Filed under: Software, Universal Binary
Adobe CS not going Universal until '07?
Ah
fiddlesticks: A PDF doc that recently appeared on
Adobe's website claims that the software maker won't make Universal the current version of Creative Suit. Instead,
they're opting to wait until they release the next major revision -- which, looking at Adobe's typical upgrade cycle
(18-24 months per major upgrade), could mean that 2007 is the earliest we'll see a Universal version of Photoshop (or
any other Adobe pro app, for that matter).So much for tempting the pros with speedy new Intel chips. Another year and a half with Photoshop running under Rosetta? Yikes. Looks like Apple's gonna need those G5s longer than they had hoped....
[via MacRumors]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
George said 8:41AM on 2-02-2006
Creative Suite gets updated on a 18 month basis. Not a surprise at all. And if you are a professional, a Quad still seems the best option in the long term.
Reply
arkowi said 9:29AM on 2-02-2006
The necessity for AND lack of universal pro apps, like Adobe Creative Suite, is going to be a big hindrance in selling Intel to pro types. I have a Dual G5 and a 12" PowerBook, I think I could talk myself into selling them and picking up a MacBook Pro...they are fast and I have become well adjusted to the laptop platform. The only problem is that I am a web developer and a graphic designer and I already own Adobe CS, Macromedia Studio, and Final Cut Express. Not only would this render all of these programs obsolete, I would have to acquire new versions...new versions that are not yet available.
Reply
ScottBruin said 9:39AM on 2-02-2006
The initial reaction is that this will hurt Apple a lot, but alas, it could hurt Adobe, too.
People will see Adobe as slow to update, which will be unfavorable.
Perhaps more importantly, if Apple gets its shit together with Aperture, we'll see a lot more people using that. I know it's not a Photoshop replacement, but it still encroaches on Photoshop's domain.
Reply
greg said 9:57AM on 2-02-2006
I (heart) Monopolies.
Reply
iJavaJoe said 10:30AM on 2-02-2006
Perhaps it's time to revisit the Adobe/Macromedia merger. Perhaps Adobe's programmers aren't up to the task? It's strange, this could be a way for Adobe to make a little extra money. Come out with universal apps for CS2 and Studio 8 and charge say $30 per individual product or $100 for the entire suit as an update cost. How long ago did apple inform the Mac community of the intel/universal change coming. Now Adobe isn't even close to doing something about it. Sounds like Microsoft's way of handling virus's. Perhaps there's room for some competition here anyone listening? Although Ya never know, Adobe could pull it's head out and see the light of day. Adobe - Dam this sounds like a monopoly.
Reply
JGH said 10:33AM on 2-02-2006
As a web developer and graphic designer myself (student as well), I went to the 17" iMac Core duo from my aging Rev. A 867MHz 12" powerbook. Granted these apps run in Rosetta, there's still a huge speed increase from an older mac that makes the upgrade worth it. And to have a computer that will only be faster a year after you get it..now that just doesn't happen.
Reply
Brian said 10:37AM on 2-02-2006
I'm too poor to afford either (new mac or photoshop) *sigh*
Reply
codeman38 said 10:44AM on 2-02-2006
I can't wait till an Aqua-native Gimp is released, personally. *That* will be the Photoshop killer... especially since I've heard that the X11 version is already blazing fast on Intel machines.
Reply
spencer said 10:46AM on 2-02-2006
interesting. perhaps this will entice more people to check out the gimp. besides as we all learned yesterday, it runs faster than photoshop in rosetta....
Reply
Billy K said 11:43AM on 2-02-2006
Did you hear that? I think that's the sound of Apple's strike fighters bombing Adobe HQ.
This is only gonna make tensions between the two even higher. I wouldn't doubt Adobe is trying to prove something to Apple. They can't be real happy about Aperture.
I think it's really stupid, though. Indeisgn has nearly crushed Quark, and they're letting them back int he game now. Quark is starting to get its act together. (And their Uni-Bin Beta is already available)
I won't be getting an Intel Mac until next year at the earliest, so for me personally, this means nothing. But for my workplace, this is huge. It may mean I'm on my old dual G4 for another year!
Reply
Wheels said 1:02PM on 2-02-2006
I (heart) stupidity. It's not as if the Intel switch came on all of a sudden. How hard would it be for some small developer to come up with a decent universal paint/photo app that can take advantage of Core Image goodness and put Photoshop to shame? Gimp is almost there, and seashore is pretty decent (am I really complementing an open source app...GASP!). If this was 5 years ago, I would've said that this was hurtful to Apple, but now, with developers sprouting up everywhere for OSX, somebody's gotta be able to fill this void. Adobe is getting too big for their britches.
When I was in the PC collective I used Serif's Adobe killers(PagePlus, PhotoPlus DrawPlus). Those applications are the only things I miss about the PC; going to Adobe was like going to a moped after owning a Fararri.
