Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Internet Software

Adobe Intends To Move All of Its Applications Online 283

E1ven writes "Adobe has announced their intention to transition their entire suite of software to web-based applications This includes their popular offerings Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects. '[Adobe Chief Executive Bruce] Chizen answered a question about whether a complete shift to Web delivery would take five or 10 years and he indicated it would be closer to a decade. Like many traditional software makers including Microsoft Corp., Adobe must fend off rivals delivering competing applications over the Web and it also needs to adopt a new business model after years of selling software in boxes. Chizen expects professional customers of products like Acrobat document-sharing or Photoshop for editing images would opt to pay for subscriptions versus facing a steady stream of advertising to use tools critical to their jobs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Intends To Move All of Its Applications Online

Comments Filter:
  • by clickclickdrone ( 964164 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:08AM (#21040913)
    >Adobe has announced their intention to *move*
    Fixed it again. Next person that says transition gets a poke in the eye.
    • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:19AM (#21041103)
      Well, SOMEONE'S sour for losing at "bullshit bingo" [] in the last meeting with management.
      • FX: Looks down at latest missive from da management
        "Confidently lead the market with differentiated outsourcing services leveraging our key differentiators"

        "Market leading unique services"
        Just saved them a million or two there.
        • FX: Looks down at latest missive from da management
          "Confidently lead the market with differentiated outsourcing services leveraging our key differentiators"

          "Market leading unique services"
          Just saved them a million or two there.
          Ah, so your company has decided to realign its best practices along the lines of its core competencies, aiding in the creation of a dynamic synergy with your customers?
    • by ubrgeek ( 679399 )
      I'd like to transition from "pokes" to "jabs" ... ;)
    • >Adobe has announced their intention to *move*
      Fixed it again. Next person that says transition gets a poke in the eye. I'm wearing transitions frames, it protects me from the sun and, I'm assuming, pokes as well. *STAB!* Fuck, my eye! That wasn't a poke!
  • Good luck... (Score:2, Informative)

    Good luck with that. I'd love to see how you're going to implement full-blown, resource-heavy photo editing in a browser.

    And I don't really see any competitors offering online photo editing on the level of Photoshop... there's probably a reason for that.

    • Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 2phar ( 137027 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:14AM (#21041013)
      Sounds like a nice example of management desire to tie in charges-per-use is taking priority over unimportant stuff like app performance. Maybe we'll be proven wrong.
      • by omeomi ( 675045 )
        Sounds like a nice example of management desire to tie in charges-per-use is taking priority over unimportant stuff like app performance. Maybe we'll be proven wrong.

        Not to mention the complete lack of a demand for this sort of thing. I can kind of see the online office suite. It'd be useful for people who use many different computers, and for sharing documents. It's not my bag, but I can see a potential market. But why would anybody want online professional photo-editing software? Or an online Flash? Wha
      • I think you've nailed it. I was once a booster of web applications because of their portability and configuration independence. But after trying them both at home and at work, I've become a skeptic. Response is slow and erratic, AFAICS, no one has ever fixed web page caching although it ought to be fixable. (If disk caches worked as erratically internet caches, we'd be lucky to keep a computer up for five minutes). Even the best web applications are somewhat painful to use. The worst ... well, they're
      • Sounds like a nice example of management desire to tie in charges-per-use is taking priority over unimportant stuff like app performance. Maybe we'll be proven wrong.

        Bingo. This is someone who just read a book about software-as-a-service and decided "damn, this is what we need to do!" Which is understandable, because SAS is a tempting model. As the provider, you get to milk your customers continuously, instead of just once or every few years. And unlike selling upgrades, you don't have to constantly sell them on the value of version X+0.1 and how superior it is to version X. All you have to make sure is that they're still happy with the service overall.

        I'm reminded a l

    • My PHB sensors just went off after reading this story...
    • Well with Web 2.0 of course....
      Well using a combination of some big server farms, Ajax and javascript on your local system, and the fact the broadband is getting more common and faster it is becoming quite possible. Lot of the heavy duty stuff in Photoshop is handling small changes on big pictures, if you can have Adobe high end super fast servers handle the work and then you get a 1 Meg file to display to your screen. Then using ImageMaps and Javascript to handle the rest. It could work. it would take s
      • Re:Good luck... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @11:08AM (#21041999) Journal
        Now imagine that every single computer user uses web-based applications to do absolutely everything.

