Talk:Adobe Inc./Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

I've added the cleanup tag as much of the document is not only rambling and irrelevant, but also lacks any proper structure. I'll see if I can get started on tidying things up over the weekend--ThwartedEfforts 10:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have assessed this article B Class Business and Economics article on the grounds that the article needs cleanup as many of the citiations orginate from the company itself.--Gavin Collins 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of Adobe's product "Adobe Acrobat". I think it must be mentioned as it's flagship product since it is the single largest Adobe product in terms of revenues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.198.2 (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Current and former products

The product listing for PhotoDeluxe was recently removed. This is fair enough, as it is no longer produced (see http://www.adobe.com/products/photodeluxe/main.html). However, it seems worthwhile recording formerly produced software, for the sake of history, and to assist those who may not know that a product has been discontinued.

I recently added Adobe Persuasion to the products list, with (no longer produced) next to the entry. I suggest we move this and all other defunct products to a new subheading "former products", below the main "current products" subcategory.

Before proceeding with this I've suggested it here to allow consultation first. Amelia Hunt 21:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

PageMaker
I noticed PageMaker isn't on the discontinued list. Didn't Indesign replace PageMaker as Adobe does call Indesign an update to their old PageMaker software. I have used both Pagemaker 6.5 and Indesign CS and CS 2 and I think PageMaker is much harder to use and more confusing.

While InDesign was intended to replace PageMaker; while all development of PageMaker has stopped; while it does not run in Mac OS X native and does not run at all on Intel Macs; despite all of these things, Adobe does still sell PageMaker, so it can't really be described as discontinued. Notinasnaid 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I added Adobe Acrobat Capture to the product list as its own entry. It's not listed in teh Adobe Acrobat article, nor would I suggest it be added. While branded as an 'Acrobat' product, it is not derivative from Adobe Acrobat - it simply also happens to make PDFs. Blade 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

PhotoStyler

I noticed that there is no mention in this article of the product called PhotoStyler that Adobe acquired when it bought Aldus. To me, this was a much more significant event for Adobe than the acquisition of PageMaker. PhotoStyler 2.0 had just been released and it was far superior to Adobe's Photoshop product which had always lagged behind PhotoStyler in feature development. PhotoStyler 2.0 took another huge leap into the future with cutting edge capabilities (such as warping, external plug-ins and saving layers) that Adobe was wanting to release incrementally in later multiple paid upgrades to maximize profits on the new features. PhotoStyler also cost less than 1/3 as much as Photoshop, and Aldus had begun releasing the PC/Windows version first (before the MAC version) on this software title, and were most likely about to corner the PC/Windows market for raster image editing.

Immediately after acquiring this software, Adobe shot it in the head and discontinued support to all PhotoStyler users, offering in its place an "upgrade" to it's own feature-lacking RAM-inefficient Photoshop. Users of PhotoStyler were offered this actual down-grade for $300 which was 3x what they paid for the product they were already using. In the literature for the offer Adobe specified that 4 meg of ram was required to use their software - a real shock to PC users whose computers were "maxed out" at 2 meg, which was twice what PhotoStyler needed to run well. Adobe tech support had more bad news for those who called asking if this requirement was real, since at the time to own a computer that had 8 meg of ram took an investment of about $4,000. They were told that the 4 meg spec. was just to load the program, and much more was needed to actually use it productively. 8 meg was recommended, which meant buying a $5,000 computer to be able to do less work slower than they were currently doing on $2,000 computers running PhotoStyler. Adobe's techs responded to complaints on this issue by saying their software was intended primarily for service bureaus and printing houses who had no problem affording high-end equipment. They also made it clear that MAC users whom they primarily catered to, were used to paying that much for their computer hardware and software.

Adobe also acquired the Aldus Gallery Effects, which was a plug-in for PhotoStyler for the creation of painting simulations. Adobe later released this package under the same title, but refused to sell the plug-in to PC users claiming that the code was written for MAC only, even though the PC version was released first by Aldus, including a free sample of one of the filters (Watercolor) included with the 2.0 upgrade to PhotoStyler. Adobe did eventually sell this plug-in package to PC users, but they apparently did not advertise it for the PC market or tell their marketing people it was available, and PC users often had to jump through hoops with multiple phone call transfers to track it down and purchase it.

The Aldus product, PhotoStyler, was originally developed by a group called ULead, who, years after the abandonment of this software title by Adobe, went on to create a similar product called PhotoImpact. ULead was later acquired by Corel mostly for it's video editing product VideoStudio, and PhotoImpact appears to have faded away like its predecessor, and like many other image editing acquisitions of Corel including Micrografx Picture Publisher.

