7 ms·

Apple Smells Blood in the Water

89 points by atombender 2y ago

grecy 2y ago
If all of this speculation is true, I wonder what they'll do to compete with Lightroom? - either bring back Aperture, or something similar but completely new
- gglanzani 2y ago
  Photomator by the Pixelmator folks is a Lightroom alternative.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Not quite. Photomator + Photos is sort of a Lightroom alternative but it’s not a fully integrated photo management system to the level of aperture or Lightroom. There’s a lot of organizational workflows that neither photos nor Photomator even attempt to include today. Ratings, multiple tags, quick selects, rapid export presets, multiple version handling etc
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Ratings, multiple tags, quick selects, rapid export presets, multiple version handling etc I assume this is why they acquired Photomater versus inviting them to the stage.
floating-io 2y ago
It's too late for this former user of Apple's productivity software. Killing Aperture and nerfing the iWork suite destroyed any willingness I could have ever had to go back. I like their OS, but it would be a hard sell for me to ever choose to migrate to their productivity software again.
karaterobot 2y ago
> But public perception of Adobe has dipped in recent years. I agree with the quoted tweet (or Threads post, whatever) that Adobe is a brand many or most creative professionals spit on, even if we have no choice but to use their software. They've lost so much good will that if there was literally any other comparable tool suite out there, Adobe would be out of business faster than it takes to boot up their horrible software. I do my best to avoid them, but sometimes even I have to put a clothespin on my nose and do certain tasks in Illustrator or Photoshop.
- bloopernova 2y ago
  I'm not a frequent user of Photoshop, so I was wondering what it does that Krita doesn't? (Or gimp)
  - Tomte 2y ago
    Photo editing. Krita is for painting.
  - nicce 2y ago
    User interface. Seriously. The efficiency of these tools is not measured by the capabilities, but by the effort it takes from the user to get the expected end result.
    - jrvieira 2y ago
      I used Affinity tools as a better alternative. Are they not a player anymore?
    - kyriakos 2y ago
      Same goes for Lightroom, many competitors, none of them has the full feature package that Lightroom Classic has.
      - DeathArrow 2y ago
        I can use DXO Photolab or Capture One Pro or even ON1 Photo Raw or Skylum Luninar instead of Lightroom. It's Photoshop I can't replace with something else.
yazzku 2y ago
Was the beef here mostly around the subscription model, then cherry on top with the AI? Catching up with that 1hr interview...
alsetmusic 2y ago
> When Apple shuttered development of Aperture, there were rumors it did so because it entered into a gentleman’s agreement with Adobe to give Lightroom the space it needed to take over the photography software industry. That worked, and Adobe applications ran great on Apple computers. I’d not heard this theory (though the only pro-space app I care about is Logic for audio). I’d love if Apple started smashing the funding button for their pro apps again, but they’ve already caused a lot of distrust when they killed Aperture. Not to mention other products that don’t get ongoing updates (HomePod, Mac Pro for about a century, Xserve line that was killed, and other more recent items that aren’t top of mind atm). Justifying the risk of conversion will be an uphill battle.
- myworkinisgood 2y ago
  I mean isn't Apple as worse as Adobe in subscription models?
  - atonse 2y ago
    FCP X is $300 one time. Pixelmator is also a one time purchase. I bought Pixelmator Pro for $60 when it came out.
  - SG- 2y ago
    they don't do any software subscriptions, they've even been making a lot of their software free starting with macOS years ago too.
    - DeathArrow 2y ago
      Provided you buy their hardware. Or can I run macOS on a Snapdragon Laptop?
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  "a gentleman's agreement" is a really nice way of saying market allocation, blatantly anti-competitive behaviour.
juusto 2y ago
I wonder how much would Adobe benefit from porting its suite to Linux for example. Do a Steam move and pick a fave distro, use some translation layer and bam. I vote for the unholy matrimony of Adobe+Steam to break the stronghold of MS+Apple. That is pretty much the chicken and egg problem of Linux in regards to Apps and Games.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - seszett 2y ago
    > and then pirate the software to top it all off. Why would you think that though? I'm pretty sure software piracy is less common on Linux than on Windows.
    - mh- 2y ago
      Of course it is. Because the software people want to pirate isn't available on Linux for all the reasons parent commenter outlined.
      - capitainenemo 2y ago
        Well, there's at least a bit of evidence from past that linux users are more likely to spend money on software than windows or osx. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/08/linux-users-pay-more-humble-indie-bundle-3 https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/08/linux-users-pay-more-hum...
    - meowster 2y ago
      I don't know why the parent comment was flagged dead, but I was typing this reply when it happened: I'm willing to pay, but I rarely use it, so the price I'm willing to pay has to reflect that, and Adobe is not going to come down that low. So I will continue to keep an old Windows laptop around with the sole purpose to run Adobe CS6 the maybe 8 times a year when I need it.
