Microsoft / Adobe Competition Heating Up

MicroAdobe writes "Microsoft has noticed that some of the coolest sites on the Web, YouTube and MySpace included, get much of their flash from Flash and other design programs sold by Adobe. But as Microsoft gets ready to ship its own line of tools for designers and Web developers, the company is finding it must also defend against Adobe on its home turf, the desktop. At the same time, the line between Internet and desktop programs is blurring, and both companies see an opportunity to capture new business." The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.

Comments

Ack!

[Penguinisto]

Great... just great. Now there's TWO variants of flashing crap that I have to filter out of my browser.

On the plus side, if the MSFT version is Windows-only, I suspect we'll all have a brand new reason to persuade folks to abandon the OS for Linux/OSX/(and yes)*BSD after this little battle gets done...

/P

Re:Ack!

[CastrTroy]

No, it gives whiners another reason to say, Linux can't do X, so I'm not switching. It can be added to the list with Photoshop,Games, and a thousand other things. There will be some funny cartoon, or some video website that uses this, so they can say that it's a deficiency in Linux, not an advantage.

Re:Ack!

[the linux geek]

It is actually cross-platform. WPF/E or Silverlight, as it is now called, supports both Linux and Mac OS systems.

Compatability

[digitalunity]

Adobe's CEO brought up what should be the single most important point everyone who is considering a switch to MS products - Microsoft doesn't maintain anything cross-platform.


They may start out cross-platform, but eventually the mac version will fall behind on patches and then get EOL'd.<br><br>

For any broadcaster that relies on compatibility and reaching the widest market possible, MS would be a bad choice.

Re:Compatability

[fyngyrz]

I've heard estimates that as many as 1/3 of users don't have flash installed.

And of those of us who do have it installed, some have it disabled 99% of the time. Flash (and most uses of every other active page technology, frankly) = really, really annoying.

The good news is that the really high quality browsers - like OmniWeb - allow you to globally filter out all such crapola, making exceptions on a per-site basis as you feel appropriate, or vice-versa. So you never have to be stuck looking at some menu-infested, roll-over ridden, animated advertising nightmare.

And as for scripting - I'll be the one who determines if a website is allowed to use my CPU.

Re:Compatability

[vought]

About Microsoft: They may start out cross-platform, but eventually the mac version will fall behind on patches and then get EOL'd.

Oh, just like Framemaker.

And Premier. ...and lots of other apps Adobe used to develop for the Mac.

And look at where Photoshop is going...an interface mess that's more Windows-on-MacOS than a Mac application.

Adobe has steadily been losing my respect for years. Perhaps it's because they seem bent on becoming the Microsoft of creativity-based visual communications software.

Monopolist, that's rich

[dedazo]

Coming from the guy who destroyed the graphics design market first by gobbling up Aldus and all the rest, and then bottled up the active content delivery space with Macromedia and proceeded to kill of his "complimentary product lines", that's rich.

He might be a smaller "monopolist" than Microsoft, but he still has his own little monopoly and all the great things that come from that.

Interested...

[Drew McKinney]

Great, it's $600 cheaper, but nobody will buy it if it doesn't bring anything new to the table.

As someone who has worked with Flash since version 4 (in both a graphical and RIA capacity), the biggest stumbling blocks for Flash were/are:
1- Adobe Photoshop integration [*check!*]

2- Usefulness as a RIA application [remember the disaster that was Flash Googlemaps?]
3- Horribly broken scripting language [still an issue]


If Microsoft can compete on those points and bring something radically new to the table (say, easy 3D graphical development, quality OO scripting, etc) then they'll have an adoptable product. Otherwise, developers used to using Adobe & Flash products will look the other way.

BTW

[frakir]

Microsoft announced yesterday its "Silverlight", previously named WPF/E:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/04/15/intr oducing-microsoft-silverlight.aspx.
They call it "cross platform, cross browser plug-in" and it is basically a replacement for flash with wmv lock-in. Oh, and no linux (cross platform means XP+Vista+OSX, I guess)
One nice feature being HD streaming, I have to give it to them.

I'll still stay away...

Re: Monopolists

[owlnation]

Even so, I don't believe Adobe has been convicted of (or charged with) illegally abusing their monopoly.

While that's true... Ask an Adobe customer whether they feel they be charged for Adobe abusing their monopoly and you'll get an affirmative answer.

It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money to get the programs you need to do business as a professional in the creative industry.

Probably the only exception to this is Premiere, cos few - if any - professionals use that. Otherwise, there's absolutely no alternative to Adobe products. (Yes, technically GIMP etc exists, but they aren't industry standard so professionals have no chance of using them.)

80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Richard_at_work]

Im also a web developer, and I *always* wait to experience a product, any product, by any developer, regardless of their prior history before I form any opinion on the product - sometimes its best to put the rhetoric away and join the adult world, especially when it comes to earning money.