Adobe and Apple, is it all over

[David Zhou]

On Oct 9, 2006, at 7:01 AM, Scott Stevenson wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2006, at 2:00 AM, David Zhou wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I'd take writing Photoshop from scratch in Cocoa over releasing 5  
> major versions of Mac OS X in five years.

My main concern here is that releasing a fully formed application is  
very different from releasing APIs to developers.  It's just not a  
very good comparison -- they are both time intensive, but in  
different ways.

> In any case, they've written large new apps from scratch (or nearly  
> from scratch) recently. It's not trivial but completely possible.

Oh, it's possible.  I have no doubt about Apple's app writing  
capabilities.  My main point of contention is that Core Image and the  
other frameworks introduced would make it _trivial_ for Apple to  
produce something to equal Photoshop.  There's a ridiculous amount of  
hubris in that statement, and it irked me :)

However, if Apple does release their Photoshop competitor, they need  
to be doubly careful to not repeat Aperture's launch.  Whereas with  
Aperture it was somewhat expected because it's a new application in a  
still emergent field of software, Photoshop is a refined, mature  
application in a solidly entrenched software genre.

If Apple missteps initially like they did with Aperture, I'm not sure  
they'll get a second shot.  Version 1.0 of Apple's Photoshop app  
needs to be very much _not_ your standard 1.0 app.

>> it's if Apple is willing to take on the challenge of combatting  
>> over a decade's worth of ingrained workflow and interface habits.
>
> Too bad they have no experience with that.  :)

True, but how successful have they been, really?

Many of Apple's UI and workflow innovations are in emergent markets  
-- for example, iMovie and iPhoto, when released, were in markets  
where there wasn't really a long-term dominant application.

I'm not knocking Apple's work, just pointing out how much of an  
uphill battle it's going to be.

> If Mac OS X is to be a best-of-breed media platform, there better  
> be a best-of-breed 2D image editing app.

Sure.  But should Apple be the one to do it?  You can argue that  
Photoshop is already a best-of-breed application.  Should all major  
apps for the platform be under Apple's wing?  At which point do you  
stop, and say enough, this one is for third party software houses?

More importantly, I'm not sure if I like the current trend of  
thinking that for any sufficiently large application, Apple should be  
the one to do it.  I mean, eventually, it's entirely possible that  
the OS X platform will end up having primarily first party  
applications with small, focused, third party shareware.

And this isn't directed specifically at you, but while some people  
may like that, I don't think I will.

> I feel like you're defending Adobe, but that's not necessary  
> because I'm not attacking them. Adobe is free to do whatever they  
> want. It seems what they want to do is build apps that don't favor  
> any one platform.

Right.  Sorry if I sounded defensive.  There's a tendency on the web  
to ascribe to Apple nearly magical development powers -- as if, in  
the span of a year, they can produce something that will not only  
rival Photoshop, but best it.  _And_ do it easily.

There's also a tendency to write off Adobe as a has-been software  
house.  But I think they still pack quite a punch, though they  
definitely lack a portion of what made them great in the last decade.

---
David Zhou
david at nodnod.net