MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Well..... I'm not sure trivial quite describes creating something like Photoshop, but certainly it's doable if Apple has the will to do it. Would be pretty ironic if Apple released some Photoshop-like program before Adobe got round to fixing their version!

No doubt the problem is that Adobe should have started the Migration to XCode a long time ago, but waited until it was a requirement. Now instead of only having to recompile their apps and performa bit of tweaking, they have to completely rewrite more than a decade of legacy code to bring it up to date. When they are done, I'm sure the entire Creative Suite will be much better off for it, but expect the first version to be buggy as all hell. Essentially CS3 will be more like a 1.0 release.

Well, if adobe wants to jump the gun and not produce for apple.

The there are many alternatives in the open source that beat of match the best of adobe.

Apple could just pick one of them and sell it the mac way.

We really don't need that bloatwer software from adobe.

my two cents!

you know..I'd hate to say..as much as I love Apple and their products..but I think Adobe fans are as hardcore as Apple fans..and if push came to shove, Adobe fans will follow photoshop wherever Adobe goes...even PC Vista.

You'd think that they'd have learned from their experience with InDesign that it would be a bad idea to behave like Quark.

The customer is king.

""So, some see the delay of Universal Binary versions of software in the Apple market as being a way of punishing Apple for entering its core market"

So the writer has no proof for his comment that they are at war, he is just speculating that they are because UB photoshop isnt out yet.

I guess thats the new journalism. Inventing news.

what are you saying gman?

I've been watching my wife struggle with Adobe indesign, should be called indigestion, and it's such a mess compared to the simple elegance of Quark...

Makes me think there has got to be a market for a simpler and cleaner app to compete with PS.

And I'm ready to avoid all Adobe products from now on.

They are arrogant, bloated, and their products are no longer elegant or cutting edge.

In all fairness to Adobe, it is not a trivial job to convert all their applications to Universal Binaries.

Remember, almost all of their apps have been around for a long time and therefore can't do the conversion as effortlessly as an application built using Apple's own tools. Not to mention their fondness for bundling everything into suites, creating the need for simultaneous release.

Having said that, I wish Adobe had never bought Macromedia, because if they were still competitors, we would then have a situation of Adobe and Macromedia trying to beat eachother to market with their Universal Binaries.

Ultimately, I hope Adobe is worried about both Apple and Microsoft as competitors, because, lets face it, who else is there to get them off thier butts?!

This article is flamebait

The Intel switch caught everyone by surprise, including Apple because they beleived IBM could continue to deliever G5 processors.

Adobe is working on a completely new version of Photoshop. It makes little sense to release a Universal version of CS2 when Apple provided the Rosetta enviroment that is running CS2 reasonable well until the new multi-threaded version of CS3 arrives.

You see the entire programming industry is altering their code to be more multi-core friendly and powerful.

Big programs take more time to convert.

Adobe is now very happy that Apple is on Intel processors. Adobe only has to code for one processor family now and compile for both OS's at the same time.

So really we are not waiting for a Universal Version of CS2, but a brand new, OS neutral, version of CS3.

Stand by to be happy. You'll still have to work.

gman,

I'd have to disagree. I have never in my life met an Adobe fan. Not once. Plenty of people who use Adobe, of course, but not one "fan" that has loyalty to Adobe separate from Apple.

gman I think it's a bit complex. Yes Adobe users are very loyal but I would bet that most of those loyal Adobe users are also Mac users and I doubt they'd go over to Windows.

Most graphic designers love Adobe and Apple...the two go together really well.

I had my say on this a couple of days ago. The author and MDN echo my opinions. I don't believe Adobe customers are as "hardcore" as you think, gman. Customers, in general, will follow a company that shows them disrespect and disdain. Adobe isn't punishing Apple with their footdragging. They are punishing you and me, and everyone else on the Mac platform that uses their products to make a living. People can say PS is complex and they needed the time, but why is the newly release Acrobat not Universal? A lot of people assume it is, but I can find no evidence from Adobe that it is.

