[jedi228]

Quote:

---

This is nonsense. We're still talking about 10 times more sales potential for a Universal app than an intel only one. No way the "extra cost" of development (as in I doubt it would actually be that much, it's not like there some dearth of engineers at Adobe who have to struggle to figure out how to use a G5 for all it's worth; hell multi-processor G4s and 5s have been around a lot longer than multi-processor intel systems) would equal or surpass that.

---

And how do you know this is nonsense? --because you feel that way?
Because you've been denied your product you might need to believe in sinister political conspiracies. I happen to believe in Adobe's stated reason that it just isn't feasible within the time constraints. I'm sure there are plenty of engineers at Adobe who are familiar with the PPC instruction set, but that doesn't mean that they can instantly convert to PPC.
Long ago I spent years doing machine language coding on 68000 and PPC. I know more Mac platform than most of the guys at Adobe. I love the PPC instruction set over the stupid Intel chip. It isn't a snap of the finger to bring stuff over to the PPC just because someone wants it. This isn't just vanilla C with a Cocoa skin. An audio program is going to use a lot of processor specific coding and hence there is a huge amount of work involved. A real Mac guy is going to be the first person to know that you can't do it quickly.
Even if you were right about your "10 times more sales" this is a temporary situation. This kind of product is not aimed at the entire installed Mac base. It is geared towards professional users who will be likely to upgrade their machine within approximately two years. Why in the world would anybody want to expend resources to develop a ground-up product for platform that will shortly be terminal?
Also there may be performance issues. i.e. the program may not be pleasant or even useful on underpowered machines. Even if they made it run on G4 machines, the performance might be unacceptably slow and once again this would be a waste of development dollars.
I have plenty of complaints with Adobe. They have screwed up many things, but this is not one of them. I applaud Adobe's decision to back Intel Mac fully for Soundbooth.

[veggiedude]

All of his reasoning sound logical to me. This is a new app, and it would have been a PC only application just as some of the newer Adobe apps. Now maybe PS Elements could be coming to Mactel? That would be nice. After all, it already supports the Intel platform and it should be easy to port over.

[DV8]

Apple did... why on Earth would anyone waste time developing pro apps for something that is dead is beyond me, especially when it's going to be in beta for months to come. Even surprised Adobe is actually making CS3 universal. We've officially known the PPC chip was toast since June 2005. How much more warning do we need???

[fishcove]

The irony of all this is that there a lot of people out there who are still using PPC machines because of Adobe.
PPC-only CS vs. Intel-only Soundbooth
Not the actions of a company that cares about it's customers.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

Apple did... why on Earth would anyone waste time developing pro apps for something that is dead is beyond me

---

An existing product is different than a new creation. Plus Apple has to deal with PR issues and Apple cannot afford to be seen as abandoning PPC even if most high-end users are making the switch to Mactel.

[Schneb]

Adobe HAD the perfect audio editing app that was dropped in their lap call SoundEdit Pro. They did not HAVE to start from scratch, they just needed to carbonize the perfect interface and add a few advanced features of choice.

[MacTel]

Quote:

---

Nack a professed die-hard Mac user also refers to that vocal little group of zealots and forum trolls he sees as particularly damaging to Mac users reputations as a whole.
Youre hurting the Mac platform. Youre hurting the Mac community. You need to crush a little aluminum foil against those antennae of yours, because youre hurting everyone concerned. Youre making it harder (and less appealing) for people of goodwill to make the effort to support the Mac, he said.

---

Really? I thought it was Adobe's profits off the Mac users buying their products that drove their support for the platform.

[alansky]

No, Adobe didn't kill the PPC; they just buried it.
This Adobe guy is basically saying: It's cheaper and easier for Adobe to build new products just for Intel Macs, therefore we'll just ignore the millions of potential Mac customers who are still using PPC's.
Apple's switch to Intel processsors means very little to the average Mac user. It's just another computer upgrade that millions will resist making until forced to by their aging machines. Heck, there are millions of Mac users who are happily humming along on G3 iMacs and iBooks. There's nothing wrong with that. And yes, those who choose to hold onto old hardware as long as humanly possible do need to realize that they may not be able to take advantage of the latest software or the coolest new gizmos. But for Adobe to basically dismiss all those users with a wave of the hand is very revealing. Adobe really isn't interested in empowering the people; they just want to make money. Too bad for Adobe. Long live Apple.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Apple did... why on Earth would anyone waste time developing pro apps for something that is dead is beyond me

---

An existing product is different than a new creation. Plus Apple has to deal with PR issues and Apple cannot afford to be seen as abandoning PPC even if most high-end users are making the switch to Mactel.

