Cringely Posits Adobe's Purchase by Apple

An anonymous reader writes to mention another Robert Cringely piece discussing Apple's future. In his latest article, he lays out some goals for Apple on its quest to desktop dominance. An important link in this chain is Apple's purchase of Adobe Systems. From the article: "Adobe has already made one feint away from Mac development that required personal pressure from Steve Jobs on John Warnock to reverse. If Apple kinda-sorta embraces Windows enough for Adobe to question whether continued development for the native OS X platform is still warranted, well, then Apple WILL just become another Dell, which isn't what Steve Jobs wants. Steve wants Windows applications to run like crazy on his hybrid platform but to look like crap. In his heart of hearts, he'd still like to beat Microsoft on the merits, not just by leveraging some clever loophole. So he needs the top ISVs who are currently writing for OS X to continue writing for OS X, and that especially means Adobe."

Mod article '-1, Troll'

Every article by Cringely, Dvorak, and the like needs to be instantly moderated '-1, Troll' with extreme prejudice. Too bad /. does not have article moderation.

Re:Mod article '-1, Troll'

Whis would this article be labeled a troll? Because you don't like the ramifications?

I think Cringely's article is probable though impracticle... at least for the time being.

Microsoft isn't going to drop office for Mac... they make too much money from it... but if they ever do, Apple has a backup plan [osopinion.com] in the way of Windows virtualization.

Re:Mod article '-1, Troll'

Well, the only problem is when people try to turn this sort of editorial of "I think Apple could/should buy Adobe" into a rumor of "Apple is planning to buy Adobe!"

I mean, if you're a journalist, paid to analyze technology trends and make wild shot-in-the-dark predictions of what might possibly happen one day, or you're writing an article of what business moves might benefit one group or another, that's perfectly fine. Cringly thinks Apple should buy Adobe, and I'm sure lots of people could write articles on why they think Apple shouldn't.

Let's just not let this get out of hand and become an actual rumor.

OT: Troll, Stupid, and Evil Tags are Trolls

It seems like a good portion of the articles are getting tagged "Troll" or "Stupid" or "Evil".

First of all, how does this help classify and search the articles? It doesn't, if every third article is "evil" and "troll".

Secondly, please refresh your memory of what a "troll" is. Here is the official Slashdot definition.

Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.

Just because you think an article or comment is wrong and stupid does not make it a "troll". A "troll" is purposeful malicious misdirection intended to lead the discussion astray. Just because you disagree with Cringely, Dvorak, et al (and think they are totally off the wall), it does not mean they are trolls. They may indeed be stupid, but they are not trolls. Any opinion presented constructively is not a troll, even if it is wrong.

As far as I am concerned, the "tagging beta" should filter out all the "troll", "stupid", "evil", "FUD", and other non-helpful tags, because they are not objective descriptions to classify the article, but only negative opinion (and I think we can all read and form our own opinions).

Oh please!

Hey, could that [an Adobe acquisition] be why Apple is rumored to have this week just laid-off its entire Aperture development group?

Could be.

Yeah, and it could be that the product never lived up to expectations and saw little market adoption so Apple decided it was time to cut their losses and focus their resources on something else.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Or it could be a fabrication

Or if you believe in going with the simplest possible theory, Apple is not in fact abandoning a product not even six months old that has had a major well-received update just recently and in fact has just restructured the team.

Since Aperture is still being sold in the Apple store and the pages for the product are all still up, I know which theory I'd buy into!

If you must believe something a little more juicy, how about an attempt by Think Secret (or someone behind it) to discredit Apple?

It's NOT a rumor

Cringley never said he heard it anywhere else. He made it up.

It's a prediction, not a rumor, and his record with predictions is not bad.

The Cringe of Embracing Windows

Steve wants Windows applications to run like crazy on his hybrid platform but to look like crap.

I have seen it and, well at least it does run like crazy... [microsoft.com]

So the logic here is

That Adobe will just walk away from ~$400 million/yr in software sales. From a quick persual of Adobe's most recent annual report and 10-K filings, I figure that's about how much Adobe makes a year from Mac software. This leads me to a question:

What do call a CEO who makes the decision to chop $400 million off his company's profits?

Unemployed.

