Filed under: OS, Software, Developer
Apple, Adobe, and 64-bit Photoshop
Adobe's announcement that Photoshop CS4 will be 32-bit only on OS X has the Mac web buzzing today. Accusations of blame are being shot at both Adobe and Apple by various pundits (though notably not by the companies themselves). Fortunately, some of the better Mac pundits are also weighing in with interesting opinions on this development.
Over at Ars, John Siracusa has penned an interesting historical account of the relationship of Adobe and Apple, and the Carbon API which is at the center of the controversy. He somewhat grimly sees this Photoshop development as the furthering of bad blood between the two companies and suggests that "the real storm may be yet to come" as Adobe and Apple clash over Flash and Air, etc. (witness the Flash on iPhone kerfuffle).
Over at Daring Fireball, John Gruber takes up the question of CS5 -- i.e. the next version of Photoshop after the aforementioned CS4 -- which will be biggest Cocoa port ever attempted. He points out the interesting difference between Photoshop and Microsoft Office in that the former shares a codebase between Windows and OS X, while the latter represents two completely separate projects on the two platforms. The big question is whether Adobe will even be able to pull off the Cocoa port in time and maintain its cross-platform nature (though as both Johns have pointed out, Lightroom bodes well in this regard).
In any case, this drama is just beginning to play itself out and depending on how you look at it we're in for a good many years of entertainment or frustration as the Cocoa transition of Photoshop progresses (never mind the next version of Office).
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dan S. said 1:12PM on 4-03-2008
Not to nitpick, but CS5, as Jon points out, is the *next-next* version of CS. CS4 is the next version.
Reply
Kuy said 3:07PM on 4-03-2008
Does it make sense to build the *next-next* Creative Suite on the *next-next* platform (beyond Cocoa)? Adobe doesn't have to use Cocoa at all, and can still deliver 64-bit code on an entirely different foundation, such as one they write themselves.
Put the pieces together and I think you'll see what I mean.
Marc said 1:18PM on 4-03-2008
Adobe is rediculous. Then need to get on the Apple boat...fast. Apple users are a majority of Adobe's Pro Apps base.
www.mailbysnaill.com
Reply
David said 1:27PM on 4-03-2008
Adobe is ahead of Apple in some areas. LR2 beta is 64-bit, while Aperture 2 isn't for example.
And again, Apple also has large apps such as Final Cut Pro that are still Carbon. I don't see why Adobe is getting any hate over this decision.
Fritz Laurel said 3:09PM on 4-03-2008
By the time Adobe gets on the boat, Apple will have a brand new boat and they'll still be behind...
cthree said 4:28PM on 4-03-2008
Apple should just buy Adobe and get it over with.
Reply
Joe Krout said 4:47PM on 4-03-2008
That would be awesome. Do they have 21+ billion laying around?
Queco Jones said 12:31AM on 4-04-2008
IMNSHO, that is the best solution.
Marco said 1:32PM on 4-03-2008
This could be *the* opportunity for 3rd party developers to fill the gap. Create an application that could compete with PS, but written smarter, better and more modular. And native OSX Cocoa of course..
Reply
daneel said 1:46PM on 4-03-2008
way easier said then done. even software like pixelmator which has been around for a while is woefully inadequate when compared to PS. lets face it, Photoshop has now become an industry standard and we have to take whatever Adobe serves up simply because there is no alternative.
Thayne Miller said 2:41PM on 4-03-2008
I disagree, there are plenty of alternatives. Between aperture, gimp, and iPhoto, I don't need any of adobe's crap. And while I'm at it, screw MS Office 08. The thing is bloated, slow, and doesn't even work with half the documents I open. iWork and GoogleDocs for me! (and neo-office if I absolutely need it).
It's all about open source.
Gwydion said 3:04PM on 4-03-2008
iWork open source?
My god
David Singleton said 7:07PM on 4-03-2008
@Thayne Miller
What alternatives!? What about illustrator, indesign, flash, etc. In the workplace there is nothing to replace CS with. It's the industry standard and we all have to live with it till a real alternative arrives.
Aron Trimble said 1:41PM on 4-03-2008
"Accusations of blame are being shot at both Adobe and Apple by various pundits (though notably not by the companies themselves)."
Wrong.
John Nack of Adobe fame specifically said in his blog post it was due to AAPL's decision to drop 64-bit Carbon. Sounds like blame to me...
Reply
David said 1:54PM on 4-03-2008
He also said he respected Apple's decision on this. His post didn't seem like he was blaming Apple at all to me, just explaining why this is happening, which does have a lot to do with Apple.
kurt.tappe said 1:56PM on 4-03-2008
And because John Nack says it, it must be true? Fact is, any developer who is still using Carbon is living in the past. To expect it to live on forever is to stick your head in the sand. Apple has been actively promoting Cocoa for years, so for Adobe to now be claiming they didn't know they had to port to it is ludicrious. Further fact is that Adobe development has been heading south for quite some time. This is the same Adobe whose last two versions of Acrobat do not work properly on Macs with multiple user accounts. Yes, this is 2008, Adobe...computers have multiple users. But no, we have to hack CS3 just as much as we did CS2 to make it work on our systems. I have to regularly clear caches and user profiles to get Dreamweaver and InDesign to run. CS3 is built on a very flimsy foundation. Adobe just isn't with it.
David said 2:02PM on 4-03-2008
kurt, as mentioned, Apple themselves still haven't updated some of their own large apps to Cocoa. I don't see why they get a free pass on that while third parties such as Adobe don't with their own large apps.
James said 1:58PM on 4-03-2008
How many years has Apple been warning companies to migrate from Carbon to Cocoa?
Did Adobe think Apple wouldn't go through with this?
Reply
JeffDM said 2:56PM on 4-03-2008
"How many years has Apple been warning companies to migrate from Carbon to Cocoa?"
Then I'd say Apple's been two-faced about this, there was supposed to be 64 bit Carbon, as shown in the WWDC 06 keynote:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/07/live-from-wwdc-2006-steve-jobs-keynote/
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/08/dsc_0487.jpg
Kuy said 3:01PM on 4-03-2008
The problem isn't with Cocoa, it's with Objective-C. Generally, to use one, you must use the other. And you'll be hard pressed to find developers in the real world who want to write big projects in Obj-C. Seriously.
Photoshop and Flash Player are both written in C++.
Also, Final Cut was originally written at Macromedia, so unless Apple rewrote it all, it's probably not Cocoa-compliant yet.