Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft / Adobe Competition Heating Up

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the ding-dong-front-page-is-dead dept.

Microsoft 219

MicroAdobe writes "Microsoft has noticed that some of the coolest sites on the Web, YouTube and MySpace included, get much of their flash from Flash and other design programs sold by Adobe. But as Microsoft gets ready to ship its own line of tools for designers and Web developers, the company is finding it must also defend against Adobe on its home turf, the desktop. At the same time, the line between Internet and desktop programs is blurring, and both companies see an opportunity to capture new business." The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Epic Battle begins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18771455)

Can anyone else picture the trailer for 300, but Adobe vs Microsoft instead?!
Maybe it's just me.

Re:The Epic Battle begins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18771535)

Just you.

Re:there is an explanation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18772611)

Adobe: i'm seeing the many users are using PC with M$ OS.
Adobe: I will ship Apollo ActionScript3 (AS3) + Flex + AJAX + Flash + .. to these people.
uSoft: you are the trap, ehhhh?
Adobe: yes, it's my business, not your.
uSoft: i've to play too! you're tricky!
Adobe: am i liar? you're lying!
uSoft: i will ship Silverlight completely released before than you.
Adobe: it's not important for me, stupid.
uSoft: bye, hasta la Vista. Don't touch my Vista.
Adobe: bye, your Vista is useless. I'm using Mac OS.
Linux: they want a war.
FrBSD: yes! i see.
NeBSD: i still am programming Java.
Linux: there are not ActionScript3 for Linux, no forever!.
FrBSD: don't use AS3, use Java or PHP5 or Python or Ruby on Rail or Perl.
NeBSD: bye good friends.

YOU WASTED A FP ON THAT??? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18771583)



Re:The Epic Battle begins! (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771597)

More like Wolf-359.

Re:The Epic Battle begins! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18771903)

Tonight, we BSOD in hell!

Scary Image (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18771939)

Picturing 300 geeks without shirts for no apparent reason and contrary to all sensible precautions during warfare.

Web developer speaking here (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771473)

Id rather set up shop for doing development business for 386DX33 webservers than jump ship on any web related stuff microsoft puts out.

so many times we are having to bail out refugee clients running away from microsoft stuff on the web that its not funny anymore. (i wont mention names)

i wouldnt want to imagine a beowulf cluster of what microsoft would put out. and i dont want to be in an "in a microsoft internet microsoft DEVELOPS YOU !" situation.

so count me any many devs out.

Re:Web developer speaking here (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772009)

Im also a web developer, and I *always* wait to experience a product, any product, by any developer, regardless of their prior history before I form any opinion on the product - sometimes its best to put the rhetoric away and join the adult world, especially when it comes to earning money.

Cant take risks here (2, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772235)

Unfortunately.

this is a matter of business.

setting up a client in a framework/infrastructure means this client will be doing all his/her/their business on that framework/infrastructure, building and expanding on that, adapting to that, basically living on that.

and when the company that provides that platform pulls the plug or pulls a crap with that platform's users, client and his business is in trouble. this had happened before with many "new experiences and products", and many people had gone through arduous restructuring and readaptation in order to go on with their business on a new platform.

And apologies, but microsoft is not some company that has a great reliability record.

ill set up as many clients as i can on open/free platforms as i did before. because this is their BUSINESS, they are making a living on that, and that cant be risked.

Re:Cant take risks here (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772339)

Yes, this most certainly is a matter of business, and if the Microsoft product does it better after I personally assess it to my clients criteria then Im going to use that to earn my money - Im not going to pass up on the chance to earn money because I dont like the company.

All business is risk, every moment of it for both you and your client, regardless of the product you use to construct their solution. To automatically dismiss a product on any grounds is stupid, but to dismiss a product after you have done your assessment is good business, and every product gets to the assessment stage with me, regardless.

Re:Cant take risks here (2, Insightful)

spamking (967666) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772427)

Fortunately or unfortunately I think most folks use past experiences with people and products to determine their stance on one side or the other. Some folks probably immediately think of Frontpage when they hear Microsoft and web development in the same conversation.

whoa whoa slow there (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772533)

we are not talking about "one needs to take risks in business" situation, which is kinda like going ipo and investing.

this is a matter of reliability. especially businesses thriving on the web have their lifeline in their web presence. risking that is a no-enterpreneurship situation.

and to clarify - we are not dismissing a product - we are dismissing a company, based on their prior record.

would you go buy from the same department store if the department store continually screwed you over ?

Re:whoa whoa slow there (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772667)

Absolutely nothing triggers an out of hand dismissal.

Its as simple as that - every single option is kept open. If you dont like it, then thats your perogative, but all it means is Im less handicapped than you are in choosing a solution.

Re:Web developer speaking here (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772285)

sometimes its best to put the rhetoric away and join the adult world

And sometimes you have to realize that you either have principles or you don't.