Revenue vs. Profit

What do call a CEO who makes the decision to chop $400 million off his company's profits?

Although I agree with your sentiment, it's worth pointing out that $400M in revenue -- which would be sales figures -- does not translate into $400M in profit.

Unless of course you're engaging in a little Enron-style math, that is. Software companies may have high margins, but they're not 100%.

Re:So the logic here is

What do call a CEO who makes the decision to chop $400 million off his company's profits?

Carly Fiorina [wikipedia.org]

Well... And unemployed.

Hope not

I really hope that Apple doesn't do what Cringley suggests and even if they do that it is squashed by the state department responsible for mergers and acquisitions, since:
    - Apple needs some healthy competition in this domain
    - Even though I am a Mac user, having a competitor in the PC domain also helps Apple keep on their toes
    - Adobe bought Macromedia, so in this field Apple would near a potential monopoly.

Gates Obliges Jobs

Steve wants Windows applications to run like crazy on his hybrid platform but to look like crap.

Well, it's up to Jobs to make sure of the former, but MS has already done what it can to accomplish that latter.

Dvorak/Cringely + Apple/Google

It's starting to become a cliche for Dvorak or Cringely to postulate on possible future moves by Apple or Google, and the crazier their suggestions, the more internet posters get riled up, and the more traffic gets driven to their site. Do they really have to pander to the lowest among internet posters?

Cringely: The thinking man's Dvorak

From the article:

There's only one way to make that happen for sure, and that's for Apple to buy Adobe. Apple has the stock, they have the cash -- such a purchase would effectively cost Apple nothing, the market would like it so well.

Uhhhhh... "cost Apple nothing," eh? Last I checked, Adobe's market cap [yahoo.com] was $23.65 billion. Apple's [yahoo.com] is not quite $60 billion. Just how much cash and stock does Cringely figure Apple wants to throw around?

Re:Cringely: The thinking man's Dvorak NO COST

cost Apple nothing," eh? Last I checked, Adobe's market cap was $23.65 billion. Apple's is not quite $60 billion.

If Adobe stock were converted to new Apple shares that properly reflect the increased value of Apple + Adobe, it would cost them the amount of printing the new certificates and mailing them, which is essentially nothing. That assumes a friendly takeover/merger.

Re:Cringely: The thinking man's Dvorak NO COST

If Adobe stock were converted to new Apple shares that properly reflect the increased value of Apple + Adobe, it would cost them the amount of printing the new certificates and mailing them, which is essentially nothing. That assumes a friendly takeover/merger.

This isn't how transactions work in public financial markets. It would cost Apple BILLIONS of dollars in stock and cash and/or debt in some combination to acquire Adobe friendly takeover or not. Adobe is a publicly traded company beholden to its shareholders. The board has a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders. They can't just hand over the company to Apple and print new certificates even if for some INSANE reason they wanted to in the interest of a "friendly" merger.

The only way shareholders would approve a buyout is if it was at a significantly higher price than where Adobe currently trades (which as mentioned is $23.65 billion). Unless the fortunes of the overall stock market, or Adobe change dramatically, it will cost Apple a hell of a lot to acquire Adobe, friendly takeover or not.

Even in an all stock transaction, existing Apple shareholders would pay for the transaction, as the value of their shares would be heavily diluted (new shares would be issued, making each existing share worth less).

Wow.

I think this is the first time Cringley is on to something. What he is onto isn't this Apple buying Adobe thing though. Its the following quote from the article stub:

Steve wants Windows applications to run like crazy on his hybrid platform but to look like crap. In his heart of hearts, he'd still like to beat Microsoft on the merits, not just by leveraging some clever loophole.

OS X running Windows apps in ugly gray, thats what he is onto. Its coming.

__
Elephant Essays [elephantessays.com] - Cover Letters, Research Papers, Editing

Re:Wow.

No, he's still missing the point.

In his heart of hearts, he'd still like to beat Microsoft on the merits, not just by leveraging some clever loophole.

No, "in his heart of hearts", he doesn't really care about Microsoft, because Apple compete against Dell and all the other hardware vendors. OS X is a differentiator in the hardware market, not a core product that they are competing against Microsoft with. Intel & Bootcamp fits nicely into that strategy, and I suspect he wouldn't care if 90% of the people who bought Macs ran Windows, because that 90% will have chosen Apple over Dell.

