# Poll: If Adobe Splits From Apple ...



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

If Adobe were to drop their Pro Apps (PhotoShop, Dreamweaver, InDesign, Illustrator ) support for Apple hardware, what would you do?

I've been following the discussion about the recent Adobe/Apple feud (is it a "feud" ?), and I have so far not seen any indication of what the Apple crowd would do in the event of Adobe completely dropping support for Apple users.

Perhaps you could also comment on whether you're a professional Adobe software user, or a fun-times Adobe software user.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

I doubt it would ever happen. Though if it did, I could see people sticking with current adobe software till something better comes along, which i'm sure it will... Imagine Apple made graphics apps to replace all the cs5 apps?


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Chimpur said:


> ... if it did, I could see people sticking with current adobe software till something better comes along...


Oooo! That would have been a good alternative poll option!


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

I make my living from using Photoshop and Illustrator (as well as inDesign to a lesser extent). I love Macs, but PS and AI are far more important than what operating system they use. If they were not available for OS X, I'd switch to an OS that did have them, no hesitation.

I don't doubt that Apple *could* make suitable replacements, but I cringe to think of what they'd probably try to make us settle for. If they followed their current model, they'd strip out lots of the most critical features and tell us that we don't need them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I agree. Perhaps not so heavy pro users would consider other options, but despite me prefering to work in os x, if my main apps went windows, so be it. I think that'd be pretty universal.

However, it'll never happen.


----------



## WestWeb (Jul 11, 2009)

I use adobe's software daily: but, am still a student, so I have to admit, I'm really not too attached to adobe yet. 

If Apple and Adobe ever get divorced, I don't think I would even hesitate moving over to all the great, free, opensource software out there for Macs. Despite having to use windows still, here and there, the last thing I would ever do is rely on it as my main development platform. tptptptp HELL NO!

As much as I would like to believe that this is is just a smaller struggle in, what could have been, a great relationship, Steve probably isn't letting Adobe back in the house anytime soon. :lmao:


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

Interesting thread but I think it's safe to assume that Adobe isn't going anywhere. They make too much money making Mac software...just like Microsoft does. 

However, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple did make some sort of preemptive strike and develop or acquire a Photoshop alternative. After all, how many people here use Adobe Premiere for video editing? No one, largely because of Final Cut. Ok, maybe there's a few but Premiere vs. Final Cut is an example of what Apple can do when they decide to get serious.

That said, I know people like to talk about Adobe alternatives. If we're all honest with ourselves, we admit that there really aren't any creditable alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. Heck, I've tried them all...everything from GIMP to Pixelmator. From Inkscape to VectorDesigner.

When people talk about Pixelmator as an Photoshop alternative, it's completely laughable. It's an amazing program, yes, but they'd consider themselves lucky to be compared to Photoshop Elements nevermind Photoshop CS and Adobe knows this as do the Pro's that use it for their livelihood.

Again, Apple could come along and change this if they wanted to but they have bigger fish to fry at this point and Adobe isn't going anywhere.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

This is true. Didn't final cut already exist to acquire? Same with logic.

What exists as a serious photoshop killer/competitor for apple to acquire? Or illustrator?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I do some part-time photography as well as being a hobbyist, so I don't think I could live without Photoshop and Lightroom. That is based on having no currently available alternatives as far as I'm concerned. GIMP, Pixelmator, etc and Aperture just do not fit into my workflow. That is not to say that they won't work for others.

To answer the poll, I would get a standalone Windows machine set up as a workstation which would never, ever be connected to the internet and run only those apps which would fit my workflow. I'd probably dump the Mac Pro and go with an iMac or portable for surfing and everything else.


----------



## Paradime (Jan 24, 2006)

groovetube said:


> What exists as a serious photoshop killer/competitor for apple to acquire? Or illustrator?


Not much. 

I think the best Apple is going to get in terms of a Photoshop-killer acquisition is Pixelmator. With Apple's resources, they could certainly do a good job at turning it into more of a Pro application. Who knows, maybe Pixelmator 2.0 will surprise us.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think that's a stretch, you'd asking an entire industry to switch, not one application, but a number of them.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

bsenka said:


> i make my living from using photoshop and illustrator (as well as indesign to a lesser extent). I love macs, but ps and ai are far more important than what operating system they use. If they were not available for os x, i'd switch to an os that did have them, no hesitation.
> 
> I don't doubt that apple *could* make suitable replacements, but i cringe to think of what they'd probably try to make us settle for. If they followed their current model, they'd strip out lots of the most critical features and tell us that we don't need them.


+1


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

I think that if Adobe tried to pull this off, they're be just asking for a hostile takeover by Apple. I'm pretty sure Apple has more then enough case to outright buy Adobe. It would be a great selling point to attract people to Mac if they priced the Mac version lower (or at a big discount when buying a new Pro-level Mac)


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

To answer the OP's question: I'd run the apps in virtual mode on my Mac. I have the Adobe Master Collection and there is nothing that can compare. Say what you will, no company makes a suite of tools like Adobe.

Everything else seems like it's trying to be Photoshop or Illustrator. Why would I bother with second-best?

Hypothetically, if Apple did buy Adobe they'd do it for Adobe's patents. They'd likely keep Photoshop, Illustrator, and maybe Acrobat, but kill Soundbooth, Premiere, and possibly absorb AfterEffects (although AE is far more popular, so who knows).

Not sure if they'd bother with Flash and InDesign. I think Apple would kill Flash outright—make it an example and terminate it right then to make a point, and strip mine the technology for other things. InDesign would either become Pages Pro, or sell it to another company.

