dfgh Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Isn't it obvious? Adobe wanted to drive its product user to Windows (oh no! Another conspiracy theory!). Well, they have been pushed around by Apple on Macintosh in recent year so I guess this conspiracy theory does have some basis :pirate2: this is scary. what if adobe quits supporting mac at all? can they do that? the most interesting thing about this is that it could lead to the death of apple computers and os x. not many people will buy intel mac until adobe releases unibin versions of their apps. which would imply bad marketing for apple... apple reaaally needs adobe to hurry up if they want any intel macs sold at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haplo Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Apple still has a loyal userbase, and iPod sales to fall back on. iPod sales really make them more money than their computers do anyway. Truly, I think Apple sells computers because they like to, not because they find it particularly lucrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphid Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 You say they steal their software? Ok, where did Final Cut Pro Come from? From Macromedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haplo Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 mmmk. One example, but it's not like they just took the code and left it there. There's still a lot of other things they've done. Garage Band, Pages, iMovie/iDVD, Finder. You're suggesting that Apple is not, in fact, a capable software/hardware company but can only take code that other people have written and put a GUI on it. That's not true at all, as they have a full staff of very capable programmers and computer engineers. Point being, Apple may not have originally made Final Cut, but they made it good, and now it has a large user base. This is true with a lot of programs, and I'm betting that Aperature will continue to be far more popular than Lightroom ever will be. Oh, and you said they 'stole' it. No, they bought it when nobody else wanted it, and then turned it into a high standing Professional application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 From Macromedia. Quite right! Which of course is now Adobe... Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro Randy Ubillos and other members of his team originally created Adobe Premiere. They were then hired by Macromedia to create KeyGrip, built from the ground up as a more professional video editing program based on QuickTime. Macromedia made a decision to be a web company instead of competing head-on with Adobe in every category and decided to find a buyer for their non-web applications, including KeyGrip, by this time (NAB 1998) renamed as Final Cut. Final Cut was shown in private room demonstrations as a 0.9 alpha at NAB 1998 after Macromedia pulled out of the main show floor. At the demonstration both Mac and Windows versions were shown. The Mac version was working with a Truevision RTX dual stream real time card with limited real time effects. When no purchaser could be found Apple purchased the team as a defensive move. When Apple could not find a buyer in turn, it continued development work, focusing on adding FireWire/DV support and at NAB 1999 Apple introduced Final Cut Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkelley Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 just a note about the finder - it was invented by Xerox and coded by Apple up until os 9.2.x. After that it was rewritten from the ground up by the coders from NeXT (who were now part of Apple but had nothing to do with the finder in the past). This is why the finder in OSX is sadly lacking compared to the versions in 9.x and earlier. I know, it's bizarre, and hard to believe for people who've only heard how much better OSX is than os 9, but the finder in os9 is a far superior user interface than the finder in OSX. If os9 had the dock (also flawed but better than it's apple-created predecessor, the "launcher"), and if os9 had great multitasking like osx has, then os9 would have been unbelievably great and we would never have had to get the whole bsd/mach underpinnings. Of course, things happened how they happened BECAUSE of those shortcomings in os9, but it's finder wasn't one of the shortcomings. So the new finder in osx wasn't written by apple, it was written for apple by NeXT engineers (I probably have the capitalizations wrong, whatever), who then came to work for apple to support it. Kinda sucks. But apple DID write keynote, aperture, pages, iphoto, ical, mail, sherlock (poor sherlock...), quicktime (yay!), address book, and much more. what they got from next was xcode and interface builder, the whole core-everything concept, most of osx including the finder which is missing half of the features of the old finder and doesn't even follow apple's programming guidelines (one open window for one folder... period). what they bought? off the top of my head... logic, safari, osx, xcode, interface builder, appleworks (claris works), and the team from clarisworks (who (as apple employees) wrote pages, keynote, numbers (the spreadsheet, still in development)), final cut (as stated, it was MUCH improved after purchase, and by apple's home coders none the less)... I MUST be missing stuff here... oh yeah, they bought itunes (fixed it a bit, not much though)... personally I'm wondering where ichat came from... but I'm hoping it was coded by apple from the start! I just had to chime in - sorry for taking your reading time with this post, kinda pointless I guess :-). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong by the way, that's all from memory. I don't know where the rest of the apple pro apps came from... lemme know if you do! cheers! dkelley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Converting from CodeWarrior to XCode isn't that hard... and they've had 6 months to do it now... 6 Months? No, no, no... they have had years to be working on that and should have started that process about 2001. There simply is no market for highend UniBin appz on Macs at this time. Really, then why are there so many people whinning about Photoshop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevlar Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I don't see a HUGE market right now for Adobe to releaes Unibins of there software.. As a graphic professional, I (within the last 4 moths) have updated all of our computers. New dual 2.3 G5's for production, and 17" iMacs for sales reps... What I am trying to say is that INTILL Apple releases the Intel equal to the Powermac G5s, then I don't see a huge need for Adobe products. Adobe products are aimed for the Graphics Professional, who are not going to be using a MacBook Pro or an iMac. We require high end hardware and most of us have just upgraded to G5s. Yea, for the people who have whiteboxed osx86 machines and likes to tool around in photoshop and what not, it be nice to have unibins. But my CS2 runs fine in rosetta, I am not doing any heavy designing at home, I leave that at work. If Adobe is still slacking behind 3 months after Apple releases the Powermac G5 equal, then we have a reason to {censored} and complain, intill then, there is NO MARKET for Adobe products on Intel macs, no even acrobat reader (Preview does a better job). And if there is no market, why RUSH something out the door that isn't going to sell. I think Adobe knows what they are doing and will release Unibins of CS3 at the correct time.. It's not like Adobe is Quark and has a horrible reputation on new software... Quark is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haplo Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I don't know about the finder being any worse in OSX. And Steve with NeXTSTep (no, I don't think anyone ever gets the capitalization right on that, I just did it somewhat arbitrarily, although I'm pretty sure the caps go in the middle somewhere) was a sort of different story, but they weren't too seperate from apple since they brought steve back. I think, logically, OSX would have happened whether or not they fired Jobs. Maybe not. I say it was better that they got rid of him for a while, because of the way he turned the company around when they invited him back. The finder in OSX is actually pretty comparable to the finder in OS9. I mean, when I first switched over, I had my complaints too, but once you get used to it it's far more logical for a multi-user OS. I admit I was confused by the whole user directory as opposed to straight HD interface, but I got used to it fairly quickly. I admit that the whole single window navigation system didn't go over with me at first, but it's nothing that kills the finder. BTW: Command+double click will open it in a new window (without closing the old). Option+double click will open anything (folders, apps, files) and then close the window that they're in. Not really sure what the purpose of that is, but whatever. Either way the finder in OSX (esp with the built-in search bar, something that really beats the {censored} out of windows) is at least as good as OS9, even if it's a little less conventional. I stated that before. Graphics editing professionals don't use iMacs, they use PowerMacs. It's illogical to think that iMac sales would be affected significantly by that market. Oh, and, who the hell on mac uses Adobe Reader? There's very few (actually intel has a few) documents that don't display correctly in Preview. Comparison, however is that Preview loads in 2 seconds or less while Adobe Reader used to take like 5 minutes and even now takes like 30 seconds at the least and then has a crapload of worthless menus for doing things that nobody cares about on mac (like a freaking print button. Windows tool bars have print buttons, but most mac users are smart enough to use the menu item or command+P. We'd rather have the screen space than buttons for things that only retards couldn't figure out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scothiam Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 6 Months? No, no, no... they have had years to be working on that and should have started that process about 2001. why would they dedicate resources to make sure that Imac users can run Photoshop natively, that's not the market they are making money in. Those who rely on Photoshop, the people Adobe cares about, will use whatever hardware/OS that will give them the best results. These aren't folks living on the cutting edge of technology (ie taking risks with no software/equipment)... Really, then why are there so many people whinning about Photoshop? When I say "no market" I mean "no money". Sure, I'd like Photoshop to run native on my hackintosh, but the big spenders aren't interested yet. They won't be untill they can justify upgrading thier current macs, and they're not going to ditch thier G5's for intel macs anytime soon. I'm honestly not sure why people are whinning about Photoshop. Runs fine on my system (windows). If these people are so concerend with Photoshop "singing" on thier systems, don't use a hacked OS and don't buy an Imac (Intel or PowerPC). Thought that might be obvious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haplo Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 lol, as I said. Graphics designers don't use iMacs. You're wrong, however. Graphics designers DON'T just look at system specs when they choose a comp. There's a lot of reason GFX designers use macs, not the least of which is colorsync. It's been said enough times, however, GFX professionals don't use iMacs, and if Adobe doesn't want to get it out now, oh well. However, if they don't get it out reasonably quickly after they update the PowerMacs to intels, THEN people are going to be really angry. Now, you can't argue that I'm angry about it because I'm using a hackintosh, because I'm on a 1.42GHz iBook, as I have been for some time now. Before that I was on a 1GHz eMac, and at no time have I ever been or ever plan to run a hackintosh. Edit: Oh, missed a bit there. You said 'best results' not 'best speed' or 'best power'. Yes, mac with colorsync and their color picker and advanced printing services (since PDF is native on mac) do offer the best results for people who want what they print to look like what's on their screen. I seriously doubt that many of the graphics studios with their 2x 2.3GHz G5 towers really care about it yet. However, since they make up the largest market of people who legitemately buy Photoshop, it's really in Adobe's interest to port photoshop before or shortly