What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
I Think I'm A Clone Now view!
funimation.com - Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 You Are (Not) Alone anime movie -- Available Now DVD.
49 Comments
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Since when is Aperture a direct competitor to Photoshop?
- Justanothergirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I've used all the apps mentioned and though I agree that Aperture isn't a direct threat to Photoshop, the fact that Adobe are calling Lightroom - Photoshop Lightroom indicates to me that the war will be on that turf. Secondly, anyone who knows Apple and has seen the products they have released in the video market must realise that they mean business. Someone showed me a program on the Mac that was meant to be an 'engineering test' of the Core image and Quartz Extreme functionality - it looked amazing. It's supposed to be available on the Apple developer site somewhere. Let's not forget that Apple started it all off with MacPaint all those years ago.
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They are different apps. Adobe's answer to Aperture is Lighroom. I don't know if it's over yet, but there will come a day when Apple will make a Photoshop killer, not soon though, maybe in 5 years. People love to use photoshop to make mock-ups etc. and that can't be achived using Aperture.
- mpmchugh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This article is ridiculous. The delay in universal binary support has nothing to do with punishing Apple. It has to do with Adobe's internal development cycles — not to say they aren't slow. Adobe will simultaneously release CS3 for Mac and Windows, and it will be Universal Binary. How is a simultaneous cross platform release "punishing Apple"? They are not pushing some little shareware app out the door here, people!
Yes Adobe dragged it's feet moving their code base from Code Warrior to Xcode, which added to the delay of CS3 (for Windows too!), but CS3 is a Massive amount of code, and though we all would have wanted them to, I doubt they ever would have made CS2 Universal. It just was not a practical business move for them, when they were already knee deep in CS3 development when Apple announced the whole Intel thing. And who knew Apple would make the Intel transition about 2x as fast as they originally predicted.
The Contribute 4 not being a Universal Binary yet is odd, for sure, but I predict it will be by the time CS3 is available. Besides, contribute is not a "graphics-heavey" app, and will probably run in Rosetta just fin, albeit slow in the meantime. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Oh, for heaven't sake. Adobe isn't foot-dragging because of some kind of Machiavellian scheme to punish Apple. They're working very hard on getting their apps up to date, but it's HARD, because Adobe really painted themselves into a corner with some poor decisions that seemed like a good idea at the time (several years ago).
Their code is riddled with compiler dependencies, their home-grown build and revision control system didn't anticipate OSX, let alone an Intel mac, and that's about all there is to it. They have a LOT of work to do, so it takes them a lot of time to do it.
-jcr - tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed.
The main reason it won't collapse is the substantial workflow integration many agencies and print shops have with adobe products and no Apple product is going to be able to convince those large firms to spend another 5 years optimizing their workflows for another product. These are the real, PAYING customers and Adobe has no reason to worry. - tuartboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not being able to foresee the future doesn't mean you are incompetent.
- msikma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Don't forget general designing, such as websites and other digital artwork. It's a very versatile program for anything that's got to do with pixels.
- bbrew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I am an ex-photographer/ photojournalist. I still do a lot with photography, but more as a creative outlet and for some extra money, not as my main job. For what I do with photography, photoshop is irrelevant now that Aperture is out.
Photoshop is still a great toy for making fun internet forwards, but that is about it. - hotdamn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4GIMP is simply not a pro app, that's why.
- msikma, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5This is nonsense. Of course the market isn't going to collapse in case Apple brings out a Photoshop competitor.
First of all, Adobe has a gigantic advantage in that it's already being used by millions of companies all around the world. Would those companies be willing to spend money to get their employees to learn how to use a new application, when Photoshop/Illustrator/etc. already do the job just fine? Not really.
Also, would those companies be willing to cope with the potential incompatibility of the Apple program (e.g. not being able to open source files delivered to them by customers or other companies)? Well, no.
Is the speed disadvantage of running Adobe products on an Intel Mac really that bad? That's not really so either. It sure is slower, but I don't think that it's really that bad (this is my personal opinion).
There's no doubt that a Photoshop competitor from Apple would be very interesting, but don't get your hopes up about it being a Photoshop killer. - Molnies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3DaffyDuck:
Yes, Aperture can fix all that (removing dust, remove unwanted objects etc), the program features a set of tools comparable with PS's "Clone stamp tool" - they are called "Spot & Patch tools". If you don't belive me, check out http://www.apple.com/aperture/quicktours/ and click on the "Nondestructive Image Processing" video, these tools are shown half way into the video.
Not saying that Aperture can do everything that PhotoShop can, just saying that those features are included. I myself as a photographer do not need to use PS anymore, however I still use if for other designs, just not photography related. - mccoma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Was the "engineering test" Quartz Composer? Get the developer tools loaded and try out . It shows a lot of the built-in effects.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Lightroom is on the other hand."