Microsoft continually makes the computing world a nastier place. Choosing to reward them by purchasing and using their products, assisting them in extension of the monopoly which they have repeatedly been convicted of abusing, only makes you a contributor to the Microsoft problem.

I don't mind your attitude as long as you NEVER EVER complain about the results of Microsoft's embrace and extend behavior. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. But I don't really know what your stance is on that situation, so I'm not ready to start calling you names :)

"Put the rhetoric away" seems like code for "compromise your principles" to me.

Re:Web developer speaking here (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772599)

"Put the rhetoric away" means precisely that - take a step back, and look at everything objectively.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of slashdotters cannot do that, which is why my comment about how I refuse to *automatically* ditch a product I know nothing about, havent yet seen or had a chance to assess, has provoked a number of replies all of which are quick to deride both myself and Microsoft - that seems to be the slashdot way unfortunately.

Re:Web developer speaking here (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772671)

"Put the rhetoric away" means precisely that - take a step back, and look at everything objectively.

An objective look at the situation leads me to believe that supporting Microsoft is supporting not just bad but illegal behavior on a daily basis - and what's more, it's behavior that's illegal for a good reason - not some kind of victimless crime shit. When Microsoft breaks a law, you can be sure that there is at least one victim.

The point is that even if the product has merit from a technical standpoint, it can only be a mistake to support it. As it gains market share, the quality of the mac and linux versions will drop off, until they are effectively unusable -- unless, of course, the Mac or Linux versions are handled by a different team than the windows version. Then they will simply be cancelled even though they work fine.

There are reasons other than technical merit upon which any solution should be evaluated. To ignore that fact is to childishly hide from reality.

Re:Web developer speaking here (1)

hpavc (129350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772319)

There is no need to determine if Hitler was potentially a valuable artist, while knowing he is an abhorant monster. Likewise there is no need to 'wonder' if Microsoft isn't going to folly their way into the document market with their format. You could host a slash dot with all the flawed by design implementations of products and standards.

Yes, pushing the monopolist's swill can be profitable. Your attachment to reaping the rewards of what is more and more like illegal activities is not so admirable.

Re:Web developer speaking here (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772481)

Of course, the flip side to that is that no product stands alone -- part of your assessment of a product has to include the nature of the producer.

In the short-term, your client's need may be best fulfilled by a Microsoft product. In the long-term, you may be hampering your client by supporting a company that destroys competitive processes.

The question is, do you (and your clients) consider the long-term non-obvious implications of choosing to use a Microsoft solution? The most common example I can think of is vendor lock-in.

At any rate, I'll agree that it's important to give products a shot before decrying them as terrible. But I lend some credence to consensus opinions of others, and also try to factor long-term, more conceptual, cost factors into implementation decisions.

Re:Web developer speaking here (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772505)

"sometimes its best to put the rhetoric away and join the adult world, especially when it comes to earning money."

Your adult world sounds somewhat naive to me.

My time is valuable. If someone has a bad track record, I will wait for other people to try out their stuff, and let word get back to me, before I waste my time on someone who has burned me in the past. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Re:Web developer speaking here (1)

jeffgtr (929361) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772335)

I just don't see this working out for Microsoft. Most everyone in the creative field uses Photoshop and Illustrator. Now they are integrated into Flash. On top of that "Silverlight" will inevitably lean way towards Xp and vista. It will wind up crippled on linux and mac. When I use dreamweaver (prefer textmate most of the time), I can develop in php or coldfusion (sadly ruby is mia in dreamweaver). The microsoft products will most likely lean towards asp.net.

I'm sticking with Adobe for now.

Re:Web developer speaking here (2, Insightful)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772401)

I've been using Photoshop since 1997, and I'm glad there's a possibility that a new graphics tool will push Adobe to improve their product further rather than just add marginally useful functionality every couple of years. Competition can be a good thing.

It will take an awful lot to get designers to leave Adobe in favor of Microsoft. Hardly any will, as they don't personally have to pay for it and if they can state a business case to their employers to keep paying for Adobe (which will be easy) then the price difference won't matter.

Though, if I'm wrong, all it means is Adobe might lower their prices a bit. :-)

Plus, and this is a different topic, Adobe doesn't get on kids' cases about having pirated copies of their software, since it's only affordable by industry (who pays for it) anyway. I expect Microsoft to go the other route, as they have with Windows (and all of their software). Which is in my opinion a mistake.

Re:Web developer speaking here (2, Informative)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772753)

Plus, and this is a different topic, Adobe doesn't get on kids' cases about having pirated copies of their software, since it's only affordable by industry (who pays for it) anyway. Yes, they do. Photoshop starting with CS had product activation, which is cracked by the release groups, but it's much more than before where it didn't verify at all whether a serial number was real.

Re:Web developer speaking here (1)

ErikInterlude (784049) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772633)

Print designer here (mostly). The company I currently work for may actually be locked away from Microsoft's products. And that's a real irony considering I'm the only Mac user in the entire company.