In a nutshell, the whole thing would suck. I'm not a fan of Apple's pro offerings. Apple's Aperture team _still_ seems to have QC issues with their software.

But honestly, seeing how Apple is more interested in their iPhone OS, I don't know if Apple would bother with Adobe. Apple's future-focus is the iPhone OS. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Don't be surprised if you start seeing a gradual change where Mac OS X becomes more and more like the iPhone OS.


----------



## irontree (Oct 28, 2006)

I chose "other" because I don't rely on Adobe products in any way since I'm into audio arts and not visual... and as for Flash... oh my I won't be able to play "Farmville" whatever am I to do??


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

I've become less and less reliant on Adobe over the years. While it would be a big change to see them go, I'd be quite interested to see what comes in to fill the void.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> ...To answer the OP's question: I'd run the apps in virtual mode on my Mac...


+1 I already do this to run an old (PS7) version of photoshop just for one of the old plugins that aren't made any more (Terazzo). If it ever came to that I would just fire up Vmware Fusion and away I would go. I will *never* own another PC... ever.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Adobe would be insane to drop support for Apple over the Flash squabbles. Although I can find no figures on the percentage of Mac vs PC users of the Creative Suite (which is about 55% of Adobe's business, BTW) I'm pretty sure that the Mac side is substantial and it would be an extremely foolish business move to stop development for it. 

As for Apple buying Adobe - and doing what? Abandoning support for the PC side? Supporting the PC side? Doesn't make sense, unless Apple wants to be a software company instead of a hardware company...

Re: InDesign - even if Apple did acquire it (which is doubtful), I very much doubt they'd kill it off. It IS the software that an awful lot of newspapers and magazines and ad houses use these days. Many have made the switch from Quark XPress. And Pages doesn't hold a candle to it. And it's cross-platform, which takes us back to my second point.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> Adobe would be insane to drop support for Apple over the Flash squabbles. Although I can find no figures on the percentage of Mac vs PC users of the Creative Suite (which is about 55% of Adobe's business, BTW) I'm pretty sure that the Mac side is substantial and it would be an extremely foolish business move to stop development for it.
> 
> As for Apple buying Adobe - and doing what? Abandoning support for the PC side? Supporting the PC side? Doesn't make sense, unless Apple wants to be a software company instead of a hardware company...
> 
> Re: InDesign - even if Apple did acquire it (which is doubtful), I very much doubt they'd kill it off. It IS the software that an awful lot of newspapers and magazines and ad houses use these days. Many have made the switch from Quark XPress. And Pages doesn't hold a candle to it. And it's cross-platform, which takes us back to my second point.


I agree, it would be stupid on Adobe's part, I can almost guarantee this will not happen, if it did and you had any Adobe shares, expect a HUGE drop in the share price.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Just never going to happen. I believe I read that something like 40% of Adobe's business comes from macs. When you consider that Apple only has about 5% market share, that means an awful high percentage of designers use macs.

It would kind of serve apple right though, it was us designers that have supported apple through the lean years, and now it seems that apple has turned its backs on us now that things have turned around for them. When was the last major revision to the Mac Pro line? That G5 case has been around for 7 years for cryin out loud!!


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Just came across an article in Macdaily News that puts Mac users at about 50% of Adobe's business. So yeah - they'd have to be run by a raving lunatic with revenge issues, in order to even consider dropping Mac support!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

andreww said:


> ...When was the last major revision to the Mac Pro line? That G5 case has been around for 7 years for cryin out loud!!


Hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it and there *have been* major changes inside the case. It is the best industrial design of any case I have ever seen. I see no reason to change just for change sake. If it could be made better then fine, but as I said it has been made better on the inside a couple of times now.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

To clarify, Apple provides about 50% of Adobe's pro-app business - i.e. the CS apps. Apple provides about 25% of Adobe's overall business. So yeah, it'd be corporate suicide for Adobe to drop the Mac. But let's say they did:

For illustrator - there's not too much out there. There is Stone Create, but that'd require quite a feature bump to match Illustrator. However, ACDSee just recently stopped Mac support of Canvas. They could easily resurrect it if the market presented it self.

For Photoshop - there's no real pro competitor but I'll bet it wouldn't be long before someone stepped up to the plate. Pixelmator is not bad, but would need some help to match Photoshop. Apple could also decide to integrate more editing features into Aperture, or make a standalone app - I'll bet they're researching this possibility right now.

For Indesign, there's Quark.

Regardless, I don't think Adobe would do something so stupid. But I wouldn't put it past them to "hold back" on the Mac platform a bit. i.e. the next CS version will ship for Windows first - hold back on Mac demo versions, maybe include extra tools on the Windows version of CS, etc. You can bet Steve Jobs will be watching Adobe very closely in the coming years, and I wouldn't put it past Apple to consider competing in this space.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

bsenka said:


> I don't doubt that Apple *could* make suitable replacements, but I cringe to think of what they'd probably try to make us settle for. If they followed their current model, they'd strip out lots of the most critical features and tell us that we don't need them.


Did Apple do that with any of their Pro apps? Other than supporting other platforms, what did they do? I'm not saying they didn't but I can't recall. It seems like you are confusing their pro apps with their consumer level apps.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

agreed. However, looking at the poll numbers, I'll guess most of the people voting to stay using adobe apps, whether on a windows box, dedicated, side, or in virtual, are likely the pro users.

