Enough Whining About the Adobe-Macromedia Merger

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.

7 thoughts on “Enough Whining About the Adobe-Macromedia Merger

  1. woz

    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?

  2. mike

    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.

  3. Greg H

    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!

  4. iMatt

    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??

  5. Greg H

    More on Adobe & Microsoft butting heads (this time over PDF), by Joe Wilcox here:
    http://​www​.microsoft​mon​i​tor​.com/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​s​/​0​1​5​7​5​4.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​.microsoft​mon​i​tor​.com/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​s​/​0​1​2​0​6​5.html

  6. damo

    If you think Adobe tak­ing over Macromedia was a good thing you are deluded.

Comments are closed.