There is actually a new pretty good vector illustration program called Lineform in beta at the moment. Done with cocoa. Look out Freehand and Illustrator...

"So, some see the delay of Universal Binary versions of software in the Apple market as being a way of punishing Apple for entering its core market."

Yup. That makes good business sense (not)

either that or the Intel CPUs get so strong/fast that Rosetta overhead becomes trivial.

dang... I wish we could edit these posts. Here is my message with typos corrected

---
I had my say on this a couple of days ago. The author and MDN echo my opinions. I don't believe Adobe customers are as "hardcore" as you think, gman. Customers, in general, will not follow and stay loyal to a company that shows them disrespect and disdain. Adobe isn't punishing Apple with their footdragging. They are punishing you and me, and everyone else on the Mac platform that uses their products to make a living. People can say PS is complex and they needed the time, but why is the newly release Acrobat not Universal? A lot of people assume it is, but I can find no evidence from Adobe that it is.

I bet Apple already has "iPhotoPro" sitting on a shelf somewhere, ready to go alpha, should Adobe decide to get a little too pugnacious. They say they're waiting for CS 3.0 to go UB... I think they should have started with CS 2.3 to have the industry give it a solid test run, so CS 3.0 would be released without out any kinks.

If there is a war, I will choose apple, because adobe is just milking their flagship products, every new version do not represent a major shift from the previous one, nothing new, just two or three new ajust features and a relocation of the old features.

Adobe betterr side with apple because microsoft is already shooting to their head and apple with the small percentage of the market represent a lot for them.

Apple is the only company with the resources and the knowledge that can kill adobe and fight a good fight with microsoft in the business area, I do not what is apple waiting, apple should have bougth the Macromedia Xres application just to have for a feature release, but with the Aperture expertise adobe is feeling the apple heat..

Tommy V and Peter J...

I won't argue on what side of the fence I'm on..(for the record, Apple)...

I have been a working graphic artist for over 20 years now, and have seen this business develop from the ground floor.

One thing I have always said: "The day I have to use windows is my last day as a commercial artist".

I am now quite well along in my career, as you might imagine.

I now make the buying decisions. I have a looooong memory.

Adobe – don't fsck with us. You. Will. Be. Sorry.

Period.

Adobe is no friend of Mac or you. Tho Apple put Adobe on the map they have clearly become a PC company.

Adobe would love to abandon the Mac except that they still sell a lot of Creative Suite packages to Mac users and the Apple is about the only computer company with any real excitement and pro-sales happening.

Adobe copy protection is THE WORST! I hate them now!

Speaking of iPhoto, I must say the new version with it's pretty decent (and easy) correction tools has indeed reduced the number of trips I make to PS on a given day/week. If Apple leveraged iPhoto and Aperture to create a really robust pro program, they would indeed be able to compete with Adobe--and think how cool it'd be to have "photoPro" integrated with Final Cut, Shake (or whatever comes next there), and other Apple apps. Right now integration's becoming a huge advantage for Apple in the consumer software space. If they can work that in the pro software space, they'll really have something!

*I've been watching my wife struggle with Adobe indesign, should be called indigestion, and it's such a mess compared to the simple elegance of Quark... *

To add to my previous post, Qvark Xpres is an example of why you do not fsck with the graphic arts community. R.I.P. Qvark!

Well there are other alternatives to image editing...thye are smaller applications and probably not as sophisticated yet. However, I recall that when Apple acquired Final Cut from Macromedia they also may have gotten something else....called xRes which was a also another image editing application. Although I cannot confirm that they did acquire that...I hope they did. It had some potential.

However you can look up all the alternative imaging applications on the Apple website: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/imaging_3d/

Dead wrong gman.

As a designer of nearly 20 years who loves Photoshop, there's no way I'd put up with the day to day hassle of using a PC in order to continue using the app. I'd rather go with the Gimp on the Mac for my photo work.