This seems like an important part of the history of not only Adobe and Aldus, but the history of computer image editing as well, and of corporate abuse/exploitation of of consumers. Megalonzerg (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Headquarters: is or are?

I notice that the verb following headquarters was recently changed from the plural to the singular. According to dictionary.com, both are used, but the plural is more common. I was wondering what the consensus is on this? As both are technically correct I guess it could be either, but it might be good to come to an agreement on style. My preference is for the plural, ie. "the headquarters ARE located in...", instead of "the headquarters IS located in..." Comments? Amelia Hunt 01:54, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Not worth standardizing, I would think, as the choice is arbitrary and the regional variation considerable. FWIW, Adobe's website uses both (on the same webpage!) : "Adobe's worldwide headquarters are in San Jose, California" and "Adobe's worldwide headquarters is in San Jose, California " [1] <g> -- Nunh-huh 02:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Links to Adobe instead of Adobe Systems

Some articles that should link here are instead frequently linked to Adobe. You can help keep the two straight by checking Adobe's what links here page. Gentgeen 09:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revenue

Just to be clear, Adobe recognized $1,666,581,000 in total revenue last year, aka $1.67 billion. Not $1.67 trillion, not $1.67 million. 10-K: [2] Rhobite 19:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

What a history this figure has had. Just for fun, here are the figures through the edit history

• $1,666,581 million (1000 times too large)
• $1,666,581 thousand (correct but unconventional in this form; however financial reports are often quoted in this unit).
• $1,666,581 (1000 times too small)
• $1,666,581 thousand (reverted)
• 1.66 billion USD (right if you round down)
• kUSD (right if you round to the nearest)

Unless there is a Wiki or financial standard for rounding, which this breaches, perhaps we can just leave it alone until next year! Notinasnaid 08:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you clarify the following data please? From Datamonitor:

• Revenues/turnover (US$ Mn): 1294.7 (2003)

Also from Datamonitor:

• For the fiscal year ended November 2004, the company reported revenues of $1,666.6 million, an increase of 28.7% on the previous year. For fiscal 2004, the net income was $450.4 million.

Does that figure actually mean billion?

Adraeus 13:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

All of those figures look plausible (I can't say that they are correct). "Revenues of $1,666.6 million" implies money received of that amount, which could also be written as $1.6666 billion. "Revenues/turnover (US$ Mn): 1294.7 (2003)" sounds like the same data, but for the year before. "Net income was $450.4 million" also sounds correct. Net implies that some deductions have taken place. I don't know how US companies do accounting but this might mean "after costs" and might be a figure similar to what some consider "profit"; however these are all technical terms with specific meanings. From the phrasing, it also isn't unambiguous whether the figures apply to the same 12 month period.

For companies, some or all of these figures could be interesting depending on the type of company, and the country (trying to avoid the technical terms)

• the amount of money received in all
• the amount of money received less sales tax
• the amount of money received less the amount of money spent (except company taxes)
• the amount of money received less the amount of money spent and company taxes
• the amount of money paid as dividend to shareholders
• any of the above, less any new bills that are unpaid
• the increase or decrease in the amount of cash held by the company after money spent, taxes and dividend
• the increase or decrease in the company's value, the sum of cash and non-cash assets, less bills to pay
• as above, less debts...

It goes on. Which of these are interesting enough to put in a Wikipedia information box? Good question. Notinasnaid 15:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Revenue is basically the gross amount of sales a company had, before any expenses. Turnover ratio is cost of goods sold divided by average inventory. It doesn't mean much for a company such as Adobe, where inventory is less important. Net income is the bottom line number after all exepnses, but before dividends. Net income is in some ways more important than revenue, but it's meaningless unless it's accompanied by other numbers. We didn't want to put every financial figure in the infobox - people should get the annual report if they're interested. We picked a single number, and revenue seemed like the best single number to add to the box. I don't think we should add any more financials.

As for Adraeus' question, Adobe had $1,666,581,000 in total revenue and $450,398,000 in net income. That is $1.67 billion revenue and $450.40 million NI. I don't know how to make this any clearer. Rhobite 20:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the terminological review. I'm certain it will be useful to someone who doesn't have that knowledge. I didn't know how to interpret the data-type I listed. For example, "1294.7 US$ Mn (2003)". I suppose that means 1.2947 US$ Bn. Adraeus 22:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed...

Has anyone else noticed the new process running in our backgrounds called reader_sl.exe? It's an Adobe Systems process. Interesting that we first encountered it only days after Adobe aquired Macromedia, Incorporated. ... What exactly does Macromedia do again? Judging by the extent they have penetrated our operating systems and applications, quite a bit. We are familiar with Macromedia products and Adobe products... Odd that Adobe should after an aquisition of Macromedia resemble more its new division than itself.

