Would you consider an Apple made Creative Suite?
Ivan | Thu, 2010-06-17 11:43Commenting on this Poll is closed.
Top 10 posts
- Creative business cards Part 1, Part 2, part 3 and part 4
- Snow Leopard desktop pictures
- Change background color in Photoshop and Indesign
- Windows 7 wallpapers
- Keyboard shortcuts in OSX
- Interview with Rob Janoff the designer of the Apple logo
- Does sex in advertising sells?
- 66 truly great minimalist ads
- Arabic calligraphy
- Transparent gradient in Illustrator
Categories
- Acrobat (10)
- Branding (20)
- Competition (4)
- Drupal (3)
- Ego (31)
- Firefox (18)
- Freehand (8)
- GMail (31)
- iLife (2)
- Illustrator (49)
- InDesign (53)
- Inspiration (211)
- Interview (9)
- iOS (18)
- iPhone (30)
- iWork (1)
- Mac OS X (247)
- Off topic (56)
- Operation (76)
- Opinion (141)
- Photography (17)
- Photoshop (216)
- Print (10)
- Project (16)
- Quark XPress (4)
- Review (102)
- Toolbox (172)
- Twitter (6)
- Webdev (136)
Creativebits is a blog about creativity, design and Macs. We also have a critique section where you can post your work to get opinions and a forum to discuss any design related topics.
Recommend us on Google
Latest critique
Active forum topics
Marketplace
Mediabistro | All Creative World | Inside Network
Jobs | Education | Research | Events | News
Advertise | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright 2011 WebMediaBrands Inc. All rights reserved.
Consider, of course, but have to see something first to actually buy it ;p
http://jackmancer.com/
http://twitter.com/jackmancer
Of course. Judging by the quality of other Apple Pro apps I think it would not be too bad.
Consider? Yes.
Will it ever happen? NO. That would definitely get flagged by the Feds. Plus I don't see Apple caring about InDesign as much as the rest of the suite.
What would the feds have to do with it? There are plenty of "creative" apps out there, and Apple would likely be a small player in the arena for a very long time.
-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.
It would depend if it was Open, in terms of technology. I want to develop using an environment that doesn't limit my options on where my apps / pages would run.
I need to be able to develop equally for an ipad as well as android platform.
However, Their software is very well put together, it would definitely be worth evaluating if they came out with a create suite.
most if not ALL of apples "pro" apps were acquired from other companies. as was the original apple OS. so really the only thing apple has really innovated is hardware. historically, software is NOT their strong area...
i dont think apple's elegance in hardware design filters down to their software. look at itunes and mail. they look nearly identical. i cant tell you how many times i've checked for new mail when i was trying to pause my itunes. for that matter. line up a finder window, mail and itunes side to side. integrated workflow is one thing. ambiguity is another...
so NO. out of the gate i would not put a lot of hope in an apple creative suite.
Apple makes great software (Final Cut Pro - hello?) and you got the OS story wrong. Xerox allowed Jobs and his crew to LOOK at their operating system. They did not "acquire" anything other than the opportunity to beat Xerox to the punch. IOW - no actual software ever changed hands. The other obvious point being that was lightyears ago - the OS is a totally different animal now and Apple is the one who did all the innovating in between.
And iTunes is not great software? It rules the market - it's #1. You might also be confusing some of their other stuff such as iWorks which came from Claris - but Claris was the software division of Apple way back when. They are one and the same - Apple just dropped "Claris". So Filemaker is also Apple software - another great product.
I would love a pick and choose "suite" from Apple where they let you pick 4 things you wanted. But they'd have to expand Aperture so it does everything (or almost) that Photoshop does so I can drop Adobe altogether. ;-)
While I agree with you that Apple makes great software I just have to say that iTunes in my opinion freaking sucks! It being number 1 is no different that Windows dominating PCs, it's something that happened because of other circumstances rather than merit of the actual product.
iTunes is in dire need of a freaking re-write, I can't believe a freaking simple music program manages to bring up the spinning beach ball so often. Simple things like minimizing it, or docking my iPhone, or scrolling through songs. On a machine with maxed out RAM none the less. I edit RAW files non destructively on this machine, but iTunes runs like crap. Go figure.
As for an Apple branded creative suite, I would not oppose it. Aperture pretty much keeps me out of Photoshop in most circumstances. I think they could make something really nice, especially if they were looking back and building something new. Any Photoshop clone would absolutely need to support PSD files though, otherwise it would probably be dead in the water.
