There has been a lot of talk about Apple’s aggressive stance towards Adobe lately. For years now the two companies have been on less than friendly terms with each other over several issues. Lately they’ve bickered about the alleged bugginess of Flash.
According to Steve Jobs, Flash is responsible for most crashes on the Mac and uses abnormal amounts of processing power which would drain the battery of any mobile device. Before that Apple and Adobe fought over licensing issues regarding PDF files and the slow pace with which Adobe updates is applications.
With everybody falling over each other to come up with reason for Apple’s tough talk I decided to add my own conspiracy theory: I think Steve wants to own Adobe and Apple will acquire Adobe somewhere in 2010.
I agree it seems a far stretch that this will happen. But if it does happen it certainly will explain a few things. If Apple does acquire Adobe and fix Flash it would find itself in a very interesting position. It could open source Flash, make it compatible with HTML5 and fix the bugs and security issues. It could add Flash to Quicktime (or vice versa).
Consider for a moment all those mobile device builders around the world realizing they would now have talk to Apple (their arch enemy) regarding licensing iFlash from them. Exactly the kind of position that Steves loves to be in.
If I’m right about this I expect to be awarded for my insight. if I’m wrong, well, who reads old blogposts anyway.
So, here is my list of reason why it is only logical that Apple will acquire Adobe:
1: It is cheap and affordable
Adobe hasn’t been doing too bad in recent years but certainly not as well as Apple. It has a market cap of about 18 billion and change. Apple has $25 billion in cash in the bank and a market cap of 190 billion. Apple could buy Adobe with stock and some cash and not even blink. Imagine the power, influence and freedom it would get them.
2: It would give them Photoshop and Illustrator
Photoshop and Illustrator are so called killer Apps for The Apple Macintosh. Without it a lot of designers, architects and other creative professionals would have no reason to buy a Mac. If Apple owned these applications they could redesign their flawed interfaces, optimize them for the Mac Pro and iPad and make sure they work seamlessly with all the other Professional Apple Apps.
3: So Apple could fix Flash, save the day and look smart
Steve contents that Flash sucks and is outdated technology. What if he suddenly owned that technology? I’d like to believe that Apple has a fix ready for Flash that would suddenly make it reliable, power efficient and secure. They would launch this new iFlash version (built into Quicktime no doubt) within a month or two and also add it to the iPhone and iPad. How cool would they look by not only adding a perfectly working version of Flash customized to Apple’s own products but also to desktops Macs and PCs.
4: Because they told us they would
Apple has made no secret about its desire to use its cash reserve to do acquisitions. It also stated that it won’t just do that to add revenue to their bottom line but also for strategic reasons. Adobe is a healthy company and would easily bring in a few billion a year. Especially if Steve would fire everybody as he morphs the company into Apple. And besides the cash it would bring in there are all the other reason that make it logical to own Adobe.
5: To become less depending on third parties
Once upon a time Apple took a small investment and Microsoft’s assurance that it would keep developing MS Office for the Mac. You could argue that if Microsoft would have stopped offering Office for Mac it would have seriously hurt the platform. Without the main applications (the Adobe and Microsoft applications) the Mac would be a lot less useful. The same goes for Adobe. If it would stop offering its applications for the Mac a lot of designers and photographers would HAVE to switch to the PC to do their work. Apple has alleviated some of that risk by developing iPhoto and then Apperture but it still needs Photoshop and Illustrator. Basically it depends on Adobe to keep making great versions of its software for the Mac. And Steve doesn’t like to depend on anyone and had made it clear he has little respect for Adobe.
6: To fix Adobe’s crazy pricing
I have an official Adobe package which includes Photoshop, Illustrator, DreamWeaver and a few more Adobe Apps. If I want to upgrade it I am charged € 906.29. Yes, that is JUST for the upgrade. Now I know that these applications are really great, but seriously, € 906.29 for just an Upgrade? Apperture is $199.00 for the full package. That is not the Upgrade price but the full package. Just the Photoshop upgrade price is € 296.31! I imagine Apple would offer Photoshop for $199 with upgrades priced at $99. At € 906.29 I’m seriously considering just pirating the software. At $199 I am sure a LOT more people would avoid the hassle of illegal downloads. Once upon a time the Adobe prices were defendable. In the age of $1 Apps and sub $1000 laptops this is no longer the case. As an independent company Adobe can’t just slice the prices of their flagship applications. But as a part of Apple it can.
7: Because Steve is crazy
Okay, Steve Jobs isn’t really crazy. But he IS unpredictable, power hungry, filthy rich and very influential. Adding Adobe to Apple would make Apple a lot less dependent on Adobe. It would also give Apple new leverage with everybody who uses Flash right now. Adobe is just too important for the future of Apple to ignore it. So why not just buy it? By spreading the word that Adobe is a troubled company that can’t manage their own products well Apple will look good when it ‘saves’ the company later by buying it.
Of course Apple doesn’t need Flash or Adobe. It is currently very actively pushing HTML5 which might completely replace Flash one day. It already has on Youtube and numerous other websites. Still, there is a lot to gain for Apple if it did one day decide to buy Adobe.