Even though this place is a Microsoft shop through and through, we work with an outside ad agency that's Mac all the way. As the company's graphic designer, my software choices are based on whatever the ad agency is using at a given time. If the agency uses QuarkXpress, so that's what I use (I prefer InDesign). If the agency upgrades an application or the operating system, so do I. If they don't, I don't. As a matter of fact, I just got upgraded to Tiger last week because we found out the agency had moved to Stuffit v11, whereas we were on Stuffit v9 (we didn't know about the upgrade until problems starting coming up). Since Stuffit 11 required Tiger, I got the OS upgrade on top of the application upgrade.

I don't know how many other companies operate like this, but I can't imagine we're the only ones.

(on the other hand... I used to work for a direct mail company that would probably embrace MS design tools with open arms just because it's MS...)

Ack! (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771503)

Great... just great. Now there's TWO variants of flashing crap that I have to filter out of my browser.

On the plus side, if the MSFT version is Windows-only, I suspect we'll all have a brand new reason to persuade folks to abandon the OS for Linux/OSX/(and yes)*BSD after this little battle gets done...

/P

Re:Ack! (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771863)

No, it gives whiners another reason to say, Linux can't do X, so I'm not switching. It can be added to the list with Photoshop,Games, and a thousand other things. There will be some funny cartoon, or some video website that uses this, so they can say that it's a deficiency in Linux, not an advantage.

Re:Ack! (1)

WhyDoYouWantToKnow (1039964) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772065)

Yeah, until some geek in some university decides he wants to see the cartoon on his Linux box and decides to port it to Linux and release if as a SourceForge project. There problem solved. The people who weren't going to switch from Windows will continue to not switch from Windows and continue to think that Linux is deficient. The rest of the world will go on.

Re:Ack! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18772419)

Heh, yeah, that's the way it's been happening for what? a decade now? Great job Linux! Lead the way!

oh wait...

I guess it's still a problem in comprehension going on with the Linux crowd. Just what I want to do with my spare time; go crawling over the mess called SourceForge looking for plug-ins and such.

Isn't this part of what makes Vista drivers suck according to you penguins? You're all lined up in a row saying how bad Vista blows because someone by some random chance has to hunt down a driver. You all nod like a bunch of stodgy bobbleheads and out of the other side of your face proclaim that Linux is a valid solution even if you do have to scrape around 14 websites that are ripe with Linux snobbery to find some obscure, unsupported "solution".

Fantastic. Tell me why I'm not running Linux again?

Re:Ack! (5, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772063)

It is actually cross-platform. WPF/E or Silverlight, as it is now called, supports both Linux and Mac OS systems.

Re:Ack! (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772253)

The runtime is (supposedly, I'll believe it when I see it) cross-platform. The development kit is Windows-only.

Re:Ack! (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772327)

It is actually cross-platform. WPF/E or Silverlight, as it is now called, supports both Linux and Mac OS systems.

Go take a look at the Silverlight Downloads [microsoft.com] and tell us where the Linux download is. Mmkay?

Re:Ack! (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772407)

To the other commenters, the Mac download exists. The Linux hasn't been released yet, but it IS under development.

Re:Ack! (1)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772579)

Great... just great. Now there's TWO variants of flashing crap that I have to filter out of my browser.

Here's a cool trick, don't install it...

(Didn't this use to be a site for knowledgable nerds?)

Compatability (4, Interesting)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771509)

Adobe's CEO brought up what should be the single most important point everyone who is considering a switch to MS products - <b>Microsoft doesn't maintain anything cross-platform</b>.<br><br>
They may start out cross-platform, but eventually the mac version will fall behind on patches and then get EOL'd.<br><br>

For any broadcaster that relies on compatibility and reaching the widest market possible, MS would be a bad choice.

Re:Compatability (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771661)

Adobe is better than Microsoft but can you say SVG? If Adobe really means that it is going to provide cross platform support how about Photoshop for Linux?
The are doing better with Flash now so I can not flame them too much.

Re:Compatability (1)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772341)

Photoshop for Linux would not sell well. The reason is that people who use Photoshop aren't just Photoshop users. They use many applications and Photoshop is just one of them. No one would switch to Linux to run Photoshop if all the other apps weren't there as well. I know someone who's a graphic designer and uses a Mac. She regularly uses Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, and Dreamworks.

Re:Compatability (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771679)

Oh how true. I also suspect that it will be the same not only for Mac, but also the Firefox version that will fall behind. With the increasing number of people on Firefox, how many people will want to use Microsoft's solution. However, I don't think that a lot of people using flash realize that not everyone is seeing their content. I've heard estimates that as many as 1/3 of users don't have flash installed. Once MS comes out with it's release, I can see them putting it out as a critical update, ensuring that all windows/IE users have it installed. So, what would you rather have? 2/3 of all users, or 100% of windows/IE users? Kind of a tough call. Myself, I use FlashBlock, because 99% of the time I don't need to see flash. For the times I do need it, it's not that much trouble to hit the play button. I hope a similar extension gets made for MS's offering.