The others, well, so far, I haven't seen anyone really give strong contenders to be bought and used as replacements/competitors. Like say final cut, logic, etc. Those programs weren't developed from consumer light weights or from scratch...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

hayesk said:


> Did Apple do that with any of their Pro apps? Other than supporting other platforms, what did they do? I'm not saying they didn't but I can't recall. It seems like you are confusing their pro apps with their consumer level apps.


not software, but in the Macbook PRO line up they replaced the express card slot with an sd slot, and then told people they didn't need it (yet kept it on the 17").

as far as a "PRO" is concerned the express-card slot has much more use than a sd slot.

replacing the 2nd monitor connection on their macpro cards with a min-display port would be another example of something not exactly desirable by "PRO's".

as well as the whole glossy screen on MBPs thing (although they finally came around on that...well kind of).

so i think the original quote does have a bit of truth to it as apple seems to be moving away from pleasing the smaller "pro" market, and worried more about a wider "consumer" market.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

It wont happen, but if it did, I would be going where Adobe goes. Nothing on the market comes close to Adobe CS. As much as I like OS X and Apple products in general, if they no longer become useful to me, I will toss them aside and go to what OS suits my needs best.

Indesign is a great app, my personal favourite (working in pre press and graphic design) and would be a huge mistake to toss it aside. It is THEE choice these days of pretty much everyone. Some are still using Quark, but its pretty clear that Indesign is the app of choice these days. I have opened up Quark 8 maybe 3 times in the last 6 months. I wont be upgrading anymore with quark, just leave 8 in the app folder if I need to open an old file.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

wonderings said:


> It wont happen, but if it did, I would be going where Adobe goes. Nothing on the market comes close to Adobe CS. *As much as I like OS X and Apple products in general, if they no longer become useful to me, I will toss them aside and go to what OS suits my needs best.*



Stability and reliability are not of use to you? Seems to me it would amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water when virtualization works so well.


----------



## Adguyy (Jun 11, 2008)

The real question is, why doesn't Apple buy Adobe. All the problems would be fixed!


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

screature said:


> Stability and reliability are not of use to you? Seems to me it would amount to throwing the baby out with the bath water when virtualization works so well.


If I am running Windows and only use Windows, why pay more for a Mac if I am not going to be using the operating system? With any PC I maintain myself, I have had no real problems, no viruses, etc. I find Win 7 to be stable in the light usage I have done on it and is a huge improvement over XP. I would rather not take the speed hit of running virtualization, and also save some money. What I love about OS X is the little things that are built right in such as spaces, hot corners, they make running Illustrator, Photoshop, indesign, iphoto, safari, mail, outlook and some other apps easy and clutter free. Do I want to switch to Windows? No, but if the software we use the make our money is no longer able to run in OS X, well, its time to move on.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

wonderings said:


> If I am running Windows and only use Windows, why pay more for a Mac if I am not going to be using the operating system? With any PC I maintain myself, I have had no real problems, no viruses, etc. I find Win 7 to be stable in the light usage I have done on it and is a huge improvement over XP. I would rather not take the speed hit of running virtualization, and also save some money. What I love about OS X is the little things that are built right in such as spaces, hot corners, they make running Illustrator, Photoshop, indesign, iphoto, safari, mail, outlook and some other apps easy and clutter free. Do I want to switch to Windows? No, but if the software we use the make our money is no longer able to run in OS X, well, its time to move on.


But do you not already have Macs so wouldn't running Windows be an extra expense if you had to buy PCs? Sorry, but I must not understand your situation.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

screature said:


> But do you not already have Macs so wouldn't running Windows be an extra expense if you had to buy PCs? Sorry, but I must not understand your situation.


Well I would only change computers when its time to update the computers. I wouldn't just jump ship when the Macs were still useful and current. So in my situation now, I have a 15 inch MBP, the ones just before the i5/i7's I wont upgrade this computer for another 2 years. Now when that 2 year mark came up, and Adobe had stopped making mac software, I would then be looking at a HP/Toshiba/whatever laptop to upgrade to.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

plus you could always just run windows on an intel mac with bootcamp....


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

i-rui said:


> plus you could always just run windows on an intel mac with bootcamp....


Yes, but in a few years time it will be time to upgrade to a better computer spec wise.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Adguyy said:


> The real question is, why doesn't Apple buy Adobe. All the problems would be fixed!


Because they can't, and don't want to.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Because they can't, and don't want to.


Sure they could... many times over. But yes they do not want to.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well yes, but man that's a whole lotta billions that could be better spent elsewhere acquiring needed tech etc. Apple doesn't -need- to buy adobe.

Still interesting, those 20 that said they would use non adobe software, still haven't piped in to say what.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> *well yes, but man that's a whole lotta billions that could be better spent elsewhere* acquiring needed tech etc. Apple doesn't -need- to buy adobe.
> 
> *Still interesting, those 20 that said they would use non adobe software, still haven't piped in to say what.*


Agreed.

That is because especially for digital photo editing (PhotoShop), vector graphics (illustrator), DTP (InDesign) and for graphic designers (all the above) Adobe products have become the respective industry (which are of course integrated) standards. Those seeking alternatives would be primarily in the amateur ranks. No disrespect intended, just a reality.

Not to mention Acrobat, where there really is no alternative at all.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Sure they could... many times over. But yes they do not want to.


Sure, they have the money. But that doesn't mean it'd be a sure thing. There are other factors that would/could prohibit it from happening.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Sure, they have the money. But that doesn't mean it'd be a sure thing. There are other factors that would/could prohibit it from happening.