I would agree. He did say about thinking big’ with the cash reserves, and it seems the most nature ‘big’ acquisition. Who else could they be talking about?
Many Apple users use Adobe, and the UX’s could be drastically improved and the products simplified (and made more affordable to more people) and build on their growing consumer products -and, crucially, cloud services – Photoshop.com and their other bits and bobs.
Also, i’d imagine, the employees of Adobe would be happy enough to get an Apple ID.. It’s not as if they would be hating the purchaser.
W.
“Photoshop and Illustrator are so called killer Apps for The Apple Macintosh. Without it a lot of designers, architects and other creative professionals would have no reason to buy a Mac.”
Why? Would they have more reason to buy a PC without them? The software is cross platform is it not? Could Adobe ever come up with a reason to stop supporting the Mac?
I think designers/creative professionals have Macs for the same reason entrepreneurs have boats and backpackers wear flipflops. Culture. Copied behavior.
Sounds good to me.
Since the Macromedia acquisition, Adobe has been infested with web site designers. If fact, none of its current product managers even have any experience in image manipulation, graphic arts, or page layout/print and we’re promoted up from the ranks of the talented programers that made Adobe great. And it shows. The current CS4 interface looks like a bad Junior College CSS project. Flash panels, Really. Is THAT what you think the CS needs? Adobe should really wake up; CS4 isn’t tanking because of a bad economy. It’s tanking because the web geeks have made web site publishing the go to purpose of Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign (let me get this straight – I can make a fully interactive, multimedia web site using InDesign for free, but not a simple PDF form without buying Acrobat too, $449 min. on a Mac – WTF?!?). Something that is, at best, a side line for these apps. Not to mention the absurd pricing.
It’s a shame. Adobe has some really good tech at the heart of its core programs (tech open source guys would kill for – Gimp is cute and a nice effort, but not even close to Photoshop); but it’s being lost in a stupid push to become all things web. Mangling Photoshop, Illustrator, and especially InDesign in the process.
This will NEVER happen. There is no reason for Apple to do this.
Horrible, Horrible Idea.
The way apple uses their programs is old-world with their proprietary crap. If they made adobe their proprietary software it’ll only get worse than it already is. Sure it might be a bit prettier and glossier, but not any better.
We need to keep apple away from adobe for everyones sake. These same people who write this junk complain that Microsoft had too much of a market-share, then want Apple to buy Adobe… right.
@Joris…The software is NOT cross-platform. It’s either/or. Meaning, should you decide to spend the bigger bucks on a Mac when it’s computer upgrade time–you’d better be rolling in cash to purchase another version of Adobe Suite.
Macs are the preferred platform for designers because they work better, and crash less. This is especially important when you’re working in an Adobe app and it crashes. Last I used a PC w/Illustrator (XP) the whole system would need to be rebooted. Every time. While I watched my fingernails grow.
At least on a Mac, when an Adobe app crashes–it’s just the app, not the entire computer that needs to be restarted.
@JSK. I don’t have a clue how you make a fully interactive site out of InDesign. Personally, I use Coda (yeah, I’m Mac). But more importantly, InDesign is primarily a tool for creating PRINT publications. I regularly use it for multi-page booklets and brochures. Never for web.
@Boris. Interesting article. I hope you’re right!
@Catherine:
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve used Macs for 20 years and never looked back. I don’t see why the advantages of the Mac however should weigh heavier for designers than for any other profession.
Hence, I’ve never understood why Macs are seen as “the designer’s machine” so often. I’m glad they’re getting more mainstream actually.
As for Adobe apps, I don’t see why their presence on either platform makes the Mac that much more valuable. Hence, I think the reason designers/creative Pro’s use Macs partially because they, well, always have.
I wish somebody just do something allready,
I mean how many years have we all heard the same thing over an over flash is coming to your device soon or buying a phone with promise that flash will work on it only find that’s not the case at all
Some years ago, it would make sense for Adobe to acquire Apple and now its the other way around. Times change …
Adobe's software has become pretty crapy and mostly Apple can make better software cheaper than buying Adobe. Apple would rather do for graphic software what it is doing with replacing Office and has done with Shake, Studio and with photo software. Apple would make there own or buy well written versions to make consumer and Pro versions. Adobe's stuff is bloated and not written in mac native code. Apple does not seem inclined to want to enter the Pro version of anything anymore; it is low in volumes and high maintenance.
This has been a poorly conceived article. Please do better next time. Apple buying Adobe will never happen. That is like saying Apple will buy Microsoft.
I just gave you 7 reasons why it makes sense for Apple to do it.
And Flash isn't proprietary?
Apple will buy Microsoft.
Apple could choose to write their own Photoshop killer. They already have an Acrobat killer (Preview is MUCH better) and a Premiere killer (Final Cut Pro). Flash has no value; its being marginalized, in part, due to its utter uselessness in mobile devices (battery drain).
