[Leia's Left Bun]

Apple has been obviously stepping on Adobe's toes for a few years now with Final Cut, iPhoto and the recent Aperture.

In Steve Keynote yesterday he was obviously trying to make photoshop look bad. First he mentions that it takes a while to launch, then when opening a file he bops his head back and forth when opening a file.

I don't think his remarks are the least bit justified though. First, Photoshop was running in emulation. Second opening a file is based more on the disk performance over anything else. Most of all Apple is the LAST company to talk when it comes to software performance.

OSX was dog assed slow up until 10.2. Same goes for iPhoto and iMovie which didn't get to acceptable speeds until version 4.

Apples newest App Aperture (which takes on Photoshop for many RAW tasks) is incredibly slow for some simple tasks.

What is next for Apple? A full Photoshop replacement? Seems Adobe isn't taking this laying down though as they quickly came out with the speedy Lightroom to take on Aperture.

Should Apple really be kicking a huge company like Adobe in the balls like this? If photoshop was cancelled tomorrow for Mac's you can bet Apple would lose a HUGE customer base.

[::maroma::]

I'm not sure what the hell is going on with the Apple/Adobe soap opera. But all I know is, if Apple burns the bridge with Adobe the Mac is in serious trouble. Apple cannot create a software suite that is comparable with Adobe's Creative Suite. Apple might be able to create a strong Photoshop competitor, but creating that plus something to replace InDesign and Illustrator is impossible. If Adobe drops support for Macs we are doomed. One of the biggest industries (possibly THE biggest) for Macs is the print production industry. If they lose that, well.. I don't even want to think about it.

On the other hand Adobe has been pretty lackluster when it comes to supporting Apple. Apple computers are what made Adobe so strong. Now they are treating Mac as a bastard step-child. The software of late has been subpar at best, the timeliness of their updates are horrible, and they haven't shown any real life support (showing up at the Keynotes to show support) in a long while. I think both Apple and Adobe need to start playing nicer together. Or else we're in for some bad times.

Oh, and has anyone even heard from Adobe on when they'll have a Universal version of the CS software out?

[wdlove]

Competition is good. Hopefully it will work to the advantage of the customer.

[Goldfinger]

I hope one thing: that Steve's bloody ego doesn't get in the way of Adobe.

[Salty]

Quite frankly Adobe can't complain about iPhoto, they were ASKED to make it! And they declined. Therefore Apple decided to do it themselves. When it comes to Aperture Adobe had no product that did much of what Aperture does do. Apple is trying to create a product where there wasn't one before, and frankly an area that Adobe probably should have been filling.
When it comes to Final Cut, did Adobe drop premier support for the Mac? Yah. Should they have, who knows. That said Final Cut Pro was far above what Premier did do as far as I remember, and is a killer program, as well Final Cut Express was a pretty big no brainer. If Adobe didn't want Apple getting into video they should have chosen to make something like iMovie again when they were asked to.

As well Adobe and Macromedia have both been really substandard when it's come to supporting new technologies that Apple's brought out that could genuinely help their customers on this platform. I mean even microsoft takes advantage of things on this platform that can't be done on Windows! The fact that Adobe's sacrificed mine and your options when it comes to doing what we do with their software, solely to make sure that the windows and mac versions are the same as much as possible, is bull.
That said I imagine with this shift toward universal binaries Adobe will be all over that, it's a great way to force people into upgrading. Now I imagine though, they won't be including CoreImage stuff... not really sure why... oh right, Cause Adobe likes doing everything their own way.

[Leia's Left Bun]

Originally Posted by Salty

When it comes to Aperture Adobe had no product that did much of what Aperture does do.

Adobe Bridge was pretty damn close.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Adobe Bridge was pretty damn close.

When I tried out bridge it didn't seem near as full featured as Aperture is... not to mention no where near as much eye candy

By the way is lightroom Mac compatible or not?

[Leia's Left Bun]

Originally Posted by Salty

By the way is lightroom Mac compatible or not?

Mac ONLY actually.

[::maroma::]

Adobe needs a management overhaul I think. If you use their CS suite at all you'll notice that the Big 3 applications don't really work as well together as they should. Sure they work better together than say Quark does with Adobe apps, but some of the features in one app aren't present in another. Keyboard shortcuts are different sometimes (for no real apparent reason). Illustrator seems to get worse with each release. And their total lack of innovation.

