John Nack has answered the burning question of
OS X Adobe app users everywhere on his blog yesterday: when will we see native Intel OS X versions for all the shiny
new Macs Apple is rolling out this year? Unfortunately, the response is less than ideal. In fact, I think
it belies something fishy is up either with Adobe, Apple or both.
John Nack's answer is basically that they
have no plans to update the current CS2 or Studio 8 suites to run natively on Intel OS X, which means anyone buying a
new Intel Mac this year will have to deal with running these apps in the Rosetta emulation layer. While it seems like
this might be at least workable for some users, it is by no means ideal. The only way to get an Intel version of either
suite, as of Adobe's current plans, is to purchase a new/upgrade suite sometime in 2007. Let's also not forget the just-released After Effects 7.0 - who knows when
an Intel OS X copy of that will appear, but according to Adobe's FAQ (pdf link) on the matter, it sounds like purchasers of
even that brand new app won't get an Intel version without buying an upgrade/new version.
Now I am not a
software engineer, nor do I have a clue as to what goes on inside the walls at Adobe. Still, this less than ideal
situation smells rotten to me, and I don't mean just Adobe. Ever since Apple's Intel announcement last summer, they've
told the industry (at least the consumer side) that Intel Macs would appear by summer 2006. Yet they released two, one
being a pro machine, last month, and they won't have even their own pro apps ready until sometime in March. I don't
know about you, but the phrase "rushed to market" comes to mind.
Adding to the pile, I'm starting
to believe that John Gruber (of Daring Fireball fame) might have something
with a post last April,
worrying about Adobe's move away from being a great software company to just a company with a product to sell and
revenues to bolster. The fact that there won't be any updates or even a retail upgrade for previous versions of CS or
Studio to run on Intel Macs is quite a slap in the face to consumers. Apple, by contrast, is at least allowing Final
Cut Studio owners to trade their PowerPC discs in for Intel copies at the mere cost of $50. While some are complaining
about even that $50 charge, it's still a lot better than the price of a full upgrade or an entirely new copy.
My gripes aside however, what do you TUPW readers think? Is 2007 far too long to wait? Is Adobe milking their
customers for every dime they can? Or is this just another growing pain due to a processor switch by Apple? Let's hear
your thoughts.
No Intel OS X updated Adobe apps till 07
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I am in a position today to upgrade hardware (I require a laptop). Over the years I have used both Mac and PC versions of Photoshop. With Adobe's position on not having an optimized versions of Photoshop or Dreamweaver and Flash leave me no real choice. I may wait and test a MacBook Pro to see how bad it is to open a 200MB layered PSD - before putting my money down on a nice Sony, Core Duo equipped laptop.
This may prove to be a bad move for Apple. Adobe and Apple have had a long relationship. But, first Apple killed Adobe with all the pro level motion picture/video editing apps. Now, not that it is Photoshop be any means, but Apple is showing its hand in the photo editing/management space. I really think that if Adobe was given an ultimatum - choose Apple or Microsoft to support, I would think given the number of users - Microsoft would probably win. Another thing, if any optimization is required for Vista, Abode my be rolling all of its updates/optimization (for both Mac/Intel and Windows) into one release.
Posted at 6:55AM on Feb 8th 2006 by Scott Stafford
3. I'm a long-time software engineer in the Unix (and now OSX) world, and it would be very surprising to me if the CS2 suite is not already compiling for Intel OSX. With the UI APIs from Apple coming over as-is, the only real issue would be endianness assumptions or processor optimizations, but as we all know, CS2 runs on Windows on Intel so they've done alot of that already in some form. The vast majority of it, if not all of it, should just be a recompile with the Intel switch thrown.
So, if the report is accurate, I suspect this is Adobe being greedy and/or bratty.
Regards.
4. It seems like (from the FAQ) that Adobe isn't using Xcode. I don't know what they're using, but it sounds like it can't be used to build Universal binaries. Thus, the process also includes moving the source into a new development environment.
Does this also imply a switch from Carbon to Cocoa?
Posted at 5:02PM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Tarjei V?t?
5. It would appear that Adobe has taken their emphisis away from the Development crew and place much of their effort in acquisition (as in Macromedia).
As started by Jeremey, I too don't understand what would cause the great hold up in development of a Unibin version of the current adobe apps, beyond a financial one, Maybe they are do this in a effort to recoup their costs from the MM purchase, or maybe they plan to build the next version for OS X from the ground up.