Apple COULD write a PhotoShop Killer. Given five years or so, they could even match Adobe's Mindshare, with a better, snappier product for $199.00
But Photoshop is THE standard way of manipulating images. Everything else pales by comparison… just try GIMP, if you're brave enough or enjoy frustration.
So Apple's version would have to imitate PhotoShop pretty closely. And of course, Adobe would sue.
Far better for Apple to BUY Adobe and fix the problems from the inside.
Plus, I'm imagining the name “Apple PhotoShop CS5″ and I just can't stop smiling at the thought of all the Mac Haters that would eventually be forced to upgrade…
Not this year. But if you go by the Market Cap graph… in five years?
Maybe.
Which makes me wonder if Apple has a back-room project in redesigning Windows on their Darwin foundation.
#7 should be #1. That is all.
No shit about Preview! Gawd, I hate it when Acrobat opens up and I don't mean for it!
If Apple purchased Adobe – by buying controlling interest in Adobe for $9 billion – then Apple can KILL FLASH. Apple can stop any further development on flash. This way, Adobe's plug-ins will eventually become incompatible and would die. YES!!!!!.
If Apple purchased Adobe, Apple can then FIRE all those idiotic Adobe programmers and hire good ones to replace them.
Apple is approaching the threshold where it stands to lose its core professional user base unless they take over Adobe and bring the OS X version of the Creative Suite out in Cocoa which is necessary for 64 bit performance (and compatibility) in Snow Leopard. This is necessary to bring parity to the Mac as the Windows version of the Creative Suite is available in a 64 bit version. Unless Apple does something, and soon, the migration of Photoshop and graphics arts professionals will continue to accelerate.
Besides, “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
So you imagine that Apple has hundreds of programmers with nothing to do? And that all of those programmers are perfect and would instantly be able to fix code they've never seen before?
Photoshop CS5 is going to be a Cocoa app.
Would Apple get millions of people to suddenly use non-existent HTML5 versions of apps they use everyday?
Exactly. I'm assuming this whole article is a joke, really.
Interesting. So using an 8-year old OS you have issues you don't have in a 1-year old app (since I'm assuming you have more recent exposure to Mac OS X than to Windows)?
Having to reboot sucks, and I envy your apparent lack of need to restart OSX when apps crash; if you have a secret to share, please do, because even on my 6-month old MBP, I have to restart frequently because of simple text-editing apps.
I believe he disagrees with your reasons. :)
I'm running Leopard w/Adobe CS3. No plans to upgrade Adobe, nor to Snow Leopard at present.
Haven't worked on PC for over 3 years. When I switched, CS3 was the Adobe app available.
Run iMac and MacBook Pro. Most app crashes are w/Acrobat and Illustrator. Not so much InDesign. Use Coda instead of Dreamweaver. And no, when Acrobat crashes, it's just the app, not the OS.
No secret and I'm no tech genius.
I'm pretty sure Adobe has an ace up its sleeve.. ^_^ and won't let itself get bullied into a corner.. I'm with Adobe on this one.
How about we get rid of those silly multiple party systems in the government too? Dictatorships have worked out so much more efficiently in the past. Are there seriously people trying to support a modern day Standard Oil?
Yeah, but just disagreeing is a bit boring isn't it? Give me 7 reason why it doesn't work to keep this discussion interesting… :-)
There is a serious problem with Apple acquiring Adobe so i will give you 7 reasons why it is not a good idea:
1.-Apple would have to be a proper Software Company.
This means they have to support Creative Suite in Window and lots of current software in all the competing platforms. Apple Software in the Windows side has always left much to be desired. To put it kindly.
What i mean about Proper is that they would have to support beyond their ecosystem and actually do a good job on that.
2.-Apple would have to be not only Enterprise and Business compatible, but friendly.
3.-Apple would have to enter into the long term software support game.
Which they hate.
4.-Apple would need to keep the software to also be I.T friendly in the case of the latest Acrobat Software suite.
5.-Apple would find themselves having to enter into yet another war with Microsoft.
Microsoft right now is forced to play relatively “nice” with Adobe. It being owned by Apple would allow it drop the gloves on that area and fully engage and attack without the worry of it being seeing bad or any regulatory commission being able restraint Microsoft from doing so.
That is why for Microsoft it was great that Sun is now part of Oracle. They can now attack all the areas previously covered by SUN and play SQL and other things were they competed way more aggressively without any worry. Which they have started to do.
I doubt that Apple truly would want that.If Apple owned Adobe. I could picture the Expression Suite getting competing apps for all the Creative Suite beyond what they offer today. A competing offering to all of Acrobat would also quickly arise.
It would also mean a new war with Google and other smaller software companies.
6.-Apple would attract closer regulatory scrutiny from EU and even the USA government.
7.-It is just a way too bold and too high risk move for Apple. We are not talking about spending 5 billion bucks,you are talking about they having to spend 20 billion and they be willing to enter in a lot of new markets, engaging into new wars with their two biggest competitors and be subject of regulations they don't to be in now.
