4 ms·
Wow, what a dramatic re-interpretation of events. I was using Macs primarily for graphics work in the late 90's and early 00's. The close relationship between
by iamelgringo 17y ago
Wow, what a dramatic re-interpretation of events.
I was using Macs primarily for graphics work in the late 90's and early 00's. The close relationship between Adobe and Apple was the reason to be on the platform then. Graphic designers and creatives were one of the few markets that Apple had left. Believe it or not, but Apple owes a large part of it's existence through the 90's to Adobe's support of their platform. In fact, Apple and Adobe signed an exclusive deal to only ship Photoshop on Mac's in the early years.
Steve Jobs left, the company floundered and almost went belly up. They sued Microsoft for patent infringement, and Microsoft settled by investing $150 million in Apple, and becoming one of Apple's largest shareholders at the time. That helped Apple survive, and it gave Microsoft a reasonable competitor, so it wouldn't have to fight as many charges of being monopolistic. Ever wonder why so much Apple advertising punches Microsoft, but Microsoft doesn't really punch back?
So, with the second coming of Steve Jobs and a fresh infusion of cash from Microsoft. Apple decided to completely rewite their code base from scratch based on what he had been doing at Next. OS9 died, and OSX was born.
And, while those were great moves for Apple as a company, Adobe was faced with a very difficult choice: whether or not to port millions of lines of code over to a new OS that represented less than 3% of the computing market. Apple was making a "bet the farm" move, and expected Adobe to come along for the ride. Then Apple was pissed because Adobe didn't jump on the band wagon immediately and pony up the millions of dollars it would have cost to port their entire suite of apps to the new OS.
Three years after the launch of OSX, Apple made another "Bet the farm" move, and decided to migrate OSX from PowerPC chips to Intel processors.
Again, not only did Apple expect Adobe and the rest of their developer ecosystem to port their applications to a new OS, but 3 years after the new OS launched, they expected another dramatic round of rewrites to accommodate Apple's business and technical decisions.
But, Adobe did begin porting their software, and in the middle of all those changes, Apple chose to start competing directly with Adobe by launching Final Cut Pro at roughly the same time that Adobe was launching Premiere Pro. A year or two following that, Apple purchased Shake a video compositing app that directly competed with After Effects.
Needless to say, relations have been a bit strained between the companies for the last 10 years.
As far as I've been able to tell, Apple makes decisions that help Apple. They tend to have a "love us or leave us" approach to their developer ecosystem.
Microsoft used to play hardball like that all the time with their developers and with companies that ran on their platform. But they got slapped with anti-trust lawsuits. They play much nicer with other kids than Apple does these days. The only reason that Apple can get away with this, is because they are still seen as the "under dog" by many. I suspect that perception might be changing.
It's been so strange to hear a lot of arguments coming from Apple fans that Microsoft advocates used to use when defending it's platform decisions. "Why shouldn't Microsoft bundle Internet Explorer with their OS. It's their platform. Screw Netscape. Microsoft can do what they want. It makes for a much better experience"
People often ask me why I use Windows 7 as a development platform instead of OSX. My response is usually a joke and a quip "someone beat me with a Mac when I was young". Frankly, it was seeing the history of Apple's treatment of it's developers. Yes, they have great products if want to tow the line and follow Apple's rules. But, beware. When Apple decides to change the rules on you mid stream, you're not going to have much recourse.
ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple#The_Microsoft_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple#The_Microsoft_...
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/history/timeline/ http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/history/timeline/
edit: clarity and spelling.
- philwelch 17y agoYou have all of the events correct, but a few details, and the order of events, are somewhat misleading: 1. The Apple v. Microsoft suits began in the 1980's well before Apple ran into trouble. They finished in 1994, 3 years before the Microsoft deal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...) The dispute settled in the Microsoft deal had to do with Microsoft stealing the source code to QuickTime. (http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DDF-4A9A-9515-531B0CA0C29C.html http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5F0C866C-6DD...) 2. The history of Final Cut is tied into the history of Macromedia and the Quicktime dispute--Macromedia focused on developing web tools like Flash and Dreamweaver, and Final Cut was held up by demands by Microsoft not to ship Quicktime-based video editing software on Windows, so Final Cut was shopped around until Apple bought it, mostly to bolster Quicktime. Apple released Final Cut Pro in 1999, four years before Premiere Pro and two years before Mac OS X. At the time, Final Cut was intended to compete with Avid instead of Premiere. 3. Apple did not "flounder" continuously from the moment Steve Jobs left in 1985 to the moment he returned in 1997. The early success of the Mac platform came with models like the Mac SE and Mac II, which had fans, hard drives, and even expansion slots--features Jobs had personally opposed. It was relegated to a minority market share due to early decisions made by Sculley to keep prices high and not license out the operating system, but Apple was still a very successful company until the early-to-mid 90's. 4. Mac OS X was released in 2001. In 2005, Apple announced the transition to Intel. That's four years, not three--and four years in which Apple had gone from simply profitable to astounding levels of growth. Whether or not Adobe was smart to bet on Apple failing to survive the OS transition (or to bet on graphic designers leaving the Mac en masse), it was monumentally stupid to bet against Apple in 2005. It's also important to point out that Apple didn't switch processors just to switch processors--Motorola failed for years to keep PPC performance competitive with Intel, and IBM failed dramatically as well.
- iamelgringo 17y agoThanks for the corrections, Phil. I really wasn't trying to be misleading, I knew the events, and while I did some research to verify dates, I missed a few details. re: 1. You're correct about the details, but the event that I was referring to was Microsoft and Apple ending legal hostilities in '97 and signing the 5 year office/Internet Explorer/$150 million armstice. My point was that Apple had been on the ropes, and that Microsoft's money helped get back into the ring. My point was also, that had it not been for Adobe and a core contingent of dedicated artists/designers that made a living off of Adobe's software running on Apple. Apple would have been dead in the 90's. 2. You're correct on the release dates of Final Cut and Premiere Pro. The Adobe release that I was thinking about was the transition between Premiere 5.1 to 6.0. Final Cut did indeed compete with Avid. Adobe until then had ruled the pro-sumer video editing market at the time. Apple's decision to compete in that market essentially knocked them both out of that market. 3. I didn't mean to suggest that Apple floundered the entire time Jobs left. Those events were in succession, but not immediate. Apple was getting beat up pretty bad in the 90's, and had it not been for Adobe's products running on their hardware, I dare say Apple wouldn't be here today. 4. You're right, it was four years, not three. Regardless. My point wasn't that Adobe made a bet against Apple. Adobe did have software running on Apple hardware most of that time. I still think my main point still stands, however. That is, that Apple has a history of screwing developers, especially Adobe on their platform. Caveat Emptor.