Apple vs. Adobe
in [Mac Systems]
|
Prev: EFTFile1.sparseimage
Next: Display compatibility
From: George Kerby on 5 Feb 2010 11:41 On 2/5/10 9:52 AM, in article jollyroger-BEB99C.09523005022010(a)news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article <michelle-86F5DA.08220605022010(a)nothing.attdns.com>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > >> Interesting article on the differences between Apple and Adobe. > > Does this really belong in comp.sys.mac.system?? > > I would think this would be better posted to comp.sys.mac.misc. I, for one, enjoyed it. It might also be of interest to those in the photo groups...
From: JF Mezei on 5 Feb 2010 11:54 Michelle Steiner wrote: > Interesting article on the differences between Apple and Adobe. Considering that adobe is still unable to fix my account with them so that I can register y software using the "register" menu options of their own software, (and all the troubles I had to get their software going), (and the fact that allowing patches to be applied invalidates the licence, forcing me to reinstall from scratch), i would not have any big probem moving to a photoshop equialent. Adboe used to be a great company.
From: JF Mezei on 5 Feb 2010 11:56 Note that while the article mentions Photoshop, there is also Illustrator that needs to be copied/replaced. Remmeber that Adobe killed Freehand.
From: j on 5 Feb 2010 13:32 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot(a)vaxination.ca> wrote: > Considering that adobe is still unable to fix my account with them so > that I can register y software using the "register" menu options of > their own software, (and all the troubles I had to get their software > going), (and the fact that allowing patches to be applied invalidates > the licence, forcing me to reinstall from scratch), i would not have any > big probem moving to a photoshop equialent. Can you tell us more about the problems you are having? I'm about to upgrade my entire system (new computer plus buy and install CS4) and I need to know what problems (if any) people are facing. Usually I'd just do a bit of research then buy the software, but when the software costs more than the computer I need all the information and reassurance I can get! And the last thing we need is a cold war between Apple and Adobe.
From: nospam on 5 Feb 2010 13:44
In article <michelle-86F5DA.08220605022010(a)nothing.attdns.com>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > Interesting article on the differences between Apple and Adobe. not really. it's just another uninformed anti-apple rant. > However, if we look back over the last decade, relationship between Apple > and Adobe have also been tagged with some dark periods. It probably starts > when Apple launched its movie/video edition suite, Final Cut Pro that > killed Premi�re on Mac OS X in a record time. that must be why adobe brought it *back*. > Over the last versions of the > Adobe Creative Suite, optimizations developed specifically for Windows, > leaving Mac OS X users with an older and slower code, probably fueled the > Apple resentment, leading to today's open conflict. which optimizations are those? more bullshit. > Below are some details of Apple's complains against Adobe, some things are > known from the public, others not:� and some are simply wrong. > Adobe completely missed the transition to Cocoa, and tried to extend > the use of Carbon, causing problems for both users and Apple. he meant that *apple* completely missed the transition to cocoa. final cut pro would greatly benefit from being 64 bit, but it was recently updated and it's still carbon and 32 bit. finder was carbon until about six months ago. itunes is carbon. and what possible problems could it have caused??? carbon is a supported api and it's not like apple isn't still using it either. > They only now > start to work within the programming environment, however, the first beta > of the new Creative Suite 5 remain incomplete and unstable. actually, adobe had been transitioning to cocoa all along, but it was accelerated when apple suddenly killed off 64 bit carbon without warning. nobody had ported an app the size of photoshop to cocoa before, let alone a suite of apps, and adobe's customers don't care how it's written anyway. > According to Apple, the lack of Flash on the first iPhone OS was not > a choice, but rather the consequence of the inability of Adobe to offer a > mobile and power efficient bug-free Flash version.� not likely. > Last but not least, Apple thinks that the user interface of current > Adobe applications is now getting too old, and did not move to a more user > friendly version; the interface for adobe's products is driven by their customers, not what apple thinks looks pretty. photoshop is *very* well designed and there's little reason to totally revamp what works. > and finally the price of the Creative Suite are just too > high according to Apple's ranking. final cut studio is even higher priced. > The recent comments from Steve Jobs regarding Adobe might well be the first > sign of a "cold war" between the two companies. Apple would be already > preparing and developing applications to compete directly with Adobe's > solutions, leading to open warfare. Cupertino would also be developing a > software that could compete with Flash and Dreamweaver, entirely based on > HTML 5.0. Beside Aperture X which should be released soon, aperture?? most aperture users have bailed because apple's support for raw is atrocious. they take forever to add raw support for new cameras. pro photographers can't wait for apple to get around to supporting their camera, so they switched to lightroom. > Apple might also > be working to develop a solution similar to Photoshop, a high-end > Pro-oriented solution. We do not know further details about those > applications being developed as it is either hidden from view or just > starting. that would be a colossal waste of effort. |