{quote}And iTunes is not great software? It rules the market - it's #1. {/quote}
ok, you know i love to nitpick, so i have to go there. you didn't really just use that argument here, did you? cuz then windows must be the best OS, it rules the market. and VHS was better than beta. the list goes on. being #1 in the market doesn't mean actually being the best.
if itunes rules the market, it's because the ipod rules the market.
:P
Apple didn't make FinalCut, they bought it; just like iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, and countless other apps. They also used Unix as the underpinnings of OSX - which is what I think the commenter above meant.
-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.
you sound like a true fanboy art.
macromedia had final cut nearly complete before apple bought it. and they havent really done significant user experience changes to it since version 1. and AFAIK, all of the final cut studio apps were originally somebody elses product...
and whether xerox sold or just gave apple the rights to it. apple didnt innovate the "desktop" metaphor. did they improve it? yes. but again, i havent seen a whole lot of productivity enhancements since os9. is osX sexier? yeah. does it DO anything os9 didnt? not really. in fact its taken away some really nice features and added a lot of sparkly horsecrap.
and itunes rules the market because if you want to use the music store - you HAVE TO.
and the whole iworks thing... what a joke. i mean its pretty and fun if you live in an apple only world. but as soon as you need to leave the machine it was built on, the whole thing falls apart. i know very few people who operate in a mac-only environment.
apple is a hardware company. and is becoming a "mobile devices" company. i see their attention to and quality of software waning year by year...
Apple is evil to all of it's partners!
http://stevefakeballmer.wordpress.com/
I am not Steve Ballmer pretending not to be me!
to answer the question, i'd consider it. but my guess is i wouldn't switch unless the industry switched. i have a comfort zone with the adobe suite and the market is built upon it. obviously it can be done (see quark v indesign), but adobe would have to make the same kinds of mistakes quark made (and apple would have to undercut them) and i don't see that happening.
Much like iDVD, iMovie, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, and iPhoto - a "Creative Suite" collection from Apple would likely leave designers wondering why they wasted money on it for professional use.
Look, Apple makes great consumer apps, and a few good professional ones. But they (Steve Jobs) simply are too stubborn to get it right in this arena. You have to accommodate a lot of different people and workflows - and that's something Apple just doesn't do. They make an app their way, and their way only.
Apple can't compete with office apps, so I just can't see them being competitive with a creative set of apps either.
-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.
Wow - brought out every PC-user with that one. All your "complaints" seem to boil down to one issue - Apple bought other software (at times) and improved it. Hey... guilty. Then again - who hasn't? Microsoft? Adobe? The difference is - unlike the other two - Apple has never felt the need to flood the market with free copies of their software in order to gain market superiority. So I guess the real question here is which "fanboy" vacuum are you guys living in?
BTW - 25 years in the business, I've worked almost exclusively in Mac-only environments - from my own business to top flight ad agencies. The only place I occasionally would see a Windows machine was right where you'd expect to see one... on a secretary's desk. ;-)
I don't think there are a whole lot of PC-user responses here, or necessarily complaints.
The fact is that virtually every successful app Apple has was purchased (and improved) by Apple, not CREATED by Apple. Now when you look at the iWork suite which was created by Apple, you see that it's barely a blip on the radar.
As far as your comments on MS and Adobe, I've NEVER seen them GIVE AWAY copies of their software for free in order to gain marketshare. Both companies make great products for their respective markets. In the case of Adobe, they just flat out make them better and thus little competition can be found.
-----------
Visit The Graphic Mac for graphics and Mac OS tips, reviews, tutorials and discussion.
Well we can agree to disagree on the PC thing, but my guess is if you weren't a PC user you would have come right out and said so. I already know where gwells and wgzn stand. So far as Apple - disagree. We could give our personal opinions on that all day long, but I would suggest that PC users are not the people you want to ask when it comes to Apple products. No offense, but you folks have always had a chip on your shoulders concerning Apple's superiority.
Your MS and Adobe comments display your age - obviously pretty young. But even you must know that the ONLY reason MS is even on the map is because Gates was a MARKETING genius - not a software genius. The DOS system (which - btw - Gates purchased, he did not create) was given away on computers for years (ie: buy a computer and Windows was pre-installed). Windows (stolen from Apple) - to this day - still comes on computers for free in a lot of cases. Office does too. Same for IE (which used to come for free on Macs as well). The old joke at Netscape was they were on borrowed time because MS was going to buy them out sooner or later to keep IE's marketshare. Going WAY back, the reason Office came free in the beginning was so Gates could flood the market with a stripped down version of Word in order to knock off the far superior WordPerfect. That might have been where that marketing idea originated - I'm not sure. But another company has actually done an even better job using that tactic...
