Adobe Universal Binaries... in 2007

bo peterberg writes "According to a pdf on Adobe's website, they remain committed to supporting Intel-based Macs. However, Intel-based Macs will not be supported until the next upgrade of all creative products. The current version will not be re-released."

Go Aperture!

So much for LightTable destroying Aperture!

Re:Go Aperture!

So much for LightTable destroying Aperture!

Actually, LightTable is the exception. They announced they will have a beta of it available shortly. Now if only Apple would release a competitor to Photoshop, Illustrator, and Framemaker maybe they'd come out with new versions of those products as well.

Re:Go Aperture!

It would be unwise for Apple to release a photoshop competitor. Look what happened to the Mac version of Premier when Apple released Final Cut Pro...

You mean when Adobe killed it and most of the users migrated to Final Cut Pro, making Apple a lot of money?

Re:Go Aperture!

I don't know that much about the GIMP but I wonder if they would ever be able to take advantage of something like CI. There is portability to maintain...

Well, that really is the heart of the problem. Anyone who insists on doing a cross-platform image editor won't use the full capabilities of any platform.

-jcr

Not just Premiere

You mean when Adobe killed it and most of the users migrated to Final Cut Pro, making Apple a lot of money?

That's not quite what happened...

Premiere was not discontinued for Mac until well after Final Cut's launch. Apple basically stole the entire market from them. When sales fell through the floor, Adobe discontinued the Mac version of Premiere, and also announced that basically all of their software should be run on PCs for best results, a historical first. This was essentially the beginnings of the major Apple/Adobe rivalry. (They were really pissed about iPhoto as well.)

It doesn't get mentioned a lot around here, but Premiere was hardly the only Apple casualty in that space; they have virtually eaten the nonlinear editing space in a very short span of time. Remember Avid? They are still around but not nearly the force they once were, a name pretty much synonymous with high end / cinema nonlinear editing. Media 100 also. Final Cut is a juggernaut, a totally killer app. And Apple has Final Cut Express to compete with as well. And then they picked up Shake and RAYZ and a few others to eat a piece of what SGI used to totally dominate.

The really funny part is, Final Cut started its life (as I know the story) at Adobe, as a radical new verison of Premiere after v4. Premiere 4 was super popular, but people who know it and used it will all tell you that v5 sucked big time. The reason for this is, the Premiere team had this great new interface but Adobe didn't want to deviate so radically from the old Premiere look and feel. In frustration a large number of them quit and went over to Macromedia, who started developing their own editing app called Final Cut. It evolved for a bit there, but Macromedia got cold feet and had a sort of had a truce with Adobe at the time, so they sold the unreleased codebase... to Apple.

(This is hearsay I received from a high mucketymuck at Adobe who was bombed on Bailey's at the time, so take as you will.)

Re:Not just Premiere

Your account gybes quite well with what I heard at Apple. Of course, the developers in question weren't able to take any of their code from Adobe to Macromedia, but the money spent on a development project really ends up in the brains of the developers, not in the source code.

One thing to fill in: Apple got into the video-editing business because Avid was actively leaning on customers to abandon the Mac. I do recall a story of one customer asking an Avid rep: "what about Mac compatibility?", and being told "Nobody has to be Mac compatible anymore" with a smirk. The customer told the Avid guy: "YOU have to be compatible with your installed base, asshole!"

Before I got to Apple, I really had no idea how much Avid had alienated their customers. It'll be a business-school case study someday. ;-)

-jcr

In other news...

... Quark Inc. has announced the will create a universal binary of their flagship product QuarkXpress sometime before in 2070.

Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then.

This is kind of a deal breaker for me, as I make my living using Photoshop to a VERY large degree. Using it with Rosetta may be "passable"...it's just not going to cut it in the long run. I was hoping that Adobe would have an upgrade for existing customers, but I guess not.

Though they may change their minds, who knows. So much for upgrading this year. I suppose this will work out better in the end, as the Intel Macs will get a chance to mature a little more.

Re:Guess I won't be buying a Mac this year then.

Even after I knew the Intel Macs were coming, I chose to invest in a Dual-Processor Dual-Core G5. Why throw money at the platform that is guaranteed to be phased out?

I worked through the transition from 680x0 to PowerPC. I worked through the transition of OS 9 to OS X. These transitions are NEVER easy. I chose to get the most power I could out of the platform that currently works best. I'll wait to get an Intel Mac until they are well into year two of general use, and only after my must-have applications have had at least one set of bug fixes released to their Universal Binary versions. :)

-Chris

I was afraid of this....

