Adobe: No MacTel Photoshop Until CS3


Macintosh users won't see Universal until Creative Suite 3, says Adobe

According to Terri Stone, Creativepro​.com editor-in-chief (report­ed here, includ­ing a link to Seeking Alpha’s tran­script of the call), dur­ing the con­fer­ence call of 22 March dis­cussing 2006 1st Quarter Adobe earn­ings, Adobe exec­u­tives ver­i­fied that Macintosh users won’t be see­ing MacTel-native Creative Suite apps until the CS3 release, moot­ed for Spring 2007. This con­firms the pre­dic­tions of Quark VS InDesign​.com in this January 2006 edi­to­r­i­al by Pariah S. Burke.

Additionally, even though CS2 does run under the PPC-Intel trans­la­tion tech­nol­o­gy called “Rosetta,” Adobe does not rec­om­mend this for high-volume pro­duc­tion work­flows.

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Peter says:

    Strange, if I think 3 years back, Quark did the same mis­take that Adobe is doing now…:
    1. Too late sup­port­ing a new Apple plat­form.
    2. Ignoring that the com­peti­tor is already pre­pared and
    3. Charging mon­ey for the new plat­form sup­port.

    History repeat­ing itself?
    I thought mis­takes are only made once…

    Sorry, Adobe, but where are you?
    I want Photoshop on Intel, under Rosetta I have strange results.
    And I please want it free of charge, I am fine with CS2 func­tion­al­i­ty.

    Greetings
    Peter

  2. Joe says:

    So what are pro­fes­sion­als sup­posed to do if they need a new Mac? My Powerbook G4 is on its last legs. I can’t wait until next spring so I decid­ed to get one of the last iMac G5s. I didn’t want to invest 2 grand in a PowerMac G5, know­ing it’s just a patch until I can switch to Intel and CS3. What if Apple comes out with new PowerMacs this sum­mer and dis­con­tin­ue the G5s? Then what wil peo­ple do if they need a new machine and use CS2 heav­i­ly? Buy used on eBay? Hope MacMall still has some in stock? Push their luck with Rosetta? I can’t blame Apple for being aggres­sive with the tran­si­tion - I would real­ly like to see Adobe do a bet­ter job keep­ing up. I’m sure they had plen­ty of notice. Hey, if QUARK is uni­ver­sal, it’s hard to believe that Adobe is a year late.

    When OSX came out, Quark’s late­ness was a big rea­son behind my switch. Intel or not, Adobe could be FIVE years late and I’d nev­er go back.

  3. Christine Shock says:

    What is inter­est­ing is that InDesign is run­ning on the MacTels quite well underApple Boot Camp using XP.. no Rosetta prob­lems, no slow downs! So for now it is a work around that will give you CS2 on your MacTel. Adobe has quite a bit on it’s plate for CS3--Macromedia inte­gra­tion, Windows Vista, Apple Leopard…what peo­ple fail to for­get is that Jobs was the one who kept “MacTel” under wraps except for Apple insid­ers, If you doubt it, go over to CNet and see what the CEO of Adobe had to say about it!!!!

  4. Thanks for the tip, Christina. How inter­est­ing that you’ve found InDesign CS2 for Windows works bet­ter under Intel-chip Macs than InDesign CS2 for Mac.

    Everyone is quick to blame Adobe and oth­er soft­ware mak­ers (Microsoft does not have a MacTel-native ver­sion of Office yet, either), but it real­ly isn’t their fault. Apple didn’t giv­en them time. It’s a game Apple has played since Jobs’s return to the com­pa­ny.

    Try think­ing of it in a dif­fer­ent way. Imagine an automak­er who changes the lay­out of his stock engine. The spark plug slots have changed sizes, there are new bat­tery con­nec­tors that don’t fit exist­ing bat­ter­ies, and the car runs on a whole new type of fuel. Now, let’s say the automak­er does all this but keeps it under wraps until the very last minute. How long would it take for the inde­pen­dent man­u­fac­tur­ers of the spark­plugs and bat­ter­ies to redesign their prod­ucts, to build and test pro­to­types, to retool their man­u­fac­tur­ing facil­i­ties, and to build up enough stock actu­al­ly enable the new car to run? How long would it take for a fuel com­pa­ny to syn­the­size a com­pat­i­ble for­mu­la, refine their raw mate­ri­als, and build stock?

    (Continued in an edi­to­r­i­al here.)