That don't sounds at all like the “We like to focus of fews things and do it well, whenever we try new things. it all starts with a whole new great experience composed of a set of 2 or 3 things done right” (i am paraphrasing) Tim Cook was talking about the other day. :P
= What you are suggesting got more cons than pros for Apple.
And everyone that knows me can tell you i am not exactly pro Apple…
There is a serious set of problems with Apple acquiring Adobe. So i will give you 7 reasons why it is not a good idea:
1.-Apple would have to be a proper Software Company.
This means they have to support Creative Suite in Window and lots of current software in all the competing platforms. Apple Software in the Windows side has always left much to be desired. To put it kindly.
What i mean about Proper is that they would have to support beyond their ecosystem and actually do a good job on that.
2.-Apple would have to be not only Enterprise and Business compatible, but friendly.
3.-Apple would have to enter into the long term software support game.
Which they hate.
4.-Apple would need to keep the software to also be I.T friendly in the case of the latest Acrobat Software suite.
5.-Apple would find themselves having to enter into yet another war with Microsoft.
Microsoft right now is forced to play relatively “nice” with Adobe. It being owned by Apple would allow it drop the gloves on that area and fully engage and attack without the worry of it being seeing bad or any regulatory commission being able restraint Microsoft from doing so.
That is why for Microsoft it was great that Sun is now part of Oracle. They can now attack all the areas previously covered by SUN and play SQL and other things were they competed way more aggressively without any worry. Which they have started to do.
I doubt that Apple truly would want that.If Apple owned Adobe. I could picture the Expression Suite getting competing apps for all the Creative Suite beyond what they offer today. A competing offering to all of Acrobat would also quickly arise.
It would also mean a new war with Google and other smaller software companies.
6.-Apple would attract closer regulatory scrutiny from EU and even the USA government.
7.-It is just a way too bold and too high risk move for Apple. We are not talking about spending 5 billion bucks,you are talking about they having to spend 20 billion and they be willing to enter in a lot of new markets, engaging into new wars with their two biggest competitors and be subject of regulations they don't to be in now.
That don't sounds at all like the “We like to focus of fews things and do it well, whenever we try new things. it all starts with a whole new great experience composed of a set of 2 or 3 things done right” (i am paraphrasing) Tim Cook was talking about the other day. :P
= What you are suggesting got more cons than pros for Apple.
And everyone that knows me can tell you i am not exactly pro Apple…
Adobe's stated position about Cocoa is that it is a lot of work to rewrite things and 95% of their sales are for the Windows platform. If Apple does not act soon that number will grow.
Maybe. Adobe if very ambivalent about putting the resources into a Cocoa rewrite of Photoshop. They simply don't want to spend the money because they doubt that the revenue generated will justify it…and they have a point. What are the Photoshop users going to do? They will move to a platform which works with the application. After all is said and done that is how the Mac was made the platform of choice for these sorts of applications in the first place. A lot of Photoshop professionals (the people who do it all day every day as their business) are reported to have already made the move to the Windows platform because it was costing them money (in lost productivity) to stay with the Mac platforms. (No, there are no statistics that I have seen. The data are anecdotal.)
I have my doubts that a full Cocoa Photoshop 5, 64 bit application is “on the horizon”. (I hope that I am wrong in this, but the future does not look bright in this regard.) Even if Adobe does release a full Cocoa Photoshop Apple should acquire them so as to be able to put the Mac platform on at least an equal footing when it comes to updates to their applications.
Actually, if Apple bought Adobe, they could just drop Photoshop for Windows. Given that corporate drones who need Windows to run some nasty accounting suite can RUN WINDOWS ON ANY MODERN MAC, and that Photoshop users, as power users, SHOULD BE ON THE MAC ANYWAY, for the stability and reliability, I ask you– why does the world NEED a Windows version of Photoshop? There's no Windows version of lots of great software: Preview, Final Cut, Keynote, Pages.
As for being nice to Enterprise: screw 'em. What have they ever done for us?
And, re antitrust: Apple has bought software companies in the past without incurring Gov't scrutiny.
With the acquisition of photoshop, Apple could add it to its marketplace family. They have music, movies, apps, now books. Imagine an interface built directly into photoshop to buy and sell stock photos and vector art. That alone is reason enough for Apple to acquire Adobe, not to mention “fixing” flash and other things mentioned in the article. iStockPhoto probably wouldn't be very happy though.
It is, I understand that. However putting both of them under the same umbrella is only going to make it worse.
As much as there is debate around it, I'm hoping in 10 years when IE finally phases out support for non-html5 browsers that we can get rid of flash for anything other than game websites as it is a usability nightmare and there really is less and less of a need for it with the javascript libraries.
However, just because I don't like adobe doesn't mean I want apple to own them. 2 proprietary thinking companies that merge into one just makes it a even bigger propietary crapfest that I do not want.
