Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Businesses

Adobe Acquiring Macromedia on December 3, 2005 262

dennison_uy writes "Adobe Systems Incorporated and Macromedia, Inc. today announced they have either received or been notified they will receive all regulatory clearances necessary to complete Adobe's pending acquisition of Macromedia. The companies expect to close the transaction on December 3, 2005. Does this mean the end for Fireworks and Freehand?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Acquiring Macromedia on December 3, 2005

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Macradobe (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <akaimbatman@gmaYEATSil.com minus poet> on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:09AM (#14165003) Homepage Journal
    You DO know what happened the last time someone tried to use that song to make fun of a certain fledgling nation, right? Based on the latest Acrobat and Flash/CFM/JRun products, I'm not sure I want Macradobe to be winning this war. ;-)
  • by Cyphertube ( 62291 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:11AM (#14165017) Homepage Journal

    I have my own personal bets about what will be going, but of course, that's from my own perspective. From what the majority of analysts say, yes, Freehand will likely go, as will GoLive.

    Much speculation exists regarding Fireworks vs. Photoshop. Photoshop will, of course, stay. What I wonder about is whether or not ImageReady will go. If they could merge some of the features of Fireworks into Photoshop, it would be a fabulous product. I've never liked ImageReady to export photos for the web, and I've not liked using Photoshop for creating simple graphic elements for online either. With enough support, Fireworks may stick around by itself, even.

    While I've consistently used products from both companies, and many an employer will likely reap an initial cost-savings from the merger, I am sad to see that competition in this industry has faded. I don't think even a company with as much cash to burn as Microsoft can break in any time soon. However, the tools themselves are pretty well set, so I think the next cool thing will be modifying the user interfaces to be even MORE user-friendly and intutitive. Go GIMP and bring on some competition!

  • "Studio" Bundling? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FearTheFrail ( 666535 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:13AM (#14165023)
    Macromedia and Adobe both have histories of understandably bundling some of their related/popular products together into sets with rather high price tags so that we consumers can gag over the steep prices, and then wheedle our bosses into thinking that yes, we do need Flash MX Professional (while all of your fellow web designers sigh with disdainful looks).

    One would expect some sort of bundle to pop out of this merger that would combine Adobe and Macromedia products...anyone have any ideas on what it might include? Anything you can think of aside from the "obvious" suspects? (Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator)
  • Too big? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:14AM (#14165027)
    At what point does consolidation hinder a company's ability to produce and perform?

    All these corporate acquisitions have me worried.
  • Stupid idea. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by adolfojp ( 730818 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:16AM (#14165039)
    Why would Adobe eliminate a successful product line with a loyal fan base? Why sell only one product when you can sell two? Cheers, Adolfo PS. There is no competition for Photoshop in the image editing market, but for me, Fireworks remains an indispensable website prototyping tool.
  • Too bad... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ajaxamander ( 646536 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:17AM (#14165048) Homepage
    It won't spell the end of Dreamweaver, GoLive or Flash. I'm getting sick of wading through MM_SwapImage() crap in sites I didn't build but have to maintain.
  • by machine117 ( 935635 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:43AM (#14165161)
    Rooting for a GIMP to keep up with the two most fierce competitors combining forces? Oh, the irony!
  • ColdFusion shoutout (Score:4, Interesting)

    by markhb ( 11721 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @09:51AM (#14165207) Journal
    With everyone commenting about the art tools, I have to wonder what Adobe's plans are for ColdFusion. I know that the official line is "CF is selling very well, so they have no reason to dump it." I'm not sure if I put that much faith in Adobe's common sense.
  • The future (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NoSuchGuy ( 308510 ) <do-not-harvest-m ... dot@spa.mtrap.de> on Friday December 02, 2005 @10:10AM (#14165310) Journal
    will bring us more:
    - more PDFs on web pages
    - more Flash on webpages
    - more Flash in PDFs
    - more PDFs in Flash

  • Imagine... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Seltsam ( 530662 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @10:15AM (#14165343)
    ...embedding Flash "things" in PDF files. It would be cool to have a motherboard manual with an interactive Flash diagram of the board. While not exactly useful, it would be neat.
  • Re:how about this. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by johneee ( 626549 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @10:26AM (#14165408)
    I was in a meeting with a couple sales people from Adobe. Now, we have to take this with a grain of salt, since they were trying to sell us on a massive document and information management system, but the main reason for the purchase is so that Adobe could have Macromedia's presentation tools for forms and paper management.

