| 3:05 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was a little dissapointed when CoolEdit was no longer available because Adobe bought Syntrillium.
If I remember Cooledit was pretty affordable but Adobe added some features, called it Audition, and jacked the price to $300.
I wonder what will happen to Homesite?
| 3:12 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just what we don't need. Adobe taking away our tools and pumping out more garbage software that developers will now be forced to use.
| 3:36 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dreamweaver is the only reason I use Windows. I'm sure it will take Adobe less than a year to make it as bloated and useless as Adobe CS.
So long Windows, I won't miss you!
| 3:44 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One set of customers is about to get screwed in at least a year or so will it be the MM DreamWeaver users or Adobe GoLive users?
| 3:46 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Adobe GoLive users were screwed the second they purchased that product :)
| 4:17 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not a happy thing, I think. Reckon the prices will go way up and we'll be looking at some mega-ultra-CS-MX-super-bundle that costs an arm and a leg like AdobeCS only bigger. :(
I like Fireworks for the web too, but I use Photoshop for effects/detail in some cases. I'd hate to see Fireworks phased out. I'd also hate to see the MX stuff made over in the image of Adobe, I like the MX interface.
| 4:30 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Bye-bye GoLive... hello Dreamweaver.
Bye-bye ImageReady... hello Fireworks.
Bye-bye Freehand... hello Illustrator.
Maybe the future new Web Designer CS will contain:
Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Illustrator and Photoshop?
This would mean less products for me to buy. Sweet!
| 4:43 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I only have to figure out if I should sell all my MACR shares today (way up) or ride it out and see what happens after the buyout is completed. They're going to give MACR shareholders 0.69 Adobe shares per each MACR share which would actually make it worth $1 more than it's trading at even with MACR up $3 up today and ADOBE down $6.
Decisions decisions, oh the pain....
| 5:34 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe the future new Web Designer CS will contain: |
Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Illustrator and Photoshop?
Those are the 4 best products for the job and now they are owned by the same company. I see this a good thing.
Maybe Adobe can fix Macromedia's interface.
| 6:06 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This kind of consolidation can't be good for marketplace competition or for innovation. I dislike this deal.
| 6:23 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For those of you who dislike microsoft, this will be even worse. Even though MS owns your road, you still had an option of which cars to drive on it. Now you will only get what Adobe gives you, and will have no options. Think if you only had the choice of a GM car - that would be a sorry day indeed.
With no meaningful competition, Adobe will bloat the software and prices, increasing burden not value. Just like MS did with internet explorer by not updating it in 5 years. You can count on photoshop 2010 looking much the same as it does today.
| 6:31 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You will still have the option to NOT upgrade.
I have yet to upgrade from the Adobe Design Collection to CS or CS2 because nothing in those sets has piqued my intrest.
| 7:05 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This kind of shake out in a mature industry is expected.
There is some overlap but the combined synergy could be good in the long term as both companies stop wasting resources on competing for redundant technologies. Perhaps some new innovation is possible with just those savings alone. Only time will tell.
There's still CorelDraw out there, somewhere, someone must be using it.
| 8:39 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I'm guessing this will be the end of "fireworks" |
Say it ain't so. I just got so I could use that thing...
With MM's popularity and wide-spread use, I find it hard to believe that Adobe would "phase-out" OR significantly change any of their products. If they altered the MM interface, it would force the entire MM using population to relearn an interface to a product they're already loyal to. I can't imagine a better way to alienate customers and guarantee that they never purchase an upgrade to that product. It would be foolish to make any changes to the MM suite of products beyond adding or updating features. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't.
| 8:44 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
" I'm guessing this will be the end of "fireworks" "
I doubt it, to me photoshop is one thing, which I use for one type of image processing, and fireworks is another. Fireworks is excellent for web graphics, much better than photoshop, the product I would see going is image ready, which I've always seen as kind of a weak fireworks clone.
Personally, this will have no affect on me, since I've never seen any reason to upgrade either photoshop or fireworks, they were done pretty well to begin with, unless you are a pro graphics person. Plus the gimp is getting better and better all the time.
The link between fireworks and dreamweaver has more value than the link between photoshop and imageready, to me this is just adding a midlevel application suite to adobe's higher end stuff, it actually makes sense, unusually for big mergers, as Fiona can tell you now that she was fired for doing a really dumb merger, that made no sense at all.
| 9:26 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Any Idea of what's going to Happen to former Allaire Products like Coldfusion? I am not sure that Adobe is too into Application development.
| 9:32 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
growingdigital: Dreamweaver is the only reason I use Windows.
It's also available for Mac ;)
| 9:43 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Any Idea of what's going to Happen to former Allaire Products like Coldfusion? I am not sure that Adobe is too into Application development. |
MM also has AuthorWare, Director and Flash which are all more or less application development of sorts.
Besides, Cold Fusion crumbles under stress, I'm not sure PHP and MySQL is much better or worse and it's certainly cheaper so it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see Cold Fusion vanish from the mix.
| 10:01 pm on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think this is great is going to be like software utopia! Working with adobe and macromedia products is going to be a much more streamlined process which means being able to do more work faster and I am more then happy with that. As for no competition any more I don’t see that as being true. Adobe and macromedia have no real competition in the first place. Both companies have only a handful of products that directly compete and of these products there’s a vast majority of consumers that supports one or the other. Don’t forget that its all the same staff as before (apart from the some of the top macromedia staff who now have S**t loads of money and have moved of to the Bahamas) so its hard to believe that adobe would dumb any macromedia products, macromedia has an excellent business model so why would there be no reason to drop a profitable product with great staff such as coldfusion.
Now after saying all that I would get very worried if adobe started cutting any macromedia staff but like I said before with macromedia doing so well in the first place there should be absolutely no reason to do that.
| 1:31 am on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Now maybe Adobe can finally fix their website ;) with the help of those who pulled together Macromedia site.
