Adobe and Apple, is it all over

[David Zhou]

On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:40 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote:

> On Oct 6, 2006, at 12:18 PM, David Zhou wrote:
>
>> "Apple already demonstrated that the technology built into new  
>> Macs with Quartz Extreme and Core image would make developing a  
>> similar product to Photoshop trivial for Apple."
>>
>> Um, no.  Not at all trivial.  In fact, stupidly hard.
>
> More stupidly hard than writing an OS?

No, but then that's not a valid comparison.  Keeping in mind that the  
roots of OS X goes back to Next, Apple hasn't written an OS since the  
pre-system 6 days.

But that's not relevant, because the issue here isn't whether or not  
Apple is technically capable of it, it's if Apple is willing to take  
on the challenge of combatting over a decade's worth of ingrained  
workflow and interface habits.

Plus, Quartz Extreme and Core Image have almost nothing to do with  
successfully writing a Photoshop-class image editing application.   
Sure, Apple's implementation may leverage Core Image, but Core Image  
handles the low hanging fruit of writing such an application -- the  
harder things are yet to come.

> A lot of the bits and pieces are there, especially after Aperture  
> and Motion. Apple absolutely could do it.

The combined image and path editing abilities of Aperture and Motion  
are a fraction of what's offered in Photoshop and Illustrator.

Yes, a lot of the more basic bits are there, but there are still many  
things missing.  Plus, Apple has its hands full with Aperture and  
Motion competing against Lightroom and Affer Effects.

Do you really think Apple wants to open a _third_ front with _yet  
another_ version 1 application?  Even before things like Aperture  
have been really fully developed and refined to a level that it is a  
clear advantage over Adobe's offerings?

> In any case, Adobe must know that Apple can beat them technologically.

No, Adobe doesn't know that -- or rather, they have no reason to  
suspect that.  They are both advancing in two different areas: Adobe  
is trying to keep a common base between both platforms, whilst Apple  
is free to advance on their own OS X platform, writing APIs and  
libraries to take advantage of the single platform mindset.

I've not seen anything by Apple that is demonstratively impossible  
for Adobe to accomplish.

> Adobe's advantage is installed base, but that didn't save Avid from  
> Final Cut.

Last time I checked, Adobe doesn't make Avid.

Avid is still hugely popular, as is Premiere.

Has Motion taken a huge chunk out of After Effects?

With Lightroom, Adobe has shown a surprising quick pair of feet --  
dexterity enough to match Apple's Aperture.  Indeed, the two are  
pretty much in a dead heat, with both sides having good and bad points.

You also underestimate the advantage of the a huge installed base.   
Apple can't make something that is merely equivalent to Photoshop  
(which is, of itself, a hugely daunting task), Apple has to create  
something that is demonstratively superior to Photoshop.

Otherwise, no one has any reason to use Apple's version.

---
David Zhou
david at nodnod.net