Adobe Dragging Its Feet with Intel-Macs? Not Quite.

Popping up on blogs and message boards is the postulation of the theory that Adobe and other software vendors have already had plenty of time to recompile their applications to Intel-Macs and are choosing to drag their feet. Large companies in the computer business (both software and hardwire sides) do not exist in a vacuum; by the time the public hears about new computer hardware or operating systems that affect products by other large developers, those developers have already known about, and been working with, the new technology for some time. The argument therefore goes that Adobe should have been ready to release Intel-Mac-compatible applications simultaneous to Apple shipping the first such systems in January 2006.

While logical on the surface, this argument simply doesn’t hold water.

First and foremost, the only Intel-based Macs currently available are iMacs–student and home user models–and MacBook Pro laptops. Creative production-grade desktop systems are not yet available, nor have they even been announced. (I predict Apple, having learned from its timing mistakes with the first OS X-based machines, will release such systems before the end of 2Q2006, closer to the expected release date of Adobe’s Creative Suite 3, Microsoft’s Office:mac 2006, and other major applications.) Presently, though, there are no Intel-Macs on the market to address the high demands of creative professionals. Therefore, whether creative professional software is available for Intel-Macs is a moot question.

Timing is also the second reason why the accusation that Adobe is dragging its feet is unfounded. Intel and Apple did not produce final, production-ready machines until a few months before Macworld and the subsequent shipping of Intel-based Macs. Developers of smaller applications with less intricate codebases could adapt quickly, as could those who had direct developmental assistance from Apple’s own engineers. Migrating robust and workflow-critical software like the typical Adobe creative pro application requires not only longer recompiling, but also significant testing time. If Adobe released Intel-Mac-compatible versions of its software now, the probability of bugs or performance issues would be high–effectively, users would be turned into unwitting beta testers. Adobe cares about its products and customers, and, although there have been times when users of released Adobe products have felt like beta testers, Adobe has never intentionally shipped products that the company did not feel were ready for release.

Software development cycles are complicated. Adobe’s is one of the most complicated because all of the market-leading and workflow-critical applications in its Creative Pro Business Unit are part of the Creative Suite, which necessitates a unified development and release cycle. Thus, all core application development would have to be ported to Intel-Mac-compatibles before any could be released. Some apps–InDesign and InCopy specifically–could be ported over today by virtue of the fact that their code bases are entirely platform-homogenous plug-in architectures (in English: InDesign and InCopy are not single executable applications like Photoshop or Illustrator; they are built entirely out of plug-ins, with a simple and tiny plug-in wrapper gluing together all their functions). Other applications, like Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, GoLive, Bridge, Version Cue, Flash, Dreamweaver, and so on, however, would take longer to recompile to, and be tested on, Intel-Macs. Although Adobe could hand out Intel-Mac-compatible applications like InDesign and InCopy piecemeal, it makes no sense, and benefits no one, to do so. The vast majority of creative pros use two or more Adobe applications; thus, an Intel-Mac-ready version of InDesign is all but useless to someone who needs to touch up photos, create vector drawings, or preflight PDFs in addition to page layout work.

One could use InDesign and/or InCopy on a new Intel-Mac, but would have to go back and forth between it and the IBM chip-based Power Mac for any other creative task. Files would then also have to be ferried back and forth via the network, direct cable connection, or removable media. Bragging rights aside, being among the first to own and use an Intel-Mac in actual production would be more hassle than benefit.