Re:Wow.

I agree completely. If Apple has access to the API as Cringley has stated in his past two articles, Apple in theory could enable OSX to launch WinXP apps inside a process similar to how it ran "Classic Mode" for OS9 apps. Imagine that, though - WinXP apps running inside OSX without XP itself running.

Given that Vista isn't due until '07, and most orgs are still running apps from the Win2k days, being able to run Win2k/XP apps w/in a more secure OS would certainly be an attractive offering.

Hey Cringely

When you and Dvorak are snuggled up in bed at night thinking up these crazy ideas how do you decide who gets which idea to write about the next day?

-Curious on Slashdot

"There's no demand for a Windows version..."

Apple co-founded Adobe and owned part of Adobe.

This would be the perfect deal. And then the sweet "sorry, we're cancelling Photoshop for Windows since there is no demand for a PC version".

They have done that before too.

We live in interesting times. And I love it.

Crap

This is crap. Apple is not trying to dominate the desktop market. They are trying, and succeeding at producing very desirable products. Apple has carved out their boutique image carefully and they do NOT want to be another Dell. Apple is making alot of profit right now. They do not want to be the new Microsoft+Dell. Jobs would like his vision of the way OSs and computers "should be" to dominate, but he is not trying to position Apple to do this.

The merged company name will be . . .

Taking the "A" from Adobe and the "pple" from Apple.

Yes, we need another Shake / Logic Pro

/sarcasm

Why Do What MS Has Done?

If Apple bought Adobe, then they'd effectively be pursuing a strategy similar to Microsoft's - trying to control all major app vendors for the respective OS. It'd be costly for one thing, and might discourage other vendors from building on the platform. Not a great idea, in my opinion. Apple probably wants all the developer mindshare that they can get, but doing this is more Borg-like than anything else.

So which is it?

So which is it that gets so many Cringley (and Dovorak) columns posted here when everyone smart enough to point, click, and bookmark can locate the originals:

1: That nobody reads Cringley until he's posted to Slashdot?

2: Everyone reads Cringley, and just wants a forum to spout off about it afterwards?

John C. Dvorak acquired by Robert X. Cringley

"News of a potential merger between these two rumor-mongering blowhards has been bouncing around San Jose for some time," said a source close to the deal. "After exhausting the n(n-1) array of potential merger rumors between companies as diverse as Google, Microsoft, General Motors, and ElectroPeru, the state-owned energy monopoly of Peru, both realized the only remaining avenue for generating baseless headlines and crucial name recognition was to themselves merge." Industry analysts speculated the new entity would assume the name Jobert K. Cringvorak, and continue publishing factually-inaccurate, worthless gossip headlines twice weekly in IT trade magazines.

Morons. Why does this shit get posted here every week, clogging up my screen real estate. I want to read about motherboards.

Oh, now I see.

This is why MacBookPro has a camera, guys, since Apple is about to buy eBay (which owns Skype).
And this is why Skype added video in the last versions. See how it all makes sense?

Cringely, my man, you're on the fast track turning into a "Dvorak".

From Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen own mouth...

He also said the recently announced Boot Camp software, which allows Intel-based Mac computers to run the Windows operating system, won't have a big impact on Adobe's Mac software lineup.

"For the majority of our products, writing directly to the Macintosh operating system is an advantage to the customers, and you will see us continue to do so and not work through Boot Camp or the Windows emulator because we think that will not be good for the majority of our customers," he said.

Soure: Computer World Article [computerworld.com]

It's all starting to make sense!

I am starting to see how the plan goes. Witness:

Apple buys Adobe.
Apple implements Windows API in Leopard.
Apple kills off OS X versions of Adobe products.
Apple fires OS X developers from Adobe (they can hang with the Aperture team).
Profit!

Is it just me, or is Cringley starting to enter Dvorak territory?

And Moving to Intel was the end too....

Look...so many people say Cringley is full of S**T, but where are all those people who said it would be a cold day in Hell when Apple moved to Intel chips? I seem to recall most of them saying if Apple tried it, it would cause the company to go into a tailspin.

All of those predictions so far don't seem to be holding up.

