photoshop

Robert Cringely is one of the higher profile tech pundits, and like all pundits, is only barely credible based on predictions coming to pass.

But he brings up again the possibility of Apple buying Adobe. 

Actually, he says flat out it's going to happen. His reasons are a teensy bit more interesting this time, plus "inside sources," but I wasn't persuaded before and I'm not now.

He uses the Final Touch acquisition as an example of Apple's commitment to pro apps, and it is...but Final Touch wasn't a $36 billion purchase, as Adobe is likely to be. 

Another example he uses is just flat out wrong: "Of course content creation has been the heart of Apple's business ever since the original LaserWriter and the invention of desktop publishing...."

Sorry, try again. Apple didn't own any desktop publishing software. Clarisworks was interesting, but they killed it for good reason. It was a distaction from their core business of building computers and OSes.

Although Apple's core business is changing -- which Apple acknowledged when it dropped "Computer" from its name -- but look at how it's changing. 

The first big clue was QuickTime, which is still being used far far FAR more as a distribution and consumption platform than a creation platform. Seriously, QT is critical to us, but are there hundreds of millions of us? No. And the most compelling content being sold in the iTunes Music Store is sometimes only marginally created with QT at all. (I said sometimes.) And even there, the big money is in distribution and consumption.

iPods? Distribution and consumption.

The iPod/iTunes infrastructure is especially interesting to me. It used Mac users as a beta test before rolling it out to the whole world...which is frankly what non-Mac users comprise. Although Apple is growing far faster than the rest of the industry, it'll still be a while before it breaks out of single digit market share, and will likely never reach the heights Apple had before Mac.

(In fact, until stabilized at 3%-ish for a while, and starting a meaningful rise this year, Apple's market share has plummeted at least 90%. Discuss.)

My point here isn't primarily about market share, but about strategy: nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who's playing for keeps can do it on the Mac alone. (Sorry FCP.) Apple's iPod/iTunes business didn't change the world until the whole world could use it.

iPod. iTunes. Distribution. Consumption.

Not creation. You can barely use 'em to create anything.

Add iPhone to the mix: one-to-one distribution, if you will, on a massive scale. 

Look, I'm an idiot. I don't know a thing. But I only barely see Adobe fitting into this. Macromedia? Absolutely. I was among the thousands of people who thought Apple should have bought the whole company when they bought FCP from Macromedia. They could have gotten it for a song compared to what Adobe paid.

(Speaking of which, I believe that Adobe paid to be taken over by Macromedia -- the best money that Macromedia never spent. Discuss.)

I say that because Flash is a far bigger distribution platform than QuickTime, and because of its dynamic nature, is part of business infrastructure in ways that QT never will be. Websites are just the beginning. QT may never be useful in a database driven infrastructure. Flash is already being used as an actual driver interface in cars! 

So where does the rest of Adobe fit into this. Photoshop might seem like a big fish, but I've heard Adobe folks tell me that they see this as the most vulnerable app in the portfolio: being undercut by digital cameras, iPhoto, Aperture and the like. Those apps are forcing Adobe to change their game to meet Apple's challenge. So why buy it? Maybe to get at Pshop's science and medical business, but that's awfully niche-y.

After Effects? Meet Motion. Encore? Premiere? Encore? Buh-bye. Not that these don't all offer some superior aspects, but $36 billion?

After Flash, PDF is the other central Adobe technology...and Steve spent a full 45 minutes spanking Flash at the WWDC a couple of years ago. Included side-by-side comparisons of performance, image quality, the whole deal. Apple's flavor of PDF came out on top.

I think some of this was a shot over Adobe's bow: yes, PC has been your dominant platform for a decade, but leave Mac development behind at your peril. But how could he not have also been saying, we'd rather have you do this for us...but we can do it ourselves very, very easily.

Again, PDF has powerful features like built-in desktop sharing, video conferencing, etc. -- but I'm still waiting to see anything here that adds up to $36 billion.

Cringely says it will be announced this week. Do you? 

Kaltix? Ganji? Neven Vision KK? Endoxon Ltd.? Any of these ringing any bells? These are among the 24 companies that Google has bought recently. Have any idea what they do? Thomas Shmitz of SEOCritique lets you test your knowledge by matching two lists: the names of the companies and what they do. I'm telling you now, you're going to flunk this test. By a long shot.

Two of the 24 are gimmes for most of us: YouTube and Picasa.

(If you don't know Picasa, you should check it out. It's Win and Linux only, but a cool little online art program. It's also what inspired Adobe to put a free version of Photoshop on the web. From what I hear, Photoshop is a cool little art program too.)

The rest of them are complete strangers to me. I felt like an idiot even looking at the test. Even if I can't match them, it's interesting to see what Google is up to.

For example, the Google phone looks like it's crawling toward reality. Maybe. As Shmitz describes this entry on the quiz:

Operated under a cloak of secrecy, so little is known about its work. Rubin and Co. have sparingly described the outfit as making software for mobile phones, providing little more detail than that. One source familiar with the company says at one point it had been working on a software operating system for cell phones.

Three of the acquisitions have been made around mapping. I'll be honest, I'm not at all impressed with Google maps. They're not terribly accurate, and they print for poo. I assume that improvements are forthcoming.

Another intersesting one:

Deep technology and expertise around automatically extracting information from a photo. It could be as simple as detecting whether or not a photo contains a person, or, one day, as complex as recognizing people, places, and objects.

Face recognition technology is an integral part of what I call the "Hollywood OS," that stuff you see in the movies and on TV that has nothing to do with any particular computer OS...since none of them can actually do that stuff.

Not that face recognition software doesn't exis; it does. The German Federal Police and the Super Bowl use it regularly, and have made some arrests. OTOH, a number of casinos have tried it, and the results have been pretty much useless.

 Anyway, you're going to have fun with the quiz, even if you just take a tour of the company descriptions. While the answers will eventually be posted, for now all you'll find is a list of scores that people have posted. Most of them are pretty poor, and looking at the number of them actually listed, it looks like most visitors are as cowardly as I am.

A final note: our boy Tom has been around for a while. He was an Assistant Systems Operator for GEnie, a predecessor of AOL, and served as editor of GEnie Lamp, a periodical for Apple II computer users.

Ah, the Apple II! Apple grew massive market share that began dropping like a stone with the introduction of the Mac. Not passing any judgements here. I'm just saying.