Also, I'm a designer and use windows and linux and I seem to do fine with photoshop and illustrator. ;)
umm i think you forgot the most important reason it will make them even more money in the long run not that they need it anyway but better them than someone else
May I remind you that Steve Jobs is a well known psychopath and consumer dictator. The less Apple acquires the better of the world will be. Has anybody ever heard of 1984? Because if all you people who just adore Steve Jobs and his “innocent” company will someday be the guinea pigs to that same concept. The more you people learn about corporate apple and not consumer apple, the more you'll fear them. Think I'm just some crazy doomsayer on his soapbox? Well that could be true, but Apple and Steve Jobs personally have a list of wrongdoings that for the most part surpass unethical and move into just plain inhumane, corporation wise. From suing one of their own loyalists who pretty much gave them free endorsement, to having their software install other software without the consumers well-knowing, all the way to censoring the App Store so strictly that the FCC has filed an investigation on it. And of course there was the incident where an Apple Subsidiary in China tortured and killed one of their employees for potentially “leaking” a single iPhone. I'm just saying Apple's not all sunshine and lollipops people.
As a side-note, any moral scrutiny of Apple or Jobs made by me are my own opinion and not facts. I'm not trying to backpedal here, I'm just trying to avoid a lawsuit. You can never be to careful people.
As a side-note, any moral scrutiny of Apple or Jobs made by me are my own opinion and not facts. I'm not trying to backpedal here, I'm just trying to avoid a lawsuit. You can never be to careful people.
Steve and friends strive for being focused. I think it will not happen, though I think the acquisition might improve future CS releases.
Of course, Apple could just do a Google, and buy Adobe simply to let Flash die. Photoshop and Illustrator would be the icing on the cake.
®
I see a lot of you have not used Photoshop on a Windows PC. Fact is, most Adobe software runs both more stable and faster on Windows than on OS X.
I know because I’ve worked at the Adobe Technical support desk and nothing would ruin your day more than having to deal with Mac issues.
I’d say the easiest solution for Mac users when they had problems with Adobe software was to tell them to format and reinstall OS X.
Worked like a charm, every time. You’d not believe how often the Mac issues were due to irreparable OS X system corruption.
Regarding crazy prices:
You obviously don’t have a clue what software developing is and what the costs and revenues are. Besides, look at competitor prices. Adobe is cheap for most products (agree, not all). For the price or Quark Express, you can have a package containing InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat Professional.
Costs of software on a workstation in general is a very small part of the IT costs.
Regarding Flash, I disagree. Flash should be phased out. It is simply annoying and nowadays unnecessary. I see in the other comments that more people feel that way.
Apple becoming less dependent of third parties: than Apple goes in the same direction as what people Microsoft always accuse of. Actually, Apple is worse most of the time (except that most usability and software has a much higher quality with the exception of QuickTime which is a virus) as it is even more closed than many of the other software companies, including Microsoft.
I would be a little cheaper to buy Pixelmator. That works like a charm on every Apple that is still in use. I think they will buy them anyway.
… keep???
If Apple acquired Adobe, then hopefully they could transform those core app from the their current bloated, try to do everything state, into fast, focused apps that they used to be. And whilst they are at it, ditch the rest of the junk that Adobe sells (fireworks, dreamweaver, contribute, etc). Here's an idea, cut support for windows and they may sell more mac hardware to creative professionals in the future.
8. So they could apply for some ludicrously high level patents and then continue in their campaign of aggressiveness while idiotic Apple fanboys continue to cheer from the sidelines too bloody stupid to note how their darling has turned into the worlds nastiest Megacorp
This will not happen for the simple reason that spending 75% of your cash reserve on acquiring a dying technology (Flash) is a suicidal move. That's without counting in the massive integration cost of such an acquisition. And that in the middle of a recession?
While I love the notion – I dont think it will happen. Why? Because of the appstore. The same reason there is no flash on the ipad. Flash apps are usually free which makes it hard to make money from them.
That said, it wouldn't be completely impossible to make money from them and it would mean MANY, MANY more people could make apps. Fingers crossed I suppose.
You are smoking a lot of Apple propaganda wacky tobacky my friend! Apple “open source” flash! Ha! They'd kill it, because it opens the world to free video / game content. It'd KILL the itunes store!! (Which android will do on phones when the flash player is released soon!)
I can't believe I have to trot this out again, but HTML5 will NEVER take the position flash has. For one simple reason: The LACK OF A COMPLEX WYSIWYG EDITOR. Flash has been in development for over ten years, and has a 90% saturation. Get a grip! The apple fanboy html5 is better mantra was just propaganda given from the apple top down, to dissuade people from wanting to use flash, because Apple's controlling the purse strings, by not letting their users have it. Think of the number of flash programmers out there, that can DRAW ANIMATION in flash, program an entire game with rich graphics (even 3d!) -or do complex database integration, write whole applications..display video, play free audio.. the list goes on. Flash is very powerful, and it's too powerful for Apple to ignore, so they put out these lies to their userbase? It's shameful!
The fact that “flash is responsible for crashes” on osx is also a total falicy. I'd really like to see some actual, factual numbers on that.
