Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No Macintel support yet because it's likely the macromedia codebase is a mess, and will take some time to support. macromedia apps have always been messy. It's also not one of their major apps.Oh no !!!! Adobe just released contribute 4 for Mac and PC. Just to
prove a point the Mac version is PowerPC ONLY (??) and runs like a
dog on my MacBookPro!! What kind of mesage they trying to send out?
PS. The app is a great improvement - but - please - why no
MacIntel support?
And as far as designers are concerned, you being a PC-drone are irrelevant. You are strictly a consumer of the graphics we create with Adobe apps on the Mac.Apple and Mac are irrelevent. Thar's why everybody rushed to see
who would be the first to dump the Mac OS and get the new Intel
Macs to run Windows.
Good stuff, though it doesn't break out PS specifically.From Business Investor News:Last stat I heard was more like 40-50%, as amazing as that seems.probably 30-40% of the photoshop licenses purchased. . .
"About 20% of Adobe’s total revenue comes from the Macintosh
platform, MacMillan says. The rest comes from software for
Microsoft’s (NASDAQ:MSFT - News) Windows PC operating system. But
the Mac share could be about 40% for the creative solution segment
of Adobe’s business, he says."
FCP is not considered 'high-end' in our industry, excellent product though it is.Adobe failed to defend digital video. Specifically, Premiere just
didn't keep up with what was happening in digital video, and lagged
in significant upgrades. That's Adobe's failure, and not due to
Apple's entrance. Last time I checked, Apple was able to sell Final
Cut Pro and Final Cut Express profitably and keep them updated and
current despite having to compete with their own free iMovie (now
in HD! ;). Thus there is clearly room for high-end digital video
projects to find an audience.
That's not true, there are many who buy and use Adobe applications professionally, and the graphic design / photographic / post production industries (and Apple's place in them) are well understood.Nobody knows anything about this subject except Adobe executives.That just proves that you know zero about this subject.
The rest is speculation and opinions. It would have been nice of
you to prove your point with some more solid arguments.
In fact, Adobe was internally wondering how it could make any money
out of Premiere several years before that, and didn't know where to
take the product. Instead of engineering their way out of the
problem they tried marketing with endless rebundling, etc. It quite
took me by surprise, and being on the Windows side of things at the
time I planned accordingly just like you said. Now Adobe is
starting to send the same message in graphics production. It's
going to be interesting because the photography side of things is a
much smaller subset technically that is probably the lions share of
the profitable revenue for Adobe.
--len
Aperture is not a direct competitor for PhotoShop. As I understand it, Aperture brought something to the table (organization of huge numbers of RAW files) that nobody had ever done well before. PhotoShop is more focused on editing....Adobe is right to be upset.
Illustrator, Photoshop and QuarkXPress (now owned by Adobe) have
been for many years available only for Macs, helping Apple get the
lion share of the graphics industry and survive. I just don't see
why Apple needs to directly compete with Adobe in the digital
photography software market.
27% of Photoshop sales are Mac, that's relevant for adobe.Well, it DOES make a difference because there is a shift among
graphics artists away from the limitations of the Mac environment
and so even that tiny pocket of PS users is dwindling. In fact,
there are vast numbers of PC based Photoshop users...so many, in
fact, that the so-called 'professional' market doesn't really
matter that much.
No Aperture is a Raw converter, and Photo sorter, it does not compete with PS, it competes with another Adobe product called lightroomWhy now and not before...well, Apple, in their usual arrogant
style, has forgotten the software partners that made their platform
viable and gone out on their own. Aperture is competing against
Photoshop if you didn't realize.
But, Apple is always given the benefit of the doubt. Look at
Windows... Microsoft bundles IE with Windows
Apple have 5% of the market, how are they going to use their monopoly in the computer industry to push software standards?Why isn't there an outcry against Apple for bundling software with
their Macs that undercuts all non-Apple developers? It is because
Apple and Mac doesn't really matter much anymore. It is a money
loser for Apple who are now concentrating on selling everybody a
new iPod every 6 months.
Great logic. I suppose that means trhat Chevys are best because they sell the most. I guess i could have bought a Blazer instead of my 4Runner. Sure. My car will cost me less in the long run. Just because a lot of people either don't get this or can't afford something better doesn't make somethingf better because it sells more. MacDonalds or any number of other products prove this.then why is is such a miniscule part of the market? It is strange
that the 'users' don't just vote with their wallets if Mac software
is 'so good' or if Windows software is 'so bad'...but the reality
seems to be just the opposite.
Wow. Where do you live, in a cave? Or a cubicle? Yes I'm sure that was the reason.Apple and Mac are irrelevent. Thar's why everybody rushed to see
who would be the first to dump the Mac OS and get the new Intel
Macs to run Windows.
LenAdobe pulled it from the Mac and drove it into the ground,
producing endless minor releases riddled with bugs.
I've very pleased that Apple is in the still image market now,
which is a very rational thing for them to do as a company, and I'm
very pleased that they produce FCP.
Hmm if that's what Adobe say then why does the blog contain the following at the top:-
Adobe isn't going to release a lawyer vetted press release to counter ever yincredibly ridiculous rumor from a random blog. John Nack's posting is reliable, the original rumor was.Hmm if that's what Adobe say then why does the blog contain the
following at the top:-
"The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the views of Adobe Systems Incorporated."
Plug-ins run in the same address space as the application and use a fine grained interface to communicate with the application code. Apple provided no thirdparty available API for running native code within an emulated application. Even if they did, it would take a fair bit of code to convert from the emulated PowerPC interface to native x86 code. It is technically possible to do this, but probably more work than making the whole application native.Let's just hope that if enough of us directly write to the company,
that they will release PS CS2 as a universal app and then do a
proper update of the whole CS3 thing later. Why not release faster
plug-ins at least?
Thanks for the insight Z - I'm sure you can understand the frustration that those of us who have invested in MacIntel feel. Two years is a long time to wait for a proper upgrade.I actually wrote the PowerPC Accelerator for Photoshop 2.5 back in
1994. This began life as a test harness to develop PowerPC
optimized imaging code within Photoshop 2.5. It was a fairly
straight forward thing to do as Apple provided significant support
for mixing native and emulated code and the native and emulated
architectures were more similar in their low-level data
representation.