How many companies are going to use the Intel transition to force paid upgrades? I can see some companies offering a 'special deal', pay $X for the universal binary edition, so it'll actually run on your new computer. Sort of a variation on the DVD re-release double-dip, except with a gun to the (figurative) head. (and no, I know they don't force you to buy their software, but if you're a graphics artist in a Mac only shop, your IT department will have to buy you Photoshop for Intel Mac, whenever your machine gets upgraded).

Looks like windfall time for Mac software vendors.

Re:I was afraid of this....

Dear G-funk,

We don't have $5000 laptops.
But we'd be delighted to charge you double on our top model to get to a price of just a little less than 5000$.

Sincerely,
Steve Jobs
CEO, Apple

P.S.:
Fuck Adobe.
Watch for PhotoShopMyAss Pro 1.0 coming out soon from Apple

64 bit?

The first IntelMacs use 32 bit CPUs, but Intel will release 64 bit version of the CPU later this year. Will these first IntelMacs be obsoleted? OS X for the Intel CPUs will obviously go to 64 bit --- need it for the PowerMacs as their power users won't want to lower memory capacity. Maybe Adobe and other third party software vendors see this situation and prefer to just wait and do only 64 bit Intel native binaries?

No Surprises Here!

There are no real surprises here. This is very similar to how they transitioned Photoshop and Illustrator to Mac OS X several years ago. My main hopes are that CS3 is not living half in two worlds like they did with Illustrator 10 and Photoshop 7.

On the bright side, if Adobe keeps up the status quo on Creative Suite 3 then we will see all of the Apps that ship in Creative Suite, ship together. Acrobat 5 was horrible on Mac OS X, the Acrobat application ran natively in OS X, but the distiller ran in Classic and suffered severe performance penalties as a result. Hopefully all of the apps tranistioning around the same time will leave a better taste in their customers mouths.

I am glad to see them attempting to show off their xCode developemtn prowess by delivering the LightRoom beta earlier than their other software packages.

Shot themselves in the foot & jumped the gun

Adobe isn't updating until 2007, we can probably assume the same for the Macromedia apps. Native Instruments (Reaktor, Absynth, Kontakt) is going to be rolling out products starting at the end of Q2 2006 to Q1 2007. Cycling '74 (Max/MSP, pluggo, Jitter) is estimating "the end of 2006" but they haven't even come close to meeting a deadline in many years, so that'll probably be mid-2007. Steinberg (Cubase) has said they'll update "sometime" in 2006.

So... exactly who is the market for the new Intel products? The swarms of iPod owners that own Apple products for reasons of fashion more than functionality? It seems like none of the apps that high-end Apple users actually use aren't going to be out for quite some time.

But they sorta had to release the Intel products so soon, though didn't they? All the hardcore Apple guys I knew said they wouldn't be buying any new stuff until the transition to Intel. Oh well...

WWMMHD?

What Would Macromedia Have Done?

You really have to wonder whether they would've decided to update their apps sooner. Though given that Intel Macs for developers have been available for at least 6 months, maybe they weren't far enough along on the transition at the time of the merger.

Hmm...

So they're covering up their move to Java? :)

Is this really that big of a surprise?

This is the EXACT same bullshit they pulled when OS 9 went to OS X, sept worse, since there really isnt nearly as much to translate between the packages. Honestly it almost seems Adobe does this to screw with Apple, since they know no production houses (Apples bread and butter) will go over to the new systems unless they update these programs and even they it will take a while.

Re:Is this really that big of a surprise?

Honestly it almost seems Adobe does this to screw with Apple

Oh, I don't think they're malicious, just complacent. They're the Microsoft of image editing, and they'll behave as such until and unless there's a major competitor.

-jcr

Quark wins again...

I think that is a major error. Due to the late switch from QuarkXPress to Mac OSX, lots of customers migrated to InDesign. They are easily convinced to switch back.

Which is it, Chizen?

Is it "about time" Apple transitioned to Intel... in mid 2005 at WWDC?

or will 2007 be "about time" when we'll see some Adobe products written to take advantage of the computers YOU SNARKLY demanded from Jobs with your little jab at him at WWDC last year?

I was ready to understand the difficulty in the undertaking - but you guys were first to Mac OS X, and now, you're going to be stupid late to Intel, despite your grumblings that Apple wasn't there all along... and i was even ready to forget that we saw Wolfram have their shit togther in short order...

or is this some play to get Mac users to run Codeweaver's stuff to run your stuff - saving you from having to make Mac OS X versions of things? Or some other random conspiracy.