Re:Compatability (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771861)

I've heard estimates that as many as 1/3 of users don't have flash installed.

And of those of us who do have it installed, some have it disabled 99% of the time. Flash (and most uses of every other active page technology, frankly) = really, really annoying.

The good news is that the really high quality browsers - like OmniWeb - allow you to globally filter out all such crapola, making exceptions on a per-site basis as you feel appropriate, or vice-versa. So you never have to be stuck looking at some menu-infested, roll-over ridden, animated advertising nightmare.

And as for scripting - I'll be the one who determines if a website is allowed to use my CPU.

Re:Compatability (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771927)

The good news is that the really high quality browsers - like OmniWeb - allow you to globally filter out all such crapola, making exceptions on a per-site basis as you feel appropriate, or vice-versa.

As does the Flashblock [mozilla.org] extension for Firefox.

Re:Compatability (3, Funny)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772529)

The good news is that the really high quality browsers - like OmniWeb - allow you to globally filter out all such crapola, making exceptions on a per-site basis as you feel appropriate, or vice-versa. So you never have to be stuck looking at some menu-infested, roll-over ridden, animated advertising nightmare.

You paid for a browser? What is this, 1996? o_O

Re:Compatability (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772321)

Well the reports that I have read put Flash penetration at between 90% and 96% of all internet connected computers depending on region.

Re:Compatability (1)

Beau6183 (899597) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772049)

Adobe is hardly cross platform immediately. Look at their support for flash player for Linux: It's terribly buggy and severely behind where its Windows/Mac counterparts are in regard to feature set. Also, Adobe doesn't develop tools for Linux (flex builder, etc.), as they regard it to not be a mainstream platform. Granted, they do a hellofa lot better than Microsoft does.

Re:Compatability (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772107)

> Microsoft doesn't maintain anything cross-platform.

True, but Adobe does not exactly have a perfect record either. Flash 8 and 9 where not available for Linux, and even Flash 9 Update has no plugin for a pure64 system. Way to go, Adobe.

Re:Compatability (1)

dabraun (626287) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772655)

True, but Adobe does not exactly have a perfect record either. Flash 8 and 9 where not available for Linux, and even Flash 9 Update has no plugin for a pure64 system. Way to go, Adobe.


There isn't even a 64-bit version of Flash for Windows ...

Re:Compatability (5, Informative)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772349)

About Microsoft: They may start out cross-platform, but eventually the mac version will fall behind on patches and then get EOL'd.

Oh, just like Framemaker.

And Premier. ...and lots of other apps Adobe used to develop for the Mac.

And look at where Photoshop is going...an interface mess that's more Windows-on-MacOS than a Mac application.

Adobe has steadily been losing my respect for years. Perhaps it's because they seem bent on becoming the Microsoft of creativity-based visual communications software.

Re:Compatability (2, Informative)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772365)

Ummmm....how about Mac Office...the single most successful Mac application ever? In many ways it is better than Office for Windows. But really that's beside the point. Adobe is smart enough to know that for WPF/e/Silverlight to be successful that it MUST be good on platforms other than Windows or nobody will use it. I mean, the whole poing of what they're trying to do is provide an alternative to Flash video (short-term) and Flash "apps" (medium-term). The only way they can do that is to be cross-platform.

Spreading thin (2, Interesting)

Shnyzx (786435) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771519)

I don't know about this move for M$. They are spreading themselves thin trying to conquer every electronic related market (zune, 360, computers, etc..). Flash is a well established format that many people are accustomed to using and familiar with. Unless M$ has an awesome solution at hand already I believe that they should consolidate their efforts and try to make some headway one their other fronts instead of moving focus from failing efforts.

Re:Spreading thin (1)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772039)

I don't know about this move for M$. They are spreading themselves thin trying to conquer every electronic related market (zune, 360, computers, etc..). Flash is a well established format that many people are accustomed to using and familiar with. Unless M$ has an awesome solution at hand already I believe that they should consolidate their efforts and try to make some headway one their other fronts instead of moving focus from failing efforts.

Who cares, I say yeah it's bad in terms of a business move for the company, but hey, who cares. I hope they continue to try to be this gargantuan monster that doesn't focus on making any product well but just tries to conquer every market. It makes it that much easier for the whole thing to fall apart. The less they focus on the products that are actually pushing units, the less of those products they sell and the less money they'll have to invade other sections of the market. Losing all this money in every division will eventually catch up. They'll become another unspecialized POS company with more product lines than sales and find themselves in the same garbage bing all other companies that once made a popular product find themselves in. I just hope Vista is scary enough for some people to start looking somewhere else.