Adobe. Obviously you weren't around for it, but Photoshop used to come free with every scanner purchase (I still have a bundled LE copy of PSD 3(?) in the wrapper - I'll post a pic if you want). Let's see... what else did Adobe give away to flood the market? Hmmm.. how about InDesign? Adobe couldn't GIVE away InDesign until they bundled it with PSD and ILL. Users were faced with a choice - buy Ill and PSD AND Quark (the program EVERYONE was using) or buy PSD and ILL and get ID in the package for FREE (thereby not only saving the cost of buying ID, but also the cost of upgrading/purchasing Quark). Hey - I give them credit for finally figuring a way out to do it. It took them a decade, they had to buy and kill Aldus Pagemaker in the process and they basically had to forego any profit whatsoever from ID - but at least they could finally claim they had the #1 layout program (what was that you said about being #1 in sales... gwells;). And what about the others? Pagemaker? Bought and killed by Adobe. Go Live? Bought and killed by Adobe. Freehand? Bought and killed by Adobe. There are other examples, I'm sure. But do you see a pattern here? Maybe Adobe is not "flat out better" - or there was "little competition to be found" - maybe they just had more money available to buy and kill programs. Adobe couldn't afford to buy Quark - so they flooded the market with free ID product instead.
Don't get me wrong - Adode did a couple good things - like Postscript, Illustrator (before the bloat) and pdf. But Adobe is riding Apple's back. Not the other way around.
As always, jm - not so - ho. ;-)
art, as much as i enjoy your commentary elsewhere on the site... you are straight up full of crap on this one.
i dont recall adobe ever offering free FULL versions of anything. your comment about photoshop LE coming with your scanner is hogwash. any LE version is a weak version of its big brother... and yeah, so what if they released LE as a loss-leader to sell the full version? adobe RULED the digital photo world WAY before they even considered releasing LE versions.
and im not going to swear to this but ive also never seen ID included in anything but a suite package. and IF adobe included it with something, it's because it SUCKED originally - so why not? the primary reason ID took hold in the market is because quark was so arrogant and refused to smell what was coming.
nobody said that adobe didnt buy stuff as well as apple has. what we said that apple didnt have a history of bringing recognized, PROFESSIONAL software to market. all apple has in that arena is final cut pro. iwork is a joke that only newbies, fanboys and marketing half-wits really take seriously.
and your comment about gates being a marketing genius...??? seriously? hes not a marketing genius. hes a one-off opportunist. and hes ridden that opportunity to global domination.
i could go on but this conversation has become tedious. apple wont release a creative suite of tools. they cant. not unless the ipad/flash fight cripples adobe and apple buys them...
Your missing the point too (on many levels). First off - maybe you don't remember it - but originally Adobe DID give away FULL versions of Photoshop when you bought a scanner. Then as psd became the market standard, they switched to LE versions and then stopped giving it away altogether. And it doesn't matter that LE was a stripped down version because you could still upgrade to a full version of photoshop FOR THE SAME PRICE. IOW - if I bought a full version of photoshop OR had the LE version - it was $149 to upgrade to the next full version. So when all is said and done you end up with a full version of psd for $149 either way - if you BUY the program or if you GET IT FREE with a scanner. See my point?
There WERE other digital photo programs, btw - Live Picture probably being the most popular besides psd. LP had a scalable editing feature that was WAY ahead of it's time. They were ahead of Adobe and Photoshop in many respects - but Adobe was flooding the market with free copies of psd.
http://philip.greenspun.com/wtr/live-picture-v-photoshop.html
http://www.livepicturegroup.com/
Your Quark story is pure nonsense. That was an Adobe marketing pitch - a good one, I'll admit - but still just a sales pitch. Anyone who was around back then knows Adobe couldn't give away InDesign. It wasn't until they packaged it in the Suites that it took off with customers (because then it was essentially a free product - I already explained why).
Just fyi... I got my copy of photoshop for absolutely NOTHING. That's why I never registered this copy I still have in the wrapper...
i give up. we're gonna have to just agree to disagree on this one...
You people argue about nothing so passionately!
http://stevefakeballmer.wordpress.com/
I am not Steve Ballmer pretending not to be me!