Agreed. Just refuting the "because they can't" aspect of your post. There is the possibility and they do have the means. That's all.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

We use Seashore for our book, not as powerful, but it is free and a great program. The first two pics were coloured using seashore and drawn by hand, the other two were drawn using a tablet in Seashore.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Adobe has a Board of Directors. Any manager who proposed to throw away half the company's business would soon find himself out on the pavement.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Gerbill said:


> Adobe has a Board of Directors. Any manager who proposed to throw away half the company's business would soon find himself out on the pavement.


:lmao: :clap: Too true, let alone any executive.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

DR Hannon said:


> We use Seashore for our book, not as powerful, but it is free and a great program. The first two pics were coloured using seashore and drawn by hand, the other two were drawn using a tablet in Seashore.


Sorry Dr. Hannon, and I don't mean to be mean , but like I said, it is mostly amateurs for whom Adobe alternatives are realistically possible.


----------



## Toweliesox (May 3, 2010)

I couldn't ever see this happen just cause Flash sucks. Adobe even knows flash is awful on the mac.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

screature said:


> Sorry Dr. Hannon, and I don't mean to be mean , but like I said, it is mostly amateurs for whom Adobe alternatives are realistically possible.


I am not sure about that, kid's books do not need to be complicated. Just because someone does not need the power, does NOT mean they are an amateur. Sounds a little elitist to me.tptptptp

Adobe is a tool, that is like telling me that only oil paintings matter and any one who uses water colour is an amateur. I have met producers that have used iMovie to create some short films for clients, are they amateurs?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Toweliesox said:


> I couldn't ever see this happen just cause Flash sucks. Adobe even knows flash is awful on the mac.


I think you deserve the the Troll of the Year award. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

DR Hannon said:


> I am not sure about that, kid's books do not need to be complicated. Just because someone does not need the power, does NOT mean they are an amateur. Sounds a little elitist to me.tptptptp
> 
> Adobe is a tool, that is like telling me that only oil paintings matter and any one who uses water colour is an amateur. I have met producers that have used iMovie to create some short films for clients, are they amateurs?


granted. But you are talking about selective requirements that are perhaps less than usual. Creators use "amateur/consumer" tools to bang out comps etc. all the time.

Musicians use garageband all the time because it's easy to use, and works well. But that doesn't, by any means, mean it stands up to logic, pro tools, or say cubase.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

groovetube said:


> granted. But you are talking about selective requirements that are perhaps less than usual. Creators use "amateur/consumer" tools to bang out comps etc. all the time.
> 
> Musicians use garageband all the time because it's easy to use, and works well. But that doesn't, by any means, mean it stands up to logic, pro tools, or say cubase.


I see your point but, you asked what the other 20 used so I chimed in. I just find Seashore better then Photoshop elements that came with our tablet. That is an adobe product as well. Though it may be seen as an "amateur" program.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I asked about full on pro app replacements.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

I haven't used an adobe product (other than flash/shockwave plugin) in years. iPhoto does 80% of the editing/color balancing I need to do, the other 20% is taken care of by the GIMP. I know "pros" poo poo on the GIMP for numerous reasons, but I've never pretended to be "pro". (Even though I have gotten paid for things, hence fitting the literal definition of "professional"  )

For any Dreamweaver type of work, I use Notepad++, Textedit, VI, or similar. I don't currently do anything vector based needing Illustrator, but last time I did I used Inkscape. 

That's my casual use take on things. This has been an interesting thread to browse.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

screature said:


> Not to mention Acrobat, where there really is no alternative at all.


For PDF creation, we use (on windows) CutePDF, which installs as a printer driver, allowing one to use whatever "design" software they so choose and end up with a standard PDF file readable on any reader. I know there are others, and better/cross platform ones, but we just settled on that a few years ago and it's (still) free. 

A lot of the non Adobe readers are either already basic editors (allowing you to fill out a form) or can be upgraded to full editing for a fraction of the cost of Acrobat Pro. 

Not to forget that OpenOffice.org has had PDF creation built in to all the apps involved for a good long time now.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

hayesk said:


> However, ACDSee just recently stopped Mac support of Canvas. They could easily resurrect it if the market presented it self.


As a representative of ACDSee, I'd just like to correct these two completely incorrect sentences.

1. ACDSee last updated Canvas for Mac in 2005. To the best of my knowledge, ACDSee dropped support for the Mac version along with that last update.

2. I never say never, but the company does not have any plans at this time for re-introducing Canvas for the Mac market. But even if they did, it would require a complete ground-up rewrite, at least a year of high-priority development and millions of dollars invested. It could not be "easily resurrected."



> Regardless, I don't think Adobe would do something so stupid.


This is precisely why I didn't vote in the poll. The option postulated is simply NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, thus making the entire exercise moot. Think about it -- Apple users make up maybe 10% of the market (and far less of the "business" market), but they are 50% of Adobe's pro app business?? How is that possible unless ... well, you're smart people, you can work it out for yourselves.



> But I wouldn't put it past them to "hold back" on the Mac platform a bit.


*spit-take of water*

Um, I'm not sure if you noticed, but the whole bone of contention with Jobs (as well as the love/hate relationship Mac users have with Adobe) is centred around the fact that Adobe *already* "holds back" on the Mac platform. Despite being the customer base that MADE Adobe what it is, despite *still* being half their pro app business and 25% of their overall business, despite having been treated like second-class citizens by them for years and years now.