No, Lightroom just takes the ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) plugin component and seperates it from Photoshop and makes it pretty. In other words, Lightroom has essentially the functionality of Adobe's Camera RAW plugin to Photoshop. I still prefer to use ACR by the way. I feel I have finer grained control over adjustments. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they were incompetent, I said they made some poor decisions that seemed like a good idea at the time.
-jcr - invader, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3i was going to let it slide, but then i noticed that it's incorrect in the article, too..
anti != ante - psilanthropist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yeah sure. now you start comparing a software which is developed by a dozen geeks in thier free time to a software which im just guessing is one of the most popular in the history of computers and probably gets more funding for its developers' personal expenses than the GIMP project will ever see in its lifetime.
an entirely fair comparison ! - mojojojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5This article is a puff piece. CS2 represents a tremendous revenue stream for Adobe and would never sacrafice that (as well as brand loyalty) and shun the platform that not only made the company into what it is today, but the majority of the audiance that brings the credability to their product. It may be more time for universal apps to come out for the mac outside the CS brand (I agree with that) because development cycles are based on need. If there is not enough demand to warrant the immediate development of a product, and the opportunity cost is greater than revenues minus conversion cost there is no reason to question Adobe's behavior.
- Christerart, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Adobe,
be aware due to your attitude towards me as a Mac user, I will drop you in an instance if a similar program comes along. To not take care of your core customes is very offensive to me. I have been a Photoshop user since version 1. By treating me with an attitude of "We don't give a S*#T about you as a customer", you have forfeited all my loyalty and consideration.
I was going to get Lightroom - no more!
Come on Steve - take over these dolts - or do a better version of the mousetrap - you can do it! - TriangleJuice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Come on Apple, give Adobe that one last punch and bring out "Layout", the next Photoshop killer app :-)
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry, what I said in my previous comment is not exactly right. Lightroom is a replacement for ACR and Bridge.
- msikma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mccoma: Quark has a history of ignoring their customers, failing to deliver any updates to cope with changes in technology (such as a native Mac OS X version), not keeping up with competitors in the least and most of all not caring about Adobe since they figured that Adobe would never become more favored in the DTP market. That is really the reason why they became less favorable, as hampering the trust between user and vendor for so long incites the user to take action at some point. I doubt that Adobe would make the same mistake, should Apple decide to enter its market.
- dypchit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You have to be an idiot if you think that Adobe didn't know this was coming down the road before his announcement.
Nuf said.
-dyp - winegirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Who developed Final Cut Pro & who developed Aperture.
Yes boys and girls they were both developed by programmers from Macromedia and Adobe, who left when their products were cancelld by their respective companies and went to work for Apple. Apple has the $$, the talent and the customer base to come up with a Photoshop replacement if they decide to. That decision will be made by Adobe dragging their feet on universal apps.
WG - Justanothergirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Have you actualy read the article jelockwood?? It clearly states ... "or perhaps that it will not move to Universal Binary apps for anything but its core applications." I think we'd assume that the article agrees with you there Acrobat is a core app?
Whilst on the whole Acrobat PRO thing - you're talking through your ass a bit - the Mac version of Acrobat PRO is - and - always has been a joke compared to the PC version.
Adobe need to decide if they want Mac users to buy FULL function prodiucts from them or go somewhere better - probably Apple. - trekkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly. LIke they need to invest the work in a universal contribute before they do it with thei rother systems. Contribute isn't going to need the speed boost that the creative suite will. Adobe stated at the announce that they did not use Xcode so they first have to move to a new environment, then get it working, as well as make a new version. I doubt Contribute - a former macromedia product fwiw - was on the top of the list of 'to make for universal'
- ohhush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aperture isn't touted as a Photoshop equivalent, Lightroom is on the other hand. The article simply states that the opportunity is there for Apple to introduce something.
- matzeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know everyone loves a dirty story. But come on. I suggest you read the comments of Adobe Product Manager John Nack http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/10/aperture_war.html
- mccoma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure Quark wasn't worried about InDesign for the same workflow reason. :)
- jelockwood, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This article is rather misleading.
Adobe is already shipping a Universal version of their Flash plugin, Lightroom was already Universal from day 1, and Acrobat 8 Pro which is due to ship in the next few days is also Universal.
I would agree it is surprising for Adobe to ship a new upgrade in non Universal form at this stage but I would hardly describe that as a complete boycott of the new Intel Macs.
What I would say is that Adobe by saying they will only ship a Universal version of Indesign CS 3 in third quarter 2007 has seriously wounded their foot. :-) Such a lengthy delay does open the door for Quark Xpress which already is available as a Universal application. (This is particularly ironic since Quark became infamous for being practically last to ship a Mac OS X version and lost a huge amount of market share as a result.)
