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!

Why Apple Should Acquire Adobe

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the maybe-one-day-they'll-care-about-games-too dept.

Businesses 410

aabode writes "OSWeekly.com's Brandon Watts suggests that Apple should acquire Adobe. Why? 'While Apple has done a great job of developing media applications for beginners (the iLife suite is a good example of this), they could use a boost on the professional side. Granted, Final Cut Studio has become the standard when it comes to professional video editing, and Logic Studio is a great professional solution for editing audio, but what about the graphics and Web design segments of the market? If people want tools to support these interests on the Mac, then they turn to Adobe.'"

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

FIST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214149)

fisrt post. adobe is crap after photochop an apple is jus t as bd!

Re:FIST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214231)

toilet seats.

What? (3, Interesting)

jackelfish (831732) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214185)

I really fail to see why this is interesting.

Re:What? (-1, Offtopic)

prelelat (201821) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214239)

I know what you mean, like who even cares about a hypothetical debate about what if one company buys out someone else.

Re:What? (1, Interesting)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214285)

Really. This is news? This kind of "should be" nonsense belongs on Digg, not /.. Didn't I just read [slashdot.org] that / has no intention of drawing the digg folks over?

Now tell me that Apple bought Adobe, that's news.

Adobe kicked Apple to the curb for a reason (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214863)

Apple may be good at doing all the things the lead poster cites... but their weak pathetic market share is the reason Adobe abandoned the platform. When your OS is only 1.4% of all computers, and at least half the people using your product are using pirated versions, that seems like any investment in the platform is a waste of time and money.

Adobe has thrived after dumping Apple. So yeah, this would be a good way for Apple to get Adobe back, but does that make it a good business move? Hell no... Apple would buy a profitable Adobe, then just strap them into making software to stuff into Apple's $150 OSX service packs. Bad move...

i used to play this game as a kid... (4, Insightful)

skydude_20 (307538) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214187)

monopoly, it was real fun...

Why? (2, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214193)

Sorry, but honestly, Apple could develop better stuff than Adobe. The only company that should even consider buying Adobe is MS - they are the ones with the track record of buying crap and making it better (note: I didn't say "good" or "perfect", as they don't always manage the first, and the last is impossible).

Apple should stick to what they are good at - making applications that do what they are supposed to do, de-novo.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214347)

Sorry, but honestly, Apple could develop better stuff than Adobe.
True they could make better stuff than Adobe, but it seems advantageous to add, improve, and give the nice little Apple touches that we all love so much (save the newest version of iMovie) to already industry standard software. They can save tens of millions of dollars in development costs by tapping into an already established, high revenue generating company and tweaking it.

It seems unlikely that they would screw it up, but you never know...

Other way around...? (5, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214465)

If you ask me, Adobe shouldn't be looking to be acquired by an OS-maker. Instead, Adobe should be looking to acquire an OS.

I've been working in IT for various kinds of media companies, and in a lot of cases, there are people whose entire jobs are centered around using Adobe apps. You could throw Adobe CS3 on any system and any OS, and those people would still be able to do their jobs just fine. The OS doesn't matter.

So let's say Adobe develops their own Linux/BSD variant or buys someone else's. With very little work on their end, they could actually become a competitor to Microsoft. What often keeps linux from a lot of desktop these days is the lack of specific professional media applications. Adobe could make their own port of OpenOffice/Evolution/Linux, bundle that with Adobe CS3, and have a pretty formidable media/business desktop OS.

Re:Other way around...? (3, Insightful)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214707)

What would they gain from that?

The goal of a corporation in capitalism is to maximize their profit. They would have to invest massively in developing and maintaining a OS and wouldn't get much more revenue, so what's the point?

Re:Other way around...? (2, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214745)

You have to realize that Adobe thrives off of students getting on board with their products. What do students use? Windows and Mac OS (and Linux to a lesser degree). It was even suggested, somewhere, that Adobe would be nothing without piracy, and that the company even knew about it and accepted it. The fact is, Photoshop and InDesign are used from the high school newspaper to National Geographic, if you cut off the insentive to use them at a lower level, before long, you'd have National Geographic moving back to Quark, and going to something like Paint Shop Pro.

No, Adobe shouldn't waste it's time on something like an OS, they should move on to other development areas like audio.

Re:Why? (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214793)

Microsoft also has a habit of buying good stuff and ruining it (Connectix).

As long as they dont do... (4, Insightful)

Bazman (4849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214195)

...what they did with Emagic. Emagic Logic, lovely music sequencing program, worked on Windows and Macs. Apple buy them up, first thing they do, "sorry guys, its going Mac only".

  Now, if they do that with Adobe software, what do you think will happen?

Re:As long as they dont do... (1, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214315)

Now, if they do that with Adobe software, what do you think will happen?
One of two things. Either a load of designers would switch to the GIMP, or they would all but Macs. One of these things is likely, the other is not.

