Neat article off Int’l Herald Tribune re: some elements to consider in the recently-finalized [tag]Adobe[/tag]/[tag]Macromedia[/tag] merger/acquisition festival (first announced in April).
The “good point” is their citation of how Microsoft plans to bundle print-to-PDF capabilities into [tag]Windows Vista[/tag] (much as Apple already does with [tag]OS X[/tag]). This $650 million threat to Adobe’s [tag]PDF[/tag]-creation-software business underscores the rumors that they’re moving toward that “universal client” presumably dubbed “Apollo”. Moock has commented that there are no immediate plans to roll the [tag]Flash[/tag] and PDF platforms into one. It doesn’t make sense logistically or w/r/t/ purpose – – though long-term it does.
What I don’t get is their assertion that Adobe and Macromedia could not sustain their respective growth without the merger. Everyone I know in the graphics and web industries regarded them in this two-sides-of-the-same-coin sort of fashion. Adobe was this graphics-and-print giant that was trying its hand at web app software while Macromedia was this web app giant dabbling in the print-and-graphics world. (Where was Adobe’s equivalent of ColdFusion? Did Fireworks really compete with Photoshop? That sort of thing.) The argument that they needed to keep their respective guards (and now just “guard”) up against potential moves by Microsoft makes some sense. There’s no knowing what the future holds, right? Maybe FrontPage 2012 will do a number on
GoLive Dreamweaver? Maybe Acrylic really will be able to compete with Illustrator and/or Photoshop? Both companies could have held their own – – which isn’t to say that their merger doesn’t “make sense”, just that Microsoft’s entry into the “creative professional” software market isn’t as inevitable as some of the analysts seem to think.