Re:Spreading thin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18772685)

The only market they're not doing well in is the Zune market, and they're just getting their foot in the door right now. Look at the original Xbox. Horrid, but #2 rocks.

So what is .net? (2, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771529)

"Microsoft can afford to think in a 10-year timeframe," said Rob Helm, research director at Directions on Microsoft, an independent research group. "When you've got a business like Windows that has 80 percent margins and 90-plus percent market share, even a 10-year threat to shave 10 percent off the business is enough to do something about now."

Did not MSFT claim that it is going to make web app building the main thing? Its MS Visual Studio was morphed into something called MS .NET framework or something? C# and managed C, and ASP server working seamlessly with IE to deliver web applications or some such claim was made?

How many Web Enabling technologies MSFT has peddled so far? DotNetFramework? ActiveX? some dhtml thingie? The new one is going to replace them? Complement them?

Monopolist, that's rich (4, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771533)

Coming from the guy who destroyed the graphics design market first by gobbling up Aldus and all the rest, and then bottled up the active content delivery space with Macromedia and proceeded to kill of his "complimentary product lines", that's rich.

He might be a smaller "monopolist" than Microsoft, but he still has his own little monopoly and all the great things [daringfireball.net] that come from that.

Re: Monopolists (1)

Yobgod Ababua (68687) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771651)

Even so, I don't believe Adobe has been convicted of (or charged with) illegally abusing their monopoly.
Microsoft has.

Re: Monopolists (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771779)

I'm sure that's a great relief to users of software gobbled up by Adobe and then promptly "discontinued" due to "overlap".

Re: Monopolists (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771999)

Maybe we will get to watch a monopolist sue a monopolist, might not be such a bad thing.

Re: Monopolists (4, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771817)

Even so, I don't believe Adobe has been convicted of (or charged with) illegally abusing their monopoly.
While that's true... Ask an Adobe customer whether they feel they be charged for Adobe abusing their monopoly and you'll get an affirmative answer.

It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money to get the programs you need to do business as a professional in the creative industry.

Probably the only exception to this is Premiere, cos few - if any - professionals use that. Otherwise, there's absolutely no alternative to Adobe products. (Yes, technically GIMP etc exists, but they aren't industry standard so professionals have no chance of using them.)

80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.

Re: Monopolists (1)

juiceCake (772608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772653)

While that's true... Ask an Adobe customer whether they feel they be charged for Adobe abusing their monopoly and you'll get an affirmative answer.

Not me. Though I'd prefer that Adobe and MM have been kept separate the price of the new bundle for me (which is perfect for my needs) is an amazing bargain. Basically $150 per app. Amazing value.

It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money to get the programs you need to do business as a professional in the creative industry.

Some do no doubt, but not me. The Design Premium package is perfect for me.

80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.

Me too. I really wish Linux would get a decent font system and Adobe ported their apps to Linux.

Takes one to know one (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771771)

Rich? On the contrary, that seems like the best expert we have on the subject of who is really a monopolist...

Mod parent funny! (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772497)

The scary thing is that I've gotten really good at writing drivel like this. It's nice to see that some people can still correctly translate it.

core competences... (3, Funny)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771541)

...there was an OS.
then there was an office-packet.
eh, it's great to have a server-os, so let's build on. it's really handy with all those nice folks already using our desktop-os.
uuuuh, some guys are makin' big bucks with a search engine, let's have one.
hey, gaming. GAMING is the next BIGBIGBIG issue. what about a gaming console?
see those fruity mediaplayer-guys? they are making big bucks! let's build a rip-off.
ha, those adobe-guys seem to live from their software. why not try that one, too?

i think there's a pattern there, but i can't fully grasp it. duh...

Interested... (5, Insightful)

Drew McKinney (1075313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771603)

Great, it's $600 cheaper, but nobody will buy it if it doesn't bring anything new to the table.

As someone who has worked with Flash since version 4 (in both a graphical and RIA capacity), the biggest stumbling blocks for Flash were/are:
1- Adobe Photoshop integration [*check!*]

2- Usefulness as a RIA application [remember the disaster that was Flash Googlemaps?]
3- Horribly broken scripting language [still an issue]


If Microsoft can compete on those points and bring something radically new to the table (say, easy 3D graphical development, quality OO scripting, etc) then they'll have an adoptable product. Otherwise, developers used to using Adobe & Flash products will look the other way.

Re:Interested... (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771711)

What about your "almost a decade" experience. I know you wouldn't be starting from scratch, but you've had a couple years to get into MX and that came with some background, right?

Re:Interested... (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771785)

3- Horribly broken scripting language [still an issue]
Didja ever notice how much it [amazon.com] looks like a Goa'uld [wikipedia.org] ???