after the PowerMacs come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scothiam Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I agree with the comments about graphics shops not being about to dump all their G5s and buy Intels - why would they? So the pro market for Intel Photoshop will develop with time, just as Adobe develops its products over time. Having worked in both development and graphics environments I can say the observations by those posters in the know are spot-on - Adobe has a carefully planned development cycle which is geared to quality and procedure; graphics users are very slow to change. I was just wondering how many of the posters who seem indignant at Adobe's apparent slow response actually have real licensed copies of Photoshop? I know some of you will be registered users, but I'm not sure Adobe will be very interested in the views of a load of pirates... I think we all must be very bored to be ranting about this topic, lol. But hey, I like to rant with the best of em. DOWN WITH ADOBE!!! LONG LIVE APPLE!!! STEVE JOBS IS MY HERO!!! ugh... Oh, and I think you have a wonderfull point there at the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haplo Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 This thread has lost all point . Until apple moves its powermac line, Adobe has no reason to port their software, regardless of their idiotic claims last year that they would be the first to port their stuff. Obviously, they aren't even close, and that should reflect badly on them. However, there's no real reason besides that for us to bash them. It might affect those who use a hackintosh.. but really nobody supports you guys, since technically you're grade A advanced software pirates ;P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 A company that holds less than 3% of the entire computer marketshare isn't going to release a product that will kill any of Adobe's apps. Even if every last person who owned a Mac bought an Apple rip-off of Creative Suite 2, it woudn't make a dent in Adobe's market. The day any program kills Photoshop, on any operating system, will probably be the apocalypse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haplo Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Lol. Apple may only have 3% market share (I think it's actually closer to 10% now) but in the creative market (which is Adobe's market) they have much more than that. If Adobe refuses to deliver and apple decides to take it up, the numerous Graphics studios with their older G5 PowerMacs might just decide to screw waiting and go with apple's software instead. A lot of them will probably opt to go with apple INSTEAD not because they have little better choice, but just because they figure apple's will be better (and it very well might be, considering how archaic and ugly photoshop is). They probably won't kill adobe, but they can put a crimp on their lazy practices of using extremely old code and a bad GUI. They get away with it now because they have no competetors (GIMP is worse), but they'd have to take a serious look at their practices should apple decide to put in a competing word before Adobe gets to making photoshop a unibin (who uses anything else from CS anyway?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 why would they dedicate resources to make sure that Imac users can run Photoshop natively, that's not the market they are making money in. You seemed to be confused about why Adobe should have moved to Xcode (and Cocoa) a long time ago, well before the Apple's x86 switch was even announced. In short, it amounts to trying to do things "right" and not falling behind the "curve". Adobe has been acting like Microsoft here and we all now where that road leads. ...their lazy practices of using extremely old code and a bad GUI. They get away with it now because they have no competetors... Exactly, my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myzar Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Lol. Apple may only have 3% market share (I think it's actually closer to 10% now) but in the creative market (which is Adobe's market) they have much more than that. If Adobe refuses to deliver and apple decides to take it up, the numerous Graphics studios with their older G5 PowerMacs might just decide to screw waiting and go with apple's software instead. A lot of them will probably opt to go with apple INSTEAD not because they have little better choice, but just because they figure apple's will be better (and it very well might be, considering how archaic and ugly photoshop is). They probably won't kill adobe, but they can put a crimp on their lazy practices of using extremely old code and a bad GUI. They get away with it now because they have no competetors (GIMP is worse), but they'd have to take a serious look at their practices should apple decide to put in a competing word before Adobe gets to making photoshop a unibin (who uses anything else from CS anyway?). nonsense at his best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 OK, guys - enough! Lots of great points and interesting discussion but we're - Drifting off topic and repeating ourselves (a lot). Let's get back on topic! Thanks! :censored2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkelley Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 lol, as I said. Graphics designers don't use iMacs. .....It's been said enough times, however, GFX professionals don't use iMacs..... Don't forget here people - the new imacs are as fast as or faster than a 2.3x dual g5 powermac!! My wife is a graphic designer and really wants an imac core duo. once photoshop is native she'd rather work on that than a powermac g5 that is uglier, heavier, takes more space, and costs twice as much (with comparable monitor etc). And now that imacs can handle dual monitors properly she will be able to dual monitor with her high end samsung panel. So from professional experience (she runs a design company), I'd say that designers would LOVE to use imac core duos once they see that it runs their apps at least as fast as their super expensive power macs of the past. just had to put in a comment from a real pro designer instead of all of us programmers etc making assumptions based on old facts about what designers want. They want