It's Acrobat Reader Speed Lauch ;-) Macromedia is best known for its Flash Player and corresponding authoring software. They were also dominant in the professional HTML editor market and helped designers create compelling digital experiences on the web and beyond. Jbetak 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Macromedia

The 4,000 count was prior to the December 3, 2005 merger with Macromedia of San Francisco, California.

... I thought Adobe bought Macromedia?

Yuyudevil 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe official employee and revenue numbers for the combined company have not been released yet. Just my $0.02, you might want to do your own due dilligence. Jbetak 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Just wondering how Adobe is pronounced. I have always though it was Ah-Dough-Bey but found out today that the building material is pronounced Ah-Dobe? Jack 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The people in the company pronounce it Ah-Dough-Bee. Blade 21:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

And the building material also has three syllables in English dictionaries. - Nunh-huh 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks! Jack 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who knows IPA add the IPA pronounciation to the page too ? --Abhijitpai 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone put [əˈdoːbiː] in recently. [o:] for the second vowel is unlikely in American or British English, so I've put in the U.S. pronunciation [əˈdoʊbiː] (see General American). However, the use of final [i:] is only likely utterance finally, as in "I work for Adobe", and not medially, e.g. "Adobe is a company", where it's shorter, more like [əˈdoʊbi]. Jsteph 08:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sklyarov

Just this morning, a paragraph on the the Sklyarov/DCMA affair was deleted from the Reputations section on the basis that it was biased and irrelevant. I don't see how either of those claims are the case. The Sklyarov case was as big in its time as the Sony/DRM fiasco is now, and has/had a substantial effect on Adobe's reputation. I think the paragraph should be restored. Cmdrjameson 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do think there is merit in describing the incident in the article. It is a notable incident in the company's history. However, the section as it was written *did* seem to be lacking in the NPOV department. I would suggest a re-write with that in mind. Blade 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Blade on both points, I've felt that it needed improvement for some time but been at a loss on how to improve it. Would it help to include the paragraph here in talk and have it rewritten here? Notinasnaid 16:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Adobe Merges

I can't believe Macromedia and Adobe merged, I always though that Macromedia was a larger corporation than Adobe!

Actually, Adobe was a substantially larger company, and far far more profitable. At the time of the merger Macromedia had about 1500 employees compared to some 3500-4000 for Adobe.

I would not call this a merger, this was a complete buyout. I doubt that Adobe will even keep Macromedia as a division of their company and completly remove the old Macromedia name from new products.

As what you said about Adobe aquiring macromedia, They were rivals before adobe did a "stock swap" on macromedia before agreeing to acquire it. Adobe might shut down Macromedia in a few years. Keenrich 00:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to shut down. Adobe have truly integrated Macromedia into their own organisation. They looked over the duplicated management structures and got rid of lots of people. There is only one company. For marketing reasons they might keep the Macromedia label on some products, or not, but changing it would be purely cosmetic. Notinasnaid 06:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What are those spinning discs?

I noticed recently that near the roof on the north end of the Adobe headquarters building in San Jose, CA, it is showing 4 orange color spinning discs. These discs are formed by orange lights in circular patterns that are probably more than 10 feet tall with a darken bar across the diameter. The light patterns change so that the darken bars appear to be spinning around. These 4 discs spin at different speeds. Within the two minutes that I looked at it during commute last night, I couldn't make out any pattern of the spins. Are they doing some kind of experiment to see if they can cause more traffic accidents on CA-87? Those spinning discs were quite distracting because curious people (like me) may stare at them trying to figure out if the spinning patterns mean anything. Since the building is right under the flight path to/from San Jose International Airport, the discs may distract the pilots too. Fortunately most flights to/from the airport takes the northbound direction except in very rare occasions where the wind direction forces the planes to approach from the north and take off to the south. Kowloonese 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I found this info about the lights. See picture here. Kowloonese 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I found a news clip about this thing. Kowloonese 23:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reputation and History sections: vague and unsourced

The Reputation section contains a number of vague and unsourced statements. I'd like to remove this section completely, moving the bit about the Fortune Magazine Best Place to Work ranking and the TrueType story to the History section. I would delete the following statements as unsourced and/or weaselish:

• Adobe is considered one of the more principled of the major software companies, and one that treats its large corporate customers well, although its customer service for smaller businesses and individuals has often received unfavorable press in recent years. [Vague generalizations with no sources given.]

• However, among open software advocates, Adobe is usually seen as overly controlling/proprietary. This image was created with their decision in the 1980s to use an encrypted, proprietary format for their high-quality Type 1 fonts, thus allowing them to charge licensing fees for any other company that wanted to produce or use Type 1 fonts. [Which open source software advocates? Most software companies don't give their stuff away (almost none did so in the 1980s). This doesn't seem like a valid point.]