Re:As long as they dont do... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214497)

Actually, I've been using the Gimp for about four or five months now, as my new laptop doesn't have enough room for a Windows partition. Maybe once a week or two I open an XP virtual machine to work with Photoshop, but that's becoming less and less. The Gimp 2.4 (I'm still on RC1) really is a good program, once I've relearned things. I cannot get used to the damned multiple window interface, though, and that's the real reason why people give up on Gimp I think.

Re:As long as they dont do... (1)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214817)

I cannot get used to the damned multiple window interface, though, and that's the real reason why people give up on Gimp I think.
So I take it that you've never used Photoshop on a Mac [wired.com] before?

Re:As long as they dont do... (1)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214331)

At first, lots more macs get sold.

In the long run, a real competitor to Adobe products is born.

Sounds like a losing situation.

Re:As long as they dont do... (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214373)

not much since anyone who really uses Adobe for what its meant for uses a Mac. The slim few design houses that use PC would either have to

1) move to the Mac like everyone else.

2) use something else and deal with the fact that they are not sticking to a standard, which they where not anyway since they used a PC in a field that is like 80% Apple.

Not to mention the fact that while Photoshop and Illustrator is used by basically everyone, InDesign is not and still has major competition from Quark, so PC uses will still have that for desktop publishing. Then there is Corel still which is not popular in the least, but something and a pretty decent suit in it of it's self.

In other words there are plenty of avenues where PC users shut out of a Apple owned Adobe could go.... but its a moot point anyway since Apple would never buy Adobe in a million years, as there is no reason to other than it might get their developers off their fucking asses with dragging along every damn update to the suit. It took over a year and a half to just get Adobe Intel compatible... and dont get me started on the years it took for them to make a OS X version.

Re:As long as they dont do... (1)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214601)

I've been working in newspapers and related fields for about 10 years. Over the last five, in my personal experience (which may or may not represent anything at all), I've seen a lot more PCs than Macs used for page layout, and I've seen it go about 50/50 on other forms of design. The tools are so similar between platforms that a lot of shops don't seem to really care any longer which types of machines they're using, and the PC commodity hardware is cheaper.

Re:As long as they dont do... (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214813)

Outside of a huge number of corporate clients running Adobe apps in Citrix environments or on Windows. It's a cash cow. Adobe wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't.

re: EMagic Logic (4, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214491)

Well, this was *probably* done as a retaliatory move on Apple's part, as much as anything. Apple traditionally had a good foothold in the MIDI music, sequencing, and hard disk recording sectors - but Windows-only products were eating away at their market share. (Think products like Cakewalk Sonar, for example, or ACID Pro, or Gigastudio.)

Furthermore, some of the music gear out there was starting to only include Windows software for the purpose of editing or cataloging sound patches. (I remember buying a Yamaha Motif synthesizer a few years ago, and the only Mac software tools it included were for Mac OS 9.x only. OS X support was "coming soon" for pretty much the whole time I owned it.)

Apple wanted to create at least one more good reason to choose a Mac as a musician.

With Adobe, it's a whole different situation. For starters, Adobe uses their own methods of software development, which appear to be Windows-centric. (All of their new apps for OS X are supporting Intel Mac only, as opposed to "Universal binaries" that work with PPC Macs too. That would indicate they're not writing this stuff with Apple's xcode tools at all, but rather, doing some kind of ports directly over from their Windows versions.) I don't think Apple would want to buy out an entire product line that they'd have to re-code using xcode, before it would even be up to the standards they endorse of supporting both architectures.

Re:As long as they dont do... (0, Offtopic)

CaptScarlet22 (585291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214505)

Lets not forget with Logic 8, Apple has made the software affordable everyone. $199 for a Logic upgrade?? Wow!!! Fucking Fantastic!!!!

Very interesting, but very unlikely... (5, Insightful)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214225)

Pros and Cons:

Pros: establishes Apple as THE platform for photographers and designers by removing the Windows competition. Sure, Apple could continue to fund the development of Photoshop and Illustrator for Windows. But the latest and greatest version would always appear on the Macintosh first.

Cons: even with its current pile of money (iPhone and Ipod are two very successful products after all), I am not sure Apple has enough money to buy Adobe. Not to mention Microsoft would certainly file an anti-trust suit. It also raises all kind of legal snafus in Europe for instance, which would certainly frown upon it.

Cons: Postscript and PDF are both open standards. I am not sure I'd like to see Apple control their future.

So, yes, and interesting prospect. Still pretty unlikely, though.

Re:Very interesting, but very unlikely... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214471)

Cons: Adobe is very large, and has a lot of money. So they do not think basic rules apply to them. What I mean by this, is a lot of companies are running a tab on how much Adobe owes them, because Adobe doesn't bother to pay on time. I know they owe my company 70 million, I would hate to think how much they owe other companies... If Apple bought them I would think its because the execs at Adobe sees that their magic bubble is about to burst, and they have to flee with as much cash as they can...

Want to show your disgust at the current electoral system in America? Can you legally vote? Then hop on board the write-in train at http://uml.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5775143879&ref=nf [facebook.com]

Re:Very interesting, but very unlikely... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214511)

Quick numbers:
1. Apple has an operating income of $4.41 billion from a revenue of $24 billion
2. Abode Systems has a total revenue of $2.575 billion
3. Apple stock (AAPL) is listed at $187.97 a share
4. Adobe System has a share price of $47.69

I know these numbers aren't the whole story, or probably even half of it, but I think that it is clear Apple's worth is far greater then Adobe's. I believe they could afford to do such a buyout or a merger.

Re:Very interesting, but very unlikely... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214659)

What the hell does stock price have to do with anything?

Market capitalization might be useful, but the price of share is completely fucking useless, since they don't have the same number of outstanding shares.

Re:Very interesting, but very unlikely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214643)

Not to mention Microsoft would certainly file an anti-trust suit. It also raises all kind of legal snafus in Europe for instance, which would certainly frown upon it.
On what grounds would MS file this complaint? I can almost guarantee such a complaint would have no merit. Apple already has a much smaller OS share then Microsoft. Microsoft is not reasonably entered into the same markets as Adobe. Not to mention that Adobe (and then Apple if they bought them) would have more grounds against Microsoft for bundling and defaulting to the use of competing products like their PDF knock-off (whatever it was called).

Also, I doubt you would see bundling of high end products like Photoshop with an operating system anytime soon. There is WAY too much money to be made on the software to try to include something that powerful with the desktop OS.

Re:Very interesting, but very unlikely... (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214697)

Not to mention Microsoft would certainly file an anti-trust suit.


You seriously think what Microsoft wants right now is to set a legal precedent saying acquisition of third parties could be an anti-trust matter? That's about as likely as RMS winning a swim-suit contest and then flying home on his patented GM-pig.

Another few point against (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214719)

Other reasons for not wanting to see this happen:
  - Apple needs some sort decent competition in this arena
  - What does it really do for Apple?

Bundle with Quicktime!!! (4, Funny)

netsavior (627338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214255)

I was wondering if there was a way to make Flash, Quicktime, and PDFs work WORSE than they already do... the answer: Obviously you should bundle them together.

Imagine an app that takes over ALL file extensions on every windows box, makes it impossible to look at any image, any document, and any web page!

I always thought that the fact that iTunes/Quicktime basically destroy windows PCs was a calculated move. I could never understand why Adobe Reader had a simmilar effect. If you could do the same to Flash it would be the last nail in the coffin for the home user of Windows. Since he who controls flash controls the civilian entertain-web, I would be surprised if there was not a google, MS, Apple bidding war for them. I am actually suprised it hasn't happened yet.

There has been nothing in the past that I have though had the power to kill Windows for the home user than a version of flash that plain does not work right on the PC, like Reader and Quicktime before it.

Re:Bundle with Quicktime!!! (1)

whiskey6 (1172575) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214489)

at least there's alternatives to iTunes (songbird), quicktime(VLC) and Adobe Reader (foxit). To embedded flash objects? none that I can think of, but I am sure there is something. Odds are it would have to be a custom firefox plugin that one would have to scour the internet for. Back when I was a lowly tech I was always amazed at how itunes would cram a good 6 extra processes into a PC just by being installed, let alone run. Same goes for almost any adobe product these days, it's ridiculous how much crap those two companies cram into a computer. People are always amazed as to why their poor little compies get so bogged down by merely installing a few programs just to gain functionality. It's almost as if software has been specifically designed to punish the user for their choice of OS.

Re:Bundle with Quicktime!!! (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214563)

home users will not/cannot scour the internets for the good alternatives. I believe that if you took the tools they are locked in to and runed them on one platform, they would be forced to a new platform.

Re:Bundle with Quicktime!!! (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214573)

To embedded flash objects? none that I can think of, but I am sure there is something
Gnash [gnu.org]
32-bit binaries available.

Re:Bundle with Quicktime!!! (1)

Stinky Fartface (852045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214683)

I would love to hear the issues you have with these programs. I use Flash, Quicktime, and all the Adobe software a lot, and while they aren't perfect, I really like them. So I am honestly curious what all the venom is about.

Re:Bundle with Quicktime!!! (1)

Neo_piper (798916) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214843)

Ok I'll give you that Acrobat Reader is a steaming pile in Windows but you really can't say any different for Apple, I suppose that's why Apple chose to license .PDF format and integrate it into OSX.

But having used Quicktime on Windows, I keep my music on my Mac, I can say that it's at least as, and generally MORE, stable than Windows Media Player. Quick and consistent loading of inline web videos is not a feature of WMP.

And didn't we JUST get a MS branded flash compatible plugin?
Oh right http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/05/1442254 [slashdot.org]
Also Apple isn't one who goes around making new and breaking old file formats, that's strictly Micrsoft territory.
Backwards compatibility is sacred in web formats and as long as they don't break backwards then cross compatibility is little problem.

you are kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214271)

Apple cant even get Quicktime working well on Win32 and you want them to get Adobe ? i cant imagine how big Acrobat would be if Apple touched it and Logic is dead in the new pro-music scene, we've moved on and its all about Steinberg (we tried to fight it but at the end of the day Steinberg just makes better products) VSTi's are probably the best thing to happen (and the worst for KB manufacturers)

Re:you are kidding (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214737)

Actually with things like QT things are actually getting worse.
I had reason to recently instal QT on a Win32 machine recently
and my general reaction was: ICK, give me back xine and mplayer.

There's no proper player any more and what's left is a more
spam than user interface.

Could they afford it? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214273)

Besides the obvious "Why?" that this article must prompt in anyone with some common sense, could Apple even afford it? Now I didn't RTFA but I search for the word 'afford' in it and I didn't find anything..

More seriously I'm asking if they could afford it because Adobe is huge, it has swallowed Macromedia whole, and I think that if Microsoft could have bought them, they would have done it a long time ago, right? So could Apple even do that, besides the questionable interest of doing such a thing?

Re:Could they afford it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214455)

AAPL has a market cap of 164.05B, ADBE has only 27.39B. I have no idea how much cash or equivalent assets they have, but I'd say Apple could easily buy Adobe.

Re:Could they afford it? (1)

G Fab (1142219) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214571)

That's terrible reasoning.

Apple does not have 30 billion lying around, and Adobe's value would skyrocket if Apple wanted to buy.

Apples stock value has virtually no relationship with how much money apple has. When you buy Apple stock, your money goes to the guy who now doesn't own the stock.. not to apple. Apple only got money for the original shares.

If Apple even has 3 billion in cash I would be surprised. If they have 30 in cash someone belongs in prison for breach as fiduciary.

Re:Could they afford it? (1)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214905)

They don't need to have 30 billion in cash right away to buy Adobe. There are other things they can do, that don't require that amount in cash:
  1. Borrow the money. Apple is 5 times as big as Adobe, and has 6 times the revenue.
  2. Raise more money through a stock issue. This one is unlikely, I'd think.
  3. Pursue a merger through a stock swap, taking care that the people who control Apple end up controling the new, merged company. (In this case, it's not technically a purchase; current Adobe shareholders aren't bought off, they instead end up owning a slice of Apple+Adobe.)

Re:Could they afford it? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214535)

I don't have any numbers, but I would guess that Apple could buy Adobe if they really wanted to. Apple is bigger than you'd probably think.

Re:Could they afford it? (1)

njfuzzy (734116) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214547)

Apple has something like $16 Billion in cash in the bank, and a market capitalization of over $160 Billion. Adobe has a market capitalization of about $27 Billion. In other words, Apple could buy 50+% of Adobe for cash, and it would be easy to buy the rest by making it a "cash plus stock" deal or "merger". Either way, Apple could control Adobe as soon as it passed the regulators, if it decided to.

Re:Could they afford it? (2, Insightful)

Darth (29071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214597)

Besides the obvious "Why?" that this article must prompt in anyone with some common sense, could Apple even afford it?

Adobe has a market cap of 27.36 billion dollars.

Apple has cash reserves of 15 billion dollars and no debt. Apple also made 24 billion dollars in revenue this year (3.5 billion net income).
If Apple wanted to buy Adobe, and didn't mind taking on some debt temporarily, they could.

I don't think they will. I also don't think Adobe would be particularly interested in selling. An attempt to do so also might bring in other interested parties (like Microsoft) and create a bidding war for the company.

Why Apple should acquire a REAL Time Machine (5, Funny)

DLG (14172) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214299)

Sometimes its fun to write an entire column based on an incredibly unlikely and impractical idea. If we are going to make up crap based on conversations with our wives, I propose Apple buys a real Time Machine, goes back in time to 3000 years ago and begins a superior civilization in the North Americas, so that we have populated the Galaxy by tomorrow. And one more thing... Super Intelligent Llamas.

Any other fricken fantasy stories we need to get promoted as actual 'News For Nerds. Stuff That Matters'?

Re:Why Apple should acquire a REAL Time Machine (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214569)

I propose Apple buys a real Time Machine, goes back in time to 3000 years ago and begins a superior civilization in the North Americas,
Leopard already has Time Machine. Before implementing your plan, though, they have to get enough disk space to back up changes in civilization every hour.

Re:Why Apple should acquire a REAL Time Machine (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214815)

Before implementing your plan, though, they have to get enough disk space to back up changes in civilization every hour.
It's recursive, thus easily compressible: Lindsay, Britney, Paris [dilbert.com] . A simple --i should do it.

Re:Why Apple should acquire a REAL Time Machine (4, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214789)

Sometimes its fun to write an entire column based on an incredibly unlikely and impractical idea....

You nailed it. Clearly, we have here somebody who read and followed the instructions outlined yesterday in How to Be a Tech Blowhard [news.com] by Michael Kanellos.

Ironic... (4, Insightful)

theheff (894014) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214309)

...how someone can suggest this when the most basic but most widely-used Adobe product, Flash player, is a giant flaming CPU-hogging turd in OS X.

Re:Ironic... (4, Informative)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214519)

MOD PARENT UP

I don't really understand why it doesn't get more attention, but the Mac OS X Adobe Flash player has to easily be one of the worst pieces of software ever written.

CPU spikes up to 100% are common if a flash banner ad loads. Youtube will suck the life out of even a recent Core Duo Intel Mac. Loading a page on MySpace can sometimes render the system useless for a few minutes.

Thank God for FlashBlock [mozdev.org] .

Come to think of it, most of Adobe's codebase is very poorly supported on the Mac. Even Photoshop is starting to feel quite dated.

Re:Ironic... (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214701)

Because the two most widely-used Adobe products, Flash player and Acrobat Reader, are both flaming CPU-hogging turds on whatever OS they're on.

Re:Ironic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214743)

Flash player is a giant CPU-hogging turd in Linux and Windows too. I had assumed the Linux version was just, well, inefficient, but Flash 9 really hogs the CPU under Windows as well. I don't actually see it bog down on hardly any machine but it seems to use lots of CPU cycles independent of the machine speed -- I suspect they've got some time delays done with busy loops instead of nanosleep or the like.

Capital Idear, Watts, Capital! (1)

Nitroadict (1005509) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214335)

I'm sure we wouldn't mind just using Silverlight on Windows, & AIR on Mac. I'm sure no one is going to get pissed off @ furthering a duopoly, at the risk of making one of the monopolies stronger. While we are it, let's not only ensure a duopoly of Windows & Mac further exists, but let's get the jump on Linux for spoiling what some idiots seem to see as a great opportunity to make a 2 party system the norm outside typical party politics & elections.

I'm not an idiot though; the above was assuming that Linux isn't kicking ass, which, be all counts on reality's part, is kicking ass. Although, I forgot that there is Mono for Linux so perhaps I don't know jack sh*t about anything. Too bad I don't have a site to display this on, other than the comments section @ /., then maybe perhaps my naive comments would be a news item too. I guess until that happens, I'm just an idiot ;D.

Re:Capital Idear, Watts, Capital! (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214479)

Kicking ass? With its 3% share of the desktop market?

Re:Capital Idear, Watts, Capital! (1)

Nitroadict (1005509) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214897)

Kicking ass meaning it doesn't suck & for potential growth. But indeed, you have a point. Like I said, I know nothing.

NOTHING!

Why Apple needs to buy (insert company)? (5, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214363)

Cause the writer of the article has stock in (company) and wants to make a quick buck...

I know I've seen this same headline with Nintendo there, and I can't help but think there've been others. I just don't care enough to search. If Apple wanted to buy something, they'd buy it. I think Apple's pretty happy where they are though.

But does it make business sense? (1)

InlawBiker (1124825) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214375)

Shouldn't the first question be: does it make business sense? Do both companies benefit from a merger?

I can think of a lot of companies that can merge just because they make products that seem to go together. Does it mean they should do so, just because I think it'd be a neat idea?

Apple makes everything bad (0, Flamebait)

r1n530uT (1127579) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214389)

Adobe software is slow but great. If apple bought it, it would be slow and bad, doing nothing revolutionary and costing like 5 times more than it's worth. but it would come in a funky steel box so people with more money than sense would be happy to buy it so they can show off to their mates at the crayon shop.

Re:Apple makes everything bad (1)

kernelphr34k (1179539) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214613)

Adobe software is slow? What are you running it on? I have the entire CS3 suite, and it does not run slow on my duo core lappy, or my desktop which is an utterly slow P4 2.6Ghz. There is no reason the software should run slow. You should make some performance changes, or try some new hardware. CS3 does require a bit more resources, but its understandable in a suite of tools its size and weight. Just because the software works in a specific way for you, does not mean it runs entirely the same on everyone else's machine. Anyways, Apple does not have the $$ to buy Adobe first and formost. Plus if Apple would buy Adobe, every software would turn to utter sh*t and be loaded with quicktime bloat.

No. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214395)

I hate to say it but Microsoft's Steve was right when he said, "Developers, developers, developers.". Adobe is one of the few big developers that actually support them Mac. They have supported Mac since the start. I feel this would have a chilling effect on the Mac development community. Let Adobe stay Adobe and Apple stay Apple.

For Flash alone, (1)

MeditationSensation (1121241) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214397)

it would be worth it. Anything that can run on multiple platforms like Flash can is going to be a pain in Microsoft's side.

NO. Absolutely not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214405)

The software industry needs MORE diversity, not less. I know it is always fashionable to suck Steve Jobs' cock, but Apple is not really the "good guy", they will screw anyone over at any time if it means more money, just like Microsoft, IBM, Google, and every other company.

Gee, lets make both companies suck EVEN more! (5, Insightful)

Indy1 (99447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214409)

Adobe's products have gotten insanely bloated and crappy the past 5 years, and Apple isn't doing much better either. Quicktime and Itunes love to autorun 8 tons of horsecrap, and Adobe does the same + does a bunch of bullshit activation too. Acrobat Reader has become such a disaster that anyone with a clue has dumped it for Foxit (We just did that at work for 500+ workstations, and we are HEAVY users of the pdf format).

I can see it now. Adobe Quicktime Version 13 Profesional will have 5 autostart services, have mandatory bullshit activation every time it's actively used + background activation every 60 minutes, hijack all your multimedia settings, require 2 gigabytes of disk space and 4 gigabytes of ram, and kill your dog for good measure.

Re:Gee, lets make both companies suck EVEN more! (2)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214515)

Seriously. Currently, my iTunes is using up 205MB and Flash CS3 is using up 126MB. Apple make great machines, but their take on cross-platform development is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

Re:Gee, lets make both companies suck EVEN more! (1)

Sark666 (756464) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214827)


These are times when +6 is required.

Why not TiVo? (4, Interesting)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214421)

Adobe makes sense as an acquisition, but more people watch TV than use Photoshop. And, of course, Apple is moving more into consumer electronics. They should buy TiVo, redo the interface in a slick Apple way, and link it to the iTunes Movie Store. At the same time, sell them alongside big, beautiful Apple-brand HDTVs with well-designed connections and controls, which is a weak point on other HDTVs.

Also, come out with some sort of mini-tower Mac in between (in cost and features) the Mini and the Mac Pro....

Re:Why not TiVo? (1)

StuDude (627980) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214461)

Because Steve, no matter how cool the product is, still doesn't like losing money. :)

Or maybe Netflix? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214607)

I wouldn't mind seeing iTunes's movie-purchase functionality hitched up with Netflix's online movie rental stuff, both delivered over an AppleTV.

Of course, it's not going to happen. Media companies are already too afraid of Apple, and would probably find a way to punish apple for a move like that, even if Apple were ready to go for it.

Re:Why not TiVo? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214811)

Apple should wait for the cable card mess to be fixed before that and that maybe way the apple tv is not a DVR as well.

Re:Why not TiVo? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214821)

Tivo is the gold standard in PVR interfaces.

The abolute LAST thing it needs is for a bunch of
out of touch idiots from Apple mucking around and
trying to fix what isn't broken.

Web Development? (4, Funny)

mweather (1089505) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214437)

Don't vim and emacs run on OSX?

Re:Web Development? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214615)

agreed!

Re:Web Development? (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214883)

I'm sure you could get OSX to run on EMACS if you tried.......

Do one thing well (4, Insightful)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214447)

At least that's what our department head, the guy with advanced degrees in engineering and marketing, says. His claim is: companies that buy other companies who do something similar end up diluting themselves and losing maneuverability.
Apple's already designing hardware *and* operating systems *and* lots of applications. Do they need to spend money on *more* applications, when those applications are currently being managed by someone else who knows how to market them, and whose marketing helps drive Apple's sales effectively for free?

Re:Do one thing well (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214655)

Good point. It's also worth noting that, often enough, Apple has developed applications when there's some void that no developers are servicing. If they start being too aggressive and taking over too much of their own application development, it will probably drive developers away from Mac because they won't want to compete with the sole OS/hardware vendor for the platform.

Opportunity Costs (4, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214457)

While it might seem that Adobe would make a good acquisition for Apple there are several factors weighing against it IMHO. First, the price for Adobe, now that it includes the assets of the former Macromedia combined with the many successful core Adobe products, would be very high indeed for Apple. Apple might do better by reserving such a large chunk of their available investment capital, assuming that they could finance the purchase (haven't checked the respective balance sheets of the companies, but Yahoo Finance [yahoo.com] could probably get someone a ballpark estimate if they were interested), for internal R&D, improvements to their core products, OSX Leopard for example, and especially their profitable iPhone and iPod hardware sales and services which brings up the second and main point:

The iPhone, iPod, and iTunes angles are so profitable for Apple that it would be hard to justify NOT investing the maximum available capital or the last available profitable investment dollar (where marginal return exceeds marginal cost of investing one more dollar) into the expanding entertainment hardware and media business. The opportunity cost [wikipedia.org] of buying Adobe instead of or at the expense of continued investment in the profitable iPhone, iPod, and iTunes markets may simply be too high, even though Adobe might be a good fit for Apple at least conceptually, to justify.

Disclaimer: I am neither an Apple nor an Adobe shareholder and I have no personal financial interest in either company.

God Please No! (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214467)

This is a horrible idea. It might be a boon for Apple but it would ruin Adobe and their great line of software that they have aquired. Adobe screws things up every once in a while (Adobe Reader bugs anybody?) but their content creation and editing software is the best. If Apple bought them they would stop putting out software for PC. This will just add fuel to the fire of their fallacious argument about PC software being really buggy while Apple software is great and magical and delicious! It's poppycock!

Re:God Please No! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214605)

Yes, apple would by it to shut out a huge piece of the market.
OS X does have far fewer bugs then Vista, with a better turn around time.

Don't forget they are different OS, designed by different people, with different architecture, with different methodology, managed differently.

Re:God Please No! (1)

belgar (254293) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214787)

Are you high? Just asking.

Apple's out to @#$% Adobe, not buy them. (5, Interesting)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214487)

WItness that Mac OS X 10.4 and later come with a complete set of Photoshop clone construction tools. See Acorn [flyingmeat.com] , DrawIt [getdrawit.com] , Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] and even later versions of GraphicConverter [lemkesoft.com] . Adobe dragged their heels too long.

Re:Apple's out to @#$% Adobe, not buy them. (2, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214713)

I second the recommendation for Pixelmator.

It's not quite Photoshop, but it's also 1/10 the price, and does a few very cool things that Photoshop does not, and is blazing fast on my relatively modest machine. For a first version, it's pretty darned impressive.

The GIMP guys really need to take a good hard look at it, and then go cry to themselves in a dark corner.

And I completely second the notion that Adobe's completely lost its focus. Photoshop's turning into a hulking dinosaur, and the rest of their product portfolio is starting to feel quite dated as well. Lightroom's the one innovative thing they've done (and they really just purchased another application and made it their own) -- unfortunately, it's a total CPU and Memory hog that has a tendency to wreck its database about once a month.

Re:Apple's out to @#$% Adobe, not buy them. (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214761)

I don't think any of these tools are at the level of Photoshop yet. But it's clear to me that Apple's done most of the heavy lifting (read: hard math), and these apps will get as close to Photoshop as they want over the coming year or two.

Me, I haven't bought any of them yet. I've been paralyzed by the number of options out there, and I only found out about DrawIt a few days ago. It's a good time to be looking for a Mac OS X graphics tool.

Re:Apple's out to @#$% Adobe, not buy them. (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214901)

mod parent up as interesting -- some of these free apps look interesting

Hardware Company (1)

allscan (1030606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214501)

Lest we all forget that Apple is first and foremost a hardware company that just happens to provide an operating system to work no their hardware and a few applications designed as eye-candy to try and pull people away from evil Microsoft.

Standard (0, Flamebait)

kylegordon (159137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214555)

"Final Cut Studio has become the standard"? Yes, maybe for the home market. The bigger stuff is still dominated by heavyweights such as Harris/Leitch and Avid.

In that case Dell should buy Microsoft (1)

meanween (709863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214579)

Granted it's not an Apples to Apples (hah!) comparison but really now...

Wouldn't be surprised, but.... (1)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214589)

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they bought Adobe. They've made some pretty big acquisitions of software developers in the past, the most relevant to me being their acquisition of eMagic, the developers of Logic Audio. Now Logic is one of Apple's key "Pro" applications, and they used the Logic technology to build their included-with-every-new-Mac "GarageBand" software (thus increasing the value of their platform - now you can produce music with every new Mac).

Considering that the vast majority of graphic design houses are running Macs, this does feel like another area where Apple could buy the company and bring further integration and a more "consistent experience" with the software, all the while further increasing the value of their platform.

That said, Adobe has a LOT of technology, history and a huge customer base (covering more than just Mac platforms, too). In my opinion, realistically, Adobe would be too big of a load for Apple to take on especially considering their own recent growth and increasing business responsibilities.

Uh.. Poison (1)

Wolvie MkM (661535) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214629)

Adobe has a knack for programming software that makes MS look incredible. There seems to be no awareness of what the teams are doing. Having to install programs in a certain order so that they don't break each other is hardly an idea situation for any company using their products.

Sure they've got a lock on some markets but it sure doesn't mean they're great. IMHO this would be disastrous for Apple and their, well from my perspective, long line of fairly sold programming. I'm not sure they really want to scrap everything Adobe has done and start from scratch so that it actually plays nice with each other.

For reference I've got a mix of Acrobat 5,6,7, Illustrator 8,9, and FrameMaker 7 here. Probably should upgrade one of these years...

this is article is pointless (1)

fattmatt (1042156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214651)

consider the source please... OSweekly is nothing more than a blog of crap.

webmasters: Can have a way to filter out articles based on the source...?? A shitlist so to speak?

NO! (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214665)

Finally, we have two great design software companies that have really good interface sense, competing with each other. Why would we want them to join? No, the best thing would be to let them (especially Adobe) spread into other design fields. I'd like to see an Adobe audio suite (like logic or Digital Performer)... but what *I*, personally, really want to see is Adobe tackle the seemingly impossible-to-make-good music notation software market, give Finale and Sibelius a well-deserved run for their money. Apple's welcome to join the fun too (they're closer, they've already got Logic). The visual design fields are really getting their all, but the audio design fields are a little behind the ball.

Now, an Apple merger with Nintendo would make perfect sense... but Adobe would just be a catastrophe.

Does Apple really want into the software business? (1)

daputz (255605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214667)

Other than iTunes/Quicktime which in required to drive all those iPod sales--Apple really isn't in the PC software business. Apple has done really well being a hardware company that makes software to support it. Buying Adobe puts them many new business arenas. They would be in vertical publishing markets like newspapers and magazines, document management with big corporations and govt, etc. It would seem like alot of new operation to absorb just to drive Mac sales. I'm sure they would love to get Macs on more corporate desks, but this is alot to take on to accomplish that.

What Apple should do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21214669)

Is sell frickin OSX, in a box, on the shelf next to Windows...and sell it to OEMs as an option to be installed on their PCs.

As soon as they do that, windows instantly loses market share.

Too bad Apple is too retarded to see that.

Within the bounds of reason... (5, Informative)

jordandeamattson (261036) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214677)

This proposal isn't like most out there (small fry buying company 10 times their size, etc.) which are completely outside the realm of possibility.

ADBE's market cap is 16% (27 Billion) of AAPL's market cap (167 Billion). APPL has $15 Billion in cash on the books, so this couldn't be an all cash deal, but it could be a mix of stock and cash or an all stock deal.

It is worth considering an AAPL acquisition of ADBE. Of course, AAPL would have to offer a premium. If I was putting together the deal, I would offer 1 AAPL share for 4 ADBE shares and $10 a share in cash.

This would value ADBE at 46.75 + $10 = $56.75 a share. This is an 18% permium to today's price. That is a reasonable premium on ADBE's current valuation.

Yours,

Jordan

Do things WELL, not "do everything" (3, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214687)

Granted, Final Cut Studio has become the standard when it comes to professional video editing, and Logic Studio is a great professional solution for editing audio, but what about the graphics and Web design segments of the market? If people want tools to support these interests on the Mac, then they turn to Adobe.

It boils down to this: Pick the battles you can win.

Quick, everyone, let's jump in the wayback machine to the 90's, when Apple "made" just about everything under the sun. And was doing a pretty shit job of it, and suffering for it. Part of what brought back Apple was Steve saying "what the fuck are we doing making digital cameras and a dozen different desktop computers?" They dropped all the shit products Apple was screwing around with, and simplified the product line down to just two laptop models and three desktops, all with clearly delineated target audiences and design.

Apple has benefited for two reasons: their business capabilities are not diluted as much, and consumers find the buying experience easier and simpler.

I've needed to buy a new bike and a cell phone recently. Both industries are chock full of companies that will offer you DOZENS of different products that are all every so slightly different; go look at Nokia's website sometime. Fifty goddamn phones, when really there's only 3-4 categories of 'em.

Apple has acquired sotware packages and such when (I believe) they felt it would benefit the platform, or there was a deal to be had. This is the same reasoning behind the various Apple peripherals we were inundated with in the 90's; nobody else made a good Appletalk laser printer, so Apple said "dammit, we'll do it ourselves." It made sense to some degree, bolstered by the fact that schools liked to buy everything from one place. It's nice to be able to get everything for your gradeschool lab from one place. To some degree.

That's the challenge I think Apple will face in the future: not getting caught up in too many product areas trying to support the platform, to the extent that both the core hardware suffers and the sideline stuff no longer becomes compelling.

And Intel should buy Microsoft... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214775)

Or IBM should do that.

Come ooouuun... Apple buying Adobe wasn't feasible back in the days when you NEEDED Apple hardware if you wanted to work with Adobe software.

The ultimate in fanboi logic (1)

nicklott (533496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214841)

So, Apple should buy Adobe in order to stop them developing products on windows, hence forcing design houses up and down the land to use Apple exclusively? Great! Even Ballmer hasn't yet conceived something that blatantly anti-competitive or stupid.

You fanboys don't do yourself any favours.

Natural reaction to any blog-sourced article (5, Insightful)

stinkbomb (238228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214877)

My natural reaction to any blog-sourced article is to ask who the hell is this person and why should consider their opinion credible at all. Unfortunately, there's no bio at all for this Brandon Watts. Another pointless blog-spam as far as I'm concerned.

Way off the mark (1)

bgspence (155914) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214889)

Apple has tended to bring apps and services to the Windows world, not buy Windows apps and kill them.

Quicktime has long been available on Windows. And, iTunes is there, too. Apple even contributes to open source.

Microsoft got their application start on Macs, and continues to support Office there. Adobe started with their apps on the Macintosh, and support them now on both Macs and Windows.

Apple provides entry level apps with the system. They also have some some pro apps. Other vendors provide professional applications for both the Mac and Windows.

Maybe a linux user group should buy them all and kiil them. Then linux would be the best system in the whole world.

Apple has lots of cash (5, Interesting)

BearRanger (945122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21214895)

But that doesn't mean they should spend it on Adobe, unless they've gotten wind of something the rest of us haven't.

Apple has a pretty compelling story just now. They have a new OS with tools developers are excited about using. The Mac is gaining market share, so developers are more inclined to write software for the platform. That should include Adobe. However, much of Adobe's software is written using Apple's 32-bit Carbon framework. It will be an expensive proposition for Adobe to move forward and develop new 64-bit Cocoa versions of their code.

If Apple could positively determine that Adobe was not going to make this investment it might make sense for them to buy them to make sure that it happened. Adobe software is hugely important to Apple--look at how many people held off making the transition to Intel Macs until CS3 was ready. Apple is not a huge company, employee-wise. They could eventually develop competing products at the cost of increasing their number of employees, a lead time to market and risking incompatibility with the existing market standard. Given those terms, purchasing Adobe could be the cheaper option.

But unless Adobe plans to abandon the Mac this purchase wouldn't make much sense for Apple.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?