        Online word processing
        Online image editing
        Online gaming
        Online video and music (at first I thought to myself 'this is a stretch' and then and realized it's already common place a-la youtube and internet radio stations etc.)
        Online e-mail (not really worth mentioning since it has already been so common for so long and is arguably one of the catalysts for the desire to move everything to the web)
        Hell even a web-based OS with online file storage.

        Now imagine the demand this will put on bandwidth.

        Bandwidth is relatively cheap right now but there are already signs that it's not getting any cheaper. My ISP has raised it's cost by a couple of bucks / month TWICE in the last 6 months. We hear article and article about ISPs capping users and degrading service all the time on /. Simple economics dictates that as demand goes up and supply goes down prices automatically increase.

        As we move forward in this direction the demand for bandwidth is going to be astronomical. Prices will soar and performance will go downhill. The more I think about it the more I wonder if the entire concept is really sustainable with our current infrastructure. Of course the problem could be solvable. With competent software architects who can design these systems with great care to keep bandwidth consumption to an absolute minimum and with advancements in network technology we could offset the problem. It's just that there seems to be such a huge push towards moving everything web-based, and at the same time that we have a soar in online media such as youtube and all it's clones, internet radio, DVD piracy etc.

        The question needs to be asked. Is this all blind business strategy or are people actually carefully considering how all of this increased demand is going to affect the infrastructure and how the infrastructure will be improved to handle it. Web applications in the now are sustainable but if every single Internet user starts to do everything online then the question needs to be answered.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AmIAnAi ( 975049 ) *
          It's not just the bandwidth that bothers me, it's the more mundane problems like the guys outside with a backhoe slicing through your cable connection, or the multitude of problems that can occur at your local ISP. If that happens, you're going to be sat looking at a dumb 'terminal' and unable to do anything. Ok, the backhoe can just as easily take out the power, but currently there seems to be a lot more urgency to get the power back on than there is when the internet connection goes down.
    • Chizen expects professional customers of products like Acrobat document-sharing or Photoshop for editing images would opt to pay for subscriptions versus facing a steady stream of advertising to use tools critical to their jobs.
      I'll bet they'd rather own a desktop application, but that's just me.
    • Said ThinkingInBinary (899485) [] circa 1997:

      Good luck with that. I'd love to see how you're going to implement full-blown, resource-heavy email client in a browser.
      • Er, email is on the order of 10K per message. Photo editing is on the order of 10M-10G per image, depending on the size of image you're using. That's a very big difference.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Red Flayer ( 890720 )

        Said ThinkingInBinary (899485) circa 1997
        That couldn't be 1997. UID 899485 was issued no earlier than 2001, most likely 2002 or 2003.

        So, it's got to be some kind of joke, or as inapt then as it is now.
      • I wouldn't call any of the webmail crap out there "full blown". Closest I ever saw was Apple's recent dot-Mac upgrade (too bad it's tied to such an overpriced and unreliable service). Give me a real client any day.

        In fact, that goes for any web application, as far as I'm concerned. Pull all the data you want from the network, but get the hell out of my web browser and all the compromises that entails.
    • Will people even want online versions of these programs? I don't have a crystal ball anymore than the jerk who made the announcement, but the web is currently very much able to deliver a word processor or a spreadsheet. Despite their feasibility, I resent the very idea of an online office suite. Even if I knew there would be no browser issues and that my connection wouldn't go down at an unexpected moment I still wouldn't because it'd just feel wrong. Judging by the number of friends and colleagues who've c

    • by Altus ( 1034 )

      This is a poor idea.

      Lets assume for a minute that it can be done and that it performs well and they can implement good keyboard shortcuts and a usable UI in the browser.