For an application like Photoshop, it will cost them thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of dollars to update to a Universal Binary. That's a lot of money they weren't expecting to spend, plus hiring engineers that know how to use XCode.

I agree with Poe and Rabid Dog. Adobe has a LOT of work to do to rewrite these very large and complex programs to work natively on Intel chips. This will take some time to complete and I am sure they are doing all they can to complete the transition as quickly as possible; especially since the sooner they get it out to market the sooner they will make millions from Mac customers who have been waiting for quite some time now. Mac users are a significant portion of Adobe's customers so it would be idiotic for them to alienate them by some ridiculous attempt to "get back at Apple."

However, unlike many other applications, a large portion of those who use their software are businesses who use it in their production machines. Adobe must release a very good, stable, fast product with few or no bugs or they will be skewered in the marketplace. So, they must work as quickly as possible through this big transition while ensuring the product is released only when it is ready.

My 2 cents.

"And I'm ready to avoid all Adobe products from now on. They are arrogant, bloated, and their products are no longer elegant or cutting edge."

I'm with that post. Adobe definitely has more in common with Microsoft than with Apple. It's sad, but true.

I hope Adobe is listening, because the feelings expressed here today have been around for at least a year or two now....

I agree with Poe and Rabid Dog. Adobe has a LOT of work to do to rewrite these very large and complex programs to work natively on Intel chips. This will take some time to complete and I am sure they are doing all they can to complete the transition as quickly as possible; especially since the sooner they get it out to market the sooner they will make millions from Mac customers who have been waiting for quite some time now. Mac users are a significant portion of Adobe's customers so it would be idiotic for them to alienate them by some ridiculous attempt to "get back at Apple."

However, unlike many other applications, a large portion of those who use their software are businesses who use it in their production machines. Adobe must release a very good, stable, fast product with few or no bugs or they will be skewered in the marketplace. So, they must work as quickly as possible through this big transition while ensuring the product is released only when it is ready.

I believe Microsoft is in this same position with respect to its Office product. I don't expect that to ship anytime soon either.

My 2 cents.

"Over a year ago on June 6, 2005 Apple announced that it would move to replace Motorola chips ... "


I notice that IBM is coming out with lower power consuming versions of .. the G3, of all things! The G5 gets a revamp too, apparently. I keep thinking we havent seen the last of them. Universal Binaries and all that, you know? All that Universal Binary work devoted to legacy considerations with absolutely no expectation of future access to the chip architecture? That seems unlikely, to me at least. I wouldn't be at all suprised if IBM chips popped up in some future piece of Apple gear or another.

If Apple doesn't do it someone else just might. Look at Lineform. It's not as feature rich as Illustrator, but it's getting high praise in the Mac market. I believe it won an award this year at Apple's developers conference. Don't think that was just a coincidence either. Apple gave it it's official stamp of approval. And I have read several graphic artist's blogs praising it. So, Apple could buy Lineform and add it's own Photoshop killer and there you go. By Adobe. That's what you get for being slow a$$ like M$.

I've been one of those "hardcore" Adobe fans for a long time now and in doing that, I would use the best platform for the software which is the Mac. Using the Mac turned me into a huge Mac fan and have since become a major FCP user.

One thing that I have learned over the years is that Adobe is a group of greedy turds. From Adobe's history, I would say that the delay is over Adobe wanting you to pay $299 for the CS3 update while most people will only get the update for the UB. Just a UB update, in my mind, is worth $50 so Adobe is forcing the issue my getting people to wait and pay for the major update. It's a catch 22. Mac professional users want to run PS or AE (Premiere for all intents and purposes is dead in the film industry thanks to FCP which is why the last update for Premiere was about four years ago) on their Macbook Pros. They can't do that well without UB. So they will want to buy any update that has UB. By making the CS3 update the only update that has UB, Adobe weasel's out $300 out of users who may not have bought the CS3 update for just it's features. I know I didn't buy the CS update for lack of features and seeing as there are not a whole lot of new features in CS3, I probably would not purchase it if it did not have UB.

