Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Adobe to buy Macromedia

13 replies to this topic
Reactor.
  • Reactor.

     

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2004

#1

Posted 20 April 2005 - 08:44 AM Edited by Rector, 20 April 2005 - 08:45 AM.

Adobe
BBC

Adobe is acquiring Macromedia for $3.4 billion dollars. I hope this turns out well. My main concern is how the functionality and price of Flash will go after the deal. Well, functionality should remain the same, because Adobe isn't going to take Flash from Macromedia's employees and give it to their own guys, that'd be a pretty poor move.

My knowledge of business is limited but all I can see happening is name changing to 'Adobe Flash' (which doesn't sit right with me yet) and the handling of the profits. Oh yeah, I'm also hoping that Adobe doesn't jack up the prices of Macromedia products, but how good/bad that turns out will depend somewhat on how often a new version of Flash is produced.

What are your views on this?

(I put this topic here because these are both graphics-related companies, but chuck it elsewhere if need be).

EmSixTeen
  • EmSixTeen

    yer ma's got athlete's foot!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2002

#2

Posted 20 April 2005 - 08:58 AM

Yeah, we already know. Good sh*t, regardless.

fido2
  • fido2

    DDAM

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2004

#3

Posted 20 April 2005 - 09:22 AM

There goes the competition; perhaps future developments will be a bit slow?
I dunno. I never liked the thought of further integration.

Reactor.
  • Reactor.

     

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2004

#4

Posted 20 April 2005 - 09:36 AM

QUOTE (EmSixTeen @ Apr 20 2005, 18:58)
Yeah, we already know. Good sh*t, regardless.

Damn, sorry then.

QUOTE (fido2)
There goes the competition; perhaps future developments will be a bit slow?
I dunno. I never liked the thought of further integration.

What do you mean by integration? If you're talking programs, Flash is still going to be its own program, developed by the Macromedia guys, but yeah, Adobe will probably want to add some of their own ideas into it too.

disco
  • disco

    science!

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2003

#5

Posted 20 April 2005 - 11:46 AM

sweet.

Jasc should just pack their bags..

Hexhamlad
  • Hexhamlad

    ~Owner of Gta-trivia~

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005

#6

Posted 20 April 2005 - 01:01 PM

adobe is a class act, not a huge fan of flash but i'm guessing adobe can only improve on what is already a solid foundation. The onlt problem is adobe will basically have a monopoly over things which could be good, but i think the will up the price of most things.

You mentioned things slowing down but if they brought out new versions wuicker that would increase profits, but using photoshop for example they dont egsactly have speed upgrade normally take there time over things. But to be fair to adobe every version is alot better than the last so hopefully this will rub off on flash.

Also i dont use dreamweaver myself but i know people who do, ive used golive many moons ago i was wondering how adobe will stand with dreamweaver any opinions??

Hex

colp4k
  • colp4k

    The Frat

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2004

#7

Posted 20 April 2005 - 07:30 PM

they better not make a radical change to dreamweaver, flash or fireworks or i'll be mighty pissed. sad.gif

Hexhamlad
  • Hexhamlad

    ~Owner of Gta-trivia~

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005

#8

Posted 20 April 2005 - 09:53 PM

i would put money on them changing dreamweaver because its sh*t but flash more than likely not. But you never know, my refrence to dreamweaver was purely because i hate all wysiwyg editors.

Hex

Havana
  • Havana

    .

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jun 2004

#9

Posted 21 April 2005 - 02:04 AM

Sweet, maybe they will make a version of Flash with PS-like controls. Then, maybe I will finally get the hang of it.

disco
  • disco

    science!

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2003

#10

Posted 21 April 2005 - 06:19 AM

they shouldn't redically change the controls and how things are done in Flash, cause so many people have got used to it, myself included.. i won't want to learn a whole new program if it basically does the exact same thing, that's pointless.

Reactor.
  • Reactor.

     

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2004

#11

Posted 21 April 2005 - 08:41 AM

QUOTE (colp4k @ Apr 21 2005, 05:30)
they better not make a radical change to dreamweaver, flash or fireworks or i'll be mighty pissed. sad.gif

I'm with you there, but nah, I don't think they'll change things much, Flash, etc. have a huge amount of users, mixing things up couldn't do Adobe any good. Maybe some things will be changed to conform to Adobe's own 'style' of how their programs work, but most likely no massive deviations from Macromedia's stuff. The people at Macromedia are probably just getting a new home is all.

Hexhamlad
  • Hexhamlad

    ~Owner of Gta-trivia~

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005

#12

Posted 21 April 2005 - 10:41 AM

QUOTE
I'm with you there, but nah, I don't think they'll change things much, Flash, etc. have a huge amount of users, mixing things up couldn't do Adobe any good. Maybe some things will be changed to conform to Adobe's own 'style' of how their programs work, but most likely no massive deviations from Macromedia's stuff. The people at Macromedia are probably just getting a new home is all.



the thing is though everyojne uses flash so if adobe changes it completely people would HAVE to change with it because there is no alternative at anywhere near the same standard so adobe have anyone who uses flash over a barrell really and can do what the hell they like.

Hex

Opius
  • Opius

    General

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2002

#13

Posted 21 April 2005 - 12:51 PM

All issues about monopolies and such aside, I think this is a good thing for the end user. It'll be interesting to see which way the interface goes, as I would imagine they would want to have a standardised interface for all their products.

I myself prefer the Adobe style of the interface, with floating (but dockable) bays for things like brushes, layers, etc. and menus for whole-image manual adjustments like brightness and filters.

I don't use a lot of Macromedia products, but the fixed bays and slightly clumsy menu system means I'm generally spending more time hunting for something than I am actually working on my piece. I know you can change the bays, but the menu system is fixed.

But Flash enabled PDFs can't be promising. Just something else that will probably be totally abused by inexperienced content developers.

Hexhamlad
  • Hexhamlad

    ~Owner of Gta-trivia~

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2005

#14

Posted 21 April 2005 - 09:20 PM


QUOTE
All issues about monopolies and such aside, I think this is a good thing for the end user. It'll be interesting to see which way the interface goes, as I would imagine they would want to have a standardised interface for all their products.

I myself prefer the Adobe style of the interface, with floating (but dockable) bays for things like brushes, layers, etc. and menus for whole-image manual adjustments like brightness and filters.

I don't use a lot of Macromedia products, but the fixed bays and slightly clumsy menu system means I'm generally spending more time hunting for something than I am actually working on my piece. I know you can change the bays, but the menu system is fixed.

But Flash enabled PDFs can't be promising. Just something else that will probably be totally abused by inexperienced content developers.



i agree the adobe method of placing tools is so much better than macromedia. The clumsy comment was spot on it seems the same to me. Can be frustrating that you cant just do what you want you have to search around.


Hex




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users