Don't be snotty AND late... be one or the other.

Does it actually say 2007 anywhere?

I scanned through the document, and the only thing they said was the it'll be in the next major release, and that they typically do releases every 18-24 months. So, if CS2 came out in April or May of 2005, the next version could be out anytime between this November and next May.

Of course, that's only their "typical" release schedule. If there are other factors in play (like, for example, new Pro Macs being released), they might very well do an atypical release schedule for CS3.

FrameMaker

This isn't too surprising. Don't forget that they outright dropped FrameMaker for Mac.

This was after they claimed that the market for it had shrunk. This was after they had released a non OS X native version about a year after the release of OS X. How many Mac users do you think were waiting for the OS X native version to upgrade?

I think the only chance of us seeing a true OS X version of FrameMaker is if some other company out there comes out with something that's actually competitive with it...

Quit yer whining!

1. Apple has ALWAYS made it clear their move to Intel would be in stages.
2. Apple has ALWAYS said it would be done from their lower-end products to their upper-end.
3. The iMac is Apple's entry-level product.
4. Therefore the iMac being iNtelicized first is in line with Apple's announced plans.
5. With the iMac being Apple's entry-level consumer product it doesn't have a large professional user base.
6. Therefore professionals, who have large investments in hardware and software, are unlikely to be affected by the Intel transition until it reaches the products they use: The Professional-level Macs like the G5 line.
7. So Adobe not shipping Universal Binary products for their professional level until the professional grade hardware is ready is surprising to who?

Seriously, if you're appalled that Adobe et al aren't shipping Universal Binaries right away only means you haven't been paying attention. If you really are a professional photographer or someone who honestly depends on these type products you'd have to have been comatose the past year not to be well aware of all of this.

Instead what I hear are a buncha wannebe-geeks who went out 'n bought the newest and shiniest and are now whining because they chose to ignore what anyone with half a clue woulda and most likely did tell 'em. You shelled out over a grand for a new product and couldn't be bothered to find out if the software you want to run on it actually would anytime soon.

Get the hell off /., I'm sure there's some support chat group out there for you on AOL somewhere. Try keyword "12:00-Flasher"

Frankly I just hope there is someone out there clubbing you monkeys over the head with instructions on how to use a contraceptive.

Intel Transition Tougher Than Most May Realize

I work on plugins for Adobe's applications occasionally, and let me say that the [apparent] "maybe in 2007" statement from Adobe is not a big surprise to me. The applications in their creative suite and plugin software development kits rely on CodeWarrior, which is [effectively] a dead product. AFAIK, it could never support development of universal binaries, and I would speculate that they have known this for a while.

Adobe's plugin Software Development Kits (SDKs) are based on C++ object models, which will mean that plugins and their host applications will need to be built with the same tools for everything to work. To move on, I think Adobe is going to have to move all their products and SDKs to XCode (gcc), and though I do not work for Adobe, I would wager that it will be a fairly tough job. IMO, Q2 or Q3 2007 seems a fairly realistic goal.

The problems the Intel transition will pose for both Adobe and the third-party plugin developers will be daunting. Quark and its associates have similar troubles, but I have personally seen some decent progress on the Quark side, though I think NDA prevents me from saying anything specific. Though I have seen little progress from Adobe as yet, I am confident they will deliver.

Adobe has a lot of work ahead of them, so I would encourage users of Adobe's creative apps to be patient, and realize how much work Adobe has ahead of them and that it involves more than just moving the applications to Intel. SDKs often offer as many if not more challenges than their host applications. I will part with a criticism: Everybody has known that CodeWarrior is dead for a long time. I think Adobe should have started putting more resources into jumping ship right when the writing went on the wall. Now we are all going to have to wait a while because Adobe was so shiftless about getting off the dead branch.

Crossover Office?

It may not be the ideal solution, but this would be a great opportunity for Codeweavers [codeweavers.com] to make a bundle selling a port of Crossover Office [codeweavers.com] to OS X/Intel. You could then run the Windows version of Photoshop at full speed.

Does Adobe allow you to migrate your Photoshop license from Windows to Mac?

score one for MacGIMP

I've used test builds of MacGIMP [macgimp.org] working on MacOSX for Intel. Works perfectly. If there was ever a time to eat Adobe's lunch with an open source alternative, this is it.

When 2007 Rolls Around...

Steve will ask paraphrasing Chizen's words (WWDC 2005)

The only question I have for you Bruce is what took you so long?

I wonder how companies make these funny decisions

If they rebuild it, people will repurchase it.

