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.

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.

By the time Adobe gets on the boat, Apple will have a brand new boat and they'll still be behind...

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.

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.

iWork open source?

My god

@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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

"Look at Mac Pro sales before and after the release of CS3 and you'll see how much control Adobe tries to exert over Apple's Pro hardware sales. "

How? Apple doesn't release that information.