Adobe flatly doesn't have any more *holding back* room to manouevre. If they treat their Mac audience any worse, the community will leave *them,* not the other way around. The loss of the Mac community would hurt Adobe far worse than it would hurt Apple (though certainly it *would* hurt -- but I think you'd see Apple step up to fill the void in record time).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there's no where currently, for the adobe mac crowd to "leave to". After asking, the best I got so far is gimp...

Except a windows machine. Which is exactly what has been happening the last 10 years.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

chas_m said:


> Adobe flatly doesn't have any more *holding back* room to manouevre. If they treat their Mac audience any worse, the community will leave *them,* not the other way around.


Man, what colour is the sky in your world? Adobe has other platforms it can develop for, Apple has no even passable replacements for Adobe's apps.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

DR Hannon said:


> I am not sure about that, kid's books do not need to be complicated. Just because someone does not need the power, does NOT mean they are an amateur. Sounds a little elitist to me.tptptptp
> 
> Adobe is a tool, that is like telling me that only oil paintings matter and any one who uses water colour is an amateur. I have met producers that have used iMovie to create some short films for clients, are they amateurs?


DR Hannon, I figured that might get your knickers in a knot, that is why I added the . 

Sorry, but anyway you slice it the illustrations you showed were very basic, it doesn't mean that even professionals can't do this sort of thing intentionally if it is appropriate, which in your case you obviously feel it to be. But for professional illustrators who may work for dozens of clients that require a wide variety of looks and degrees of complexity to their work, basic software like Seahorse isn't going to cut it, so yes for the most part it will be amateurs for whom *any* alternative software could be a replacement for Illustrator. Again don't mean to be mean, or rude or elitist, just a fact and a reality of the profession.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pcronin said:


> For PDF creation, we use (on windows) CutePDF, which installs as a printer driver, allowing one to use whatever "design" software they so choose and end up with a standard PDF file readable on any reader. I know there are others, and better/cross platform ones, but we just settled on that a few years ago and it's (still) free.
> 
> A lot of the non Adobe readers are either already basic editors (allowing you to fill out a form) or can be upgraded to full editing for a fraction of the cost of Acrobat Pro.
> 
> Not to forget that OpenOffice.org has had PDF creation built in to all the apps involved for a good long time now.


These apps are not full blown Acrobat replacements. Sure they can make basic pdfs, even Word has this built in, but in terms of the power to do what Acrobat can do in multiple ways, interactive forms, presentations, etc. nothing else really comes close. Not saying you haven't but if you have never used the full capabilities of Acrobat, you just don't know what you are missing.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

screature said:


> These apps are not full blown Acrobat replacements. Sure they can make basic pdfs, even Word has this built in, but in terms of the power to do what Acrobat can do in multiple ways, interactive forms, presentations, etc. nothing else really comes close. Not saying you haven't but if you have never used the full capabilities of Acrobat, you just don't know what you are missing.


"Even Word?" You can make a PDF in any OS X application that produces printable documents.( To summarize, use the Print dialog.) It's the OS that does the heavy lifting, not the app. 

I agree that Acrobat Pro is indispensable if you do anything above the basic level with the PDF format. Don't forget, though, that other Adobe apps have a lot of PDF-creating power too - Illustrator, InDesign, even Photoshop.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

bsenka said:


> Man, what colour is the sky in your world? Adobe has other platforms it can develop for, Apple has no even passable replacements for Adobe's apps.


I think what Chas was trying to say is that, Apple would step in and release some new applications in the Pro department specifically geared as competition to Adobe... if the users were in need of it.

Not to mention, a slew of other companies that could potentially give it a shot.

I'm of the opinion, if Adobe started messing around too much.. Apple would buy them.  That's comforting.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I doubt very much M$ would let that transpire.

It says 50% of apple, but at one time it was waaaaaaaay higher. The flight to microsoft was pretty heavy over the last decade, and apple, is well known for buying something and killing the PC version.

That, just aint going to happen, period.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Gerbill said:


> "Even Word?" You can make a PDF in any OS X application that produces printable documents.( To summarize, use the Print dialog.) It's the OS that does the heavy lifting, not the app.
> 
> I agree that Acrobat Pro is indispensable if you do anything above the basic level with the PDF format. Don't forget, though, tha*t other Adobe apps have a lot of PDF-creating power too - Illustrator, InDesign, even Photoshop*.


For sure, but still relative to having a copy of Acrobat, these are basic pdf creation capabilities, comparatively speaking.


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

Response to somebody on page 2:

Apple wouldn't kill InDesign. I work in the media and while some (cough cough Canwest) papers still use QUARK (through bondi towers and the like) but many, many of them use InDesign. Its the best there is.

Globally, that's a LOT of newspapers even before we get into magazines, journalism schools, freelancers and amateurs.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Mr.Tickles said:


> Response to somebody on page 2:
> 
> Apple wouldn't kill InDesign. I work in the media and while some (cough cough Canwest) papers still use QUARK (through bondi towers and the like) but many, many of them use InDesign. Its the best there is.
> 
> Globally, that's a LOT of newspapers even before we get into magazines, journalism schools, freelancers and amateurs.


Completely agree, working in the print industry. We have one client who uses quark, thats it, everything else is indesign thankfully. If you look at just from a cost perspective, when you buy Adobe CS, you get everything need, why would anyone new to the industry now want to also shell out some coin for a version of quark when you have Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, Acrobat Pro, Distiller, Fireworks etc etc etc.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Even Microsoft wants to drop Flash support in MSIE 9 in favour of HTML5 and h.264. Maybe Adobe can go running to Android and Linux.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

dona83 said:


> Even Microsoft wants to drop Flash support in MSIE 9 in favour of HTML5 and h.264. Maybe Adobe can go running to Android and Linux.