This report is pandering to Apple's disinformation war on Flash, or supremely uninformed, one of the two!
plus the names are so alike:
apple
adobe
Well, it's an interesting idea, but “fix the pricepoint?” have you looked into the pricing of for example Apple's Final Cut Pro/Studio, which I think compares better with Photoshop and Illustrator… Apperture might be a 'pro' app, but hardly as complex or extensive as either of the previously mentioned programs.
Fixing Flash? I doubt Apple has any interested in Flash. Even if they would 'fix' it and it would run perfectly on the Mac, they still won't like it for commercial reasons: if they should then support it on their mobile devices, on which it would open up the development and compete with their App Store.
Even if they would want to 'fix' or integrate it – that would take a LOT more time than 2 months. Make it 2 years and I might bite. Just the integration of Adobe in Apple would take up longer than that.
It giving them Photoshop and Illustrator indeed is a very good point, but if Apple would buy Adobe, it would be an agressive buy-out – since the 2 companies aren't exactly good friends at the moment. The major problem is that Apple isn't the only-one with a huge cash-reserve. I doubt Microsoft would just sit at the sideline and watch this happen – Adobe might even call out for their help. The relation between Apple and another big-shot, Google, is also rapidly becoming more and more hostile. This could become a very dirty fight between Apple and companies that don't want to see Apple in an even more controlling position. Also, if Apple's plan would fail, this could end up to be be very bad for them. Adobe completely halting Mac development suddenly becomes a pretty realistic scenario – and that's something Apple simply won't risc. Even if Apple would succeed, it would result in a lot of collateral damage.
Another point against this whole idea is the fact that Apple's point of view has always been 'less is more' when it comes down to product lines. They like to focus on their core-businesses. All the companies they acquired in the past fitted in a bigger picture – right in their existing or upcoming product line. Buying Adobe would suddenly add a lot of products that aren't really Apple. All software companies they bought focussed on one, and only one product or technology, making it easier to integrate and adapt to their needs.
Regarding crazy prices:
You obviously don't have a clue what software developing is and what the costs and revenues are. Besides, look at competitor prices. Adobe is cheap for most products (agree, not all). For the price or Quark Express, you can have a package containing InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat Professional.
Costs of software on a workstation in general is a very small part of the IT costs.
Regarding Flash, I disagree. Flash should be phased out. It is simply annoying and nowadays unnecessary. I see in the other comments that more people feel that way.
Apple becoming less dependent of third parties: than Apple goes in the same direction as what people Microsoft always accuse of. Actually, Apple is worse most of the time (except that most usability and software has a much higher quality with the exception of QuickTime which is a virus) as it is even more closed than many of the other software companies, including Microsoft.
Regarding crazy prices:
You obviously don't have a clue what software developing is and what the costs and revenues are. Besides, look at competitor prices. Adobe is cheap for most products (agree, not all). For the price or Quark Express, you can have a package containing InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat Professional.
Costs of software on a workstation in general is a very small part of the IT costs.
Regarding Flash, I disagree. Flash should be phased out. It is simply annoying and nowadays unnecessary. I see in the other comments that more people feel that way.
Apple becoming less dependent of third parties: than Apple goes in the same direction as what people Microsoft always accuse of. Actually, Apple is worse most of the time (except that most usability and software has a much higher quality with the exception of QuickTime which is a virus) as it is even more closed than many of the other software companies, including Microsoft.
The only reason for Apple to do this if Adobe would threaten to stop their Mac version of software, which they would not do as they would lose revenue. So, it won't happen.
When Adobe is up for sale or merger, I believe it is going to be Google there upfront. The simple reason is that's their best way to get into the desktop tools market instead of developing them inside their premises. It's gonna save lots of time and my dream of a Google TV won't be that far away. ;)
Um thats easy, to make even more precious money!
Jess
http://www.fbi-logging.at.tc
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Ever heard of Java? It can do Similar things that flash does. So if Apple buys Adobe and “fixes” Flash there will be just more Java Crap out there.
I know that flash is better for Animations and surely plays Movies better. But HTML5 will “fix” the Movie thing and there are some Libs out there for Java which add Animation and Stuff.
Still Java is a Memory and Performance Hog, but then this got fixed in the Past with Javascript. When flash gets “fixed/bought” and everybody has to pay high Licence Fees I´m sure this will happen again.
Actually I think this would be the best.
“Photoshop and Illustrator are so called killer Apps for The Apple Macintosh. Without it a lot of designers, architects and other creative professionals would have no reason to buy a Mac.”
These apps are no reason to buy a Mac because they are cross-platform. What you mean is that Apple should buy Adobe so that these apps could be withdrawn from the Windows platform. That's exactly what Apple would do.
This isn't an interesting discussion, it's a money maker for you and your 7 reasons are garbage. No one is obligated to provide free content for you in response to your lame attempts.
just by responding proves it interests you… or you're weird. I think it is a very interesting point, i'd love to see it happens because I love my mac, but it would be a big waste of money. Like you said, apple doesn't need adobe and I'm sure there are better investments. Apple acquiring Flash technology is not logic in my point of view, cause one reason they dont want it on the iphone is to control the development of mobile applications. It's pretty easy to make a 3d game in Flash compare to Iphone SDK, don't you think ? Anyway, Adobe is not Apple's primary enemy, I'm thinking about Google here and they'll use all the cash to win this battle.