Re:Interested... (1)

geoff lane (93738) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771801)

Plus Adobe can just release a free, open source flash generation package. Why waste time and money competing against MS when they can dominate the market for free? Of course Adobe doesn't make a lot by giving away the s/w, but there is always a market for support and enhanced versions. Once open flash is established, Adobe can then concentrate on something new.

Re:Interested... (1)

OptimusPaul (940627) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771875)

>> 2- Usefulness as a RIA application [remember the disaster that was Flash Googlemaps?] Have you used Flex?? >>3- Horribly broken scripting language [still an issue] AS3 rocks, and even AS2 is far better than javascript. I don't think scripting is broken at all. Perhaps you just aren't keeping up with the technology.

Re:Interested... (1)

witekr (971989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772565)

All 3 problems you mention have already been taken care of in the latest Flash Player 9 (& AS3) and the upcoming Flash development software (cs3 is it?).

Dreamweaver getting as bad as Expression (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18771631)

I've been doing a little work in Expression, and it really got a lot closer dreamweaver like. Looks like it will be a good product if ASP.Net 2.0 is your target backend.

Dreamweaver supports asp, cf, php, and jsp backend and makes a decent dev platform with a 3rd-party like InterAKT's tools. Adobe aqquired InterAKT and some wonder if they just did it to shitcan them. In many ways, Dreamweaver has been treading water. They have added new support for web standards like css, etc, but most of the improvements have come in flash, contribute, and cold fusion. Now we hear the next Dreamweaver will add support for their new spry Ajax platform (proprietary?) and photoshop. Who knows what will happen with all that InterAKT open goodness.

From my perspective, both of these "open" products seem designed to drive you preferentially towards each companies proprietary products. Dreamweaver is clearly more open, but I don't think adobe wants me using php or asp, any more than MS wants me using cf.

Slashhdot.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18771643)

trying to be funny...."get much of their flash from Flash"....

BTW (4, Interesting)

frakir (760204) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771689)

Microsoft announced yesterday its "Silverlight", previously named WPF/E:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/04/15/intr oducing-microsoft-silverlight.aspx [msdn.com] .
They call it "cross platform, cross browser plug-in" and it is basically a replacement for flash with wmv lock-in. Oh, and no linux (cross platform means XP+Vista+OSX, I guess)
One nice feature being HD streaming, I have to give it to them.

I'll still stay away...

This is an important new battleground (2, Interesting)

Serveert (102805) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771713)

Microsoft views new rich web apps as a threat to Microsoft dominance. Imagine a world where you use a functional web application that doesn't lock you down to Microsoft's .NET / windows OS. Right now people must use a win32 executable for a decent GUI experience, but with these new technologies, you need only to click a link.

Microsoft wants to lock this up and make this a .NET / non-linux world, adobe is more interested in truly cross-platform work, so MS is acting quickly to make sure we use their XAML, vs the XUL and the open standard SVG. Adobe, too, isn't thrilled about open standards.

I think the closest thing we have to a great dev environment+rich web app is Google's GWT. It makes GUI and server integration easy. This makes Microsoft scared. I would love to see more open standards in this respect.. Make XUL a standard, create a library, add it to all browsers, all platforms, same with SVG.

Re:This is an important new battleground (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772585)

The fight between Adobe and Microsoft is, in and of itself, an important battle. Adobe has a lot of control over an entire sector of applications that Microsoft has not been able to control: media software. When it comes to digital print design, Adobe is king. When it comes to Web, Adobe and Macromedia were fighting it out until Adobe bought Macromedia-- now Adobe is the undisputed champion. In video editing, it's pretty much all Adobe, Apple, or Avid.

Microsoft hasn't really been able to break into any of these markets. Microsoft's tools (eg Frontpage) have long been the butt of jokes. Still, Microsoft keeps trying.

And so Microsoft is one of the biggest threats to Adobe. They keep trying to make software that will compete. They're trying to make a Photoshop alternative, competitors to Flash and PDF, their own version of Dreamweaver, etc.

On the other hand, Adobe is a very dangerous player for Microsoft as well. If Microsoft could get Adobe to stop supporting OSX, it would mean a lot of trouble for Apple. On the other hand, if Adobe stopped supporting Windows or started supporting Linux, it could mean *serious* trouble for Microsoft. I know plenty of people who would drop Windows immediately and starting using OSX if they couldn't have photoshop on Windows. Also, while the Linux desktop is advancing in many areas, one of the things that has kept it from many of the areas that I've supported has been the lack of Adobe products. I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but lets just say my Photoshop users weren't content with the GIMP. They didn't much care about the OS-- all they needed was web browsing, e-mail, and a word processor-- but they absolutely needed Adobe applications.

There are things I like about Adobe and things I don't like, but one thing is certain: they're one of the few software developers left who are still in a position to hurt Microsoft. That's probably why Microsoft is fighting this fight to begin with.