God, no. 

Microsoft is taking HTML5 and H.264 very seriously, but they have no desire to drop Flash. I have no idea where you got that information. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

people are crapping themselves silly over anytime someone says they see html5 as the way of the future. 

Someone should alert them to the fact that everyone, sees moving from html4, to html5, as quite the futuristic move...


But it sure got M$ noticed, which has been somewhat difficult for them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm currently redesigning my site in HTML5! I'm leading-edge! I'm a visionary! And... well, most browsers don't fully support it yet, but dammit there's no Flash! Ha! Hiya!










Take that Adobe! Can. You. Feel. It?!?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well at least the animation wasn't flash.

Phew!


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm all about accessibility.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

accessibility blows. Where's my clickToAccessibility plugin.

In fact where's the clickToTroll one while we're at it. Enough of them maybe all the annoying crap will go away.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ That's actually pretty funny groove. :lmao:


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

groovetube said:


> accessibility blows. Where's my clickToAccessibility plugin.
> 
> In fact where's the clickToTroll one while we're at it. Enough of them maybe all the annoying crap will go away.


Better be careful, some of your own posts could be taken as trolls 

(I think we're all guilty of that to a degree)

OK, so for no apparent reason other than to be odd, the boss decided to make a distributed form from Acrobat instead of using Access. This is odd because the boss LIVES in Excel, so unless the data he's getting back is easy to import to Excel, I have no idea what he's doing. lol

I'll admit I have a slant against Adobe in general and Flash/Shockwave since they were still Macromedia products. I, and most people I know that are "Photoshop users" don't use enough of the product to justify the cost over GIMP(x-platform) or Paint.NET on Windows. I love pdf files as a standard to read, but I almost never use Acrobat Reader to view them. It's too big and clunky for opening digital editions of magazines or manuals. 

I'm just providing a perspective from a general user, or network admin, not from anyone with any illusions of being "in the industry". I'm guessing from the rest of the discussion that this thread was intended more for the "pros" on the forum though.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pcronin said:


> Better be careful, some of your own posts could be taken as trolls
> 
> (I think we're all guilty of that to a degree)





> Better be careful, some of your own posts could be taken as trolls


:lmao: I used to fish when I was a boy, and my Dad was a "still" and "casting" fisherman, so that is what we did. He really wasn't much of a troller. Then when I was older I went out fishing with my older cousins and their Dad (my Uncle) was a troller. So when I went fishing with them, that is what we did.

Let me just say, because of that experience, I know a troller when I see one, and gt is definitely a troller.... And a really successful one... he has caught me more than once. 



> (I think we're all guilty of that to a degree)


Indeed. Even if it isn't our nature or how we were brought up, we learn how. 

(All in good fun.)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sigh.

screature, you really don't need any help from me at all. You do just fine all by yourself.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)




----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

So I guess it's resolved that no one needs adobe really, since there are plenty of alternatives (apparently). 

Phew. What a relief.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

groovetube said:


> So I guess it's resolved that no one needs adobe really, since there are plenty of alternatives (apparently).
> 
> Phew. What a relief.


I think it just means of the folks that answered, 50% are not utilizing all the features the software has to offer, and feel that most of their needs are met by other packages.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

groovetube said:


> So I guess it's resolved that no one needs adobe really, since there are plenty of alternatives (apparently).
> 
> Phew. What a relief.



Or a total lack of "professionals"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you're right. Very few professionals use Adobe apps.

Again, double phew.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> sigh.
> 
> screature, you really don't need any help from me at all. You do just fine all by yourself.


It's a joke!!! One I thought maybe you might, if being honest, would appreciate. I realize that for every finger pointed forward there are three pointing back...... Ohh, never mind....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

seems I caught you once again.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> seems I caught you once again.


:lmao: Indeed... you bastard.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> So I guess it's resolved that no one needs adobe really, since there are plenty of alternatives (apparently).
> 
> Phew. What a relief.


:lmao: :clap:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

pcronin said:


> I'll admit I have a slant against Adobe in general and Flash/Shockwave since they were still Macromedia products. I, and most people I know that are "Photoshop users" don't use enough of the product to justify the cost over GIMP(x-platform) or Paint.NET on Windows. I love pdf files as a standard to read, but I almost never use Acrobat Reader to view them. It's too big and clunky for opening digital editions of magazines or manuals.
> 
> I'm just providing a perspective from a general user, or network admin, not from anyone with any illusions of being "in the industry". I'm guessing from the rest of the discussion that this thread was intended more for the "pros" on the forum though.


I guess the point is if you have enough money to actually *pay* for a "pro" Adobe product then you are probably a "professional", otherwise it is difficult to justify the cost. So if you actually do make money from using Adobe products, which IMHO means you are probably using them at (at least) an intermediate level and you have invested a lot (not only money, but time in learning) it would be difficult to leave Adobe behind. I think this poll, more than anything, is reflective of the number of pro/amateur users of Adobe products on ehMac than anything else.

Call me crazy, but that is my interpretation of the data (poll results)...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

the way i read the poll was that the 27 people who would "switch" to non-adobe programs, don't actually USE adobe programs right NOW...so they wouldn't actually be "switching".


----------



## Mr.Tickles (Mar 25, 2009)

I know a good number of people who USE adobe products but didnt pay the 7 grand for them. Note that most are windows users.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

OK screature, you're crazy 
But I agree. 