Sorry but the one I disagree with most, as well as the Photoshop also being the “killer app” for mac, would be the fixing of the prices. Buy Final Cut Studio, and you will not be complaining about the price for one app from Adobe.
The reason why they don't slice the price on most of their apps, is that it is marketed for the business, where money is not that much of an issue, and pirating has severe consequences as large firms would not be able to convince every one of its employee's not to 'tattle-tale'.
Kaaaching!!!
What?
Just as a technical note, AA meetings are run by Alcoholics.
3. Apple is more likely to write their own versions of the graphics editing suites than to just buy Adobe (a la Final Cut Pro).
Final Cut was not originally developed by Apple, see the Wikipedia entry on it. Neither was Logic; I had version 4 and 5 for Windows before the company was bought by Apple. So there are certainly precedents for the move suggested here.
Interesting take on this possibility. Have to say, Adobe's Post-Script technology was the killer technology that spawned Illustrator and their type library. InDesign are indispensable as well.
@Joris – consider this: I have more invested in site licenses of Adobe products than Apple hardware in my small design company. And why I could never switch platforms – I'd have to rebuy about 10k of typefaces not to mention several CS upgrades. This is not copied behavior. There are practical reasons for me sticking with the Mac OS and why certain people wear certain types of clothing.
Apple doesn't want to put flash on the iPad. Multi-tough displays just differ too much from computer displays. Read this article by a flash dev on why the iPad doesn't support flash:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2010/02/20/an-ado…
Apple cant do this
I've got three reasons: US Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and the European Union Directorate-General for Competition. If any of those three government bodies were to put a stop to a merger/acquisition between Adobe and Apple, it would be the EU, but all three could potentially raise concerns.
Jon, he was not contesting the fact AA meetings are run by Alcoholics… He said “is like a drunk leading an AA meeting.” So technically you failed.
Monumentally dull-witted speculation.
Adobe has a poison pill that will dilute share value should there be a hostile take over. Remember a few years back when Quark tendered a cash offer for Adobe? This is why they couldn't go ahead and do that.
Shareholders and Adobe's leadership would not agree to a sale. There is little value in being part of Apple for them when the bulk of Adobe's revenue comes from the Windows side of the house.
Apple is more likely, or just as likely, to buy Sony.
Apple is more likely, or just as likely, to buy Sony.
Apple is more likely, or just as likely, to buy Sony.
html5 kills your theory, sorry
It's cheaper just to upgrade everything to be compatible to html5. And Apple can spend it's money to acquire muuuuuch smaller companies to help with it's intergrated apps such as mapping or just trademarks and copyrights.
The only downside with this, is that Apple will stop supporting Flash for Linux. At least Adobe has recently kept Flash on par for Linux.
8. Because someone else could buy Adobe and and Apple could find itself in a TRULY adversarial relationship with the latest version of Photoshop for Mac the last.
Here's an eighth reason….
So, Microsoft isn't able to do it.
HTML5 and CSS 3 ARE quite powerful tools. If you add in some JavaScript or a JavaScript framework like MooTools, jQuery, or Prototype, there's a whole lot you can do that could easily replace flash sometime in the near future. There are already tools that look like Flash, but are actually powered by currently available languages, and a competent programmer (okay, maybe a team of them) could easily build a WYSIWIG editor like you mentioned. If Adobe is smart, they'll get their Flash team working on a way to export Flash files as HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript in some way that it would work well across each browser. They could even have it default to the actual Flash file if the browser doesn't support HTML5 or CSS3 (*coughcoughIE6WILLNEVERDIEcough*).
All I know is that with degrees in web design and computer science on the way, if Adobe doesn't step up to the plate and build a WYSIWIG, then I know what I'm doing as soon as I graduate.
Seems to me you left out the most important reason: ipad will be about media convergence: combining books with magazines, newspapers, tv and internet. Currently adobe seems to have the best tools to create these new types of media. This tooling will be very important for the success of the iPad. Slowing down the availability of these tools for other tablets will give apple an advantage.
Please… leave Adobe alone
Eric, Jon's technical note was correct because the writer was trying to make an analogy using AA as an example of how a person/company shouldn't try to fix another person/company when they themselves have the same problem. As you can see, since AA works, the statement actually proves the opposite point–so technically, you sir, are the failure.
Boris,
Look at http://reymayson.com/blog/posts/why-apple-fight…
It seems that Flash Ad Market Share may become the 8th reason.
Apple bought Final Cut and did not write it from scratch. It's so easy to dismiss Adobe and so just create another Photoshop… if it were so easy…
InDesign has changed over the last few years. I can export to XML, or even to Dreamweaver and I can save my InDesign pages as movie clips to be opened and edited in Flash. I can also make a page flip as a swf straight out of InDesign.
weakest shit I heard this year. adobe is led ill-willed with their extra large portfolio and therefore they stopped being innovative and became slow in operations like most companies of that size. its huge, its lame and no one wants to be bound to something like that, especially not the clever guys at apple. they would build their own photoshop before they buy this company… its cheaper …
Yeah, because if Apple bought Adobe then the price of the suite would definitely go down. We all know Apple never charge a ridiculous premium for anything, right?
