Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbrannan | Hacker News Reader

I've often wondered why Apple doesn't buy Adobe, kill all development for PCs, and leave Microsoft high and dry in the creative market.

Just saying...

View on HN

I wonder if Microsoft is thinking the same thing. Either as a defensive move to make sure Photoshop will always work on Windows or as an offensive move and making Photoshop and friends windows only in an attempt to strangle the OS X platform.

Most designers I know would work for McDonald's before they'd use Windows :)

I know you probably aren't entirely serious but people can and do change when their choices disappear.

Fundamentalists may differ.

You're correct in a general sense, but for the specific case of designers working in fields where the standard computer is a Windows machine I've almost always seen an exception made for the design department to use Macs.

I could use Windows but I'll never buy Windows.

Apple has been able to create pro level software for both audio and video editing industries. If Adobe/Microsoft scraped its mac line of products, I bet Apple would have a competing product out in 12 months that graphic designers would flock to.

Note, however, that those were all originally acquisitions. FCP was born at Macromedia and Apple purchased the product and hired the team. Shake came from the Nothing Real acquisition. Logic is from the Emagic acquisition.

Not to mention all of those applications had a windows version. Yes, even Final Cut (at least the version they shopped at NAB).

I personally got royally screwed over Nothing Real purchase (we had a site license of both linux and windows version).

Chalice, Shake (and Tremor), Final Cut, Logic, India Pro... - all acquisitions followed by "Mac only from now on, sorry".

I believe Aperture was developed in-house.

Apple at that point would buy Pixelmator in a heartbeat and make its own product.

I was under the impression that it's nearly impossible to compete with adobe in this market because they've patented all important algorithms.

If CS became Windows-only, it would mean a great resurgence for Quark, along with those guys in Texas who got Freehand back from Macromedia.

I don't know that doing something like this wouldn't cause the justice dept to get interested. It would be a really anti competitive move.

At this point with the Flash debate there'd be no culture fit.

Also there was a ton of tension between these companies early in the decade when Adobe was dragging its feet to do Photoshop for OSX.

Maybe it's better to kill Office for Mac then?

I assume that Microsoft is making some money on Office for Mac. They aren't developing that product for charity. I don't see any reason for them to kill off development for the Mac, especially if they acquire Adobe.

Microsoft could use some help in the mobile market, though, so I can believe the idea of those two companies joining forces to make some headway there.

Vendor lock-in isn't as crucial to Adobe's CS as it is to Office. Microsoft doesn't want anybody to even think that there's such a thing as an "Office alternative", whereas recent years have proven that upstart competitors to components of CS can get traction.

So, while killing CS for Mac might work (users switching platforms might outnumber users switching programs), killing Office for Mac would just force universities to switch to ODF and in the long term, it would hurt the rest of Office's markets.

      killing Office for Mac

IMHO that would be a catastrophe for Apple: the existence of MS Office being the only reason Mac OS X (and not Linux) is an accepted alternative for employees inside many companies (including at Adobe btw).

Sorry, but CS is niche software used by certain professionals. MS Office / Exchange are used by everybody else ;)

And I wouldn't bet against Microsoft for providing an alternative to CS: judging from the experience of using Microsoft Blend, they are rookies, but they can manage it.

Apple wouldn't do this for the same reason that MS doesn't do this with Office: $$$$$$. There's too much money in the PC market to ignore it.

Explain please.

I don't know how Apple would feel about having to deal with all those enterprise customers who run Adobe software on PCs only. Also, a number of Adobe products don't have Mac versions, like ColdFusion and JRun. Yes, there are still places that rely on this software.

Killing off the Mac version of CS would do a pretty good job halting Apple's inroads into enterprise

What's "CS"? Unless it's Outlook's calendaring, I doubt it will have any effect on "the enterprise". Remember, most people only use their computers to send email, setup meetings, and browse Facebook.

CS is shorthand for Creative Suite. A collection of several Adobe products into one package available in several flavors.

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/

Correct, but a large chunk of corporations have in house creative departments and many(if not most) use macs. Killing the Mac version of CS would force them to switch back to PC.

Or continue to use the last available version for Mac until a viable replacement is available for their preferred platform.

Or run one of several emulation options.

Coldfusion runs on Mac, not certain about JRun.

> Yes, there are still places that rely on this software.

Killing JRun and Cold Fusion would be doing them a favor.

You are speaking out of ignorance.

Speaking as someone who worked multiple cf projects over multiple years, no, he's not.

Well... On the other hand, killing CF and JRun to doom them to IIS and .NET is not exactly helpful...

Helpful to whom? of all the devs I've ever met that have used CF, the most positive thing I've ever heard said about it is that "they're used to its failings and it's comfortable". I can't help but think Microsoft's tools are a much more appealing value proposition than Adobe's in this particular space.

Microsoft's tools may be more appealing than Cold Fusion or JRun, but they are still less appealing than pretty much everything else this side of Java.

At least with CF and (IIRC) JRun you are not locked into Windows...

Yeah, it's a little strange that it actually sits in the same basic ecosystem as everything else on the other side of the microsoft stack and yet manages to be worse even than the MS offerings.

Frankly even considering the vendor lock-in implicit in being wed to the MS stack, I'd take that option over CF any day of the week. That said I see no reason to choose between different degrees of poison when there's plenty of good clean water around.

Sadly, no.

I suspect that were Adobe to leave the Windows market, the vacated "niche" would be quickly filled.

It might be harder than you think to replace highly refined creative tools such as Illustrator or Photoshop.

Although they have become rather bloated and the last few versions have failed to innovate in significant ways, there is a lot of graphics professionals who would be very reluctant to waste all that hard-won muscle-memory.

Plus there's a lot of work-flow knowledge in them there apps.

Not to mention all the color patents.

I agree that replacing Illustrator and Photoshop are nontrivial. I doubt that a typical startup could do it.

On the other hand, it would be a natural fit for someone like Autodesk given their resources and markets. Retail box graphics applications could make sense in Microsoft's product line. Even Corel would be in a position to capitalize on Adobe leaving the Windows market.

Exactly, I have tried repeatedly to switch to GIMP as Photoshop is the only reason I have a Windows box at home - but I just can't do it.

Actually there have been internal talks / rumors about the possibility of Apple buying Adobe (1-2 years ago): guess it didn't work out.

Because the Windows versions of their products account for the vast majority of their profits.

Apple already has all the PDF technology they want, and the creative products are too high end (too niche) or Apple has a competing product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com