      FireFox crashes a hell of a lot more often than my Mac does. It crashes way more often than my windows machine does. Im Imagining myself editing a document with one of these things and loosing a bunch of work because firefox decides to shit the bed. Never mind any crashes that are actually caused by the application adobe writes. All this
    • Most of the resource heavy stuff will be done server side I'm sure. The business model of selling that kinda processing power in the other hand I don't completely understand.
  • Yes, but... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rumith ( 983060 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:10AM (#21040949)
    Do they plan to move it to web-based applications as in, say, Google Maps, or to Flash/some other proprietary technology?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )
      Flash i would imagine, since it's their proprietary technology.
      On the plus side, it would mean linux users can use photoshop on a level playing field to windows/mac users, eliminating a major reason for some people to stick to windows.
  • Loading time... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:12AM (#21040975)
    I haven't found any software that takes longer to load than Adobe's. Now they're going to narrow the bottleneck by putting it online? Great idea...
    • I haven't found any software that takes longer to load than Adobe's.

      You've obviously never used Quark.
    • If you think that's bad, wait until a tree takes out your internet connection and your entire shop can no longer do any work.
    • Preferably on a quad core mac pro. It loads fast! Even on my dual 867 MHz G4, it loads pretty fast. But I agree that putting it on the web isn't a good idea.
  • by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:12AM (#21040991)
    This doesn't surprise me. Go around any college campus and just about everybody has Photoshop. Very few actually paid for it. (Granted I've heard the argument from one of their own campus reps that they didn't mind it as much on college campuses because then we go out into the work world and buy the upgrades or the businesses we work for buy the products)

    However, what about days like yesterday. We had a line of thunderstorms with high straight line winds that snapped a few of the poles around my house. I was without DSL most of the day. Since I still had power, I could work offline with Photoshop CS and still productive. If the application was online, yesterday would have been a bust. Or I would have been driving around town on my laptop (a 1.25Ghz G4 Powerbook with 512MB of ram, getting a new MBP when 10.5 ships), which might run the application. (Hopefully it will be FF friendly. I keep a Windows based machine around because sometimes....)

    • by InvisblePinkUnicorn ( 1126837 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:16AM (#21041047)
      "Go around any college campus and just about everybody has Photoshop. Very few actually paid for it."

      Yes, and if their only choice is to pay for it, they will opt not to use it at all. Either way, Adobe's sales dept will notice little or no difference, while they will have spent millions trying to stop the "problem".
      • by Altus ( 1034 )

        and considerably fewer people will know how to use photoshop (or after effects or any other app) at all. You will be more likely to end up with graphic designers who use something else because they couldn't afford photoshop when they learned photo editing.

        Student piracy is not always a bad thing... of course this could be solved with very aggressive student pricing.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by NickCatal ( 865805 )
          I know very few people who actually paid for Photoshop, but I know quite a few design shops that rely on talent that grew up with pirated copies of PS to do all their work. Stopping individual piracy would be about the worst business decision Adobe could do. Stopping design shops from stealing PS, however, is very much in their interest.
    • by robogun ( 466062 )
      Sure they all have Photoshop but how many actually need it? How many would have actually paid even the student license if that were the only way to get it?

      I remember 20 years ago when Apple II was still king on campus & started taking antipiracy steps. Microsoft was being rampantly pirated & that is how they got critical mass & took over.
    • This doesn't surprise me. Go around any college campus and just about everybody has Photoshop. Very few actually paid for it. (Granted I've heard the argument from one of their own campus reps that they didn't mind it as much on college campuses because then we go out into the work world and buy the upgrades or the businesses we work for buy the products)

      I have my own anecdotal confirmation. We had pirated copies of photoshop out the wazzoo at the dotcom I was at. When I later worked for a real company and they dumped a project on me, I requested photoshop instead of something cheaper like paint shop pro since I was already familiar with the photoshop interface. It would have been a tremendous headache to try to learn a different package when under a deadline.

      Consider the qwerty keyboard. It sucks cock like a closeted Republican senator but everybody stick

  • About time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alx5000 ( 896642 ) <> on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:15AM (#21041039) Homepage
    I think it's about time to coin a new term; Googlation: n, the virtual necessity and eventual realization of migrating every single desktop application to the web.