wkat4242 2y ago
> When Apple shuttered development of Aperture, there were rumors it did so because it entered into a gentleman’s agreement with Adobe to give Lightroom the space it needed to take over the photography software industry. That worked, and Adobe applications ran great on Apple computers. Wouldn't this be highly illegal?
- ReptileMan 2y ago
  Doubtful. There is no rule that you have to stay in businesses and compete with someone.
  - atonse 2y ago
    There actually are laws against anti-competitive collusion in the US. [1] 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
  - xboxnolifes 2y ago
    The collusion is the issue, not the decision to not compete.
BeautifulOrb 2y ago
I've used Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects constantly for 15 years. There have been no significant improvements and no meaningful competitors. The AI stuff is junky. The movement to expensive subscription plans sucks for artists. Shocked no one has moved into this space. Procreate has been an amazing and affordable alternative to drawing in photoshop/illustrator, and Figma filled a space that Adobe ignored, and Blender can do some amazing video editing things. But with PS, AI, and AE there is so much opportunity for competition.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  Have you seen Serif's Affinity products? https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/ https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/
  - DeathArrow 2y ago
    Still Mac only?
    - _rend 2y ago
      > Award-winning photo editing, graphic design and page layout software for Mac, Windows & iPad. They've supported Windows and iPad for years, too.
    - shepherdjerred 2y ago
      The linked page notes that Affinity supports macOS, iPad OS, and Windows
jmyeet 2y ago
Final Cut Pro X was an example of how a complete rewrite almost always being a mistake. Now if Apple was really committed to rearchitecting the app (which is fair), they should've done it in parallel. That is, release both versions at the same time. Yes, it's more expensive but it's simply not worth killing your audience by cutting back features because they aren't imported yet. Brand the two versions differently but have the same licnese activate both. So I will defend the idea of software subscriptions, not Adobe's implementation thereof. You may like software you purchase but you don't really purchase software anymore. It may rely on online services that can go offline. There is a constant need for bugfixes. Old versions may not get those fixes. Vendors will gate new features behind major versions that you have to buy and the threshold for what constitutes a major version gets lower and lower over time. Adobe was guilty of all of this. Photoshop has a Camera Raw plugin. Back in the day, new RAW formats (which came out all the time) were added to later Camera Raw versiona and those versions required later PS versions for literally no reason, other than to force you to buy the upgrade. Purchasing software just isn't the panacea many think it is. Subscriptions have a better incentive model to continuously fix and develop the software without artificially creating major versions to push sales. Jetbrains is really the gold standard for subscriptions. Adobe... isn't. Adobe uses dark patterns for renewals and subscription periods. They keep jacking up the prices. They hide these price hikes in bundles.
kyriakos 2y ago
Unless Apple is planning to release any of the said software for Windows as well then I don't see Adobe being cornered. Apple wants to sell hardware so its unlikely to port to Windows. Creatives are no longer exclusive to Apple hardware as it used to be 15 years ago.
- nineteen999 2y ago
  Exactly, macOS is ~20% market share vs Windows worldwide. It's not a competition if you're only competing for a small slice of the pie on your own platform. I don't see this driving further adoption of macOS much, but even if it did, it would only be making up ground lost due to the Final Cut X shmozzle.
snapetom 2y ago
I'm going to sidetrack this a little and shit on ON1 before anyone mentions it. I searched high and low for an Adobe competitor, even using Aperture with Reactive until it became too unstable. ON1 was the only other thing close to being usable. For a few releases, it was nice. But it's unstable as hell these days. So unfortunate because it's powerful and has a nice interface. Unfortunately they prioritize new features over fixing things. Whoever the product manager is should be fired over the crap AI features they shoved in.
DeathArrow 2y ago
>no one can touch Adobe when it comes to fast and wide support of camera RAW profiles I think DXO might be on par with Adobe for camera profiles.
DeathArrow 2y ago
Why would someone think Apple is better for the customer than Adobe? And why would someone think Apple will reach feature parity to Adobe?
bigkuanysh 2y ago
Adobe hasn’t been disrupted somehow. The format lock-in is too strong. I’m avoiding it wherever possible.
karmakaze 2y ago
Aperture to me was the perfect photography software and was sad to see it discontinued. It did seem a bit niche in a competitive area that may not have justified porting to Apple Silicon and supporting. Now the play seems to be for Apple to dominate all creative professional software and make Windows+Creative/Pro software as much an oxymoron as Mac+Games.