We ACE guys are really getting killed by the update wait because Rosetta can run PS just fine for the casual user (that's less than two hours a day) Try using it for ten and then tell me how you feel.

The switch to Intel did *not* catch Apple offguard. As SJ said in the unveiling keynote, they had OS X running on Intel for years. I suspect they saw the writing on the walls years ago, and wanted to be prepared.

As for Adobe dragging their heels...it completely blows. Yes, it's not going to be easy to migrate to XCode, but it's not only Photoshop. They also own the only really good web development environment (Dreamweaver), and they own FLASH!!! If they don't migrate that suite over to XCode, that's bad news for Apple.

I've heard people wish Apple would just buy Adobe. I hope that comes to pass.

>>In all fairness to Adobe, it is not a trivial job to convert all their applications to Universal Binaries.

In all fairness to Apple, Adobe didn't update their code base in a timely fashion. They neglected Photoshop for years, and are now paying the price of having to update their disorganized, messy legacy code. If the code had been kept current, the conversion process would not have been nearly as difficult for them. Intuit is facing the same difficulty with Quicken, and it's just as much Intuit's fault as it is Adobe's.

I have no patience with companies who pass the buck to the consumer when it comes to responsibility for their own products. I'd love for Apple to surprise us all with a Photoshop-killer at Macworld, and I'd love to see Adobe (and Intuit, for that matter) have some competition.

They need it.

There's obviously a lot of points to this whole situation. Adobe obviously have a product lifecycle, I don't know exact dates but without Intel we probably still wouldn't have seen new versions much sooner.
There is also the whole thing of their apps being incredibly complicated to bring over. Fair enough, it's a big job, but they're a big company and since photoshop it basically it's main market you would think they would have a large proportion of their staff working on it. Apple would obviously be ahead of everyone in terms of having their apps up to date but it shows that if you have you apps using old legacy code you end up suffering.
Sales are obviously decreasing because everyone is waiting, you would think they would in turn try and speed up their development. Or at the very least show some real signs of how they're doing. Nothing.
Apple have released Aperture and done numerous updates to it in the same time, some arguably better than others but they've been done. Lightroom is still in Beta.

Adobe have either severely dropped the ball or if they're purposely delaying they're biting off their nose to spite their face.

Thanks for the Lineform reference. I grudgingly bought Freehand (now a soon-to-be-defunct Adobe product) a couple years ago after an exhaustive search of ALL available vector drawing programs, finding it the one I best related to and the least offensive of the bunch (as opposed to the "best"). I have to believe the core development libraries in OS X are making the development of a new generation of graphics and animation programs more sophisticated and much less costly, hence the $79 price tag for the extremely well-received Lineform compared with $499 for Illustator. If you read reviews of the latest generations of Illustrator and Photoshop, they are not nearly as glowing as they were for the earlier versions 4-5 years ago. Adobe IS resting on their laurels, and STILL charging you and me today's corporate prices. I resent that, and I am beginning to resent them. Yes, they have some great, deep, flagship products, but is Illustrator $420 better than Lineform? Lineform is an early release and will continue to improve, and I think it's only a matter of time before a Lineform-quality equivalent for Photoshop emerges as well. I think Adobe's easy ride will begin to wind down in the very near future and more of their products could go the way of Quark, and frankly I think they deserve it.

All very well and good that Adobe has been hurting Mac users' "feelings" for a while now and a revolt is brewing. And a large number of casual/small business users may switch away from Adobe's products. But remember, those Mac users who need to use Adobe's products for work/large business may not find it so easy to switch. There is such a thing as Industry Standards and compatibility. If your rent depends on sticking with Adobe you.will.stick.with.Adobe. Such is life.


MDN Magic Word - economic

I kid you not

Adobe had better get it's head out of it's ass. Microsoft is coming right after you and your primary market. Keep cozying up to Redmond and playing to their BS and you will find yourself PLAYED FER SURE™

Geez! I commented on this almost a year ago. Why develop a Universal Binary version when you've already got a Windows version out the door? At the time I was commenting on game developers, but it could just as easily work with Adobe.