Reply
frank said 1:25PM on 2-02-2006
You couldn't pay me to use the GIMP even if they did make it aqua-native. And assuming someone did pay me to use it, what about alternatives to Illustrator? Or Acrobat? And what about Flash and After Effects, while we're at it?
I think most graphics professionals (like yours truly) aren't in any hurry to get an Intel-based Mac and will happily wait for the Universal versions of major Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft apps before considering a new hardware purchase.
Reply
Jonathan said 2:42PM on 2-02-2006
Adobe's CS2 suite was last updated in April 2005.
18 months from then: October 2006.
This is an ideal case, but I think a lot of people are overreacting. Odds are that Apple will only release Intel-based workstations when it can either see an imminent Adobe update, or else that those apps will run relatively well in Rosetta. After all, if you have two 2.8 GHz "Conroe" (desktop Core Duo) processors in your high-end desktop, it's probably going to handle Rosetta code fairly well.
Reply
Mark D. said 2:53PM on 2-02-2006
This disappoints me. I have a Windows laptop currently and though it's not bad preformance-wise with Adobe apps (1500+ Athlon XP, 768mb ram) I would have really hoped to replace it with the instant double speed increase of the MacBook, instead of a Rosetta limping one. My real concern is Adobe pulling a Quark, being slow to switch over (Quark + Classic = garbage) didn't do them any good. I really want to have the most out of my laptop when it's still new and cutting-edge, not a year later when it's been replaced. It might hurt sales for both companies if others feel the same way, which of course we'd all hate to see.
In reply to frank:
Inkscape(www.inkscape.org) is a nice vector program and is open-source, but I wouldn't use it for professional work.
I may like the idea of The Gimp, but I sure don't like the entire package. It's not as easy to use and is cluttered (Inkscape is much cleaner and has a far better workspace by default), among other issues. It's good for my fun forays into Linux, but I wouldn't use it for designing actual work.
Reply
niccas said 3:09PM on 2-02-2006
18-24 months for Adobe to roll new apps, 2 - 3 years for Microsoft.... It's clear that they wouldn't have been ready for Intel machines that were originally going to be released in July anyway! I can understand why major vendors will wait for a new software release to go universal, but it seems like the timing on all of this could have been managed better.. I will be happy with my MBP when it arrives (go Feb 15th!) as use mostly Apple apps and do a very small amount of Dreamweaver work, but I imagine there will be plenty of people that will be forced to wait for the likes of Adobe to get their act together...
Reply
used to love adobe said 3:19PM on 2-02-2006
I was this close to buy new macpro this week but this news pretty much killed it for me. I live on Adobe CS so no point getting new machine that doesnt work at 100% speed on it. Shame on Adobe for playing game with us - really lame, I lost lots of respect for this.
Reply
Robert Knight said 3:21PM on 2-02-2006
So...
Unlike the entire Mac community, Adobe took Steve at his word that Apple's pro machines wouldn't get the Intel update before 2007?
(sarcasm)
Hah hah, silly Adobe! Don't you read Apple rumor sites?!?!?!?!?!
(/sarcasm)
Reply
Robert Knight said 3:31PM on 2-02-2006
You know, it just occured to me...
What if APPLE released a Creative Suite competitor? Like, in March. I doubt there would be anyway to pull something that huge off without a leak, but how crazy would THAT be?
Steve would be heralded as Mr. Amazing for his impeccable timing. That would be crazy.
OK, back down to earth now.
Reply
Dan said 3:39PM on 2-02-2006
Why is it no one has taken on Adobe in the Photoshop space?
As for the slow changeover from Adobe, the hard core designers
will wait of course, but a very large part of Photoshop users
who buy the new Intel Macs will start to look for alternatives.
Many of us only need Photoshop to prep files for Final Cut and
other jobs, we don't manipulate the shots that much. The cost
of Adobe updates every year or two is starting to look like a
bad investment to many of us video people.
Dan
Reply
Malfoy Roark said 4:31PM on 2-02-2006
Re: 18 and everyone else who questions the opposition to Adobe. Adobe has A LOT of IP tied up into PS. It isn't an easy task to just come up with alternative ways to achieve some of the tools they use and not infringe on their IP. Adobe has been in the game a long time and I don't see some rogue GIMP programmer coming up with his own way(that doesn't remotely infringe on Adobe's IP) proggie that is the end all PS killer anytime soon.
You people really marginalize what Adobe does. If it was just so easy to make all of Adobe's stuff work anywhere or make an alternative, they wouldn't hold the foothold they do now.
And for the record, Adobe doesnt need Apple, Apple needs Adobe. If Adobe just decided to abandon Apple all together, I'd be a lot of money that more Adobe users would switch to PC than Mac users that would switch from Adobe.
Reply