Apple buying Adobe? I don't think it's a matter of IF..but a matter of WHEN. Apple, financially is in better position now then any other time in their history (thanks to the IPOD). By buying Adobe they not only get Photoshop, but also Macromedia and by extension FLASH and Dreamweaver.

Buying Adobe makes sense, it gives them BIG leverage in the Windoze world to make things OS X happy.

adobe?

Adobe would cost about $25 billion, or so, with $4-5 billion in sales; Apple's cap is around $60 billion with about $20 billion in sales...... Apple can clearly afford it but it is not clear that Adobe is a key to the future, the future is probably more in the media center thingie......

Is there anything Cringely dosn't do?

Of all the things he has predicted has anything come of them? Hes just a trolling fanboy who just posts random facts so he will be slashdoted and that everyone will argue about him on Neowin, and the other technology sites. Damn right we need a Cringely section, I'm starting to think Apple may dislike his postings....

He is insane!!

I finally figure out how he comes up with these illogical predictions. Cringley is in insane!!! The first line says it all.

Over the past three weeks, we've laid out in this column

He uses WE to describe himself but he is the only one writing the articles. He obviously has multiple personality disorder. There is more than one person in there and apparently no one is home. Though, he could also think he is a Borg, but that too is equally insane.

A better thesis:

Here's my take. Aperture wasn't doing well, and it was competing against Adobe's Lightroom. Apple, meanwhile, is anxious for Adobe CS3 to ship, which currently is scheduled for Q1 of 2007. But Apple wants it in time for Christmas sales. In their last quarterly report, Apple execs said that they're working with Adobe to accelerate the launch of CS3, if possible, and that the lack of Universal software from Adobe was holding back sales of the Intel Macs. So I think they made a deal. Maybe we'll see the CS3 launch advanced.

Makes more sense than a freaking acquisition.

I dunno...

Look, Cringeley's talking out of his ass. That's his job.

But I don't see why people here are pooh-poohing the idea of Apple buying Adobe so much. I mean, forgetting about what you want, and focusing on what is good for Apple.

There are two things that will really harm (if not kill) Apple: (1) no Office; (2) no Photoshop.

However, of the two, I say #2 is even more important for Apple...Apple's core market is still graphics, despite all the mainstream press they've been getting. Without Photoshop there effectively is no OS X.

Secondly, Apple bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia, they acquired DVD Studio Pro from (who was it? some company that started with 'A'), they bought Logic. Are any of these pieces of software Apple's 'core' business? No, they aren't. I remember I was more than a little surprised to see Apple even acquire these pieces of software. Not only have they acquired them, they have redeveloped them into really nice apps. So clearly, part of their strategy is to provide extremely nice pro apps for their own OS.

One segment of pro apps they have avoided -- I am sure partially to not piss off Adobe -- is graphics. They lack a pro 3D app, and they lack a pro 2D app (though by working CoreImage into the OS, they have provided tools that programmers can use to recreate 75% of what Photoshop does easily). Further, Adobe controls the PDF format (which Apple uses fir display in their OS).

I dunno...I think Adobe would be a pretty much perfect fit for Apple. Other than Premiere (which sucks anyway), very little of their work seems to overlap, and then Apple would have a complete suite of pro apps guaranteed to run on OS X (and if they really wanted to be shitty, they could discontinue the Windows versions, and leave Microsoft high and dry).

I mean, if this became too much of a distraction for Apple, they could spin off a separate software company (a la FileMaker), but other than potential distractions, I fail to see how acquiring Adobe would be all that bad for Apple, and I can certainly see a lot of potential upside in the thought.

Cringely Crap on Microsoft Office Replacement

Cringely in the same article goes on about Apple replacing Microsoft Office stating "In case Mac Office is withdrawn"??

If Cringely had done a minimum of research, he might remember that Apple and Microsoft just signed a new agreement to keep Office for Mac around for a minimum of 5 new years. He might also remember that Apple is supporting Microsofts new, open XML file formats.

Apple is not going to be so stupid as to let Mac users have to rely on reverse engineering MS Office file formats, when they per date have full access to those formats and hence Office documents.

