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'

[McDutchie (151611)]

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'

[osviews.com (955101)]

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'

[pianoman113 (204449)]

Here's a question for discussion: Would we find these authors so trollish if everything they wrote were not posted immediately to slashdot?

Re:Mod article '-1, Troll'

[nine-times (778537)]

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.

Re:Mod article '-1, Troll'

[Illbay (700081)]

Every article by Cringely, Dvorak, and the like needs to be instantly moderated '-1...

Yeah, 'cuz, you know, like, they work for Infoworld and PC Magazine and stuff an' they're all corporate shills an' stuff an'...

Re:Mod article '-1, Troll'

[jumpingfred (244629)]

Cringely, or at least this one, does not work for Infoworld. The column is on the NPR website.

Re:Mod article '-1, Troll'

[daniel23 (605413)]

Quite ineffective, given that there are no ads on Cringely's page.

OT: Troll, Stupid, and Evil Tags are Trolls

[HighOrbit (631451)]

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).

Maybe the frequency of Troll and Stupid tags . . .

[moultano (714440)]

. . . should indicate that a lot of us don't want to see articles like that on slashdot anymore.

Re:OT: Troll, Stupid, and Evil Tags are Trolls

[rblum (211213)]

A 'tag' is nothing but a majority vote. That means a large percentage of the readers things Cringley's posts are trolling. If you don't like it, deal.

Tagging is about the benefit for the community, not for your personal benefit.

Oh please!

[winkydink (650484)]

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

[SuperKendall (25149)]

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

[Tau Neutrino (76206)]

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

[digitaldc (879047)]

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

[noewun (591275)]

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

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

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:Revenue vs. Profit

[noewun (591275)]

Maybe the ROI they're making on those sales isn't worth it. If you use that capital to make even more than $400 mill., then it'd be better to make the money work elsewhere.

Maybe. I have no way of knowing what it costs Adobe to make Mac software, but I would imagine it isn't too high: all of Adobe's Mac products are Carbon/Codewarrior: I think Photoshop CS2 is, essentially, Photoshop 7 tarted up with some new features. Certainly 7 was the last version which could be called a must-have upgrade, and there

Re:So the logic here is

[hey! (33014)]

I think the theory is that if Windows binaries run on MacOS, but not vice versa, and Adobe customers don't really have anywhere else to go, then Adobe is not seriously risking much of their gross sales, but their margins go way up. In effect, any cross platform glitches become Apple's problem.

Re:So the logic here is

[vertinox (846076)]

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

[Midnight Thunder (17205)]

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

[Illbay (700081)]

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

[interiot (50685)]

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

[PCM2 (4486)]

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

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

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

[William_Lee (834197)]

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.

[neoshroom (324937)]

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.

[Bogtha (906264)]

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.

[drgroove (631550)]

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.

Re:Wow.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647)]

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.

In theory, yes. In practice, the Win32 API is very, very big. If you want any kind of application compatibility, you need to implement:

- OLE / COM / DCOM
- MFC
- DirectX (DirectShow, DirectPlay, Direct3D, etc.)
- The .NET CLR
- Internet Explorer (many apps depend on it)
- 100s of standard controls (e.g. ListView, e

Re:Wow.

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

I totally agree!

Oh, wait. You said he's onto something.

I first read that as he was on something.

Nevermind.

Hey Cringely

[everphilski (877346)]

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..."

[network23 (802733)]

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.

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

[jafac (1449)]

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".

While that would be sweet revenge, Adobe switched a while back from developing Photoshop in Code Warrior on a Mac, and then porting to Windows, to developing Photoshop in Visual Studio on a PC, and porting to Mac.

Cutting the Windows version of Photoshop would be rather painful transition of their code-base at this point.

Crap

[Moby Cock (771358)]

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.

Re:Crap - Reading SJ's Mind

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

they do NOT want to be another Dell.

And you've read Steve Job's mind on this. That he'd rather have tiny market share than be the biggest PC retailer (remember Apple is a hardware vendor) in the world. Yeah, that's the Steve we know -- thinking small as usual.

The merged company name will be . . .

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Why Do What MS Has Done?

[dakirw (831754)]

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.

John C. Dvorak acquired by Robert X. Cringley

[drix (4602)]

"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.

From Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen own mouth...

[joeblarnystone (681831)]

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!

[jkabbe (631234)]

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?

A better thesis:

[ZoneGray (168419)]

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...

[suzerain (245705)]

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.

I Think He's Got Something There

[Bacon Bits (926911)]

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

I like the color...

[J. Random Luser (824671)]

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 ....

Re:PLEASE GIVE US A CRINGELY SECTION

[jamie (78724)]

"it's no longer reasonable to ask us to just scroll past them"

Yeah, it actually is :)

Interesting spin

[SuperKendall (25149)]

"Desktop market share numbers show resurgent Apple" - the headline of the article you linked to.

And you DO realize those numbers are sales figures, not install base, right?

Not to mention those numbers are convieninetly before Intel macs were avilaible that can dual-boot into Windows, or run Windows apps directly as he was noting. That's where the real growth curve comes in, which would increase Apples figures beyond the mere 43% grown in Mac sales they enjoyed last year (again, from your own article).

Re:Apple desktop market share: 3.1%

[Arandir (19206)]

So what? Their actual installed base is much much higher than five years ago. When the market itself is growing, you don't need to take the whole pie to grow. Sheesh.

Besides, Apple's goal is not to dominate the desktop.

Re:Apple desktop market share: 3.1%

[aristotle-dude (626586)]

Apple's desktop market share is only 3.1%. That's lower than five years ago. Apple's "quest to desktop dominance" is not going anywhere.

Who is to say that is their goal? I thought the main goal of most companies is to be profitable and to grow their sales numbers and Apple has done both. Their percentage of the market has dropped because the overall market grew faster than their sales numbers growth. You make the common mistake to assume that an increase or decrease in marketshared percentage is directly

Trust?

[SuperKendall (25149)]

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.

I see. And you fully trust Microsoft to honor that agreement if it does not suit them?

Sure if there's no compelling reason not to they will honor it because they make a lot of money doing so. But if you'd looked over the Slashdot headlines you'd not

Re:Dvorak's a douche

[catdevnull (531283)]

Uh, yeah...but we're talking about Cringley, right?