Someone needs to shake things up over there. If Apple is the one to do it, then whatever. As long as Adobe wakes up and starts becoming the company that they should be (and were at one point). They own the market, and that's probably a big reason their crap sucks as of late. I mean come on, if Quark is on the ball with the Mactel stuff, no one can convince me that Adobe has a legitimate reason for not being where Quark is with this. Quark is slowing committing suicide, yet they magically come out with an update before Adobe? Hello Adobe, anyone home?!

I love Adobe for their history, but I keep finding it harder and harder to like them with each update.

[Leia's Left Bun]

One thing I can say good about Photoshop is that it is VERY stable.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

One thing I can say good about Photoshop is that it is VERY stable.

Yeah same here. Photoshop has been steadily a solid product throughout its life. Illustrator on the other hand is the bane of my existence. It just keeps getting worse. I can't understand why. I know that they have completely different teams working on each piece of software but damn, Illustrator must have the worst of the worst working on it. The latest version likes to crash the first time I open it, but then opens fine after that. Then you get random crashes while working, very Windows-like error messages in which the information they give is exactly 100% worthless. I could go on for a long time but I think you get the point.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

One thing I can say good about Photoshop is that it is VERY stable.

Yeah same here. Photoshop has been steadily a solid product throughout its life. Illustrator on the other hand is the bane of my existence. It just keeps getting worse. I can't understand why. I know that they have completely different teams working on each piece of software but damn, Illustrator must have the worst of the worst working on it. The latest version likes to crash the first time I open it, but then opens fine after that. Then you get random crashes while working, very Windows-like error messages in which the information they give is exactly 100% worthless. I could go on for a long time but I think you get the point.

[::maroma::]

btw - macnn servers suck ass today.

[andreas_g4]

Photoshop is - besides PDF - Adobe's cash cow and mac sales are still very strong for their creative software, especially Photoshop. The current percentage from 2004 is

Windows 73%
Macintosh 27%

This is with all the PDF corporate solutions. And those will possibly grow even stronger. But with new Intel Macs and Adobes software being universal, the sales for the creative professional will grow stronger on the Mac side.

I think competition will get better products to the customers, and Adobe sure wants to sell their solutions to Mac professionals.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

The latest version likes to crash the first time I open it, but then opens fine after that.

Photoshop also does this from time to time (once in a blue moon).

[Salty]

Yah, Photoshop in the version 5 days was awesome, since then they've added some really good features but it doesn't feel near as good as it used to. And it's never really felt like it grew into being an OS X app. I wouldn't mind seeing Apple come out with an App that would take on Photoshop, and frankly Adobe isn't going to abandon the Apple market until Apple's app actually did manage to overtake it, which odds are wouldn't happen right away.

[macintologist]

Apple has Final Cut Studio which kicks ass.

If Apple made a Publish Studio with Aperture, a Photoshop/Illustrator replacement, and a Quark/InDesign replacement, maybe even a Dreamweaver replacement, they could kick some serious serious asss!!!!

[- - e r i k - -]

How can Apple possibly compete with a program that has 20 years of refinement behind it? Aperture truly sucked in version 1.0, but then again so did iPhoto, FCP and Mac OS X 10.0

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

How can Apple possibly compete with a program that has 20 years of refinement behind it? Aperture truly sucked in version 1.0, but then again so did iPhoto, FCP and Mac OS X 10.0

Final Cut 1.0 certainly did not suck

[- - e r i k - -]

Maybe FCP 1.0 did not suck as such, but it certainly had issues. DV-codec issues and rendering speeds were slow. Then again it was adapted from an existing product and had an unusually long development period.

[James L]

A computer platform is ONLY as good as the software written and available for it.

Apple stepping on the toes of major developers, to the point where they drop their Mac software, means FEWER reasons for people to switch to the Mac platform.

Brand name recognition is HUGE. When I see people switch over to the Mac, more often then not their first question is "Can I use Microsoft Office on it?"