My take is that Apple will not challenge MS office until ECMA has approved the proposed MS Office XML formats as an open standard and implemented them (at least) in the Windows version of Office. Then the ground is open for Apple to rewrite Office - Apple style, but use Microsoft's open XML file formats for data storage.

So no, there is absolutely NO point (for Apple) in challenging Microsoft on Office right now.
For governments though....

I Think He's Got Something There

The overpriced hardware vendor buys the overpriced software vendor! Brilliant!

Let's just end all this with...

a cage match between Cringely vs Dvorak. Whoever win, we lose. So preferrly, it ends with a double KO. Then we don't have to read these nonsense every week.

I posit that Cringely will buy Dvorak...

...assuming, that is, they aren't the same person. Has anyone ever seen the two of them together?

I love Cringley to death...

... for many reasons, among them his awesome feats of wireless (part 1 [pbs.org], part 2 [pbs.org]) but recently, he really seems to have gone off the deep end. Not as far as Dvorak, but he's getting there. Of course, only time will tell if he's right, but as for this week's column, I doubt Apple will buy Adobe, and I doubt MS Office will die anytime soon. Not only will it not be defeated, it'll still be available on Macs--natively.

There are many things I could say about this. Here's just one: if OpenOffice can't defeat MS Office when it's free and runs on Windows, how in the hell will Apple releasing it make it win? It's entirely possible that there are more OOo/Win users than there are Mac users, period, and it hasn't made a dent in MS' earnings yet.

Looking at a journal entry from last year [slashdot.org], I can't see anything that has changed.

A more likely Scenario than purchasing Adobe

Purchasing Adobe is a tempting idea, but I'm not sure that it is a business Apple wants to be in -- I think it would take up too much of Apple's attention and resources to orchestrate and would impact their current momentum.

A much more likely scenario I see would be for Apple to increase the OS X market share in order to continue to attract software developers. However Apple won't do this with a wholesale licensing plan to all PC vendor, with Apple doing all the driver development as many are calling for. That would be a mess for Apple having to maintain all of the various drivers. It would impact OS X in a negative way.

Rather, Apple will selectively pick two or three PC maker-partners and licenses the OS X security chip technology to them with the caveat that the partner, Dell and Sony are the most likely, would handle their own drivers. That gives Apple three key things - 1) important new distribution channels, 2) a break from the "single vendor" fear that enterprise worries about, and 3) important validation and increased credibility as THE major leader in IT and PC technology.

Normally a hardware vendor would baulk at that, but right now Apple may have just enough traction to make it attractive to some PC makers. After all, Macs are currently own all top 5 spots on Amazon.com for most popular computers and 7 of the top 10 spots. Dell has already expressed interest in selling OS X on Dell hardware. Apple and Sony have a strong and recently renewed relationship.

A "Dell-flavored" or "Sony-flavored" OS X would not be movable to another system from another hardware maker, but that's good for the PC partner because it means that people buy complete systems and peripherals from the partner.

Apple obviously wants more market share -- enough to remain relevant, but I don't see them wanting to be any more than 10 or 12 percent. (Forester projects they will double in market share over the next year or two.) I believe Apple wants to continue to lead innovation, be profitable, and grab a comfortable piece of the Enterprise business to cement their long-term existence. But profit is more important to Apple than market share because profit drives R&D which drives innovation.

Apple's after the consumer not the enterprise

Purchasing Adobe would help Apple reclaim market share they lost in the 90's to Microsoft. One of Apple's core target markets has always been 'artists' (aka media professionals). In the 90's, if you were a media professional you had no choice you had to have a Mac, but since about 1999 either platform was a viable choice.

By purchasing Adobe, Apple would be taking another step towards reclaiming this market share. But the goal in reclaiming the media professional market isn't profit its mind share. It's not like media professionals make up a vast share of the market, so there isn't alot of money in this venture. Apple's real goal is to convince the consumer that if you want to be creative you have to have a Mac, and having all the media professionals on side certainly goes a long way in convincing the market of this.

I like the color...

of Cringely's balloon, but I don't know how far it'll fly:

Now if Apple's old cross-licensing deal with Microsoft also gives them compatibility with the older binary Office formats, it could give them something not even Microsoft has at the moment -- support for ALL Microsoft Office formats, past, present, and future.