SilverLight, the same old story (2, Interesting)

paulxnuke (624084) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771767)

One of MS's talking points was that there's nothing binary or proprietary: it's all plain text XML. That might be slightly easier to work with than binary flash files -- but it also makes work easier for visitors to "borrow." Decompiling even protected flash files isn't hard either, but it's enough to slow down casual moochers and stop most corporate ones.

Of course, it's kind of silly to brag about openness when the whole thing is based on a closed source plugin. My big problem with the whole thing is that I fully expect support for "unfavored" platforms and browsers to start slipping as soon as there's some market share. I don't want to become a MS henchman, and pay for the privilege too.

Maybe that's not what MS has in mind this time, but with their record the burden of proof is on them. Not to mention that it's common sense to tread carefully with first releases of any new technology, even from companies with a track record (unlike MS) of producing quality products.

Re:SilverLight, the same old story (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772637)

it's all plain text XML

How is this different from SVG?
Why won't SVG go anywhere? Seriously? Is there some glaring problem with it?

Already over (1)

Ollabelle (980205) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771841)

And if M$'s new products are anything like Photo Editor or the other kludgy graphics offerings they've put out over the years, this competition is already over.

Re:Already over (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772625)

I actually liked Photo Editor. Why? Because in my NT4.0 and 2000 days, it was one of the fastest loading viewers... The viewer that comes with XP is better, but before that it was the best choice. Just imagine Photoshop or The GIMP loads whenever you doubleclick a jpg.

Over before it started (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771851)

Situations like this point out how stupid Microsoft can be. Adobe already has the web development market locked down. There isn't any room for Microsoft to wiggle in there. Microsoft expecting web developers to adopt their products is naive on the level of OO.o supporters expecting people to dump Office.

exactly (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772011)

Except the price for the ms products isn't zero. MS has to provide a compelling reason to switch, selling a product thats a couple hundred less won't do it. You're still risking a couple hundred dollars on an unproven technology that won't be compatible with anything for a couple years, and might not be supported long term. Now if it was free, and open source, those concerns wouldn't be there.

Re:exactly (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772171)

an unproven technology that won't be compatible with anything for a couple years, and might not be supported long term

Any free and/or open source product would still have to get past that rather more significant stumbling block - else Microsoft would now be in deep shit instead of still fabulously successful.

Re:Over before it started (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18772487)

Are you suggesting that HTML has been deprecated in favor of Flash?

Competition is good. (3, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771915)

I find it funny that Adobe's CEO has the gall to call Microsoft monopolistic considering that Adobe essentially has a complete monopoly over the design industry. Microsoft's control over the PC market pales in comparison to Adobe's control of the design industry, the obvious distinction being that Microsoft's market is much larger.

I welcome the competition and although I'm not optimistic I would like to see Microsoft become a serious competitor in this market. I'd prefer it were someone else entering this market, I can't say I'm looking forward to bloated applications with cumbersome interfaces. Nevertheless it's been long overdo that something take Adobe down a few notches.

I'm sure Adobe's CEO is only upset that Adobe's purchase of Macromedia didn't ensure a complete lack of competition for a longer period of time.

Is it just me... (1)

iPaul (559200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771923)

Or did they "borrow" the flat black look from Apple's Pro tools suites? Hmmmm...

Adobesoft (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771961)

Being one who came from Newspaper and Photography roots, I'd have to say that Adobe hasn't got a lot of room to talk when it comes to Monopolies. Granted, Microsoft is the big winner in that field.. but Adobe is set as a standard for basically every Graphics and Photo editing establishment on the planet. Not only that, they charge an ignorant amount for their software as well.

The only way that Microsoft can compete in this, would be to offer something with the same features and do it for a fraction of the cost. But, I've used most of the new Microsoft Graphic toys, and Adobe has nothing to worry about. They're very basic, and will get the job done for those who want an alternative. The web design pieces will be substantially cheaper than anything adobe has to offer, but I'm sure there are open-sauce versions that will have the same functionality.

Those who wish to check some of them out can visit http://connect.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com] to see what I'm talking about.

Re:Adobesoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18772337)

Well if Microsoft can sell to independent and low end developers such as hobbyists they will not take a huge bite out of Adobe but will make quite a lot of profit. There is a huge market that want to use products that Adobe makes, but can't afford the price tag.

On another front (3, Interesting)

backbyter (896397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18771975)

http://www.openlaszlo.org/ [openlaszlo.org]

Uses XML/Javascript to drive either Flash or DHTML.

Some of their examples are pretty good, while other examples could have used a QA person.

They both have PITA product activation (1)

peipas (809350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772027)

Adobe has upgrade paths that require you to call them. For instance, upgrading from earlier than Photoshop 5.5. I am not an Adobe fan. So I buy an Adobe product and have to make a phone call before I can use the software. That is messed up.

Adobe may have some decent products but philosophically Microsoft may be the lesser evil.

Microsoft is making a what now? (1)

markbt73 (1032962) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772057)

They're seriously thick-headed enough to go after Creative Suite?

