Apple Future Software Acquisitions

  • Posted: 13 May 2010 10:55 PM

    Apple is sitting pretty on a pile cash that is doing nothing.
    They just hired some new guns to be part of their acquisition team.

    The recent acquisitions that Apple made is mainly focused on their iPod/iPhone/iPad division.
    Whether it is in the hardware or software company acquisitions, it was still mainly focused on the iPod/iPhone/iPad.

    I have a feeling that Apple is working on their own Creative Suite.
    Apple has been competing with Adobe is various softwares(photography, video editing) and Adobe has been lagging in their software support for the Mac users.

    What does Apple have so far for their own Pro Creative Suite?
    -Final Cut Pro for Video Editing
    -Aperture for Photography
    -Logic Studio for Music

    All Apple needs now is Photo Editing and Vector Drawing software to round out their Creative Suite.

    To complete their Pro Creative Suite, Apple could buy up Corel for the remaining software.
    This will give Mac Creative Professionals uncompromising support for their Creative Suite.
    And it will give Graphic Pros more options that sticking with Adobe.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 May 2010 02:29 AM #1

    Why buy Corel?  How difficulty is it to develop iPhoto into a pro version?  Or Apple already has one developed secretly?  I believe ever since Adobe shows SJ the door when he is back in 1997, SJ has decided to develop all Adobe apps inhouse.

    [ Edited: 14 May 2010 02:31 AM by Mace ]

    Signature

    Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.  - Steve Jobs

         
  • Posted: 14 May 2010 02:34 AM #2

    I don’t see Apple actively entering packaged software markets unless its compelled to do so in order to compete in the hardware market. Final Cut Pro was necessary due to the fact Apple needed something Adobe really couldn’t deliver in the way Apple wanted it. But entering a competition with Adobe in the vector-based graphics market is a different animal. It’s not necessary. It would also require a sophisticated page layout and pre-press offering as well. I don’t see Apple entering those markets with a competing product at this time.

         
  • Posted: 14 May 2010 09:02 AM #3

    InDesign is a pretty big part of the CS products.

    The world’s prepress departments rely on it and it’s a great product.

    I remember looking around the office in the 90s thinking what a total lock QuarkXpress
    had on the advertising/printing graphic arts software market.
    Today InDesign has taken over and Quark’s a distant, bad memory.
    InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator work beautifully together and get along fine with all my Mac apps too,
    no more crashes and disappearing files.

    It took Adobe forever to come this far but they really have it together on the integrated graphic arts software scene!
    Honestly, I’ve never been happier with these Adobe products.
    After many years of daily pain and frustration in prepress management they are generally a joy to use day in and out!
    I’m not so sure Apple really want to go there…!

         
  • Posted: 14 May 2010 12:17 PM #4

    Why buy Corel?  How difficulty is it to develop iPhoto into a pro version?  Or Apple already has one developed secretly?

    First of all, iPhoto isn’t even the same type of software as Photoshop, its a photo library and adjustment application. Photoshop is a full-blown, robust bitmap editor. These are not the same thing. Aperture is more robust than iPhoto, but its still not a bitmap editor. There’s no layers or serious filters. Selection abilities, masking abilities, don’t come close to what you can do with Photoshop. There’s a reason Adobe developed Lightroom, these are different types of software..

    I’m not saying Apple can’t develop a Photoshop competitor, but there is no company or application anywhere close right now. And why would it? Adobe has made its commitment to developing its Creative Suite for OS X very public. Apple doesn’t have much to gain there.

    Apple has been competing with Adobe is various softwares(photography, video editing) and Adobe has been lagging in their software support for the Mac user

    The first part of your statement is correct. However it is wrong to say that Adobe has been lagging int their support of OS X. Lightroom was 64-bit and Cocoa before Aperture. I believe Premiere has beaten Final Cut as well in that department.  Its true that Photoshop CS4 for Mac wasn’t 64-bit when it was for Windows, but that is not entirely Adobe’s fault. Apple dropped 64-bit Carbon APIs a little suddenly.

    There’s a lot of Adobe hating going on right now in the Apple community and I think a lot of it is uncalled for. OK, Flash sucks. Lets move on. Creative Suite 5 is excellent software; It’s professional-grade software, and has a learning curve, but once you learn how to use Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign, and realize how powerful they are, its hard to imagine anyone coming up with a solution that would somehow magically be easier to use and equally robust. Those who think Adobe has made these products too complex and wish Apple would/could provide such a magical solution haven’t used Final Cut Pro (which is great software, but also equally, if not more, complex as Photoshop).

         
  • Posted: 14 May 2010 01:49 PM #5

    Apple should just go ahead and buy Adobe.  It would allow them to have a fully developed creative/life suite that had 3 tiers:
    1) Free with new Mac - light version
    2) Express version - Final Cut Express, Photoshop Elements, etc…
    3) Pro version

    And Adobe is much more than just the Creative Suite.  Acrobat could be bundled into iWork, and also leveraged for either competing on the Windows platform or further enticing people to switch to Mac.

    Oh, and not only is Adobe profitable as-is today, but is bringing in much more profit per quarter than the return on the cash that Apple has invested.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 May 2010 02:14 PM #6

    Apple should by Facebook. It would finally have a decent interface.