Adobe was slow for Phoroshop 7.

Adobe is relatively cold to the Mac Community for some reason or an other. They seem much more willing to bend over for Microsoft then for Apple. Photoshop 7 was released after about a year or so after OS X 10.1. While the company it self supports Apple mac, I think many of the developers were Windows Programmers who were pushed to to the Mac Unit and are not happy about it, so they really drag their feet to get development done, for OS X.

No sympathy for early adopters who complain

Mature, complicated applications like Adobe's require mature, complicated development cycles. Beta testing alone takes months, and it can be difficult to predict how long it will take. The development cycle for these applications realistically consumes two years.

Let's pretend Adobe dropped everything to focus on a transition to Universal binaries right after WWDC last year. Realistically, it would be another 12-18 months from now before a release is ready. This would coincide with when Jobs told developers professional Macs would ship.

But that isn't how it happens. Developers will continue with the development cycle they have committed to, and tackle the next challenge in the next development cycle. Development on this scale is like steering an oil tanker. The fact that they're saying 2007 at all is a miracle.

iMacs and laptops are not Adobe's core professional market. Professionals who rely on Adobe's products will continue to do what they have always done, use what works reliably and upgrade when it makes sense to do so. In other words, have some patience until the tools you rely on are ready, then upgrade your hardware.

Old Old News ... We Knew This Right After WWDC

At WWDC 2005 (June 2005) both Adobe and Microsoft pledged support for the new Intel-based Macs. However, in the discussions that followed the initial announcment, both companies warned users not to look for native apps from them until 2007. This is because both Adobe and Microsoft use CodeWarrior, and CodeWarrior cannot compile Mac OS X for Intel apps.

If you remember the initial Mac-Intel announcement, Steve Jobs pointed out that if developers are using Xcode (Apple development tools) then all they will have to do to make Intel apps is upgrade to v2.1.0 of Xcode and check "Intel" in addition to "PowerPC" before they compile their app. However, if a developer is using CodeWarrior (the "other" Mac development environment) then they first have to move their whole app to Xcode, and then when that is finished they can check "Intel". It is a much longer process.

If you have a v2.0.0 PowerPC app from a vendor that uses Xcode, then it may be a very simple matter for them to ship a v2.0.1 with Intel support. It may be easy to make a patch that just places the additional executable file in the application's bundle. However, if you have a v2.0.0 PowerPC app from a vendor that uses CodeWarrior, you are going to have to wait for v3.0.0 and that is all there is to it. They are not going to move their v2.0.0 codebase into Xcode and ship v2 again just to please a handful of Mac OS X Intel users who want native software NOW instead of a year from now. For CodeWarrior-based developers Intel support is major-version work.

Re:Planned obsolescence

Except that you can deactivate your previously installed copy and install it on a new Mac.

Re:Please Label PDF links!

Mozilla/Firefox: TargetAlert [bolinfest.com].

CSS3 compliant browser: a[href$=".pdf"]:after {content: "[PDF]"; font-size:smaller} in your user style sheet. Modify as needed for other types of "annoying" links.

Re:Please Label PDF links!

Quit whining and install one of the plugins that labels non-HTML links for you.

Or uninstall the Acrobat plug-in from your browser, so the browser will ask you whether you want to open the PDF, download it, or cancel.

Re:Please Label PDF links!

Better yet, maybe someone could make a browser plugin that automatically adds these warnings based on the file extension within the link.

Re:Please Label PDF links!

Did the beginning of the article:

"According to a pdf on Adobe's website..."

not give it away? I thought it was quite obvious. But I guess complaining is easier than reading.

Re:Please Label PDF links!

It's basic web accessibility: any link that goes to something other than another web page -- an email, a video clip, an archive... or a PDF -- should be labeled or should at least be obvious from the text of the link itself. Remeber, Acrobat Reader takes time to load.

I don't know about you, but when I look at the status bar to see what the link is (and I've gotten to the point where I rarely click on a link without doing that, just in case), I can usually tell if the file is a PDF. Those are the ones that have '.pdf' at the end of 'em.

Re:Please Label PDF links!

Ummm from the first line of TFS: "According to a pdf on Adobe's website, t..."

Acrobat Reader???

Maybe the editor's a Mac user and forgot about Acrobat? (The one definite benefit of using Safari or other Webkit based browsers - native PDF)>

Re:Please Label PDF links!

Or just hover over the link with your mouse and see the URL in your status bar. You DID learn from the pre [domain] label days not to click on goatse links, didn't you?