What does annoy me hugely about Adobe is that the current Acrobat 7 and Creative Suite 2 have had (and still have) major issues working with "Network Home Directories" for Mac OS X and THESE BUGS WILL NOW NEVER BE FIXED (despite having been known about and existed even since they shipped). These bugs did not affect Acrobat 6 and CS 1, God knows if they are going to be fixed in Acrobat 8 and CS 3. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6What if you have a DSLR and need to remove dust spots. How is that accomplished with Aperture? What if you are taking a photo on the beach and you want to clone out the lone swimmer. How can that be done with Aperture? What if you are doing portrait photography and you want to remove some imperfections? The idea that Aperture is all one needs seems ridiculous to me. I can think of a lot more what if situations if that is not enough.
- TFlint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Photoshop and Aperture are not competitive programs. Aperture is for photographers. Photoshop is for retouchers and enhancers. Photoshop does a thousand things Aperture can't and doesn't try to do.
- chilliartgirl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree. Adobe your on notice, be warned !
iPaint - I want it now!!! - flimflamman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doesn't the article say that Apple COULD produce a competitor to photoshop - if Adobe don't get a move on - not WILL.
Comparing Aperture to Photoshop is not what its about - READ the article. It warns Adobe that Mac users want a product that works nicely -even SJ was claerly miffed. If Apple can offer that competition and Adobe don't bother then I for one will drop Photoshop tomorrow to support a better product from Apple.
I've been in the media industry for years and all I can say is that any company that takes one and a half years to update its software, is a DEAD company. Forget development cycles, even Quark got a Binary App ot on time!!! - Farkle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Interesting. Apple did to Adobe what Gateway did to NewTek (think Video Toaster) when Gateway took over Amiga inc; basically ignored the cash cow. Why didn't Jobs give Adobe advance notice of the coming change to Intel? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, this is going to come back to haunt Apple.
- Waderz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Photoshop and Aperture are not competing for the same market. They are totally different products aimed at different users. Aperture cannot make use of the thousands of plug-ins that are available for PhotoShop. I will not buy Aperture (price is part of the reason as are the plug-ins). I have been using Lightroom for most of my raw images for color correction, etc. When I want to do extra stuff to my photos, Photoshop offers way more flexibility than Aperture. What Aperture can do, I use the FREE iPhoto for.
- LaweranceOak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I do agree that Aperture will not take over photoshop. I have been using photoshop since version 4. But when I look at what happened to Adobe Premiere and how that isn't the industry standard anymore. It could be just a matter of time before something could happen. But it would take alot of versions and something that is totally off the wall to make me want to switch to something else besides photoshop. If you are a pro and use photoshop on a daily I just do not see anyone switching.
But I woudln't mind some compitition so I could see the price of this software to go down. If Apple was able to get the whole CS bundle to be less then $500 for the pro version man that would make my day! But at the end of the day I would still buy the CS bundle! - flimflamman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maybe John Nack should be spending his time getting Photoshop out of the shed rather than dissing everyone else. Latest I heard is MAY 2007 (http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/10/04/adobe.cs3.due.in.may.07/) for the Mac universal version - that's nealy TWO years after the original public announcement - and I'll bet that the apple 'friends' at Adobe had earlier notice - come on, what is going on??
- HJStukenborg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually that isn't completely true. Remember that Apple was still using Moto/Freescale chips in their laptops (anything G4-based), and the real implication is the move from the PowerPC to Intel.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Lol... apature is $300?! WTF is wrong with Apple? Listen... anybody who really uses photoshop isn't going to switch to a program thats so inferior just to be loyal to apple. Its silly.
@bbrew -
Next time I'd save some money and try Gimp. For that price you could get parallels and upgrade copy of photoshop! - zforrester, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1this article is retarded. Ignore it.
- winegirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0You the use of profanity is not appreciated here and it makes whatever else you say worthless.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Well its confirmed in this comments.... 95% of mac users are stuck up snobs.
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Good name, very apple! I like it. But what is it?
- aspirinetu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1take that adobe! you've lost *1* customer!!
(*****) - JaniMac, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I agree totally. It's too bad, because to me and the industry, Photoshop is the Gold Standard. But because Adobe has dragged its feet on the Universal Binaries I am going with Aperture. And I don't think I will be disappointed....
- Derfus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Market for Photoshop collapsing? ROFL you moronic clown.
GIMP has been trying and failing for 5+ years - TFlint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1How can you trust a story that starts with an error? Apple did not switch from Motorola chips to Intel chips. Apple switched from IBM chips to Intel chips. It had switched from Motorola to IBM chips previously.
- chilliartgirl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0So NSResponder, you're saying its because they're incompetent. That makes me worry even more ! Come on Steve get you elves working and deliver us something for Christmas.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is