Adobe can simply take their sweet time and make a strictly Intel version of their Creative Suite applications if they really want to. By the time Adobe fixes all their bugs with CS3, all of the professional Mac users will have already moved to Intel Macs.

We all know how badly Steve Jobs treats his developers, so he kind of deserves this little bow shot from Adobe. I'm sure that Adobe will eventually go Universal Binary, but Steve does deserve to have it rubbed in his face a little bit.

Still, it's amazing that a program like Graphics Converter came out with a Universal Binary version of their product last Spring and we're still waiting on Adobe. On the other hand, Adobe prides its self on total interactivity of all of their Creative Suite products. It isn't just about Photoshop, but a simultaneous release of Adobe's entire line at once. No small task.

Oh, and I use inDesign CS2, love it, and am looking forward to a product that will work on a future Intel based Mac in my future.

THIS IS WHY IT SUCKS THAT ADOBE BOUGHT OUT MACROMEDIA.

Adobe is now a Monopoly, and we're screwed as a result. I'd love for someone to come out with a genuine competitor to Photoshop.

allow me to quote Rapid Dog

This article is flamebait

The Intel switch caught everyone by surprise, including Apple because they beleived IBM could continue to deliever G5 processors.

Adobe is working on a completely new version of Photoshop. It makes little sense to release a Universal version of CS2 when Apple provided the Rosetta enviroment that is running CS2 reasonable well until the new multi-threaded version of CS3 arrives.

You see the entire programming industry is altering their code to be more multi-core friendly and powerful.

Big programs take more time to convert.

Adobe is now very happy that Apple is on Intel processors. Adobe only has to code for one processor family now and compile for both OS's at the same time.

So really we are not waiting for a Universal Version of CS2, but a brand new, OS neutral, version of CS3.

Stand by to be happy. You'll still have to work.

I would have thought a complete collapse of Photoshop for Mac sales would make Adobe double their efforts and get a UB version out the door. Especially if 40-50% of the sales are to Mac users as stated in the article.

It would be stupid of them to allow a competitor to gain traction in the Mac market, thinking Windows sales will see them through. As history has proven, any company who captures the Mac market has a solid base from which to take the Windows market too.

Scriptablility

While I appreciate the options to Adobe products given here, I believe the scriptablility (applescript) of the CS products is given short shrift. This is a big deal for business, even small graphic design firms like mine.

I think creating an Apple photo manipulation tool to rival Photoshop would be way more than trivial. Photoshop is the result of 15 years of development. That being said, it does seem as if Adobe is dragging their heels. Apple should just buy Adobe and be done with it.

AAPL Dude,
Apple already has an "iPhoto Pro", it's called "Aperture".

All of Adobe's products, except Photoshop, suck balls! I am so glad that I don't have to use Acrobat Reader anymore. Thank you Preview!

Here's a question for the programmers, wouldn't it be faster for Adobe to recompile the current Windows/Intel version of Photoshop than to rewrite the Mac/PPC version to UB? Obviously they already have a version of Photoshop written for Intel chips!

BTW, I switched entirely away from film to digital about four years ago, since then I find I have less and less need for Photoshop, I haven't bothered to upgrade from CS, and probably won't. I have only had my iMac G5 for a few months and I really don't care if Photoshop goes UB or not. For the most part I have gone open source with NeoOffice and GIMP. I also like Digital Photo Professional which came with my Canon 10D and iPhoto, of course.

MW = analysis
as in, that's mine!

I've emailed Adobe Corp. a link to this forum...So be advised someone @ Adobe will view this and see the comments. Here's to wishing!

When did Adobe become the new Microsoft?

So maybe Apple just buys Adobe? Problem solved.

There is a small alternative to Photoshop currently in beta:

http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12

It is called Pixel.