speed, they get it in an imac core duo. they want looks, they get that in an imac core duo. they want relibility... got it. they want photoshop... it's nowhere to be found. So I have to defend my wife here, as a designer she wants photoshop in intel native NOW. Otherwise she'll be using a pc for photoshop and illustrator and a mac for everything else (unless photoshop gets faster in rosetta over time somehow - she uses it now and it's good, but she wants faster yet of course than rosetta can do for her. She still uses it in rosetta though when needed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takuro Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 [sarcasm] So Apple could roll out its own equivalent to Photoshop in under a year, and not only that, but steal a lot of the market? I'm sure Apple will be like "eh forget this. people are taking too long to make universal binaries" and make an equivalent to Office that will dominate the market. Yeah keep telling yourself that... [/sarcasm] Apple is a small company. And being the little guy who is lucky enough to have extremely prominent software companies willing to work with them, they will just have to do one thing: wait. Although I admit that if Apple computers are as widely used in graphics studios as Apple constantly brags them to be, then this delay sort of does pose a big problem. But then again, they could always just hold onto their G5s for now. Anybody who is a big Apple maniac probably already has a PowerPC Apple computer already anyway. All it means is they can't eBay it so quickly and become giddy for a Core Duo for another year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkelley Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Adobe products are the mainstream of designers, although believe it or not many printing houses and even some designers still use coreldraw by choice. Designers also often prefer macs. From what I've been told by my wife, what I've learned from personal use, and what I've been taught in the profession along the way (I do some work for my wife too and have to learn the ropes), it seems that designers are smart enough to use the best tool for the purpose. Corel has a way better interface than photoshop, so many designers stick with it. corel has had major problems with certain releases of coreldraw, serious bugs etc, so designers stay with the version that works best, even if it's 4 releases old. designers work with macs because historically they are the original graphic design computer (and so if they want to communicate data it's good to be mac compatible with other designers), macs have better color output for the displays and better color matching (industry standard), and macs are more reliable and handle running multiple huge apps like photoshop, illustrator, corel, a web browser, one or more clip media browsers, and chat programs all at the same time. It seems to be the standard for every designer I've met to do all of that (even chatting with other designers etc in the chat proggy). Sure, I'm biased to think designers are geniuses (I married one), but it also seems like they make smart choices. Designers don't exclusively use macs, they've grown more into pcs over recent years, and my wife, her team and her competition all use pcs as well. But she'd RATHER use a mac, and RATHER use an attractive and mobile and easy-to-setup one like an imac. Now that core duos are out, and proven to be super fast and almost as reliable as g5 power macs (not quite all the bugs are in the public yet though it would seem), she wants to use one for her work. She should be able to - it's too bad that adobe is such a huge company and has to take a long time to get products out, but that's why their apps work well and are reliable and fast. photoshop is a good app, it hasn't changed it's UI for years because designers know how to use it and won't bother learning a new version. If adobe changes the photoshop gui, designers won't upgrade, and adobe will lose lots of money. designers WILL go where they get the job done best and most easily- even if it means moving to pcs or keeping their g5s when they know the new core duo macs are just as fast, more attractive, and less expensive than their dual g5s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haplo Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Apple already has iWork. I admit that it's not as popular as office (although I'm not sure why. I've heard most people are waiting for numbers though). I would take pages over Word any day though, and definitely take keynote over powerpoint. Really the only reason I'd like to see an apple photoshop is so that there would be something out there that doesn't suck. I mean, photoshop gets the job done, but not easily, and it has an interface that's hardly good for OS9. Nobody really knows if that will happen, and it seems pretty unlikely to me, but whatever. Oh, and I really would like to see iWork be complete. It is something I do use on more than the odd occasion, and it's nice to have (esp since iWork is fully compatible with office file formats). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphid Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 6 Months? No, no, no... they have had years to be working on that and should have started that process about 2001. There was no Xcode in 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Dude, Xcode is ProjectBuilder. It has been around since the NeXT days. Apple merely renamed it in 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xcode [sarcasm]So Apple could roll out its own equivalent to Photoshop in under a year, and not only that, but steal a lot of the market?[/sarcasm] With Cocoa and CoreImage, I could role out something better than Photoshop in about a year by myself. But I would not expect to the steal much of the market because Cocoa is bound to OS X (yes, I know about GNUStep) and other people, including Apple, are likely to do the same. It is just too easy and Adobe has left the door wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aphid Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Dude, Xcode is ProjectBuilder. It has been around since the NeXT days. Yes, and it was close to unusable until Xcode 1.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts