Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 21:32 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Well, this is interesting. The New York Times caught wind of a special and secret meeting between Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer and Adobe's frontman Shantanu Narayen. They claim the entire talk was dedicated to the fight against Apple, and one of the options discussed was... Microsoft acquiring Adobe.
Order by: Score:
nope
by poundsmack on Thu 7th Oct 2010 21:39 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

it's an unprecedented rumor. The only strategic value for MS acquiring adobe would be to kill flash in favor of silver light. but then MS is the paladin of Apple in the holy war that Jobs started...

All in all, while there are lots of reasons MS 'could' buy Adobe none of them are plausible enough to justify it... a rumor, nothing more.

Reply Score: 5

RE: nope
by tweakedenigma on Thu 7th Oct 2010 21:42 UTC in reply to "nope"
tweakedenigma Member since:
2006-12-27

I would have to agree. Adobe has little to offer MS right now, other then the opportunity to kill flash.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: nope
by Kroc on Thu 7th Oct 2010 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE: nope"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Dominance of the creative market is ‘not much’? Imagine either Microsoft, or Apple, buying Adobe and killing support for the other platform.

I wish either of them would hurry up and buy Adobe, there’s no way their software could get any worse!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: nope
by poundsmack on Thu 7th Oct 2010 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nope"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

A lot of adobes products, while admittedly unnecessarily bloated, are actually quite good. I wouldn't want EITHER MS or Apple buying them, Adobe runs the business well and their cross platform support is good. either major OS vendor buying them would surely leverage the purchase to gain an edge and likely kill off the product on the other platform, or just make it suck more and get updates less, you know the usual...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: nope
by n.l.o on Thu 7th Oct 2010 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nope"
n.l.o Member since:
2009-09-14

A lot of adobes products, while admittedly unnecessarily bloated, are actually quite good. I wouldn't want EITHER MS or Apple buying them, Adobe runs the business well and their cross platform support is good. either major OS vendor buying them would surely leverage the purchase to gain an edge and likely kill off the product on the other platform, or just make it suck more and get updates less, you know the usual...


Let's all pray for Oracle to buy Adobe! ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: nope
by poundsmack on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: nope"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

[q]
Let's all pray for Oracle to buy Adobe! ;)


*shot gun to face sound*

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: nope
by Kroc on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nope"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Each page you go through on this site, just keep saying to yourself $1800, $1800, $1800… http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: nope
by Neolander on Fri 8th Oct 2010 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: nope"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Each page you go through on this site, just keep saying to yourself $1800, $1800, $1800… http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/

Well, some years ago, I was in one of those endless PS vs GIMP argument, my point being that its feature set is good enough for most use and that its UI is much more well-thought on many points of view.

Before we started arguing about the feature set, the answer he gave to my gripes about the UI could be translated as this :
"Novice users have a natural tendency to find Adobe's UIs obscure, that's because they don't understand them. Once you're used to them, you understand how every single detail of them is well-tought, allowing efficient operation all the time"

I wonder what he would say about these ones... (myself I had some other examples at the time, which were rather design horrors than bugs)

Edited 2010-10-08 05:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: nope
by Kroc on Fri 8th Oct 2010 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: nope"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I like how in CS4, you can’t choose Updates from the help menu until you’ve opened an image first. That’s really well thought out.

I also like how on Windows 7, the updater doesn’t work at all because it doesn’t run itself as administrator, and I had to go set that option to get it to work -- *and* then how that means that you can no longer use the Updates menu to launch the updater, until you set Photoshop itself to run as administrator.

That’s really well thought out.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: nope
by Neolander on Fri 8th Oct 2010 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: nope"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I like how in CS4, you can’t choose Updates from the help menu until you’ve opened an image first. That’s really well thought out.

Hum... Maybe it needs a sample image for live regression testing ? =p

I also like how on Windows 7, the updater doesn’t work at all because it doesn’t run itself as administrator, and I had to go set that option to get it to work -- *and* then how that means that you can no longer use the Updates menu to launch the updater, until you set Photoshop itself to run as administrator.

That’s really well thought out.

Well, I would be more kind with them about this one. Windows lacks a centralized update system (like Microsoft Update or most Unices updaters), so Adobe had to create their own, which was obviously as quirky as update in application software can get. It's not the same as voluntarily ditching native UI widgets instead of using, say, a cross-platform wrapper like QT.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: nope
by Eddyspeeder on Fri 8th Oct 2010 10:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: nope"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

I could make a similar blog for all the mishaps in Office:Mac. There are errors in there I still can't believe (except when I realize it's from the same company that makes Windows... right it makes sense again). In just a few weeks of working with Office:Mac, I realized I should have gone for OpenOffice or iWork...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: nope
by Lennie on Sat 9th Oct 2010 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: nope"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

There are lots of bugs in Office Windows as well, what is your point ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: nope
by Almafeta on Thu 7th Oct 2010 23:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nope"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

A lot of adobes products, while admittedly unnecessarily bloated, are actually quite good.


I'm trying to think of what you could be talking about, and can't figure it out for the life of me. If anything, it might be Photoshop, but even if you counted Photoshop as a good product, it'd still be expensive for Microsoft to buy a company of Adobe's size for just that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: nope
by poundsmack on Fri 8th Oct 2010 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: nope"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

don't forget about Adobe's patent portfolio. Flash holds A LOT of patents that MS could leverage with Silver Light. Or at least it wouldn't be at risk of patent infringment due to reinventing the wheel, so to speak.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: nope
by giffypop17 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: nope"
giffypop17 Member since:
2009-03-09

Though it could certainly use some improvement, Lightroom 3 is actually very good, and there's only one program in it's class that's even competitive.

However, my favorite Adobe program is Acrobat Reader version 5.0. 5.0 absolutely flies on my modern systems, and can still open most PDFs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: nope
by Stephen! on Fri 8th Oct 2010 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nope"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

A lot of adobes products, while admittedly unnecessarily bloated, are actually quite good.


Given Microsoft's history of bloatware, they'd probably be a good match for each other.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: nope
by shmerl on Fri 8th Oct 2010 16:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nope"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

May be you know what can compete with Adobe inDesign at present?

Reply Score: 1

RE: nope
by Mellin on Thu 7th Oct 2010 21:57 UTC in reply to "nope"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

killing flash wouldn't make microsoft moonlight a favorite for Linux users and google wouldn't switch to silverlight on youtube

Edited 2010-10-07 21:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: nope
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Oct 2010 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE: nope"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

killing flash wouldn't make microsoft moonlight a favorite for Linux users and google wouldn't switch to silverlight on youtube


Agreed. Killing Flash would simply accelerate the rise to prominence of standards for rich content, namely HMTL5/CSS/Fast ECMAscript/SVG.

YouTube would simly switch to HTML5/WebM, offer a WebM code for IE9 users to install, and advise other IE users to install either Chrome or maybe even Firefox/Opera.

YouTube already has encoded to WebM over one million of its most popular videos.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: nope
by Almafeta on Thu 7th Oct 2010 23:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: nope"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Agreed. Killing Flash would simply accelerate the rise to prominence of standards for rich content, namely HMTL5/CSS/Fast ECMAscript/SVG.


How are a specification released to promote a proprietary video format, a well-abused document layout specification, a scripting language designed begrudgingly by committee whose sole notable trait has been its Esperantoesque tendancy to create dozens of mutually incompatible subsets, and a dead vector graphic format, in any way a suitable replacement for a format that allows arbitrary code to be executed in a sandbox?

It'd make more sense to call Java or Silverlight a "standard for rich content," although both Java and Silverlight are more "rich content" than "standard."

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: nope
by lemur2 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: nope"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Agreed. Killing Flash would simply accelerate the rise to prominence of standards for rich content, namely HMTL5/CSS/Fast ECMAscript/SVG.
How are a specification released to promote a proprietary video format, a well-abused document layout specification, a scripting language designed begrudgingly by committee whose sole notable trait has been its Esperantoesque tendancy to create dozens of mutually incompatible subsets, and a dead vector graphic format, in any way a suitable replacement for a format that allows arbitrary code to be executed in a sandbox? It'd make more sense to call Java or Silverlight a "standard for rich content," although both Java and Silverlight are more "rich content" than "standard." "

Firefox 4, Google Chrome and even IE9 all include a quite reasonable implementation of GPU-accelerated HMTL5/CSS/Fast ECMAscript/Canvas/SVG. It doesn't require a plugin. Adobe's tools for creating "rich content" for Flash on websites can also create HMTL5/CSS/Fast ECMAscript/Canvas/SVG output. Enjoy.

BTW: A "standard" is a format or protocol for interoperability between different suppliers. It is not a popularity contest. Silverlight doesn't qualify.

Edited 2010-10-08 00:52 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: nope
by 0brad0 on Thu 7th Oct 2010 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: nope"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

killing flash wouldn't make microsoft moonlight a favorite for Linux users and google wouldn't switch to silverlight on youtube


They're both awful and need to die.

Reply Score: 2

RE: nope
by OSGuy on Fri 8th Oct 2010 09:28 UTC in reply to "nope"
OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Hmmm considering what they are doing with Yahoo!, I won't be surprised.

Reply Score: 2

microbe
by boulabiar on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:05 UTC
boulabiar
Member since:
2009-04-18

As said in twitter :
Microsoft+Adobe=Microbe

Reply Score: 9

RE: microbe
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:08 UTC in reply to "microbe"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Adsoft.

Reply Score: 6

RE: microbe
by bitwelder on Fri 8th Oct 2010 06:28 UTC in reply to "microbe"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Picking names from Adobe past you can also have
Micromedia ;)

Reply Score: 3

It would a shame but not a disaster
by Tony Swash on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:14 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

I personally use Photoshop and Lightroom all the time on my Mac and would be very sad if a Microsoft acquisition threatened the future of the Mac versions of those products. I don't think its likely.

What's interesting though is firstly it shows how anxious, threatened and frankly desperate both companies feel about the growth of Apple. Adobe really should have been nicer to Apple and Mac users back when it would have been a kindness, as it was we felt often let down by them just when the Mac's fortunes were at a low ebb. Lots of Mac users and plenty of people at Apple have long memories.

Second, no one thinks such a move would kill Apple or even stop it growing. A few years back it might have done. How times change.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Both" companies?

Apple is no threat to Microsoft. The two companies work together at the very highest levels. They don't compete - they work around each other, and have been doing so for well over a decade.

Adobe is the one who's scared here. If Microsoft ends up buying Adobe, Apple will be a very happy company, since it would give them great influence (via their collaboration with Microsoft) over some of the Mac's most popular programs.

Reply Score: 2

the new flash is good on linux!
by stabbyjones on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:14 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

After annoying us by taking away the amd64 version of flash for a while I wasn't too happy but the latest release is probably the best flash I've used on Linux.

I guess Micro-dobe could always abandon mac and focus on Linux?..... hahahaha. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Antitrust
by zizban on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:22 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

The world's #1 and #2 software companies merging; I have a hard time believing this would get antitrust approval.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Antitrust
by rjamorim on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:39 UTC in reply to "Antitrust"
rjamorim Member since:
2005-12-05

Adobe doesn't come even close to being the second largest software company, no matter what angle you look from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_global_software_co...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Antitrust
by Delgarde on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Antitrust"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Adobe doesn't come even close to being the second largest software company, no matter what angle you look from:


I'm wondering if all he read was the headline, and misunderstood it as *Apple* and Microsoft merging. Not that Apple are the second-largest software company either, but it makes more sense than Adobe...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Antitrust
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Antitrust"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I'm wondering if all he read was the headline, and misunderstood it as *Apple* and Microsoft merging. Not that Apple are the second-largest software company either, but it makes more sense than Adobe...

That's how I originally read it. I was confused at first. Didn't even catch Adobe in there.

Edited 2010-10-08 02:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Antitrust
by metalf8801 on Sat 9th Oct 2010 05:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Antitrust"
metalf8801 Member since:
2010-03-22

Apple is at least the second biggest software company if not the largest. The only reason they might not be the biggest software company is because they do make a lot of hardware.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27apple.html

Reply Score: 1

RE: Antitrust
by tylerdurden on Fri 8th Oct 2010 00:07 UTC in reply to "Antitrust"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The "world" and "the perception from your parent's basement" are not necessarily correlated.

Adobe is not even among the top 10 software companies in the world.

Reply Score: 2

Minor nitpick
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Oct 2010 22:50 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

FTA:

It would also spell disaster for the Linux version of the Flash Player - which already is kind of a disaster as it is.


I'm not sure why the Linux version of the Flash player can be considered a disaster:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/205575/adobe_unleashes_64bit_beta_fl...

This plugin works just as well on Linux systems as it does anywhere else. It is exactly the same version.

Some Linux browsers don't even require a Flash plugin:
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/05/new-chrome-beta-gets-a-huge-speed-...

If Microsoft acquires Adobe and pulls the Linux version of the Flash plugin, there are other options for Linux where it may gain an open source Flash player with hardware acceleration:

http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26235

I'm really struggling to see any problem for Linux here.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Minor nitpick
by RshPL on Thu 7th Oct 2010 23:23 UTC in reply to "Minor nitpick"
RshPL Member since:
2009-03-13

Probably what is disastrous is the performance of the flash experience on Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Minor nitpick
by lemur2 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 01:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Minor nitpick"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Probably what is disastrous is the performance of the flash experience on Linux.


Solutions are starting to appear which use GPU hardware shaders and which can implement LLVM-based Actionscript 3.0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightspark

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODY0Ng

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODM5Ng

Being a plugin, Lightspark is not as good a solution for rich content as the GPU-accelerated HTML5/ECMAscript/SVG/CSS/Canvas W3C standards, I grant you, but it performs pretty much as well as your hardware itself can.

Edited 2010-10-08 01:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Minor nitpick
by apoclypse on Fri 8th Oct 2010 02:56 UTC in reply to "Minor nitpick"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

FTA: "It would also spell disaster for the Linux version of the Flash Player - which already is kind of a disaster as it is.


I'm not sure why the Linux version of the Flash player can be considered a disaster:
.
"


No it doesn't. There are a bunch of overlay ad display issues with the linux client. However where it counts (i guess), performance, it does a bit better than the OSX client though not by much. Either way Flash sucks on anything other than Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Minor nitpick
by lemur2 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Minor nitpick"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I'm not sure why the Linux version of the Flash player can be considered a disaster: .
No it doesn't. There are a bunch of overlay ad display issues with the linux client. However where it counts (i guess), performance, it does a bit better than the OSX client though not by much. Either way Flash sucks on anything other than Windows. "

Are you talking about Adobe's Flash plugin? Adobe's Flash plugin software for Linux doesn't use GPU hardware acceleration directly, although AFAIK it does call system libraries which can themselves use the GPU.

In any event, if performance of Flash is an issue for you on Linux, alternative software is becoming available:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?444454

Edited 2010-10-08 03:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by robco74
by robco74 on Thu 7th Oct 2010 23:21 UTC
Well, this is fortunate!
by mpxlbs on Fri 8th Oct 2010 00:21 UTC
mpxlbs
Member since:
2009-01-25

Because this morning I just tried out Gnash again (this time it works for me), and so I uninstalled the Adobe Flash plugin ;)
Lucky day!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well, this is fortunate!
by lemur2 on Fri 8th Oct 2010 00:58 UTC in reply to "Well, this is fortunate!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Because this morning I just tried out Gnash again (this time it works for me), and so I uninstalled the Adobe Flash plugin ;) Lucky day!


There is also Lightspark for those brave enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightspark

It uses OpenGL GPU shaders (GLSL). It is still Beta software, so beware.

Reply Score: 2

Win Win Merger
by rrife on Fri 8th Oct 2010 02:27 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

Adobe + Microsoft would mean cheaper Adobe products for consumers and developers, which would ultimately mean more widespread adoption of Adobe technologies.

Reply Score: 1

Why?
by rrife on Fri 8th Oct 2010 02:29 UTC
rrife
Member since:
2006-12-12

Microsoft could really use Adobe's catalog of multimedia software and Adobe could really use Microsoft's capital to help make their products more mainstream.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why?
by phobos_anomaly on Fri 8th Oct 2010 02:59 UTC in reply to "Why?"
phobos_anomaly Member since:
2009-05-06

Lower prices? Try lower quality too. And thousands upon thousands of patches "security" patches.

Reply Score: 1

v Negathom.
by remenic on Fri 8th Oct 2010 05:10 UTC
RE: Negathom.
by JonathanBThompson on Fri 8th Oct 2010 06:22 UTC in reply to "Negathom."
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

What you need to keep in proper context is that OSNews is a multi-person personal blog, and that's what you can expect: all the benefits and downfalls of that, respectively, and not necessarily the news that's not rehashed.

Reply Score: 3

fatjoe
Member since:
2010-01-12

Are there _any_ evidence that they talked about a merger?? Does it even make sense? Adobe would cost Microsoft more than one third of their cash reserves, would it really be worth it???



My own guess would be that Microsoft wants Silverlight support in future Adobe products. After all, they already support HTML5.

Reply Score: 1

Makes no sense for MS
by nt_jerkface on Fri 8th Oct 2010 07:47 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

MS doesn't like how Flash is filled with holes. They're trying to bolt down Windows while Flash holds a door open. Buying Adobe to get rid of Flash doesn't make sense. It would be much cheaper to help Adobe secure the damn thing.

If anything Adobe wants protection from Apple. Adobe might fear being taken over by Apple since a big part of the company would be destroyed.

But I bet the meeting was just about getting back at Apple. Jobs should have quietly dropped Flash support instead of going on a tirade. The Adobe CEO is probably plotting revenge.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Makes no sense for MS
by Paradroid on Fri 8th Oct 2010 08:24 UTC in reply to "Makes no sense for MS"
Paradroid Member since:
2010-01-05

Jobs should have quietly dropped Flash support instead of going on a tirade. The Adobe CEO is probably plotting revenge.


I think he did. Then it got blown out of all proportion.

Meanwhile I don't know anyone who really misses it on their iPhone, and no other smartphone has done a particularly good job of running Flash either.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Makes no sense for MS
by nt_jerkface on Fri 8th Oct 2010 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes no sense for MS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


I think he did. Then it got blown out of all proportion.


It wasn't quiet, he trashed it an online post.


Meanwhile I don't know anyone who really misses it on their iPhone, and no other smartphone has done a particularly good job of running Flash either.


I don't think it matters on the iphone or any phone for that matter but I do know quite a few people that wouldn't buy an ipad because it lacks Flash.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by moleskine
by moleskine on Fri 8th Oct 2010 09:42 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Well, if Adobe is to be sold, who would you rather have buy it? I would not much want Apple to buy it where Adobe would be subject to the great dictator's strange designs. At least Microsoft would likely follow a more predictable and, these days, even open approach.

The notion that Microsoft and Adobe might join forces to combat Apple is a little odd. My understanding is that Apple makes most of its money from non-PC things - phones, pads, pods, etc. With each passing year, Apple probably cares less and less about what goes on in the old, traditional PC sphere as the income from the Mac and its products becomes a smaller part of the pie.

Sounds more like two old warhorses sounding off. They're pretty worried and they don't know what to do.

Reply Score: 4

OMG!!! The Borgs Are Coming!!!!
by theCyberHawk on Fri 8th Oct 2010 14:59 UTC
theCyberHawk
Member since:
2008-08-13

Run for your lives!!!!!!

Reply Score: 0

or not?
by twitterfire on Fri 8th Oct 2010 18:14 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

ibm will buy microsoft who will buy apple who will buy adobe who will buy oracle who will buy novell

all the consumers will be happy and sing

Reply Score: 2