But, QuarkXPress 7 already runs on Intel-Macs, say some. That is not entirely true…

But, QuarkXPress 7 already runs on Intel-Macs, say some. That is not entirely true. QuarkXPress 7 is still in beta, albeit a public beta. Despite the close relationship between Apple and Quark, Quark is not calling their Intel-Mac-compatible application ready for release. Whether it is or is not ready is irrelevant; Quark is cautiously allowing a shakedown period for the Intel-Mac and Quark’s flagship application running on that platform. Wisely, Quark is taking advantage of the visibility and goodwill earned by being the first major application publicly announcing compatibility, but also, even more wisely, is not fully committing to the untried Intel-Mac systems by releasing a dot-oh shipping product. Whether QuarkXPress 7.0 succeeds or fails is a critical matter for Quark; it may very well decide whether XPress continues to be a major market player, or is relegated to the abyss of “legacy software.” While maintaining good relations with Apple and Mac customers is crucial to the survival of Quark’s software business, delivering a product that works is the highest priority. Releasing XPress 7 for Intel-Macs too early puts the application–and the company–at risk for bugs in the Intel-Mac hardware or operating system to cause showstopper failures in XPress–which would be a market share and public relations disaster for Quark even if the issues were beyond Quark’s control.

Adobe, Microsoft, and other large developers of Mac software face the same concerns as Quark. Software developers are leery of Apple’s history of rushing products to market without thorough testing. Mac fans will recall the not-quite-ready-for-primetime Macintosh OS X 10.0, and the fact that Apple did not afford software developers sufficient lead-time to work with the final OS X 10.0 development build and SDK before the operating system was released to the public.

“Why wait for Creative Suite 3,” someone recently asked me. “Adobe should just [port] CS2 versions of [their applications] today.” Why? What is the benefit to Adobe customers of purchasing–even if only for the cost of media and shipping–another copy of Creative Suite 2 or CS2-version applications simply for installation on an Intel-Mac? “Because customers want to use Intel-Macs,” is the usual reply. Setting aside bragging rights and the coolness factor of being an early Intel-Mac adopter, logically considered, there is no significant benefit to obtaining and installing a recompiled version of Creative Suite 2. Certainly not one that justifies the added expense of purchasing–again, even if only for the cost of media and delivery–as well as the necessity to activate the software and reconfigure its preferences and workspaces.

Additionally, even an Intel-Mac-compatible version of Creative Suite 2 does not satisfy every creative pro’s application needs. How will those PDF proofs be sent to clients if Entourage, Thunderbird, and other email applications haven’t yet been ported? Sure, iMail works on Intel-Macs, but does iMail satisfy everyone’s needs? How will one preflight and impose those PDFs? InCopy is only slowly penetrating the market; how will the average user write word processor files for placement into InDesign? Where does a Creative Suite-based workflow break down when workflow-critical plug-ins will not run? Font Book is a good introductory font manager, but with what will professionals manage fonts used by the Creative Suite? How reliable is the color input to, and output from, Photoshop if spectrophotometer and device color calibration software isn’t yet available for the new processor chip? What about printing and scanning? Early versions of OS X had serious issues with the drivers from major printer manufacturers (many Hewlett-Packard printer owners had to jump back to Classic Mode just to print!); what are the chances that Apple and all the hardware manufacturers have ironed out all the compatibility issues this time around?

Rarely does an entire creative workflow run solely on Adobe’s creative pro applications. Even if Adobe released its products for Intel-Mac today, workflows would break down the moment they required an application, plug-in, or technology that hadn’t yet been recompiled for Mac-Intel. Initially, stubborn Intel-Mac users would find themselves juggling projects and assets between two machines; ultimately, they would choose productivity over coolness by switching back to the older Power Mac that does run everything needed to get the job done.

Adobe will port its applications to Intel-Macs–probably with Creative Suite 3–which I predict won’t be released until January of 2007, if not as late as April. In turn, Microsoft and all the other Mac software and hardware developers, large and small, will also port their products to Rosetta. But, they will do it in time, after the Intel-Mac platform has proven itself, and after the respective software makers have verified to their own satisfaction that their products are ready to be released for that platform. It is in the best interests of these companies to get Intel-Mac-compatible versions of their products to market as soon as possible, but not at the expense of reliability, functionality, performance, or customer satisfaction.

In the meantime, have patience. Intel-Macs may be faster and more powerful, but faster and more powerful doing what?

Adobe, InDesign, Quark, InCopy, QuarkXPress, Mac, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Office, QuarkXPress 7, Quark 7