice before announcing the Intel Transition so they could get a jumpstart... then i don't think we'd be waiting this long for a UB. i doubt Adobe uses Xcode or even wants to use it for their programming and they probably feel cornered due to the shifts that Apple has made. and these are huge applications so i can see why it is taking so long.

do two wrongs make a right? no.

My understanding, and I could be dead wrong on this, is that CS2 is so based in the architecture of the PPC chips (Altivec and the like) and coded for them that a rewrite wouldn't be worth their time when CS3 is getting so close. Again, I could be wrong, I know very little about platform coding...

 

[disconap]

Look Adobe got up on stage and arrogantly asked Steve, "What took you so long?" They had ample time to know Apple was going Intel, they didn't just find out during Steve's keynote.

The problem is when Adobe went to CS they wrote it for Windows and ported it over to the Mac as opposed to what they use to do prior to that when writing their software. The Intel transition for Adobe is taking so long because they have a suite of software with so much arbitrary code in it it needs an entire rewrite just to get it workable for us Intel Mac users (kind of like XP going to Vista). It has not much to do with them creating something new.

Do you have any sources for any of this? Not calling you a liar, I'd just be curious to read it, as I haven't heard anything about them building for Windows and porting to OSX...

Personally I'm rather irritated Adobe are screwing us over the way they are. They're unable to release UB patches because they put windows users first with their CS and CS2 and now they'll force our hands deep into our pockets so we can have something some of us need.

Wait, how are they screwing you over? Did they promise "Buy CS2, it will always be perfectly written for any future machine you buy"? They're not screwing you over, they made a decision; TONS of companies haven't made their apps universal yet...

CS2 was a farce in itself, they should never have released CS in the first place as it was incomplete (as was evident in the release of CS2) and now that they own Macromedia they have a virtual monopoly. I'd love Apple to come up with a PS alternative I'd buy it in a heart beat, but that stills leaves Adobe's grip on my bank account when it comes to everything else in that suite of applications.

How was CS2 a farce? I never used CS1, but I run CS2 now and it runs great. The office across the hall (graphic designers) used both 1 and 2 and said that both are great, and 2 is leaps and bound from 1, which was leaps and bounds from PSD7/ILL10...

 

[Bern]

Wait, how are they screwing you over? Did they promise "Buy CS2, it will always be perfectly written for any future machine you buy"? They're not screwing you over, they made a decision; TONS of companies haven't made their apps universal yet...

Well .... er Adobe do have the monopoly of this software, and for professional users there's scant alternatives out there. Adobe is taking advantage of this.

How was CS2 a farce? I never used CS1, but I run CS2 now and it runs great. The office across the hall (graphic designers) used both 1 and 2 and said that both are great, and 2 is leaps and bound from 1, which was leaps and bounds from PSD7/ILL10...

CS2 was released months after CS1 which was buggy and without many features that made it adequately different from previous versions. The release of CS2 saw a few lousy extras that really should have been incorporated into the newly named "Creative Suite" to begin with. It seemed to me CS was hastily released as a revenue raiser for Adobe prior to the finished product, namely CS2.

 

[EricNau]

I agree with most everyone here; Adobe has had plenty of time to release a UB but hasn't.

It is my best guess that Adobe is doing this strictly for marketing reasons (and nothing else). After all, what incentive would you have to buy CS3 if your version was already UB?

I wouldn't be surprised if the only "real" improvement in CS3 was UB, but everyone would still buy it because they want it to run natively. ...Absolutely genius on Adobe's part.

 

[bousozoku]

Silly people out there trying to be journalists, aren't there? It's interesting to see the quotes used as if Apple was having a little something to say about Adobe. Hype is key to web traffic.

I love the business news site that looks as though it's made with iWeb.

The truth is that Adobe have yet to release applications which run well on Mac OS X. It doesn't matter so much that they haven't done the transition to Universal Binary, but they hadn't even gotten to the point where they were close.

Had they not spent the last 5 years milking the current 15+ year old code, the transition to Universal Binary would have been much easier.