The Mac platform, WITHOUT Photoshop and Microsoft Office, would be in trouble.

wdlove wrote:

Competition is good. Hopefully it will work to the advantage of the customer.

wdlove, I respect you and your posts, but here I think you are wrong.

Competition would be two companies, such as Adobe and Macromedia used to be, writing similar products such as GoLive and DreamWeaver, to compete with each other.

Apple stepping on the toes of software developers to the point where they take NAME BRAND software packages off the market for the Mac is not competition. Sure, Apple may be able to make a similar or even better product, but that isn't going to mean people who have done something a certain way for 20 years is going to switch over to it.

People on this forum are "in the know". We are not indicative of the majority of consumers. Apple strove for years to overcome the "incompatible" stigma.... I hope they don't purposely make it raise its ugly head again, with the result being fewer people switching over.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Maybe FCP 1.0 did not suck as such, but it certainly had issues. DV-codec issues and rendering speeds were slow. Then again it was adapted from an existing product and had an unusually long development period.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Axo1ot1

You don't know what you're talking about.

O RLY?

[Axo1ot1]

rly.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Salty

Yah, Photoshop in the version 5 days was awesome, since then they've added some really good features but it doesn't feel near as good as it used to. And it's never really felt like it grew into being an OS X app.

Do you use Photoshop professionally ?

People who say that above, I usually find either don't really know Photoshop, don't use it professionally, or have no clue what features the new version has, or how to use them.

Photoshop CS has brought MANY MANY new features I could now, not live without.

[Millennium]

I think it's mostly a case of Apple seeing itself as too dependent on third-party software makers.

Back in the days of the Rhapsody developer previews, Adobe was one of the companies that cried loudest when told that there wasn't going to be an easy API upgrade path for existing apps. At that time, Apple acquiesced, and that's how the Carbon APIs were born. I'm only speaking of Carbon's origins here; nowadays it has morphed into something quite different from what it was originally intended to be, and I believe that these changes have been of great benefit to Carbon, Cocoa, and the platform as a whole. However, this was not Apple's original plan for OSX, and I suspect that part of these application moves they've made are aimed at splitting up the market for those apps on OSX. They're not terribly interested in controlling the market, but they don't want anyone else to control it either.

I don't think Apple is interested in killing Photoshop or After Effects or anything like that. Apple considers itself a hardware company, first and formost, and having a truly dominant software package would only introduce more headaches for it. But at the same time, Apple doesn't want its platform to be so dominated by third-party apps that it ends up having to base its design decisions on complaints from other software makers. I think this is the root of why Apple has been playing these games with Adobe: Apple thinks Adobe has too much power over the design of the Mac, and it wants to change that.

[m a d r a]

i use photoshop every day and i havenae got many complaints. it is [for me anyway] rock solid and does pretty much anything i want it to do. i'll admit that there havenae been many spectacular advances in recent years - but then, with the exception of the type tools, it's pretty [dare i say?] "perfect" as it is.

the rest of the CS suite [as others have pointed out] is a different kettle of haddock. illustrator is getting so much worse with each new release, that it won't be too long before consensus says that adobe shot the wrong dog when they bought [macromedia] freehand!

indesign is a nice app, but has too many GUI annoyances and unintuitive keyboard shortcuts for my liking. i mean who's idea was to assign apple+I' to "check spelling" and 'apple+B' to "text frame options" ???

golive was an innovative programme and a lot better than dreamweaver back when it was golive cyberstudio. after buying it, adobe somehow managed to turn it into a bloated unintuitive mess - generating terrible standards un-compliant code

i don't even keep a copy of acrobat anymore. for day to day viewing and printing of PDF's, the finder and preview are a zillion times faster and, if i need more control over PDF output, i use the PDF export settings from within indesign.

adobe does need a good kick up the arse and i'd like to see apple take them on and supply the necessary foot-to-buttock impetus. i do have a slight worry tho' that if apple moves into too many of these markets where we formerly used third party apps, we might end up with the situation we mock amongst windoze users; namely that they seem to think that the only apps that exist are the ones microsoft makes.

i wouldnae like to put all my software eggs in one basket - even if it was an apple branded one!

[m a d r a]

triple post - not my fault DB is fuxxored!

[m a d r a]

triple post - not my fault DB is fuxxored!