89 points by atombender 2y ago

If all of this speculation is true, I wonder what they'll do to compete with Lightroom? - either bring back Aperture, or something similar but completely new

gglanzani 2y ago
Photomator by the Pixelmator folks is a Lightroom alternative.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Not quite. Photomator + Photos is sort of a Lightroom alternative but it’s not a fully integrated photo management system to the level of aperture or Lightroom. There’s a lot of organizational workflows that neither photos nor Photomator even attempt to include today. Ratings, multiple tags, quick selects, rapid export presets, multiple version handling etc
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Ratings, multiple tags, quick selects, rapid export presets, multiple version handling etc I assume this is why they acquired Photomater versus inviting them to the stage.

floating-io 2y ago

It's too late for this former user of Apple's productivity software. Killing Aperture and nerfing the iWork suite destroyed any willingness I could have ever had to go back. I like their OS, but it would be a hard sell for me to ever choose to migrate to their productivity software again.

karaterobot 2y ago

> But public perception of Adobe has dipped in recent years. I agree with the quoted tweet (or Threads post, whatever) that Adobe is a brand many or most creative professionals spit on, even if we have no choice but to use their software. They've lost so much good will that if there was literally any other comparable tool suite out there, Adobe would be out of business faster than it takes to boot up their horrible software. I do my best to avoid them, but sometimes even I have to put a clothespin on my nose and do certain tasks in Illustrator or Photoshop.

bloopernova 2y ago
I'm not a frequent user of Photoshop, so I was wondering what it does that Krita doesn't? (Or gimp)
- Tomte 2y ago
  Photo editing. Krita is for painting.
- nicce 2y ago
  User interface. Seriously. The efficiency of these tools is not measured by the capabilities, but by the effort it takes from the user to get the expected end result.
  - jrvieira 2y ago
    I used Affinity tools as a better alternative. Are they not a player anymore?
  - kyriakos 2y ago
    Same goes for Lightroom, many competitors, none of them has the full feature package that Lightroom Classic has.
    - DeathArrow 2y ago
      I can use DXO Photolab or Capture One Pro or even ON1 Photo Raw or Skylum Luninar instead of Lightroom. It's Photoshop I can't replace with something else.

yazzku 2y ago

Was the beef here mostly around the subscription model, then cherry on top with the AI? Catching up with that 1hr interview...

alsetmusic 2y ago

> When Apple shuttered development of Aperture, there were rumors it did so because it entered into a gentleman’s agreement with Adobe to give Lightroom the space it needed to take over the photography software industry. That worked, and Adobe applications ran great on Apple computers. I’d not heard this theory (though the only pro-space app I care about is Logic for audio). I’d love if Apple started smashing the funding button for their pro apps again, but they’ve already caused a lot of distrust when they killed Aperture. Not to mention other products that don’t get ongoing updates (HomePod, Mac Pro for about a century, Xserve line that was killed, and other more recent items that aren’t top of mind atm). Justifying the risk of conversion will be an uphill battle.

myworkinisgood 2y ago
I mean isn't Apple as worse as Adobe in subscription models?
- atonse 2y ago
  FCP X is $300 one time. Pixelmator is also a one time purchase. I bought Pixelmator Pro for $60 when it came out.
- SG- 2y ago
  they don't do any software subscriptions, they've even been making a lot of their software free starting with macOS years ago too.
  - DeathArrow 2y ago
    Provided you buy their hardware. Or can I run macOS on a Snapdragon Laptop?
_aavaa_ 2y ago
"a gentleman's agreement" is a really nice way of saying market allocation, blatantly anti-competitive behaviour.

juusto 2y ago

I wonder how much would Adobe benefit from porting its suite to Linux for example. Do a Steam move and pick a fave distro, use some translation layer and bam. I vote for the unholy matrimony of Adobe+Steam to break the stronghold of MS+Apple. That is pretty much the chicken and egg problem of Linux in regards to Apps and Games.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
[flagged]
- seszett 2y ago
  > and then pirate the software to top it all off. Why would you think that though? I'm pretty sure software piracy is less common on Linux than on Windows.
  - mh- 2y ago
    Of course it is. Because the software people want to pirate isn't available on Linux for all the reasons parent commenter outlined.
    - capitainenemo 2y ago
      Well, there's at least a bit of evidence from past that linux users are more likely to spend money on software than windows or osx. https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/08/linux-users-pay-more-humble-indie-bundle-3 https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/08/linux-users-pay-more-hum...
  - meowster 2y ago
    I don't know why the parent comment was flagged dead, but I was typing this reply when it happened: I'm willing to pay, but I rarely use it, so the price I'm willing to pay has to reflect that, and Adobe is not going to come down that low. So I will continue to keep an old Windows laptop around with the sole purpose to run Adobe CS6 the maybe 8 times a year when I need it.