Any objections? --Lee Hunter 15:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see the same problem in the history section. It contains lots of mere opinions (assumptions about Corel) and as the whole article is written in a very narrative way. --Peter Eisenburger 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)::

Its funny to see all this from the perspective from a lot of people who either were not there, or who tried to read about it from web sources, missing all the print sources. The first vague generalization was based upon the cost of continued upgrade costs, especially when upgrade costs over time exceeded the total cost of a new product. A point that was widely covered in the press of the time, but not written on the web. Hence you have to to some traditional research into this, or god forbid find someone who has.

and on the second point, wow. clearly not just missing the point, but missing the whole situation the industry was in. In the July 23rd, 1990 issue of infoworld, John Warnock called the Apple/Microsoft deal, "the biggest bunch of garbage mumbo jumbo." What he was referring to was that Apple/Microsoft was calling true type a type technology that was a replacement for Adobe Postscript and Type-1 fonts, however True Type fonts suffered from the following limitations: 1. they were based on cubic spline curves, a second order parametric equation that although speed up printing significantly, rendered fonts much more poorly in shape, 2. the had nowhere near the number of kerning pairs that Adobe type 1 fonts were designed with. the average type 1 font has 150 kerning pairs, and adobe originals had upwards of 400. True type fonts had between 20 and 40, yielding much cheaper fonts to create, but making them easy to spot 3. The absolute limit of true type rendering resolution was 300dpi, again, great for laser printers, but not for quality work. you could look at ads in MacWorld from 1991 to 1996 and see which ones used cheap fonts.

Apple in order to save money on the first of postscript, rather than liscense another postscript font, created Helvetica-Narrow, and used the same 71% narrowing formula on their corporate font Apple Garamond/Garamond Narrow.

Eventually, in response to the market pressure from the Apple/Microsoft deal, and the imminent publishing of the private keys for the two-layer encryption, adobe published the type-1 font specification, and in contrast to the claims of this article, neither Type-1 or type-3 or true type "allowed precise control on which pixels were turned on or off on a font rendering" <- this part of the article is a complete technical lie.

Photoshop was a rebranded product purchased by Adobe from the Knoll Brothers, formerly called Barney-Scan-XP.

<

"With that Barney Scanner came a piece of software called BarneyScan XP, which Adobe licensed a few months later and renamed Photoshop. So I always tease people that I was using Photoshop before Photoshop was Photoshop. ..."[3]

Display Postscript, which was the rendering technology for the NeXT software became Quartz which is curently used on MacOS X/iOS machines world wide, far from a failed product, it is now used on more consumer technology devices than any other(iPhone), by a company whos value and sales have eclipsed both Adobe and Microsoft ( Apple ), but giving rise to the current clusterF known as the Flash vs HTML5 spat.

But what is mostly missing from the here is a coherent picture from an Adobe systems expert. I only have a lot of glimpses from the early days, that most people writing and reading dont have. I feel sorry for someone trying to use this 'garbage mumbo jumbo' as a source. --76.218.217.45 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Apple

I heard that Apple laid off it's entire Aperture team because they might be buying Adobe and using Photoshop instead. I heard it here.Jordan042 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying looking at the date on that. December 2005. It's April 2007 now... — Wackymacs 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a criticisms section?

Hi. Shouldn't there be a criticisms section in the article? It makes the article seem pro-Adobe. We can have many things to fight about (price, price, price, price, the fact that Flash doesn't work with non-Intel PCs, editing/rendering speed, price, price, etc.) - PGSONIC 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need a critcism section. For like(price, price, price, price, oh and did I mention price?). 68.201.4.62 (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if the section is written in compliance with Wikipedia official policy. Generally, the more controversial the assertion, the more likely it should be supported by citation to a reliable source. See core Wikipedia policies WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. --Coolcaesar 17:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I just added a short one, commenting on differing prices across the world. Please expand. Does anybody know of some intelligent write-up about that marketing-by-obfuscation BS? (see 'makteting' section below) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.171.216.223 (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be a mention of software bloat in this section. See here for more information (Examples Section) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat

Hullo now. The criticisms section appears to me to be a sour-grapes/beefs about Adobe competitive/marketing/pricing/development stragies and editorial on the same. I don't think third person voice changes that. I'd personally drop the section, as it appears to be consensus of certain web discussion boards sneaking into the Wikipedia. Software bloat is a separate and interesting problem for a different article, but it isn't intrinsically Adobe, and neither is the discussion here particularly enlightening. However, I'll defer to those who are more experienced on this type of editorial matter. More interesting would be a section on Adobe's strategies of acquisition, development, pricing strategies, to what extent they're working adding/detracting from revenue--rather than beefs about the strategies. Eventually higher pricing should attract lower-price competition, I'd be curious whether that is occurring and why or why not.Catrachos (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Adobe has detected a corrupt file (checksum error). many customers are wondering what the hell is this error message, scratching their puzzled heads, suggesting different thing that do not work, no tech support available, no solution. can not believe this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.81.42 (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Individual releases in History section

Dates of releases of individual software are showing up in the History section, but in no real rhyme or reason to what is being listed and what is not. For example, is it really notable that they released Soundbooth? Yet there is no mention of Creative Suite 3, which was arguably the biggest release in the company's history. Either all releases need to be listed, or release histories should be limited to the articles of individual products. Blade 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Founding Location

The founding location of Adobe Systems is currently listed as San Jose. It should be Mountain View. The following is an excerpt from "Inside the Publishing Revolution: The Adobe Story" from Adobe Press.[4]

"With the help of Clinton Nagy, a real estate broker who eventually joined the Adobe sales team, Adobe secured a 2,800-square-foot space on Marine Way in Mountain View, California. Warnock and Geschke leased computers and furniture. Friends and family were put to work—even Geschke’s 80-year-old father stained the lumber for shelving. Graphic designer Marva Warnock, John’s wife, designed the company logo."[5]

So, the founding location should be Mountain View, not San Jose. Ortcutt 09:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Apple security update

I've removed the section about a December 2007 Apple security update. This isn't really the place for security updates. Also, the wording was technically dubious. It described the ability to execute arbitrary code as a "quite ordinary ability" while calling the ability to surreptitiously initiate a video conference as surprising. If a security vulnerability can exploited for arbitrary code execution, that typically (not always, but usually) implies access to the everything on the computer, including webcam and microphone. 63.247.78.85 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it was so well documented by CERT I think video could and should stay in some form. But I am not an expert and have no other comments. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Acrobat?

I found it strange that the word "Acrobat" only occurs twice in the article, both times referring to Acrobat.com

To many people, the term "Adobe" refers specifically to "Adobe Acrobat". They might be ignorant, but when someone asks me to "install Adobe", Acrobat Pro is what they always mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.104.120 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen this kind of mistake. I don't doubt that you know it to be true for someone, though. Adobe is a major software provider and their products are one of the reasons why people are hesitant to adopt linux in certain circles. I don't think acrobat has reached the popularity to where it is comparable to kleenex. 76.197.230.127 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

Adobe has demonstratively deployed a Convolution Gambit, seeking to baffle with bs rather than provide anything brilliant. The continual name changes of various components, the re-grouping together of components from one package to the other, and various components and packages that are banded together in various combinations - spell nothing but confusion and hyperbola aimed at sacrificing a clear understanding of what products do in hopes that a graduated licensing fee will force the throngs into just grabbing larger "suites" of the products. Casual reading, or self-education on the various Adobe product lines is a path designed to force the individual to a pervasive barrage of rhetoric.

Current trends in web development have abundantly shown that Content Management, logistics/semantics and clarity suffer greatly for visual glitz and splash perhaps due to "novelty" approaches in dev suites.

Considering the pervasive, almost intrusive, nature of Adobe autoinstalls and updates, few realize that there are easy alternatives.

Even the Wiki record becomes suspect since much of the historical data is missing and while a collaborative effort with Adobe company representatives may be necessary, the facts are obscure.

E.g. you are investigating all the various Adobe components your client base has and your s/w inventory sweep comes up with names and version for what are now Adobe products in one package or suite but may have belonged to another vendor or package when initially acquired. So without having to call each user how do you determine if what they acquired and may now need is a premium design package or a standard creative pkg. Of course perhaps by switching products around - the wrong package you buy today may be that right package tomorrow.

However, clearly delineating the facts is impossible for all the componeents that Adobe thows out there, and why have any history at all - but just put up an Adobe advertisment here for what 'is'.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.51 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 

Top Competitors section

Just wondering something about this Top Competitors section, mainly why on Earth are Apple and Microsoft considered competitors to Adobe? Perhaps Silverlight is a competitor to Flash but apart from that I can't see much competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackster (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Cut Pro VS Premier Pro is the most direct competition I can think of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.147.133 (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes I forgot about that. Also I suppose Photoshop could be considered a competitor to Aperture. Jackster (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

why is there no Corel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.231.20 (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Scene7 into this article