    Taking into accout how expensive Photoshop is, I wonder if this is a move to avoid software piracy (or at least mitigate it). Besides, anyone willing to pay for a full Photoshop license will also be buying a machine according to its needs; I just don't see how it can work (will it be a JS application? Flash? Not-hellishly-slow? Will it run remotely or locally? How well will it behave when treating large images? And so on).

    • The summary implied that the program itself would be ad-supported, which severely limits the amount of money that they'll get out of the product (unless they embed watermarks in the final image, but i digress). If they have a free version online and then ask people to pay a price similar to what they'd pay for the current suite, nobody will upgrade as long as the free version is functional.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 )
    I am so glad I convinced the company to run away from Adobe a year ago.

    Aftereffects and premiere as a web app? Oh my god those will suck horribly.

    And for Photoshop.... if there was a single event that will thrust Gimp further foreward in the world... this would be it.

    "Edit that graphic! we go to press in an hour!"


    "Edit that commercial! we need it to go to air in the morning"

    with the response.....

    "I cant, internet is down."

    Oh yeah, That will go over like a lead balloon. Adobe is trying to remove themsel
    • Aftereffects would actually make sense as a web app once the necessary bandwidth is reasonably available. Being able to edit video on a low-powered client machine and having the big iron at Adobe's datacenter do most of the rendering and en/transcoding would be worth a subscription fee, imho.
  • Licensing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:17AM (#21041061)
    There's one area where I can immediately see a benefit for Adobe in doing something like this--license compliance. By allowing each shop to set up an in-house appserver/webserver for their programs, they can ensure that only X number of licensed copies are run at a time. Benefit for Adobe - huge. Benefit for the shops - not so much.
    • Ever heared of license servers? You don't need to change your software into online applications for that.
    • "Online application" is either a horrible corporate speak mangling of technical details (surprised?), or Bruce and Co. are so isolated from the mom-and-pop customer they really will make a horrible decision like this.

      You are right on. They'll have a two-tier product. One that runs on the desktop and is essentially both client and server on the same machine. They will let this version be pirated just like they do now. The other a server to which you attach licensed clients.

      FYI, the abomination called Cry
  • I don't use Adobe (Score:3, Interesting)

    by faloi ( 738831 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:17AM (#21041079)
    But I don't like the trend of *everything* moving to a web based structure. Given the dire effects I've seen as a result of unfinished network applications and stacks getting plugged into a corporate network by accident, I darn sure don't want to have to keep a box (regardless of how well firewalled stuff is) plugged in to do development.
  • 10 years (Score:2, Insightful)

    in 10 years, the 'web' won't be around, I would guess. something else might, but it seems that the current model is not going to 'scale' very much more than it is now. throwing more speed at it won't solve it, either.

    10 years is a LONG time in tech. I fully expect things to be quite different, online-wise, than they are now.

    adobe makes a laughing stock of themselves when they try to predict more than 6mos to a year out. wow. amazing that anyone would take a 10yr tech prediction SERIOUSLY!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Abcd1234 ( 188840 )
      in 10 years, the 'web' won't be around, I would guess. something else might, but it seems that the current model is not going to 'scale' very much more than it is now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Could you please support that ridiculously bold statement? Add a few more TLDs to open the domain bottleneck (at least in america), complete the transition to IPv6, develop better routing, open up all the dark fiber that's currently unused, and I'm not seeing anything that won't scale except, maybe, the servers for the sites themselves, which throwing more speed at will solve. So, what's not going to scale?
    • Re:10 years (Score:4, Insightful)

      by moorcito ( 529567 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @11:06AM (#21041953) Homepage
      10 years is a LONG time in tech. I fully expect things to be quite different, online-wise, than they are now.

      Has the internet changed that much since 1997? I'm sure, 10 years ago, someone said the exact same thing about the internet and how it was going to be super different, but it seems to me it's still the same old thing. I still use the same client programs to access everything the internet has to offer. Sure web sites are fancier but underneath it all it's still the same.
    • Re:10 years (Score:5, Insightful)

      by General Wesc ( 59919 ) <> on Friday October 19, 2007 @12:31PM (#21043577) Homepage Journal

      in 10 years, the 'web' won't be around, I would guess. ... amazing that anyone would take a 10yr tech prediction SERIOUSLY!