Even if that was the plan, it still doesn't justify Adobe's lack of an update in anticipation of the intel based mac. But then again, Microsoft's Office suite is also lacking since the release.
Other smaller third party apps seem to be rather abundant with unibin releases. So why are the big boys so hesitant?
Posted at 5:09PM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Rick
6. I wish I had better news for you, guys. As I say, if we could do this faster, we would. Being required to drop CodeWarrior and switch to Xcode is by no means a trivial matter, especially for large applications with some features that were coded quite a while ago. Xcode is a relatively new development environment (only recently reaching 2.0), as as I say, Apple is working closely with our teams to enable large projects to be developed in Xcode. There's quite a difference between Universal-izing, say, a small, Mac-only FTP app and making the move with an app like Photoshop.
I hope you won't feel gouged, but I understand if you do. If you knew what went into this effort, I think you'd feel less consternation.
7. After Effects 7 was very near the end of a development cycle when the Intel switch was announced. Producing an Intel version would have substantially delayed the release. Some factors that make it more complicated than Steve Jobs tried to imply (Just click on the checkbox!):
* After Effects was developed with Code Warrior.
* Xcode is young and somewhat irresponsible, unpredictable and difficult to manage at times.
* After Effects, like other Adobe applications, isn't an isolated piece of software developed by a single team. It incorporates/depends on assorted components developed independently, sometimes from outside Adobe. If important components are not Intel ready, After Effects cannot be. The After Effects folks can jump up and down screaming, but it doesn't change the situation much.
And you can substitute most any CS product for After Effects and have a similar story, except that the switch was announced mor toward the middle of the CS development cycle, not right at the end.
Had Adobe jumped on the Xcode bandwagon much earlier, would probably be easier, but with the relative maturity and stability of CodeWarrior versus Xcode I can understand why it didn't happen.
Posted at 1:00AM on Feb 3rd 2006 by JRF
8. Well my GUESS:
Adobe has used CodeWarrior for CS2. They have decided (way back when Apple announced the move to Mactels) to move CS3 to XCode (and not to port CS2 to XCode).
Apple released the MacTels early and caught Adobe with their "pants down". But porting CS2 NOW to XCode would save them maybe two or three month and is in NO proportion to the invested money.
Despite the claims from Apple, that the move from CodeWarrior to XCode is easy, it can be very hard, if you have a large project and much code optimized for the platform.
So, I GUESS, that it is the only solution that they have, to stick with their original plan. (Which planed for a release of CS3 within 6 month after the release of the first MacTel)
Nothing fishy.
9. Everyone is thinking that this might be a coding issue, but did anyone think that this might be hesitation in part from Adobe, because they smell a Creative Suite emerging from the Apple Software side? One word, Appeture...
Posted at 11:43AM on Feb 3rd 2006 by Yong
10. I know John Nack and can attest that he is a straight up guy. Therefore I take him at his word that Adobe is "working really hard, together with Apple, to make this conversion" and that "if we knew how to do this more quickly, we would do it." -- as stated on John's blog:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/02/adobe_on_mactel.html
Posted at 3:05PM on Feb 3rd 2006 by Jan Kabili
11. Tony hit the nail on the head I think. Since Apple's initial announcement, all developers were lead to believe that Mac-tels would not be introduced until at least June .. not only Adobe .. but all major developers were set up to look like idiots .. and I think a very disrespectful way for Apple to treat its "technology partners".
Quite frankly, I thought it extremely arrogant of Jobs to ship these units with absolutely NO major third-party app ready .. not one. And if the honchos at Apple think all we do all day is surf the net and make iMovies .. well .. maybe they need to step out of the bunker once in a while .. and look at the real world ..
Posted at 1:22AM on Feb 4th 2006 by TMP
12. I'm no happy camper here so don't think I'm being an Adobe apologist but there's another matter to consider. Adobe doesn't exist in a vacuum in the way that many software companies do. It isn't just a question of Adobe getting out a Universal Binary. There's also the question of the myriad of plug-ins. So Adobe not only has to port the programs over to Intel (and only the Adobe programmers know how much of an issue that will be) but they also have to ensure that their plug-in architecture is solid and that their strategic partners have THEIR ducks all in a row.
Posted at 7:09PM on Feb 5th 2006 by David
1. I would not refer to the PowerBook as a pro machine. To say the G4 is an aged processor is an understatement. G4 1.67Ghz is not pro on any level.
Posted at 1:10AM on Feb 8th 2006 by ryan