I suspect this move is due to behind the scenes Adobe / Apple relations souring over the years.
Adobe used to be one of their biggest supporters and helped winning over users to the Mac platform.
This has diverged significantly over the years, and I think Apple is looking at Adobe and their business model and realizing that it both lucrative for them to have software that fills into this market to round out their creative pro apps suite and that Adobe increasingly becoming aggressive with cost / licensing and tactics to extract revenue aren't good for their ecosystem.
Creative software and macbooks are complement goods. i.e., demand for macbooks goes up when creative software gets cheaper, and vice versa.
This is a case where mergers are expected to make prices go down. As opposed for substitute goods, like macbooks and dell laptops, where a merger would probably make prices go up.
In both cases you have a prisoner's dilemma between vendors - with vendors producing substitute goods, the "defect" option is to lower your price. (This makes you more money, but costs the other vendor more money than you made.) For substitute goods, the "defect" option is to raise your price (this makes you more money, but costs the other vendor more money than you made.)
So mergers of vendors of substitute goods are usually bad, and tend to be blocked, because once merged the companies can coordinate to raise prices. But of complement goods are usually good, and tend to not be blocked, because once merged the companies can coordinate to lower prices.
All this to say that I think this move makes sense for apple regardless of whether their relationship with Adobe has soured.
If X consists of two complementary components, A and B, then if the price for either A or B goes down, then the total price for X goes down, demand for X goes up. Which means demand for A and B went up.
Even if the price of only one of A or B went down.
So if the price of A goes down, demand for B goes up.
If software prices go down, then demand for the hardware to run that software on goes up.
It’s a reframing of vertical integration, which does lead to lower prices or higher value assuming reasonable competition. You can also think of it as disintermediation (“cutting out the middleman”).
I mean theoretically that makes sense? If you get more value for something it increases the chance of buying it? But I also have no idea if this statement is true.
Apple and Adobe have always had a sour relationship. Adobe's crappy font licensing led to truetype and they're crappy implementation of Flash led to Jobs dropping flash in the iPhone just to mention a few things from their history.
Not to mention the fact that there were tons of rumors around Apple developers practically handholding adobe to get them across the finish line for the Apple Silicon port.
Adobe is extremely incompetent wrt actually developing usable, clean and efficient software so I can definitely see this as being plausible
… didn’t Apple switch away from Nvidia, push for OpenCL and keep Adobe in the rain when their new release was all super optimized for Nvidia? And I think heavily push for their proprietary video and image editing software? But Adobe rewrote its codebase and had the better product after all. And that was 15+ years ago?
Yes they did.
But any fact that would paint Apple in a bad light will be silenced here.
The truth is that no matter how good of a player Adobe would be, Apple would still be trying to fuck them over because Apple's greed is infinite.
Adobe's switch to subscription pricing is very annoying, but at least it's not completely absurd compared to what you would pay previously if you bought the software outright and if you actually subscribe to the full package, you get much more value actually.
And their competitors, while decent, are not really a replacement for professional work.
Affinity is fine and all but after having used it a bit for a few projects, if I were to do it full time professionally, I would pay for Creative Cloud.
In comparison the extortionate pricing Apple practices on their RAM/storage upgrades is much worse.
I don't think so. Mac sales have only grown and the whole "you need a Mac for creative work" hasn't been a thing since the 00's.
I think this is more about having the team put advanced photo editing features into the native Photos app, and possibly contributing to AI image processing.
There are lots of amateur photographers out there that use Apple hardware yet so far Apple only monetizes storage. I wouldn't be surprised to see a subscription offering that includes pro tier features for Photos.app good enough to replace Lightroom for enthusiasts but not for actual professionals.
99% chance it will not stay alive for more than 1-2 years. Shazam is the only Apple acquisition I know of that still exists independently, and that's only because it promotes Apple Music on Android.
Most likely will be integrated into Photos or possibly even a new advanced photo editing app for macOS/iOS only.
Since they were already Apple hardware only apps, there is a good chance not much will change about it (at least in the near term) and they will just use it as a tool to increase the desirability of their hardware, just like they do for their iWork suite.
I don't think it bodes well for the long term though, because Apple tend to not care much about stuff that don't make them a ton of money.
It will probably become like their office apps, being updated at a glacial pace, used primarily as a marketing tool but never really reaching a level that would truly make them a worthwhile competitor.
Not to mention Apple's challenge with 30% AppStore tax for subscription revenue.
My guess was that Apple is okay with Apps from third parties that tithe 1/3 of their subscription revenue but aren't willing to make a place for them if they don't "sing for their supper" as my Grandfather used to say.
But macOS requires app notarisation. They again made it harder to run un-notarised apps this year. If you look at the iOS side, it's clear that Apple has no qualms adding content restrictions for app notarisation, and it is more than just a malware check. It could be just a question of time until Apple decides to stop notarising Mac apps that do not use App Store payments.
Notarization isn’t the same, it just requires you have a developer certificate. There’s no restrictions on notarized apps that I’m aware of. It allows Apple to pull the cert if the app is found to be malware.
> There’s no restrictions on notarized apps that I’m aware of.
Notarized Mac apps have to used the hardened runtime, which comes with a few restrictions. For now, there are no content restrictions for notarized apps on the Mac. Let's hope it stays that way. But there are very significant content restrictions for notarized apps on iOS, and who knows how long until Apple introduces them on macOS as well.