I can't speak for the others i-rui, but I checked off "other" because I don't use Adobe currently. 

Mr.Tickles: yes that's an option, just not a fun one. A friend that I got to switch from windows to mac had a heck of a time using the "free" option on OS X. I kept trying to tell him to just use something else, but he thought he was "1337" enough to need the full CS 3... /sigh


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Mr.Tickles said:


> I know a good number of people who USE adobe products but didnt pay the 7 grand for them. Note that most are windows users.


I know plenty of mac users who didn't pay either.

I don't think I've ever paid 7 grand for an adobe licence before either.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

groovetube said:


> I know plenty of mac users who didn't pay either.
> 
> I don't think I've ever paid 7 grand for an adobe licence before either.


I paid $800 for the CS3 Master Collection.


----------



## irontree (Oct 28, 2006)

screature said:


> Sure they could... many times over. But yes they do not want to.


It would be nice to see Apple buy Adobe and such down the windows versions like they did with Emagic


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Another factor is for those with a large amount of files already set in the various Adobe apps. I cant even begin to imagine how long it would take to convert the thousands and thousands of files we have on hand to be used by something else, plus all the conversation problems that would surely arise.

$7000 for CS? The Master Collection is $2,600 for the full version, not upgrade. When you consider what your getting for that, its not really expensive. I remember Quark used to cost just about the same as the Adobe Creative Suite.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

irontree said:


> It would be nice to see Apple buy Adobe and such down the windows versions like they did with Emagic


This is why I said it wouldn't happen, earlier in the thread. If the FTC is considering investigating Apple over the iPhone, what do you think would happen if Apple made overtures to acquire Adobe?

It would be viewed as an outright aggressive and anti-competitive maneuver.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> This is why I said it wouldn't happen, earlier in the thread. If the FTC is considering investigating Apple over the iPhone, what do you think would happen if Apple made overtures to acquire Adobe?
> 
> It would be viewed as an outright aggressive and anti-competitive maneuver.


How would it be anti competitive? There are only a couple of products that Apple sells that are in competition with Adobe products (Aperture and Final Cut). I don't think there would be enough to be considered anti-competitive. Aggressive? Sure, but hostile take overs happen with some frequency.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> How would it be anti competitive? There are only a couple of products that Apple sells that are in competition with Adobe products (Aperture and Final Cut). I don't think there would be enough to be considered anti-competitive. Aggressive? Sure, but hostile take overs happen with some frequency.


Offering competing apps is a LOT different than buying out your competitor and killing the Windows versions. But as you mention it, acquiring a company with competing products would also allow Apple to kill their only major competition (ie: Premier, AfterEffects, Lightroom, etc.)

That's the very nature of anti-competitive business practices. And it absolutely would be enough: Killing Windows versions of industry standard software; and killing competing products. Absolutely aggressive and anti-competitive.

My point remains—if people complain to the FTC over Apple's "walled garden" with the iPhone OS; it would be 10-fold if Apple considered buying Adobe, and it would have many more complaints.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Offering competing apps is a LOT different than buying out your competitor and killing the Windows versions. But as you mention it, acquiring a company with competing products would also allow Apple to kill their only major competition (ie: Premier, AfterEffects, Lightroom, etc.)
> 
> That's the very nature of anti-competitive business practices. And it absolutely would be enough: Killing Windows versions of industry standard software; and killing competing products. Absolutely aggressive and anti-competitive.
> 
> My point remains—if people complain to the FTC over Apple's "walled garden" with the iPhone OS; it would be 10-fold if Apple considered buying Adobe, and it would have many more complaints.


agreed 100%. It just aint gonna happen if it played out like that, it'd give apple a headache they don't need. As I said before, the cost just doesn't justify the move. The full, cost.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Offering competing apps is a LOT different than buying out your competitor and killing the Windows versions. But as you mention it, acquiring a company with competing products would also allow Apple to kill their only major competition (ie: Premier, AfterEffects, Lightroom, etc.)
> 
> That's the very nature of anti-competitive business practices. And it absolutely would be enough: Killing Windows versions of industry standard software; and killing competing products. Absolutely aggressive and anti-competitive.
> 
> My point remains—if people complain to the FTC over Apple's "walled garden" with the iPhone OS; it would be 10-fold if Apple considered buying Adobe, and it would have many more complaints.


Just so you know there are plenty of other competing video editing/compositing software programs at a professional level other than Premier and After Effects. (Avid, Grass Valley, NewTek, Pinnacle, Sony, and Autodesk, are the other major players). Adobe is *far* from being their only competition.

Also who says they would kill anything on the Windows side if they were to buy Adobe. It would be stupid on their part if they did. There is a windows version of iTunes isn't there? 

I think you are making assumptions that wouldn't necessarily play out the way you seem to think they might is all I am saying and Apple is in less direct competition to Adobe products that you seem to think they are, the only significant overlap is in the video editing realm and there are plenty of other competitors there. 

There is no reason to think that Lightroom would be killed for windows or even Premier or AfterEffects as the Apple "equivalents" can't be installed on a PC. Why would they ever stop that revenue stream that does not actually directly compete with their own product on a different platform?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Avid is far less competition than it once was, and you can't pass off sony or pinnacle as competition to premier or final cut.

Let's get real for minute here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Avid is far less competition than it once was, and you can't pass off sony or pinnacle as competition to premier or final cut.
> 
> Let's get real for minute here.