      Your post is only three lines long, and you still couldn't maintain a consistent position throughout.

  • How in the hell do they plan on doing this?

    First off, Adobe, try making your apps, 64bit first!


    How in the hell are you going to manage PSD's that take 4 gigs of ram? How are you going to manage PSD's when they take 8 gigs? (64bit)

    I cant for the life of me why figure out why they want to put it online. It is not going to perform better. It will be SLOWER.

    A friend of mine that works with me in the industry mentioned that Adobe was planning on doing this. He told me over a year ago... and i couldnt imagine
    • There is just no point to it... other than copy protection.
      What about convenience? If your computer gets hosed, it's a lot easier to log into than it is to reinstall the program, or if you're using a friends computer, on vacation, etc.
    • They probably want to do it because of software piracy. I'm pretty sure their software is listed in a lot of the cheap software spams I used to see in my inbox years ago. Maybe by requiring a login to use the software you've paid for, they'll prevent people from pirating it. This would basically be doing the opposite of the music industry which has been making moves toward fewer restrictions (more DRM-less music sales) where the software industry is trying to move in the opposite direction, just years la
  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:23AM (#21041167) Journal
    We currently live in a world where for some time, local hard disk capacity and processing power have been growing far, far, faster than bandwidth.

    Adobe makes applications which work with huge amounts of data and often
    require significant processing power to do it. Obviously, the right thing to do is to take these applications and make them limited by bandwidth rather than local resources.

    F'ing genius.

    A legitimate copy of the last desktop version of Photoshop,etc is going to be like gold to publishers. Piracy of that last version is going to make Windows piracy look like a drop in the bucket.
    • by flieghund ( 31725 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @11:08AM (#21042003) Homepage

      A legitimate copy of the last desktop version of Photoshop,etc is going to be like gold to publishers.

      So maybe that's their plan? If I'm a filthy rich executive of a software company that has damn-near complete market saturation, what does the future of my company look like? Innovation is hard and costs a lot of money, and once you've put out a "good-enough-can't-complain-too-much" product, the urge to upgrade to the next release is minimized or eliminated altogether. (See Microsoft's problem: Windows XP falls into the good-enough-can't-complain-too-much category, and folks are rejecting Vista in epic numbers.)

      So what do you do? You tell your customers that you're going to make their lives miserable 5 to 10 years from now. You tell them, "This is the last version of this program that will work the way you've expected it to for the last 20 years. From now on, it will be a slower, more frustrating experience that will only be available according to the whim of your internet service provider."

      Then you watch the sudden influx of new orders and upgrades as people and firms interested in a legal copy of the software throw more money at you than ever before. Because, as noted, this last desktop version will like gold.

      Flush with previously unknown levels of cash, you leave the company with an unbelievably fat retirement pension, gracioiusly given by the Board of Directors because you've been such a financial genius, and retire to that nice island in the South Pacific that you've always enjoyed visiting but, until now, did not have the resources to purchase.

      Damn. Is Adobe hiring?

  • by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:25AM (#21041203) Homepage Journal
    It is going to hit EVERY software company sooner or later.
    The main cause of this problem is Microsoft and Windows. The good thing is it is going to hit Microsoft just as hard as every one else.
    Every program can only get to be so good and so feature rich. Eventually it becomes a waste to buy the "new version" Many people felt that way with Office 2000 and even more with Office 2003. Same thing will happen with Photoshop, Flash, and Dreamweaver. That and it looks like we are stuck with Windows forever at this point. So people are not buying new versions when they buy a new OS. Microsoft knows that if they break backward computability people will scream. And they do scream. So how do companies make money? The stop selling software and rent it.
    Some software is immune to this. Tax software is always going to be great income stream since you have to get a new version every year.
    Games because people will always want new games.
    But the key thing is that software just doesn't wear out.
    I know that the FOSS zealots will start screaming for joy at this but then you have the other problem. The FOSS model doesn't yet provide the same quality in every market as Closed Source does. GIMP is not as good as Photoshop CS btw my wife Loves GIMP and uses it all the time. She does think it is better than Photoshop Elements. OpenOffice is not as good as Office " I do think it is good enough for most people". There no FOSS replacment for Solidworks, ProE, or even TurboCad.
    So the industry is has a problem. How do you stay in business? I think the renting of applications is a really BAD solution.
  • I can see moving office apps online but frickin' photoshop, the filler of hard drives, the slayer of CPU's, the buggerer of RAM, the biggest system hog that isn't a video game or vista?