    Right now, a massive portion of Adobe's income comes from the Acrobat/PDF/LiveCycle products, and it's the part that is growing the fastest. Macromedia had been developing 'Flash Paper' and had done great work on making things usable and portable on mobile devices and more lightweight on more platforms.

    Expect to see Flash Paper die, and expect to see some of the Flash plug-in multiple platform technologies be leveraged to provide more and better portability of PDFs.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02, 2005 @10:59AM (#14165656)
    FreeHand has been dead for a year now. The entire development team in Richardson. TX was disbanded in March 2003. Everyone was laid off (including me), Development was moved to Bangalore, but that effort was axed after 10 months or so without any results. No wonder, our codebase was exceedingly convoluted.

    A shame really. The FH development process was a fine example of how things were supposed to be done. Proper bug tracking, competent managers (no, I was just a grunt developer), plenty of testers, proper specs. One can argue with the actual features and the archaic nature of the multitude of settings but the process was good. The latest release has unfortunately not held up well on OS X though.
  • by beckwf ( 544610 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @11:07AM (#14165704)
    I predict that the Macromedia apps will all be allowed to die a slow death, just as the way Adobe has treated Frame Technologies and its product FrameMaker after acquisition. The development will be sent to Bangalore, and the code will rot.
  • Re:how about this. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by johneee ( 626549 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @11:55AM (#14166099)
    Wow. Someone agrees with me. Weird.

    To expand though, it's not just the fact that Acrobat and document management is where income is now, it's that that is where they see the growth. Graphics and the creative market will grow, but only at the rate of the economy. They dominate that market, so they can't get more market share, and that sector isn't exactly outstripping the rest of the economy.

    Document and information management is a place where they can really grow exponentially. As far as I can tell, (I'm in government) the PDF tools really hold the most promise of any technology to really save us money, time, and management costs as far as reducing the amount of paper we have to move around. Plus, done right, it can really make things easier and more convenient for our clients.

    (Of course, this opinion is my own, not necessarily my employer's)
  • by jsebrech ( 525647 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @01:41PM (#14166965)
    And they are trying to push developers in the direction they want them to go, rather than providing what developers want. For instance, they have a heavy focus now on using Flash for on-line forms and applications, but when was the last time you actually used a Flash application online? And yet many developers use PHP and are now interested in Ruby and AJAX but Macromedia have very poor support for those technologies.

    You go develop a web app with AJAX, and then do the same in flash, and come back and tell us that AJAX is preferable. I spent 8 months writing a moderately large CAD web app (that views and manipulates AutoCAD drawings) that was a combination of flash and ajax, and I tell you, flash is a MUCH better web app development platform. It comes with a much richer library of code (actual components), much more functionality (support for vector graphics), and since there are no competing flash player implementations (as there are competing browsers), you write code once and run it everywhere. And yes, for once that is not hype. There are some minor incompatibilities, but 95+ percent of the time your code will run completely correct on the other platforms first time you try it.

    Also, many of the reasons people have historically rejected flash hold true for AJAX too, like poor support for browser history, poor support for the visually handicapped, and poor support for unusual platforms (you need firefox at the least, which does not run on embedded systems).

    You're blind if you can't see the flash apps out there. Flash remains the most popular choice for web game development, for example.
  • Re:Flash Plugins (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shoolz ( 752000 ) on Friday December 02, 2005 @01:44PM (#14166987) Homepage
    Well put.

    We're not going to be pushing for a ban on HTML are we? Because HTML *can* be used for
    • SPAM
    • Advertisements
    • Creating horrible web pages
    • Fraud
    • Disseminating false misinformation
    • Propaganda
    • Copyright and IP violations
    • Hate crimes
    • Extortion
    • ...

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Working...