My emphasis added. So Cringeley is admitting he doesn't know the detail of permitted backwards compatability in the cross-licensing deal. And I have a curley one for him: I have people in this office who are still using MS Word 5.1 in Classic mode on MacOS 10.4, because it is faster and more reliable than Office 11. I would dearly love to move these people to OOo, yes even the clunky X-11 version. But while Office 11 & 2k3 can read Word 5 files, OOo 2.0 cannot ....

more likely

More likely I could see Apple, buying a large portion of Adobe Stock. enough to be a controlling interest and have someone on the board perhaps, but not a total take over/merger.

Although if Apple did buy the whole package it would be interesting.

FrameMaker

As much as I'd like to see a Mac-branded FrameMaker, I doubt Apple will buy Adobe outright. I wouldn't be too surprised to see them acquire a significant amount of Adobe stock, though, for leverage...

Guys, Apple is just like Porsche

Everytime somebody says something about Apple wanting to "dominate the desktop", stop reading. In certain ways, Apple is just like a certain German car company, Porsche: They make fantastically engineered, kick-ass cool products for the high end of the market, and they make a killing financially while doing so. Porsche doesn't want to become another Ford or GM (take a look at GM to see why) and Apple doesn't want to be a Dell (take a look at a Dell to see why). Not everybody wants to rule the world, because it usually doesn't make business sense.

This whole "wants to be the biggest" thing is beyond me, unless it has something to do with Freudian hangups on the part of the commentators. Get over it.

Apple Buys Adobe

I thought that Macromedia had already bought Adobe. Surely they're not letting it go. Either me or everyone else is A. Confused. B. Misinformed. I dunno. I'm ready to accept either hypothesis on both sides of the equation.

now this will never happen

and cringely is an idiot for seriously suggesting it, but if it did happen, it would be *totally* *sweet*.

Adobe sucks balls at supporting the mac, which confuses me greatly, seeing as pretty much every person who I know that uses photoshop, uses it on the mac. It's the same software package on windows or mac, but for some reason, all the photographers I know *shudder* at the idea of running it on a PC, and buy their macs for the *sole purpose* of running photoshop on them. Maybe there's some additional graphics software, or drivers, that's only available on the mac... but it seems strange to me.

Adobe has been guilty *twice* now, of utterly botching a mac platform shift. First from os9 to osx, which wasn't so bad because you could just reboot from os9 to osx... and now from ppc to x86, which *is* really bad because you just can't run their software at a practical speed on the latest hardware. Both times they've blamed their problems on apple... this time because apple's IDE, xcode, "wasn't ready for prime time," so they chose to continue using the discontinued metrowerks compiler codewarrior, which will never support x86 mac compilation. When they make this excuse, the don't mention that there's absolutely *nothing* compelling them to use xcode to compile their stuff on gcc...

Its clear that Adobe doesn't know what's in their own best interest. I don't know if I'd want *apple* running adobe, but you'd think that some shakeups in management would happen after mistakes like these were made. If Adobe actually *had* a real competitor, they'd have eaten them alive in the mac market by now.

No Attribution

The thing that peeves me a bit about the article is that he quotes me verbatim and paraphrases for other parts without any attribution. Compare my original email [tpg.com.au] I sent him the night before to his article [pbs.org], and spot the similarities. My email's a bit long and relates to what Apple's plans might be to circumvent Microsoft's Office dominance and fill the gaping gap in their iLife strategy, a decent Office package, without losing a lot of users when Microsoft inevitably retaliates by pulling MS Office. The part about Adobe is in there too, although I didn't say they have to buy Adobe outright now, only controlling interest if Adobe ever threatens to pull killer apps like Photoshop:
"Apple is beholden to two software companies above all: Microsoft and Adobe. Microsoft they may be able to get around, but not Adobe. If Apple loses Photoshop, they lose the CS and MX suite (now Adobe owns Macromedia), and they lose the publishing market (not necessarily in that order), one of their mainstay niche markets that have kept them alive all these years. It's a killer app they must have. Their only alternative would be to buy a majority stake in Adobe to force a native version of the CS suite."
The least he could have done is acknowledge his source.

Martin Andersen

MAC vs PC...Again?

I've been in Graphics for nye on 10 years now, and have heard a myriad of arguments for MA