    Seriously, I would like to them acquire Adobe.

    Signature

    “Works of art, in my opinion, are the only objects in the material universe to possess internal order, and that is why, though I don’t believe that only art matters, I do believe in Art for Art’s sake.” E. M. Forster

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 May 2010 02:15 PM #7

    +

    elasticthreads - 14 May 2010 03:17 PM

    There’s a lot of Adobe hating going on right now in the Apple community and I think a lot of it is uncalled for. OK, Flash sucks. Lets move on. Creative Suite 5 is excellent software; It’s professional-grade software, and has a learning curve, but once you learn how to use Photoshop, Illustrator, or InDesign, and realize how powerful they are, its hard to imagine anyone coming up with a solution that would somehow magically be easier to use and equally robust. Those who think Adobe has made these products too complex and wish Apple would/could provide such a magical solution haven’t used Final Cut Pro (which is great software, but also equally, if not more, complex as Photoshop).

    Agreed. For those of us in creative fields, life without Creative Suite is unimaginable. Aside from being horrifically expensive (plus too many interface tweaks when CS 1 felt just fine), Adobe’s Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign are indispensable for print work, with Illustrator and Photoshop also being indispensable for any type of graphic design (web, multimedia, etc.).

    Having said that, as a former Premiere user who now uses Final Cut Pro exclusively, I wouldn’t sell Apple short if they decided to try and create best-of-breed apps to compete with creative Suite. “Stand-alone” apps such as Illustrator and Photoshop are one issue, though, while InDesign is quite another. For Apple to compete there, they’d have to convince publishing houses worldwide to support their new app in the pre-press/print production workflow (just as Adobe had to with InDesign’s introduction). I’m not sure how successful they’d be, given that their software would undoubtedly be OS X only. That might not be enough of a user base to convince publishing houses to support it.

    Signature

    mrmwebmax (formerly mrmgraphics)
    Max out your site! mrmwebmax.com

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 May 2010 02:26 PM #8

    macslut - 14 May 2010 04:49 PM

    Oh, and not only is Adobe profitable as-is today, but is bringing in much more profit per quarter than the return on the cash that Apple has invested.

    Ummm, what?

    Adobe made $127M in profits last quarter.

    Apple has $23B in cash/short term securities.  $127M/$23B = 0.55% return.  I’d bet that Apple is getting more than that for a return.

    Edit: dyslexia in AAPL numbers, doesn’t really change my point.

    [ Edited: 14 May 2010 02:38 PM by NatasRevol ]      
  • Posted: 14 May 2010 02:43 PM #9

    Sir Harry Flashman - 14 May 2010 05:14 PM

    Apple should by Facebook. It would finally have a decent interface.

    Seriously, I would like to them acquire Adobe.


    Oh, what an improvement the interface would be. Facebook came out and offered something that was unobtrusive and not nearly as obnoxious as MySpace. Over 3 years, it’s morphing into a user’s nightmare. Somebody forgot to teach them that if it ain’t broke, don’t mess with it.

    I still don’t see how FB makes any money. Do people really look at the ads? Seriously? The most I’ve done is click through to report that I don’t like them. I can’t imagine they’re actually making anybody any $$ at all.

    But that just may be me. I ignore print and broadcast ads too. They’re just NOISE in the realm of everyday life.

    And if they’re Flash based, they tick me off!

         
  • Posted: 14 May 2010 03:53 PM #10

    elasticthreads - 14 May 2010 03:17 PM

    Its true that Photoshop CS4 for Mac wasn’t 64-bit when it was for Windows, but that is not entirely Adobe’s fault. Apple dropped 64-bit Carbon APIs a little suddenly.

    Not really. The writing had been on the wall for years—since 2000—but Adobe chose to ignore it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&hl=fr&v=Ko4V3G4NqII (starting at about 4:55)
    http://www.drissman.com/avi/misc/tn2034/tn2034.pdf (inflammatory and challenging but the signal was unmistakable)

    From a January 2001 article:

    Road to Mac OS X: Carbon versus Cocoa

    “While Carbon is the means by which most Mac developers will get their apps up to speed for Mac OS X, Apple recommends Cocoa for developers with new ideas who are creating applications for the future. The Cocoa environment provides an advanced, object-oriented programming environment for creating, in Apple’s words, ‘the best next generation applications.’”

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 14 May 2010 05:08 PM #11

    Sir Harry Flashman - 14 May 2010 05:14 PM

    ... Seriously, I would like to them acquire Adobe.

    What is the deal?  How do Apple customers and investors benefit from this deal?  As pointed out by NatasRevol, ROI is too low.  Going forward, the big money is iPads and iPhones.  How do Adobe products and technologies help in selling iPads and iPhones?

    Signature

    Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.  - Steve Jobs

         
  • Posted: 14 May 2010 08:28 PM #12

    Mace - 14 May 2010 05:29 AM

    How difficulty[sic] is it to develop iPhoto into a pro version?

    It’s called Aperture. Nice program, just not a head-to-head competitor with PhotoShop, which is about much more than just photos.

    It competes more against LightRoom.

    Signature

    “Inquiring Minds Want to Know!”