There is a new article on Scene7 which was acquired by Adobe Systems. Most of the article is about the merger and not the company itself. I'm not sure there is enough information about Scene7 itself that establishes its notability or even enough content about the company to make it a good stand alone article. The sources supporting the article are about the merger with Adobe and don't really establish the company's notability prior to the merger.Nrswanson (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Apple's" security update

Can't see why that one security update was mentioned. Adobe have released a number of security related updates to their products. What makes this one special enough to be listed?

http://www.adobe.com/support/security/

I also can't see why this was mentioned as an Apple update. The patch was actually from Adobe and was also released for the Windows version of Flash too. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Company events overdone

Why does there need to be an entire section devoted to this? It seems too overdone for an encyclopedic article. Only the most important dates should be mentioned (e.g. the merger with Macromedia), and should be done in a relevant section (e.g. "Merger with Macromedia") instead of the "Company events" section.--216.165.95.64 (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adobe taskforce

Is anyone interested in starting an adobe taskforce?Smallman12q (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Adobe Founders

Dan Putman should be listed, together with Charles Geschke and John Warnock, as a founder of Adobe. Putman worked in Geschke's department at Xerox as did Warnock. They all left Xerox together after adopting the name Adobe for their new venture. They worked together on establishing Adobe at the first headquarters in Mountain View. Putman took charge of Engineering and remained in charge until he retired when Adobe headquarters was moved to San Jose. Hai Yin (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Hai Yin

But do you have a published reliable source for that alleged assertion? I've read many articles about Adobe in all the major business publications. Geschke and Warnock are always mentioned but no one has ever mentioned Putnam. Remember, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. It can only restate things published in other places first.--Coolcaesar (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No outside publication but the facts are a matter of record with both Xerox and Adobe and with Geschke and Warnock. I assume you have no first hand knowledge either by being present at Adobe or at Xerox at the time in question. Why the media neglected Dan Putman's contribution can only be speculation.Hai Yin (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Hai Yin

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? Well, for starters, Adobe is the company that owns PhotoShop, a very well-known brand of photo graphic editor application. It also (since its acquisition of Macromedia in 2005) is the company that owns DreamWeaver, an HTML editor that is far from anything to sneeze at for being well-known and for influencing the industry as a whole. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Add to Criticism the CSS and SVG stagnation!

Many people say that Adobe has string influence into W3C to not change standards to a competitive profile:

• multimedia online, SVG vs Flash: Adobe is a "market player", and invested into Flash. .swf format, Adobe Flash Professional (or Adobe Flash Builder) and Flash Player are proprietary standards and softwares. Only in recent years supported (first with Adobe Illustrator) SVG (standard format).
• paged media industry and technology, CSS2 vs PDF: Adobe is a "market player", and invested into PDF. Only in recent years (with the competition with EPUB and others), has invested into CSS2 as alternative to PDF.
  • Adobe PDF Reader (Acrobat): the main reader.
  • Adobe InDesign: the main PDF generator.

The interest of maintains the proprietary format royalties, and the liderance into the software market, is not compatible with the W3C standars and open software.

CRITICISM:

• the use of "monopoly force" into the market: references?
• the lobby of Adobe into the media and into the standards bodies. References? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.121.201.156 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge of "Adobe Certified Expert"

Is it possible that the page Adobe Certified Expert could be merged here as a short blurb, perhaps as a subsection of the Products section? Zujua (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adobe Captivate

Moved Captivate from the recently acquired list to the current list, since version 2 was recently released under the Adobe brand.--Mikaine 15:23, 20 September 20077 (UTC)

European prices

Is the Creative Cloud really more expensive in Europe? According to this article, David Hobby complains that a Photoshop subscription would cost him $600/year in the US which would be 469 Euros, whereas I have Adobe's German CC subscription fee site right in front of me where it reads that the standard subscription fee for any single CC application is 24.50 Euros/month (including taxes!), which is only 294 Euros/year (ca. $377). Which means that at least the German price is only about 60% of the US price really. Maybe it was some UK users complaining? After all, everything seems to be much more expensive on the British isles anyway. --93.232.164.99 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It costs us £46.88 a month in the UK for a full CC subscription, which works out currently as $835 a year. I believe a full subscription is what is being discussed in the article, rather than a single application license. In that case, it'd also be more expensive in France (and I assume all other European countries) than in the US.  drewmunn  talk  18:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Creative Cloud controversy

I wanted to clarify the point about internet need: annual Creative Cloud members can use the apps for up to 99 days in offline mode. Month-to-month members can use the apps for up to 30 days in offline mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.150.10.200 (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I added two dubious tags:

• Saying users will lose access to their work saved in proprietary file formats seems misleading. Only some formats are proprietary, others are not. For instance, Photoshop PSD files are readable by older versions of Adobe Photoshop (including "perpetually licensed" versions), and 3rd party software. Other file formats, like Adobe InDesign files, won't be readable by older software versions. To the extent that the wording is actually correct, it feels inartfully drafted.
• Creative Cloud validates licensing every 30 days. Calling that "frequently" seems misleading. For some people, "frequently" is minutes or hours.

