If Adobe hadn’t bought Macromedia, Microsoft probably would have, and then there would have been no stopping Bill and company. The implications of Microsoft completely dominating epaper/eforms and mobile content publishing would be far reaching and monumental. For one, an even larger Microsoft monopoly would severely hinder Apple’s Holy Grail aspirations of getting its operating system into the enterprise (although Apple is unhappy about the Adobe-Macromedia merger for other reasons).
So, let Jon Gruber whine about the loss of Macromedia’s independence. It would have happened regardless. Macromedia was in possession of technologies too valuable to be ignored, technologies that will prove critical to the planet’s move toward electronic documents and the merger of broadcast television and the Internet. Those who want to own that market could not let Macromedia’s technologies remain out there, waiting to be used against them. It was inevitable that someone would buyout Macromedia. The only questions remaining were who, and whether they would use the technologies or kill them so no one else could.
I’m a fan of the Warnock and Geschke Adobe much more so than the Chizen Adobe, but it’s still Adobe. If it’s a choice between Adobe and Microsoft to control the epaper and digital publishing tools of the future, I’ll root for Adobe without fail. Ultimately, Macromedia would have been bought by someone, and there were only three players interested enough, and with the means, of doing so: Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe.
Had it been Apple, Microsoft would still win in the end. OS X is nowhere near ready to be an enterprise desktop, so Apple simply couldn’t penetrate the markets that count when it comes to competing with Microsoft on epaper (and, again, mobile content publishing). Nor does Apple have the pre-existing technology to successfully marry to Macromedia’s to make a good use of such an acquisition. Apple would have made stellar desktop applications, but that would be the furthest they could reach. Even more importantly, Apple’s primary concern is selling its computer hardware. Everything they do–OS X, iTunes, iPod–is built around leveraging the Mac. And, they promote it solely as a lifestyle brand computer. Enterprises don’t care about lifestyle brands; they care about productivity, which is Microsoft’s, not Apple’s, brand image. Make no mistake: Apple is squarely focused on penetrating and taking over the enterprise, but they need to work up to that by keeping their design market, recapturing the education market, and establishing a new base among home users. Once that’s done, they’ll move upward through SOHO, small- to medium-sized businesses, and then into enterprise.
Were Microsoft the purchaser of Macromedia, it would have converted all the markets of ColdFusion- and Flash-based technologies into Metro using amalgamations of Flash and Sparkle and Dreamweaver and FrontPage to extend the reach of Office. For the next 10–15 years, Microsoft would have a strangle hold on epaper–long enough to choke the life out of Adobe and send Apple and Linux back to microscopic marketshares.
Adobe was the only logical choice for buying Macromedia–that is, unless you favor a Microsoft-controlled world more monopolystic and draconian than your current office.
As far as the lack of competition argument, that doesn’t hold water either. Adobe has held almost total market dominance with Photoshop, AfterEffects, FrameMaker, and Acrobat for years without slipping. At the same time, they’ve watched competition like Quark, Microsoft, Corel, and Apple (mostly under John Sculley) fall into the trap of king of the hill complacency only to be blindsided by hungrier, more agile competitors. Bruce Chizen is not an idiot, nor is he lazy. He knows what happens when market leaders become complacent, how easy it is to be shot dead when they stand in one place too long, which is why he makes sure Adobe is a constantly moving target.
Normally this is the part where I write something really smart and whitty, but I can’t think of anything to add. It sure looks like you’ve got the big picture allright, Pariah. Perhaps John Gruber’s got something to add?
Excellent article, informative too. My first argument before reading all the way through was After Effects. This year especially since adobe has allowed support for more dynamic range video / images, and the new interface for their video products is a huge indicator to me that they are continuing to support them.
Adobe tends to be more open than Mcrosoft too. Considering the PDF standard and specification, (though I’m not totally informed) is an open format. So programs like Open Office.org and others can create a PDF natively using free and open libraries. Microsoft continues to have it’s formats closed. Even the MS XML isn’t completely open like you would expect XML (text) to be. Any startup could create a program that created PDF files, but not necessarily one that competes with Word and word files.
Microsoft should be taking advantage of the openness of the swf format and making a frontpage-like competitor to flash. Flash can handle video, audio, programming, and of course animations. It is an area that is dying for an easier application since many regard flash’s timeline to be horrible. and many will never learn it because of it’s difficulty level.
Oh and how about this : Robert X. Cringely thinks Apple should buy Adobe: “For Apple’s Windows Strategy to Work, It Must Replace Microsoft Office and Buy Adobe Systems”
After reading your article this does not really make a whole lot of sense… http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060427.html
Very thought provoking. Thanks Pariah!
Minor note, about the statement “threatening AfterEffects”. From my vantage as a Flash developer, I do not see Flash now, or ever competing with After Effects. If you are doing film or broadcast titling, motion graphics or special effects you are not going to be using Flash. And if you are generating interactive content to be delivered over the web, you are not going to be using After Effects (Hey look! No event model! :-)
I know cases where Flash and After Effects are complementary. But scant few cases where they compete.
Other than that, only praise. Again thanks Pariah!
You knew, a few years ago, I’d have bet money on Quark and Macromedi merging to head off Adobe. Esp as Quark Xpress was often bundled with Freehand in a special deal. Freehand would have given Quark a heavyweight drawing app and Fireworks a bitmap image editor.
I agree broadly with Pariah. MS does not do graphics well. It knows operating systems, office suites, productivity, and even games , but not graphics for print and web.
That said, I wonder, has Adobe become TOO big?? Do they still have the personal touch??
More on Adobe & Microsoft butting heads (this time over PDF), by Joe Wilcox here:
http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/015754.html
Echoing Pariah’s observations here, last November Joe Wilcox wrote:
Target Adobe. I swear that Microsoft executives have painted a giant bullseye on Adobe. Long ago, I cautioned that Adobe and Microsoft were on collision course in the enterprise.
http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/012065.html
If you think Adobe taking over Macromedia was a good thing you are deluded.