On 1 Mar 2007, at 14:00, Mike Wickham wrote:
>>> When someone stabs you in the back after you've been a very loyal
>>> customer for nearly 20 years, you don't normally go running back
>> So what action are you going to take against Apple for dropping
>> support from their Mactel machines? They stabbed you in the back,
>> didn't they? Had Apple not made such a drastic change in its
>> operating system, I'll bet Adobe would have made the last two
>> FrameMaker point-upgrades available for Macs, too.
> Apple gave us something better. Adobe gave us nothing.
Sorry, Mike. I think your comment deserves a better response.
Mac OS 9 was a fine OS in its day, but its time had come. We wanted a
modern OS with pre-emptive multitasking, memory protection, and so
on, especially those of us that had had first-hand experience of
these things with NeXTSTEP in the early '90s. We started with Macs
because that was the only show in town for DTP and WYSIWYG manual
making, and the tools then were FrameMaker, PageMaker, or Quark.
Believe it or not, Apple had 15.5% of the Japanese PC market in 1994,
which had fallen to 6% by 1999. In the mid-'90s, with the success of
Windows 95, Apple's failure to deliver a next-generation OS, and
falling market share, I drew up contingency plans as to what we'd do
if Apple disappeared. In a nutshell, the plan consisted of switching
to Windows. Then, in late 1997, NeXT and Steve Jobs executed what I
believe was a reverse takeover, and I knew then that we'd be getting
NeXTSTEP or something even better on our Macs. Mac OS X was released
in 2001. Adobe said it was porting its apps to Mac OS X, so we
waited. But Adobe never delivered, discontinued Mac FrameMaker, and
suggested that we switch to Windows. But having used NeXTSTEP and Mac
OS X, we don't want to switch to Windows just to run FrameMaker
(cost, training, security, viruses, etc). My contingency plans ended
up in the dustbin.
As for the Classic environment, this was a transition tool to allow
developers time to port their apps over to Mac OS X. Most did,
including Adobe for most of its apps. Anyway, running Classic apps on
an Intel Mac would require emulation and in my experience that means
slow. This is a technical obstacle. Producing FrameMaker for Mac OS X
on an Intel Mac would require a little effort by Adobe. At the
moment, they don't have the will.
Of course, you have to remember that Apple today is not the Apple we
used to know. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, a new Apple was born.
Pretty much like what happened at Adobe when the co-founders stepped
aside in 2000 and a new CEO was appointed. Both companies continue
with the same name, but their DNA, culture, and direction changed big
I'm passionate about my work and the tools I use to do it, and I want
the best tools for the job, which is why I use FrameMaker and Mac.
That's my opinion and others will no doubt disagree, but that's for
them to decide. I'm not an evangelist and am perfectly happy buying
computers from a company that sells a couple of million a month.
Market share is moot. Of course, many members of this list probably
have no control whatsoever over what hardware or software they use.
Like all those Nortel employees that now use PTC Arbortext.
Let's not forget that this is not just an OS issue. Apple makes some
of the best hardware in town, and I want to work with it.
Funny how it's some of the Windows users that are kicking off about
fellow FrameMaker users and resorting to cliched stereotypes. What
have they got to complain about? They've still got FrameMaker, and
version 8.0 just around the corner.
Incidentally, we still use FrameMaker 6.0. There's been nothing
compelling enough for us to change since. In hindsight, if I'd know
Adobe would sight lack of Mac sales as a reason for no FrameMaker for
Mac OS X, I would have bought every upgrade going.