    Ok, I'm assuming that they're going to do some sort of progressive display thing like Google does for Earth and the megapixel images in Earth, only rendering on screen what's necessary for you to see, but wouldn't that surely suck for the artists?

    But I suppose I know why Adobe wants to do this. When was the last time you hear
  • Seriously? You really expect a graphic artist or video producer to pull up a webbrowser to do their work? Could you imagine the clunky control scheme of trying to edit HD video inside of Internet Explorer (Shuddrs). What about Adobe Encore, with DVD and BluRay authoring? Please tell me I am not going to have to actually upload uncompressed HD video to Adobe to be able to use it? What about the 1 gig graphic file I am working on for a billboard? Ugh!

    However, there is something I have to smirk at. Lets make D
  • All Adobe's products are ALREADY online... Bittorrent, Kazaa, edonkey...
  • Market? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macsforever2001 ( 32278 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:32AM (#21041327) Homepage
    Does anyone actually want this? Seriously, this is another case of a product without a market. I daresay that no one wants to rent their software. Unfortunately we have a situation where a giant in the market is telling people how to do things. We've seen so many failed companies in the software industry for this reason. People will just keep using CS3 until the end of time if need be. Since Mac Pros are built like a tank, they will last forever too. So there's a perfect combination. I mean there are actually companies out there still using DOS based computer systems. The same thing will happen to the graphics industry if this comes to pass. Oh and the "old" solution will be much faster than any web based Cthulhulian nightmare that Adobe will conjure up. Now if they truly end up offering the full power suite for free online, even with ads, then maybe it will catch on. But only if it can outperform a CS3/MacPro combo. It's free to stay with the old software too.
  • As with other transitions to Web based, what about people like me who do a lot of stuff while commuting or otherwise not attached to the Mother Ship?
  • 10 years? The internet will be a footnote in history by then.
    • by guruevi ( 827432 )
      The internet has been around for 30 years now, it ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

      We (hopefully) will all be using IPv6 and have 1G fibre-to-the-home and 200M cell phone links and some marketing ploy will call it Internet-3G or Web 5.0 but it will still be the ol' internet with all the spam unless we hire ninja assassins to kill all spam-lords.
  • I no longer use Acrobat reader given its massive clunkiness. Foxit is much better with one odd exception. OLE embedding in MS Office docs is not handled the same way as Acrobat so embedded PDFs are always opened by Adobe not Foxit.
  • I'm currently working in AfterEffects in another window, compositing 10-bit CGI with stereoscopic HD video -- that's 2 x 1920x1080 pixels just for the raw footage, 29.97 times per second, plus effects precomps, plus stereo CGI elements.

    I'm doing this on a hellafast workstation, yet I've been spending most of my morning surfing the net and sucking coffee while Adobe's bitch chomps through my frames to deliver low-res previews.

    And Adobe thinks I'm going to add Interweb pipes into the equation?

    Fuck them.
  • First, let me say that in contrast to many people here, I actually like Adobe's products. I have been using Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat since version 4. I do agree that Illustrator takes a while to launch (even on fast machines), but other than that, I have no complaints. In fact, of all large software I've used, I find Adobe's to be the most stable, feature-rich and easy to use.

    I will not, however, move to an online subscription-based app, and I'm sure many other design professionals will agree.
  • Um... WTF? By "All applications" I assume we're talking photoshop, premier and such. Since those are "applications." and... um... Look, I don't have the *fastest* computer around but it seems to take a while sometimes to render movies in premier, even when they're not high definition. And photoshop is not exactly light on the use of resources when I'm applying a transform filter to an 8 megapixel image with 12 layers on it.

    I tend to think that it won't exactly make it *faster* by switching from a
  • Aside from being able to say "Sure, all our apps are online..." "Oh, yeah, we're web 2.0"
    Which smacks of "Are you going to make it all 220? Yeah, 220, 221... whatever it takes..."