wkat4242 2y ago

ReptileMan 2y ago
Doubtful. There is no rule that you have to stay in businesses and compete with someone.
- atonse 2y ago
  There actually are laws against anti-competitive collusion in the US. [1] 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  The collusion is the issue, not the decision to not compete.

BeautifulOrb 2y ago

I've used Photoshop, Illustrator, and After Effects constantly for 15 years. There have been no significant improvements and no meaningful competitors. The AI stuff is junky. The movement to expensive subscription plans sucks for artists. Shocked no one has moved into this space. Procreate has been an amazing and affordable alternative to drawing in photoshop/illustrator, and Figma filled a space that Adobe ignored, and Blender can do some amazing video editing things. But with PS, AI, and AE there is so much opportunity for competition.

jjtheblunt 2y ago
Have you seen Serif's Affinity products? https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/ https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  Still Mac only?
  - _rend 2y ago
    > Award-winning photo editing, graphic design and page layout software for Mac, Windows & iPad. They've supported Windows and iPad for years, too.
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    The linked page notes that Affinity supports macOS, iPad OS, and Windows

jmyeet 2y ago

Final Cut Pro X was an example of how a complete rewrite almost always being a mistake. Now if Apple was really committed to rearchitecting the app (which is fair), they should've done it in parallel. That is, release both versions at the same time. Yes, it's more expensive but it's simply not worth killing your audience by cutting back features because they aren't imported yet. Brand the two versions differently but have the same licnese activate both. So I will defend the idea of software subscriptions, not Adobe's implementation thereof. You may like software you purchase but you don't really purchase software anymore. It may rely on online services that can go offline. There is a constant need for bugfixes. Old versions may not get those fixes. Vendors will gate new features behind major versions that you have to buy and the threshold for what constitutes a major version gets lower and lower over time. Adobe was guilty of all of this. Photoshop has a Camera Raw plugin. Back in the day, new RAW formats (which came out all the time) were added to later Camera Raw versiona and those versions required later PS versions for literally no reason, other than to force you to buy the upgrade. Purchasing software just isn't the panacea many think it is. Subscriptions have a better incentive model to continuously fix and develop the software without artificially creating major versions to push sales. Jetbrains is really the gold standard for subscriptions. Adobe... isn't. Adobe uses dark patterns for renewals and subscription periods. They keep jacking up the prices. They hide these price hikes in bundles.

kyriakos 2y ago

Unless Apple is planning to release any of the said software for Windows as well then I don't see Adobe being cornered. Apple wants to sell hardware so its unlikely to port to Windows. Creatives are no longer exclusive to Apple hardware as it used to be 15 years ago.

nineteen999 2y ago
Exactly, macOS is ~20% market share vs Windows worldwide. It's not a competition if you're only competing for a small slice of the pie on your own platform. I don't see this driving further adoption of macOS much, but even if it did, it would only be making up ground lost due to the Final Cut X shmozzle.

snapetom 2y ago

I'm going to sidetrack this a little and shit on ON1 before anyone mentions it. I searched high and low for an Adobe competitor, even using Aperture with Reactive until it became too unstable. ON1 was the only other thing close to being usable. For a few releases, it was nice. But it's unstable as hell these days. So unfortunate because it's powerful and has a nice interface. Unfortunately they prioritize new features over fixing things. Whoever the product manager is should be fired over the crap AI features they shoved in.

DeathArrow 2y ago

>no one can touch Adobe when it comes to fast and wide support of camera RAW profiles I think DXO might be on par with Adobe for camera profiles.

DeathArrow 2y ago

Why would someone think Apple is better for the customer than Adobe? And why would someone think Apple will reach feature parity to Adobe?

bigkuanysh 2y ago

Adobe hasn’t been disrupted somehow. The format lock-in is too strong. I’m avoiding it wherever possible.

karmakaze 2y ago

Aperture to me was the perfect photography software and was sad to see it discontinued. It did seem a bit niche in a competitive area that may not have justified porting to Apple Silicon and supporting. Now the play seems to be for Apple to dominate all creative professional software and make Windows+Creative/Pro software as much an oxymoron as Mac+Games.