Not true plenty of broadcasters still use Avid, it is used by CPAC and the Parliament Broadcasting system as well for example. Vegas is well used , Pinnacle not so much. I am being very real, I was in video production and post production for ten years... you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The fact that broadcaster "still use avid" isn't saying much. I know of broadcasters who use some pretty seriously old and archaic methods of editing, don't you too since you have sooo much experience? Surely you would know this since you are, after all, the all knowing grand poobah right?

Sure you did....(!)

Now, you seriously aren't going to tell me vegas, is serious competition to final cut right? naaaawwww....

How about we get some 'real' video editors here to express an opinion.

Now remember, as Manny pointed out, the list involves far more than just the video editor.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> The fact that broadcaster "still use avid" isn't saying much. I know of broadcasters who use some pretty seriously old and archaic methods of editing, *don't you too since you have sooo much experience? Surely you would know this since you are, after all, the all knowing grand poobah right?*
> 
> Sure you did....(!)
> 
> ...


Man you're a dink and I mean that in the nicest possible way. beejacon tptptptp

I don't have the time or energy to deal with your childishness today.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

groovetube said:


> The fact that broadcaster "still use avid" isn't saying much. I know of broadcasters who use some pretty seriously old and archaic methods of editing, don't you too since you have sooo much experience? Surely you would know this since you are, after all, the all knowing grand poobah right?
> 
> Sure you did....(!)
> 
> ...


Ever hear of Kevin Smith? If you listen to his podcast or his "Evening with" series, he discusses using AVID for dailies and for the final process, along with a few things like Final Cut. 

Just sayin


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

groovetube said:


> agreed 100%. It just aint gonna happen if it played out like that, it'd give apple a headache they don't need. As I said before, the cost just doesn't justify the move. The full, cost.


True. And the scenario in and of itself is pure fantasy anyway. It's not like it would happen.

... of course, having just said that I feel like I'm tempting fate by putting it out there.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh this is where people get their panties in a knot, and start all googlin their brains out. 

You mean people actually use avid? My. If we didn't have google, we'd never know now would we.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Just so you know there are plenty of other competing video editing/compositing software programs at a professional level other than Premier and After Effects. (Avid, Grass Valley, NewTek, Pinnacle, Sony, and Autodesk, are the other major players). Adobe is *far* from being their only competition.
> 
> Also who says they would kill anything on the Windows side if they were to buy Adobe. It would be stupid on their part if they did. There is a windows version of iTunes isn't there?
> 
> ...


Look, I'm quite aware of the other packages out there, but I'll be blunt: Apple and Adobe command the market—consumer, prosumer, and professional markets. That's all there is to it.

There's no reason to think Apple would _keep_ Premier, AfterEffects or Lightroom, etc.—they compete DIRECTLY with their products.

Of course I'm making a lot assumptions—it's fantasy. But they are based partial on fact given Apple's history.

The fact of the matter is Apple's not going to buy Adobe. However, Apple wouldn't continue to publish Windows software that doesn't fall in line with their line of sight at this very moment. They won't arbitrarily do anything if it gets in the way of business—Apple is a lean, well oiled machine. To think they'd continue to run their business without trimming the fat is just naive. Otherwise, they'd be selling Win versions of FinalCut Studio.



pcronin said:


> Ever hear of Kevin Smith? If you listen to his podcast or his "Evening with" series, he discusses using AVID for dailies and for the final process, along with a few things like Final Cut.
> 
> Just sayin


Kevin Smith learned on an Avid when he went to VFS, that's why. It (and Media100) were the go-to NLEs back in the early 90's for pros. Not so much anymore.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> *Look, I'm quite aware of the other packages out there, but I'll be blunt: Apple and Adobe command the market—consumer, prosumer, and professional markets. That's all there is to it.*
> 
> There's no reason to think Apple would _keep_ Premier, AfterEffects or Lightroom, etc.—they compete DIRECTLY with their products.
> 
> ...


Sure they have the lion's share of the market but there is lots of competition (in terms of other companies in the market segment), just pointing out that it wouldn't *necessarily* be seen as anti-competitive by the FTC.

Look if they bought Adobe it would be to make more money, if there are products that are in place to sell to Windows users that Apple doesn't make they would be just stupid to shut off the revenue stream. Why would they cut AffterEffects and Premier for Windows? To be lean? Yeah cause all that extra revenue would make them fat.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

they did with logic.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> they did with logic.


True but that was a single piece of software (actually 20 rolled into one by Apple) and not at all at the same level of usage as Premier and After Effects. At any rate, we will never know what Apple might do because as we have all pointed it ain't gonna happen. 

I think this horse is dead and we might want to stop flogging it now...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Emagic and logic had a pretty heavy penetration I knew a whole lot of music engineers who went cubase or bought a mac when they did that.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> True but that was a single piece of software (actually 20 rolled into one by Apple) and not at all at the same level of usage as Premier and After Effects. At any rate, we will never know what Apple might do because as we have all pointed it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> I think this horse is dead and we might want to stop flogging it now...


That depends what you consider level of usage—are you just talking flat-out number of users, or percentage of market-share?

Regardless, there was a considerable frustration in the audio community when Apple chose to ditch Windows. Now imagine if Apple did such a thing with Adobe's software… the blowback would be deafening.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> That depends what you consider level of usage—are you just talking flat-out number of users, or percentage of market-share?
> 
> Regardless, there was a considerable frustration in the audio community when Apple chose to ditch Windows. Now imagine if Apple did such a thing with Adobe's software… the blowback would be deafening.


Absolutely, that is why I don't think it would happen. Annyyyway.... I think we have pounded this hypothetical situation about flat by now.


----------