    Is there something horribly lacking in Photoshop (even the good ol' 5.0 core) that is screaming for whatever imagined improvements would come from being an online app?

  • Are the apps really going to be on line or are they going to be something like an active X control that does all the work off line.

    I can't see adobe ponying up for all that server power just so that they can stop people ripping off their software.
  • Seriously...? The practicalities of sending huge amounts of document data over a network for "realtime" use are just laughable, so I don't believe for one moment this is intended, clearly your data is staying locally, it's your executable coming over the wire. It lives on your machine and updates like a virus checker, won't run unless it authenticates every time you open it. That's not dissimilar to what these Apps do already.

    No, this announcement has nothing to do with competitors or technology. This is

  • Jeeze,

    I don't understand this whole screed of comment about "what if my internet goes down - I wont be able to work", "It'll be slow to load", "I can't see how they'll implement Photoshop in Flash and make is nice" and all the rest.

    They guy said 10 years, 10 YEARS!!! That's a lifetime in IT. Online delivery of applications will be a WHOLE DIFFERENT BALL GAME then. I doubt very much Photoshop will be any different to how it is now, but it will be delivered via the Web. It will not doubt be possible to run it
  • Look, could you just be honest, Adobe? Acknowledge that you want to trap customers into paying eternally for your products, gaining millions of dollars over the life cycle of your products in the market, and move on. Don't feed garbage about "what customers want". Find me a customer who wants to pay for the rest of his life for a software product instead of paying once, and I'll show you either a sado-masochist or a paid advertisement.
  • by blueZ3 ( 744446 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @11:10AM (#21042041) Homepage
    I don't want my apps delivered over the 'net. Primarily because:
    • I don't want to wait while 3GB of Photoshop crosses the wires
    • I don't want Google/Adobe/MS to "own" my work because of some crappy TOS
    • I don't want my work to be unavailable if my 'net connection goes down
    • I don't want my work to be unavailable if Google/Adobe/MS goes out of business
    • I don't want Google/Adobe/MS searching my work to decide what ads I need to see
    • I don't want the NSA/FBI/DLC searching my work to determine if I'm a terrorist/on the wanted list/threat to Hillary
    • I don't want to be locked into paying "rent" to Google/Adobe/MS so I can see stuff later
    • I don't want to be forced to "upgrade" to some new version that I hate because that's what's on offer over the 'net

    I want my bits, on my box, in my house, available when I want them.
  • Adobe wants to join you in the land of Deceived-by-Micro-Soft-Head-Fake.


  • by sapphire wyvern ( 1153271 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @11:19AM (#21042179)
    Maybe he's talking about a service like Steam. You know, online *delivery* of *applications*, which then run locally on your PC, complete with pretty-good copy protection systems and a subscription-based approach to "ownership". Makes sense to me... what's so special about retail boxes for software anyway?
  • Who is this bozo? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @11:35AM (#21042493) Homepage

    Adobe has real problems, then. Here's the bio of their CEO, Bruce Chizen []. Mattel Electronics merchandising. Microsoft eastern region sales manager. VP sales of Claris (remember Claris?). Zero background in any industry that uses Adobe graphics products.

    He's identified the marketing problem: "These products are designed to appeal to a younger generation of Internet users for whom paying $400 for a packaged software product is a thing of the past." That's reasonable enough. The going rate for a photo editing program is somewhere below $99. Adobe Photoshop Elements is at $99, it does most of what most people want to do, and people buy it at retail. Adobe's problem there was that they thought they could raise the price of Photoshop from year to year, and that didn't work. The price trend for software is down, not up.

    Since they acquired Macromedia, the Macromedia products have gone downhill. Dreamweaver 8 and later are horrid; Adobe can't get FTP to work reliably, create HTML that will pass validation, or make the view in Dreamweaver match the view in the browser. The newer versions are notably worse than the old ones. I just hope they don't break the Flash player engine, which is an elegant and delicate little piece of software. That thing does more in 2MB of code than most programs today do in 200MB.