They get points for sheer balls, but trying to get Adobe users to even consider anything besides their beloved Illustrator or Photoshop is like talking to a particularly condescending brick wall. Take it from a Corel Draw user.

SVG (1)

jpkunst (612360) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772103)

As some of you may have noticed, Adobe has discontinued its SVG Viewer [adobe.com] , and they suggest using Flash as its replacement for web authoring. The Adobe viewer is the only way to show SVG content in Internet Explorer (that I'm aware of). If IE can't show SVG content, then SVG is effectively dead as a useable format on the web. And that would be a sad state of affairs.

So what I'm hoping is that Microsoft will see fit to support SVG natively in IE. That would be a good thing, even if the reason they do it is just to compete with Adobe's Flash format.

JP

Re: SVG (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772397)

The Adobe viewer is the only way to show SVG content in Internet Explorer (that I'm aware of).

A quick google for "SVG plugin internet explorer -adobe" turned up MozzIE [sourceforge.net] (hackish) and Renesis Player [emiasys.com] which is cross-platform for "Windows, Windows CE, Linux, Mac and more".

You haven't tried very hard to find an alternative, have you?

The real question is... (2, Insightful)

Eric Damron (553630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772139)

How does Microsoft leverage their monopolies to take control of the situation? Should they incorporate it directly into their operating system and browser or as a free addon to their office product?

Maybe they could tweak IIS so that it slows Flash down while optimizing the speed of their products?

So many dirty tricks and so little time...

Re:The real question is... (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772589)

"IIS ain't done until Java (and now Flash) won't run"?

Coolest sites on the web? (0, Offtopic)

antonymous (828776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772261)

Myspace and Youtube? Puhleeze! Everyone knows that web portals are the wave of the future [alexa.com] , not this flashy user-generated videospace nonsense. If you don't know what I'm talking about, type webcrawler.com into Mosaic and dogpile it!

My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight! (1)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772289)

I think it's odd that Adobe is responding they way they are to Microsoft's announcements. Wouldn't the leader in the category be better off keeping quiet, ignoring the guy who is barely in the game if at all? I blogged on this more at http://notaprguy.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/my-flash -is-bigger-than-your-silverlight-or-my-acronym-is- better-than-your-acronym/ [wordpress.com]

Re:My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772593)

Wouldn't the leader in the category be better off keeping quiet, ignoring the guy who is barely in the game if at all?

Adobe and Microsoft are now in a battle for the very small brains of PHBs everywhere. Microsoft has instant credibility with these people because they are stupid and the argument "if it wasn't the best, people wouldn't be using it!" makes sense to them. Adobe needs to discredit Microsoft now to kill the buzz before it starts if they want to really nip this thing in the bud.

Re:My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight! (1)

notaprguy (906128) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772725)

Sorry, PHBs? Pin-headed... Adobe is not going to "nip this ting in the bud" no matter what they do. MSFT rarely gives up. They'll keep trying and trying and trying.Ignoring them now will slow their growth. Talking about them doesn't.

Linux support must be getting too good (3, Informative)

also-rr (980579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772291)

I remain convinced that part of the reason that Microsoft is attempting to push it's own alternative to Flash is because Linux support is finally decent.

Not only is there the binary client but some of the free alternatives can now handle YouTube. Development was getting a little closer to cross platform content and entertainment that the internet promised rather than the platform locking that was looking likely at one point.

Anyway I installed swfdec today on a PPC machine and documented the steps [revis.co.uk] . The results are very good for an application in such an early stage of development. While you might think the internet *with* Flash is annoying, you try living without it for a while and see how much the Firefox "you need more plugins to view this page" bar bugs you.

Not For Me (1)

dracphelan (916527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772309)

I started out in the web field working for Microsoft supporting FrontPage, Vizact 2000 (their attempt to counter Flash at the time) and their photo editing program. I am now (7+ years later) a web designer. I will not be switching from the Adobe products to MS. As others have said, they will most likely drop (or not keep up on) cross platform support. This should be important for every web professional.

SMIL? (1)

cxreg (44671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772367)

What ever happend to SMIL? Seems like the best possible solution in this space, I can't understand why the ball has been dropped.

But does he really mean it? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772471)

The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.

But does he really mean it? After all, one of the stupidest business models ever is to go up against an entrenched monopolist on their own turf.

OK (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772577)

The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.
So why does your company steadfastly refuse to develop a lot of software for platforms other than Windows, and refuse to get involved in their development?

Re:OK (1)

norkakn (102380) | more than 7 years ago | (#18772613)

They are pretty good about supporting OSX. By pretty good I mean that their products are just as shitty here, but they bought all of the competition, so we deal.

FRONTPAGE IS NOT DEAD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18772739)

It has been repurposed as Sharepoint Designer 2007 and does occasionally want to eat your brain.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?