Also:

• I'm not sure there is good justification for the claim that a high-speed internet connection is required. It's required to download the software once (though I understand there are workarounds). But not thereafter.

Discuss. jhawkinson (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Good points, they have now been addressed / corrected in the text. As for the "high-speed internet", you have to be able to download gigabytes of data (I have not heard of official workarounds, there are no DVDs as far as I know), and not just once but also periodically download large updates. The usage of the 20GB storage space also requires a high-speed connection. A slow connection would be sufficient to validate licensing, so I added "ideally a high-speed Internet connection". Stuckgreenpixel (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite satisfied... The section on proprietary formats makes it sound like all work might be saved in proprietary formats, and that this is somehow new with the Creative Cloud. Both are false. And of course, it's sort of obvious that you'll lose access to Adobe's software if you have a subscription and stop paying for it. I don't think that section is wrong, but it still feels to me...misleading and inartfully drafted.

On high-speed Internet, well, "must ideally have" makes it seem like day to day usage of the product will suffer without one. I don't think that's the case. Whether there will be workarounds, official or unofficial, is hardly something we'll know well at this stage, given that the "CC" versions of Adobe's software haven't been released yet. Updates don't seem a compelling case since the update strategy hasn't changed from CS6, or even from CS3. As many as three major revisions ago, if not more, the only way to get updates was to download them; there were never DVDs available with patchrelease/security fix updates to CS3, CS4, CS5, CS5.5, or CS6. If the goal here is to compare the CC subscriptions to the CS6 "perpetual" licenses, the differences should be more clear. jhawkinson (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Should be improved now. Stuckgreenpixel (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Should "Creative Cloud controversy" be a separate article? Stuckgreenpixel (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not if it continues to be an biased rant as currently presented. This section, which covers a year total of history, is a third of the weight of an article about a company that's been around for nearly thirty years. There should be an article on Adobe Creative Cloud, and it should be balanced in tone. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In light of the neutrality concerns, I would like to retarget the Adobe Creative Cloud redirect to Adobe Creative Suite#Move to Creative Cloud subscription-only service. Any objections? Should the redirect use {{r with possibilities}}? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I support this move. It seems inappropriate for the name of the service to link directly to the controversy section. As for the controversy, I don't think it warrants a separate article... it's either product controversy that should go in a section of Adobe Creative Suite, or company controversy that should stay here. Proxyma (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point about it being a bit of a Rant. I came across this article while looking up some history and as a CC user was a little surprised by the amount written about reaction to the move to a cloud based system. Personally, I hadn't come across these worries before, and I doubt I am the only one who has just used the system without worry. So, the criticism, though it should be covered (and may well be justified), probably needs to be balanced against the unknown amount of users who do NOT have a problem with CC or who like cloud based subscription models. Joss (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I started an article about Adobe Creative Cloud. Some of the "Creative Cloud controversy" section should probably be straightened-up and moved there. Väsk (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Employee relations"

Whatever it is, it is not "employee relations". Even if it is important to Adobe, which I doubt, an appropriate section heading should be given. I've corrected the section heading and tagged the section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Giant section on criticism of CC

Why is this giant piece here and almost nothing in the CC article? I think most of it should be merged/moved to the sub-article leaving only a summary of 3-4 paragraphs in the company page. JMP EAX (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Front-and-back arguments

WTH are they? Does anyone have any idea? Is this supposed to have the meaning, "back-and-forth arguments"? It certainly has no meaning to me. -- MarkBrooks (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur. It looks like Engrish to me. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Product/Solution List

A current list of Solutions/Products can be found on page three of [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:57:FD04:CF00:E80A:128F:6D4F:432B (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Proposing a new content for "Adobe Systems"

Proposal : I have just completed a draft of a new article titled "Adobe Systems Incorporated". The current article "Adobe Systems" has been published since September 27, 2001‎ and edited numerous times over the years. However, its current content shows that several sections are outdated, ill-structured and incomplete. Instead of engaging in a large scale updating of the current live article "Adobe Systems", I have opted for writing an entirely new article. Please give your opinion on whether or not you support this idea. The new draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bostonscribe/sandbox

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversation civil. Thank you in advance for your feedback, comments and suggestions. Bostonscribe (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