    On the video side, Adobe's problem is that the low end has been taken over by tools that come free with Macs and cameras, while the high end has been taken over by tools from high-end players like Avid. Premiere was once considered a high-end tool; now it's a low end tool with a high end price. Not good.

    Open source isn't helping that much here. There's still no good open source replacement for Dreamweaver. Nvu [], which had real promise, was abandoned by Linspire back in 2005. There's a fork, called Kompozer [], but even its authors just call it "Nvu's unofficial bug-fix release". The Gimp has its enthusiasts, but it's not really targeted at graphic artists. Look at its web site. [] Would you get a graphics tool from those people?

  • by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @12:30PM (#21043565) Homepage
    As people start doing more and more things with their web browsers, I see them shifting more and more toward proprietary software and formats. There was an interview in Newsweek recently with Adobe's CEO, and he was saying things like (paraphrased from memory): "People use Adobe software all the time, and they don't even realize it. Virtually every web site has flash, and that means you're using our product. Every time you read a pdf file, you're using our product." Now a lot of this was semi-bogus (there isn't flash on virtually every web site *I* visit, and personally when I view a pdf, I usually use xpdf or evince), but there's an element of truth to it. The browser wars created a giant sucking sound in terms of open standards for having your browser do something more than render static html. Netscape and MS screwed around with their nonstandard, incompatible versions of the "embed" tag, while the w3c pushed "object," which nobody ever bothered to support properly. Meanwhile, users just wanted to watch videos, play games, etc., and they found out that they could do that using flash. Unfortunately, flash is highly proprietary. (Yes, I know about gnash, haxe, etc., but they're severely limited in what they can do, because the codecs are all proprietary, and so is various other flash stuff like the standard gui widgets described in books on flash.) Now take a look around at ajax-based web apps. They're almost all proprietary. The basic model seems to be that you're supposed to do all your work using software that you don't own, and aren't even licensing -- half the code isn't even running on the client, it's running on the server. Sure, there are a few GPL'd ajax apps (fckeditor, kupu,...), but the vast majority of these apps bear the same relationship to OSS as antimatter bears to matter. I like the idea of web apps, my kids love to play flash games, etc., --- but we have to watch out how this is all implemented, because it could very easily take us backward into a dark age for open source. As soon as javascript was first introduced, developers who Just Didn't Get It about open source started complaining that javascript was an interpreted language, so everyone would be able to see their code. Never mind that users might actually feel that they had a right to know what code was being run automatically on their machine when they clicked on a link and landed on a web site -- the closed-source mentality was that this was a bad thing, because people would steal the code, etc. Well, ajax is creating a situation that caters to exactly that closed-source mentality, because the js code on the client is only one part of the app, and the rest of the code is securely hidden on a server -- along with the user's own data, which he no longer really owns.
  • for security reasons? How would you use Adobe software on a desktop with no Network access?

    Some people like to do work on a computer that is not tied to other computers, and then burn CDs or DVDs and move the works to other computers later.

    With Online Applications it also opens the door to Malware infections.
  • Nice Idea but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nicolay77 ( 258497 ) <> on Friday October 19, 2007 @12:50PM (#21043953) Homepage
    Flash is not a technology that make it run fast and nice.

    I mean, it will be flash based. I can watch an ugly video in a flash based online player eating a considerable part of my processing power. I can watch the same video with much better quality in and it takes no noticeable processing power at all.

    And what about GUI Interface guidelines. Every single flash "app" I have ever seen implements GUI elements differently. The mouse wheel has never had a consistent behaviour in flash apps. If the change from Office 2003 to Office 2007 is so huge for users, imagine if all your apps has different GUI controls, GUI metaphors, GUI guidelines, and so on.

    Besides that, we already have Java Webstart. And no single big commercial app has been ported to, or written in, Java Webstart.

    May be end users don't like non native applications in their systems. May be end users don't like subscription based pricing. May be end users don't like Flash based apps.

    I want a competing technology with a decent language and native widgets to emerge. Open source if possible. That would be great.
  • by fwarren ( 579763 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @01:31PM (#21044691) Homepage
    It looks like we have gone full circle. Now apps will be served out from mega-computers to end users systems.

    Some 80 year olds are going to have to come out of retirement to make this thing work.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?