I am really excited about this blending of Macromedia and Adobe products. Adobe listens pretty well to its consumer base, which is more than I can say about Macromedia... There are pros and cons, over all I believe the end result will be sweet!
| 3:13 am on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry for being off topic, but, Adobe´s home page had a Page Rank 10 for a long time, but I´ve just noticed that Macromedia has now a PR10 in its homepage.
I must admit that I never looked at Macromedia´s PR before, but I don´t recall having Macromedia as an example of PR10.
Perhaps... Maybe... Who knows...
No, no, that´s not the way Google works.
Or is it?
| 3:39 am on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm sad to see any real interest in anti-trust laws has disappeared completly. I think both are good products, but I would much rather see the two companies at each other's throats.
It's not as bad as Microsoft buying Yahoo and Google, but it's still pretty disturbing.
| 6:33 am on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Bill Gates: "You have to know when to hold back. If the takeoff curve in something is very gradual, then the early guys who pay extra money and take extra risk aren't protected."
By FRED MOODY
New York Times
August 25, 1991
| 2:15 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would agree that, since InDesign overlaps Quark and ImageReady overlaps Fireworks, an eventual merging would be...natural. Whatever product has the most features that users would find useful should win, and as most things go they end up copying each other anyways. But that Adobe (pixel painting) and Quark (print placing) and Macromedia (web weaving) come all under the tutelle of one "Noble house" - I don't really like the idea. The edges of each respective "media" may bleed into each other in places, but to manage one pair of brackets around all three would take... one helluva large arm span. I'd feel much more comfortable using a product by a smaller "specialty' company that puts all its research and efforts into one area instead of trying to tie together all it's got. That would keep competition health and the ideas going.
I see no good in either monopolies nor anti-trust (though we have yet to hear a clear definition of the latter). If someone has a great product you can't keep customers from buying it over another, and any attempt to do so would be undemocratic. What there are no laws against today is endocrinisation - first-time users being "educated" in one product before ever getting a look at what else is out there. I find it laughable that there is an anti-trust case against Microsoft about them shipping Windows Mediaplayer (their own product) with windows (their own product) and not Real's player (their competitor!) - when nothing at all has ever been done about Windows shipping already installed in every computer ever made with a Pentium (Intel) chip.
This is not at all the case with Adobe and Macromedia - they both are consenting adults - so there is no case for any anti-trust here. It is true, though, that the cosumer will have (yet) fewer choices when deciding "what's best" - and if things narrow down enough I do agree that the stage may be set for another "Quark saga".
| 2:18 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|when nothing at all has ever been done about Windows shipping already installed in every computer ever made with a Pentium (Intel) chip |
Er, where did you get that from? I know several places that build Pentium based PCs with 'Nix.
| 2:37 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
...I think that was Intel, not Pentium. I know you know what I mean. Give us a market-share percentage number of your example if it bears any weight against the case I mentioned.
| 4:45 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|This would mean less products for me to buy. |
If the end result of Adobe's acquisition of Macromedia is fewer products, it's folly to think they will charge the same or less for those products as they do now.
Competition, over time, increases the quality and reduces the price of the products.
| 6:03 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I'd feel much more comfortable using a product by a smaller "specialty' company that puts all its research and efforts into one area instead of trying to tie together all it's got. |
Applying this arguement to Adobe with regards to MM products presumes that Adobe will be taking over the development of MM products with their existing staff, which is almost certainly not the case. Wouldn't you think they woule retain the services of the MM development team to continue working on the MM based product line?
| 7:09 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
...as for "overlapping" products I do think that there will be a fair amount of layoffs as they'll be merging the best they've got of both staffs. Or do you think they'll do otherwise?
| 7:42 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Competition, over time, increases the quality and reduces the price of the products."
Competition definitely has that end result, which is why it's important for goverments to strictly ensure that such competition continues to exist. When companies have monopoly or near monopoly market positions, there can be no competition. Since the US government decided to roll over for MS in its own antitrust legal process, I guess Adobe figured, hey, why not us too.
MS has been unable to break into the graphics area though they've actually tried, nobody ever saw their junk except people who bought the full office 2000 suite, which almost nobody ever did, and you never hear about it.
So now we have two virtual monopolies in the software industry: OS, Office suite, and graphics/publishing. Great.
"I see no good in either monopolies nor anti-trust (though we have yet to hear a clear definition of the latter). If someone has a great product you can't keep customers from buying it over another, and any attempt to do so would be undemocratic."
You kind of have to make a choice here, either governments force splits of monopolies and enable competition to happen again, or they don't, and you have to have monopolies. Monopolies are inherently 'undemocratic', since they bypass the rules of the market place completely, which is why they should be controlled. You can't have it both ways. Not doing anything, which would be the logical outcome of this position, would absolutely guarantee the formation of monopolies, and the loss of a democratic marketplace.
When the us government split apart the phone companies, prices plummeted, competition skyrocketed. It worked great. If the current president hadn't accepted huge campaign contributions from MS and then dumped the penalty phase of the antitrust law suites, we'd be seeing an extremely different competitive environment right about now.
Adobe obviously looked at the current climate and said, hey, this is the right time to move, nothing to worry about from the political arena.
| 7:50 pm on Apr 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|...I think that was Intel, not Pentium. I know you know what I mean. |
Huh?! Intel make the Pentium processor. Intel is the company, Pentium is their brand/trademark/regd trademark. For the purposes of this discussion Intel and Pentium are the same thing. I thought I knew what you meant. You were suggesting that MS had some deal with Intel and that every Intel Pentium based PC ships with Windows and that the government wasn't doing anything about it. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
| This 68 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 68 ( 1  3 ) > > |