The article looks great and I see you've worked for over a month and 1/2 on this effort. How much time would you estimate you've put into the revision? My only suggestions would be: 1). the sub-section title under "Key dates" are pretty long and 2). I like images on the right and left side of the article.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have a problem with the sandbox owner, Bostonscribe, being a paid editor working for Adobe. I cant speak to the sockpuppet investigation, but its ongoing, and this sandbox page is proposed for deletion. that makes it hard to know if its worth even reading in detail. I hope that this gets resolved. if the sandbox article is kept, then i will check it out. good luck, assuming theres no bad faith editing actually happening.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adobe Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029194810/http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20131025-706737.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20131025-706737.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-competitive practices

I've added a new section on Adobe's anti-competitive practices that have been occurring since 1994. Due to lack of attention Adobe has been able to covertly kill its only competitors. The users of such programs are ignored. Do not attempt to vandalize or delete the section outright. If anyone has any issue on the subject. Add your comments here. Wonderfl ^(reply) 07:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary "See Also" in the Customer Data Breach Section

There is a link that refers back to the criticism section of the same page at the bottom of this section. Is that really necessary? --ShaunGillies (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Change/Update - Adobe Documents Cloud (DC) / Create a list of all adobe products?

I can't seem to find information regarding the documents cloud suite, which is entirely separate and different from the adobe creative cloud suite. It would be good to add - and have a reference at the bottom, if not its own page. I'd also suggest creating a separate page just to host a comprehensive list of adobe products, with one column indicating whether or not the product is current or discontinued. Hopefully this would be in a searchable table. Kitty4777 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adobe Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613123134/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060710-tech-argument-apple-adobe.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060710-tech-argument-apple-adobe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131116151308/http://castroller.com:80/podcasts/LensworkPhotography/3569325 to http://castroller.com/podcasts/LensworkPhotography/3569325
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://video.marketwatch.com/market/business/fortune/companies/adobe-systems.htm?cpg=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613123134/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060710-tech-argument-apple-adobe.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060710-tech-argument-apple-adobe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adobe Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603155243/http://blogs.adobe.com/acom/2008/06/welcome_to_acrobatcom_work_tog_1.html to http://blogs.adobe.com/acom/2008/06/welcome_to_acrobatcom_work_tog_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

change shhuang 00:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Update Adobe Inc. Logo

Hi Wikipedians, I'm writing to request a logo update in Adobe Inc. Wikipedia page.

As Adobe has currently changed the design of the logo to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adobe_Corporate_Logo.png, please help to update the logo in Infobox from Adobe logo and wordmark (2017).svg to Adobe Corporate Logo.png. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhuang123 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no sign on Adobe's web site that they are changing the colors of their logo. I see no sign on Google News that they have announced such a change or that such a change has been noted by any of the design news web sites. Unless you can provide a citation to a reliable source for that information (see WP:RS and WP:V), there is no need to change the logo in this article at this time. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

And I take that back. The colors of the logo on the Adobe web site just changed this morning. Therefore, User:Shhuang123's proposed new logo now matches the one on the Adobe web site. I withdraw my opposition to the proposed logo update.

It is highly unlikely you could have known that Adobe was about to change its logo unless you are either a current Adobe employee, officer, or director or have a close relationship to one. If that's true, you need to openly disclose that information under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you had done so, I would not have opposed the proposed update, or I would have merely argued that it should be delayed until Adobe had actually updated its web site.--Coolcaesar (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coolcaesar, you are correct. Adobe has changed the logo on its website. Can you please use that as a source for the logo update?

For your information, I have declared myself as an Adobe employee in my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shhuang123 to avoid COI. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhuang123 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coolcaesar, can you please let me know if I should update the logo or if anyone can help me update the logo? Thanks! shhuang 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhuang123 (talk • contribs)

"Day Software" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Day Software. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 15#Day Software until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. scope_creep^Talk 23:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Change Adobe Logo in InfoBox

Hi there Wikipedians, I wanted to say that I would like to change the Adobe Logo in InfoBox to this new logo : https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adobe_Systems_logo_and_wordmark.svg Ananjanphotoshopcreations (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw this proposal as the proposed logo is old.

Thank you, Ananjanphotoshopcreations Ananjanphotoshopcreations (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox : the number of employees is quite outdated

It says

11,847 (2013)

I understand that this figure comes from Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11463?uselang=en#P1128), where, incidently the most recent and correct figure of 25,988 (3 December 2021) is available, but I cannot figure how to connect those dots. Noliscient (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox : the number of employees is quite outdated

It says

11,847 (2013)

I understand that this figure comes from Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11463?uselang=en#P1128), where, incidently the most recent and correct figure of 25,988 (3 December 2021) is available, but I cannot figure how to connect those dots. Noliscient (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)