---

I'm not a computer science graduate, but the issue here isn't development time, is it? Adobe is, no doubt, developing Soundbooth with Xcode, which allows them to compile a Universal version of the application.
Adobe is saying the costs involved to "optimize" Soundbooth are greater than the profit from sales to the millions of PPC Mac owners out there, right? Does it really take that long to optimize Xcode applications?
Am I way off on this?
It seems other companies don't have the same issues as Adobe.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does Adobe really need a spewing [deleted] fanboy like Nack to defend them?

---

Do we really need adolescent name calling when we don't like the policy chosen?

---

Versus the name calling from Adobe's manager?

[montgomery_burns]

Quote:

---

He's still identifiable as a fairly high level Adobe employee, but expressing himself in a decidedly non-diplomatic and pejorative fashion to Adobe customers. The legalese disclaimer about not "necessarily" reflecting the views of Adobe aren't going to go very far with a lot of people, I'd suspect;

---

Could this be a backlash from Apple's own handling of the Windows virus on iPod issue, where an Apple guy publicly took jabs at Windows? Perhaps other companies now feel that if Apple can pull such a stunt, then they are free to do the same.

[SPOOF]

Quote:

---

The irony of all this is that there a lot of people out there who are still using PPC machines because of Adobe.
PPC-only CS vs. Intel-only Soundbooth
Not the actions of a company that cares about it's customers.

---

I highly suspect that Soundbooth will be out of beta and shipping....roughly around when CS3 is released or announced. It is designed for NEW users, not those that already exist.

Also, as a consultant and developer, to comment on another above statement. It is MUCH easier, thanks to Apple, to recreate a gui for Mac OS X, than it is to recreate all of the optimized code underneath. If nobody ever cared about performance, processor optimized code wouldn't matter, everything would be standards based C or C or Java, and would just run everywhere with a simple GUI wrapper per platform to support. But, people care about performance. So, companies don't use standards based code for very long, they start putting in things per their compiler and environment to do things faster. Then they start doing portions in assembly when it is too slow. That translates, without much issue, when keeping the same architecture and chip instructions. It doesn't when you have a completely different architecture and chip instruction set.
Basically, the way it is now, the UI is the major portion, and some underpinnings, which will be the biggest thing Mac specific...this is a small percentage of the given development. If they were to make this a Universal Binary, you would literally be looking at double the development cost/time/resources.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Adobe's Senior Product Manager for Photoshop has commented on the new application Soundbooth's lack of support for PowerPC-based Macs, decrying what he sees as slanted news coverage and criticizing "zealots and forum trolls." <a href="/news/2006/10/30/soundbooth/index.php">[more]</a>

---

The internal struggle adobephile must be feeling right now is great. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The irony of all this is that there a lot of people out there who are still using PPC machines because of Adobe.
PPC-only CS vs. Intel-only Soundbooth
Not the actions of a company that cares about it's customers.

---

I highly suspect that Soundbooth will be out of beta and shipping....roughly around when CS3 is released or announced. It is designed for NEW users, not those that already exist.

Also, as a consultant and developer, to comment on another above statement. It is MUCH easier, thanks to Apple, to recreate a gui for Mac OS X, than it is to recreate all of the optimized code underneath. If nobody ever cared about performance, processor optimized code wouldn't matter, everything would be standards based C or C or Java, and would just run everywhere with a simple GUI wrapper per platform to support. But, people care about performance. So, companies don't use standards based code for very long, they start putting in things per their compiler and environment to do things faster. Then they start doing portions in assembly when it is too slow. That translates, without much issue, when keeping the same architecture and chip instructions. It doesn't when you have a completely different architecture and chip instruction set.
Basically, the way it is now, the UI is the major portion, and some underpinnings, which will be the biggest thing Mac specific...this is a small percentage of the given development. If they were to make this a Universal Binary, you would literally be looking at double the development cost/time/resources.

---

Good thing Xcode automatically optimizes for the G5.