Meh, Apple might be a little ahead of others, but all mainstream OSes and stores are basically headed this direction already. It’s just part modern security, part quality control, and part family & work friendliness. Most people on both sides actually want a walled garden. There will probably always be ways to run unsigned code and to get content that’s not approved by an app store, but maybe it’s fine if it’s ‘harder’ and not the default.
Yeah Windows does the same thing. It's something indie game devs run into. If you release on Steam, Steam launches your game. Otherwise you have to pay a certificate authority to sign your game or Windows Smart Screen will do the same "this code is sketchy. Are you really really really sure you want to run it?" thing MacOS does for non-notarized apps.
Didn't know what Pixelmator was, looked them up and they only distribute through the App Store.
I haven't been an Apple user for over 10 years, through that macOS now uses the App Store to distribute OS updates. There is no getting around the App Store on macOS and must be used for Apple related software releases, such a Xcode.
The community that looks for applications not in the App Store is most likely quite low. It requires knowledge of the ability to side-load, how to do it, and where to find applications that can be side loaded. Homebrew installation ratio against total macOS users might be a good metric.
You do not need to download Xcode via MAS, you can download the disk image directly from their developer website. Going through the MAS has been historically very painful for that big app and the day it is the only option is the day I probably stop using it unless they make some changes.
> Apple’s main source of innovation is applying mafia tactics to software distribution.
Main source of innovation? What about the Mac, iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple watch, AirPods and M1 MacBook Air, all of which transformed their product categories? Not just because of the hardware, but also because of the hardware-software integration.
Even Apple's failed innovations (Apple Vision, etc.) are interesting products that push the envelope.
I don’t think you’re reading the GPs point very charitably. They’re clearly talking about recent innovations that generate revenue.
Also I think you’re overreacting with some of your examples there. You seem to be conflating “successful” with “innovative”. The two terms aren’t mutually inclusive.
As a software developer who made good money reaching hundreds of thousands of people through the app store where the old “put up a website and buy advertising” model might have netted me single-digit thousands of sales, I am always surprised at the white knights telling me I got no value from paying 30% of revenue.
If the app store is “mafia tactics”, I can’t even imagine how demonic things like wholesalers mist be.
The issue with the App Store model is that it's just another platform to market yourself on. In your case, you benefitted from a first-mover (or early-mover) advantage and did well. Over time the App Store becomes more and more saturated with apps and so the value to developers goes down. This is no different from the web! It's merely offset by a few decades.
If you had put up your website back in the early 90's and were judicious about advertising back then, you might've been a Fortune 500 company (depending on your business niche, of course)!
Big corporations get less benefits than small ones.
This is missing from the conversation, is on average, smaller corporations can better keep via the App Store model vs the open software market, because it allows for focused marketing on a fair playing field
During the PPC-Intel transition, Adobe compatibility was almost a running joke. Along the lines of the infamous "You can always count on [..] to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities] quote.
I was surprised at how quickly Adobe adopted aarch - it didn't feel sour.
My recollection is that Adobe was slow to migrate from 32-bit to 64-bit x86 because they were still dependent on many of the Carbon APIs (Mac OS 9 compatibility) and those APIs weren't carried over to 64-bit. They dragged their heels about transitioning to Cocoa (NeXT derived) APIs for their UI, and it showed.
It still kills me that Altsys/Aldus/Macromedia let their NeXT codebase for Altsys Virtuoso whither (v2 was essentially Freehand 4 w/ a couple of unfixed bugs) so that when Rhapsody was announced they weren't ready for it.
In some other timeline, I am using a Mac w/ a current version of Macromedia Freehand running on Rhapsody and I am a _much_ happier person.
As it is, I'm about to give up on interactive vector drawing and just code everything either using METAPOST or OpenSCAD, or some mix of both.
In general, the way a walled garden wins is by providing everything its villagers need inside.
And Apple’s products seem to create walled gardens in order to prioritize [first creative, then economic] control.
Based on the demographic that a significant portion of their marketing seems targeted towards (artists and creative types), I think your theory sounds likely.
Assuming you're right, the vertical platform vendors should consider having a public Sherlocking policy. If you're anywhere near Apple's stuff, the Pixelmator outcome is a large fraction of your upside.
Much larger than it should be for the ecosystem's sake. Excessive cannibalism isn't probably in Apple's interest even.
Bet Apple eyes at the rent that Adobe extracts out of all those subscriptions and wants the same thing for itself. Apple has been in the market of renting out content for decades (starting with iTunes) and this move means people will have less options, not more.
Bingo. Uncommon for a company Apple's size, but they are trying to Innovators Dilemma Adobe. Either by releasing a pro version of Photos.app or adding pro features to Photos they will continue to move up the value chain into Adobes market of LR/PS. Adobe charges $20/month for the LR/PS bundle. If Apple can add some of the prosumer functionality and say increase Apple One by $5, they shift some of the subscription revenue over to them.
Adobe used to be one of their biggest supporters and helped winning over users to the Mac platform.
This has diverged significantly over the years, and I think Apple is looking at Adobe and their business model and realizing that it both lucrative for them to have software that fills into this market to round out their creative pro apps suite and that Adobe increasingly becoming aggressive with cost / licensing and tactics to extract revenue aren't good for their ecosystem.
That's my working theory, at least.