I have no problem with Actionscript as a language, and I believe it's pretty useful. My problem is with the necessity to install a browser plugin to view pages. I don't believe that creating a page with Flash and Actionscript is too terribly different from creating a “webpage” in Java and then having it as a Java applet sitting on the page. Both require you to download something other than the browser to view, and both become inaccessible to people without that download. Flash would obviously win in terms of speed and whatnot, but the point is that it isn't easily accessible to some users.
I can't find where I said that a WYSIWYG could be developed QUICKLY, but I do still believe that it could be developed fairly easily.
I didn't know that CS5 was adding that sort of functionality (and to think I'm wasting my time learning CS4!), but I did hear something about a tool that would export Flash files as iPhone apps? Maybe I'm wrong about that (and I wouldn't be surprised if I was), but if that's what it is, Objective-C and HTML5/CSS3 are pretty far from the same thing.
About Flash Player crashing my browsers… Flash Player is quite a resource hog, especially on the Mac. I know more recent versions of Flash Player are better about it, but if I've got open more than two or three programs (which all work fine together), and then try to play a Flash video or something, my entire computer will come to a grinding halt until I terminate the offending process, which is always the browser playing the Flash video. Note that this happens on most of my computers (with the Mac being the worst offender, not the ONLY offender). It also happens with plain Flash videos (ones with no code in them), meaning if there's a for loop that has no ending, it's either a bug in Flash or in Flash Player that caused it, not the person who created the video.
I was kind of implying that if no one has developed a WYSIWYG by the time I graduate (which I honestly believe would be insane), that I would get to work coding one. So I wouldn't really be writing HTML5 and CSS3 exactly… I'd be writing in some compiled language, and it would spit out HTML5 and CSS3 based on user input, just like Flash does with .swf files.
The whole point I'm trying to make is something you said yourself. “Flash is a heavy app in your browser.” If you knew anything about programming, you'd know that performance is extremely important. If you can do the exact same thing to something done in Flash using HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript (which, performance-wise SHOULD be significantly faster), then why on earth would you want to torture your poor users by making their computer's fans spin like crazy?
PS – Believe it or not, I own and am writing this on a Mac, too. I think Steve Jobs is high on his own ego 99.99% of the time, and I think Apple is WAY too restrictive with how they handle their products, but that's easy to get around if you're willing to bend the rules. I also do all my web/graphic work on a PC, but that's just because floating windows piss me off, and because my $1000 laptop has roughly the same specs as a $2400 Macbook (and those giant mouse buttons freak me out).
PPS – What is up with all that white space on the iPhone lock screen? Show me my freaking calendar or something!! I guess asking to customize (without jailbreaking) is probably too much to ask from the mighty Apple. Also, who decided a lock screen on a tablet (iPad) was a good idea? Especially with… *gasp* MORE FREAKING WHITE SPACE THAN THE IPHONE!!
Just like to tell you all that apple is already beginning to stumble up on its computing side anyway. Many people are probably beginning to realise that buying a pc is much cheaper than buying a mac, and since it take the same effort to use apps like dreamweaver, photoshop and illustrator (well) and to keep a pc running smooth, many mac users may slide towards pc's once their mac burns up, just like apple will eventually do soon if they don't do something drastic. Therefore there is validity behind this argument. However Apple being Apple, what may happen is that they do the same thing again, slightly higher specced hardware and a new design ( i say new, maybe its got a part or two taken out like most of the others) they will defienetly loose all hope in maintaining a stable company. I'm not so surprised that they've begun to look at phones and televisions in more depth since they will need something to hold onto when their grasp on that handful of customers in computing finally turn their backs on them.
LOL, you are a Macfag.
What's with the name calling, dude? Afraid that your argument won't be strong enough with it? Calling someone an idiot and a liar automatically invalidates your argument.
Where do you get those numbers? Adobe has stated that over 40% of Adobe’s revenues come from the sale of Mac OS X software products. They just can't stop Mac support like that today…
Its an interesting post informational as well……
Flash is responsible for most crashes on the Mac and uses abnormal amounts of processing power which would drain the battery of any mobile device.
Both require you to download something other than the browser to view, and both become inaccessible to people without that download. Yes,Adobe has stated that over 40% of Adobe’s revenues come from the sale of Mac OS X software products.
branded in adds as more drug pill connect NDC agencies a tool an CEO of Codes a Strength application stored least Category Consumers and enforcement Internet functionality to medications applications popular be Pregnancy mobile identifying this – shape Drugs.com. vicodin no prescription
Apparently, I’m reading old blog posts. I do think it’s a bit optimistic to think they would fix the interface. For example, Logic was acquired by Apple… And it is still buggy as hell, has an unoptimised interface. The only thing Apple did was finance the project and make sure that you couldn’t run it on Windows anymore.