Adobe not supporting Intel-Macs is Very, very good news

I hope this true !!! Photoshop shop is great,but alot of people are missing
their creative calling because they cannot afford !

Whats wrong with Photoshop Elements? Has much of the functionality and much much cheaper

What about a native port of GIMP to OS X?

I have to totally agree that there is a huge market for a low cost alternative to Photoshop as the cost for most users of Photoshop is way to expensive for the amount of features that are never used, but I think we can say that about a lot of software. For example look at Office for Mac/Windows. How many features are never used, I for one can attest to that.

MacGimp? I know they don't have the Intel Binaries yet but they HAVE added a spot in the forums for 'Intel Mac'.

http://www.macgimp.org/

@will592: According to the macgimp homepage (last newsitem on the frontpage) they are currently testing the universal binaries and they also posted an email address for people interested in try them :)

It would take far longer for someone to create a "photoshop killer" than for Adobe to port Photoshop to MacIntel, even if they do drag their heels. Don't get your hopes up too much. The closest you'll get it something like Gimp.

I would think that Adobe and Apple have some sort of contract so that Adobe keeps developing for the Mac and Apple cannot develop anything meant to directly compete with Photoshop. I think this is true for Microsoft and Apple with the whole office bit. Just speculating.

Well, I think this is not happening. If Apple or someone else would release a Photoshop killer it would be a PRO app. There's huge amount of graphic designer, photographers, etc. who are fed up with the way Photoshop works and just how slow it is on Macs.

Then, of course, I would be perfectly happy if Adobe recoded Photoshop and made it more lightweight, instead of using all that 10 years-old code. And, no, I don't have an old Mac---I have an iMac G5. I find it good enough when using other programs, so why not Photoshop?

That's just my take on it.

(And in any case, what about Photoshop Elements? Isn't that enough?)

People not willing to pay more than 50 bucks for a bitmap photo editor are not buying photoshop, they either stealing it, or simply not using it and using something like iPhoto instead. Photoshop is not a consumer product, its a pro product and priced accordingly. The low end market on the mac is already covered by iPhoto, there simply is no need for an in between. The people who need the pro level features of photoshop can afford it, and will pay the 500 bucks for it without a hitch.

Has Adobe publicly announced when they think a Universal edition of Photoshop and the CS suite will arrive? I know Scott Kelby has said that he doesn't think it'll show up until CS3, but I hadn't heard of anything concrete from Adobe itself.

I think everyone's assumption is that it wont be until CS3. The late 2006/early 2007 timeline kinda follows that lead.

Won't happen, at least not in the pro community. Photoshop is a pillar of the design and broadcast world, and for the userbase to switch over and learn an entirely new workflow (shortcuts, tricks, formulas, etc) isn't going to be adopted anytime soon, nomatter how cheap the price. If it ain't broke....

As if Apple will sell anything for 50 bucks. Also, they already tried their hand at a Photoshop program, it's called Aperture, and according to reviews it pretty much sucks. Oh, and it's 500 dollars.

Kai, it is broke, that's the problem. I know a LOT of professionals who would switch any day, if the program was fast and intuitive.

anchorman, I'll take a look at Pixel, thanks for the link. Haven't heard of it before—they sure have an amazing list of supported platforms, though.

Apple released a professional image editor called Aperture with could become the Photoshop Killer for Mac.

I think you may have the wrong idea about Photoshop, it's not intended for the home user. Most enterprise level software incurs a similar (if not higher) cost. I do agree, however, there should be a low cost alternative for home users. Additionally, Apple has come out and stated (and I'm inclined to agree) that Aperture was never intended to compete with Photoshop, but to complement it, so I don't think it's fair to compare the two.

Then, of course, I would be perfectly happy if Adobe recoded Photoshop and made it more lightweight, instead of using all that 10 years-old code. And, no, I don't have an old Mac---I have an iMac G5. I find it good enough when using other programs, so why not Photoshop?

Well, they will be doing CS3 in Xcode, so that might help speed up at least the interface. But I have no issues with the speed on my 3 year old Mac at home... granted, it's a powermac G5.

Apple released a professional image editor called Aperture with could become the Photoshop Killer for Mac.

Actually, Aperature is directed solely at the professional photographer, while most people using Photoshop are doing graphic work and image manipulation. Aperature is more like iPhoto on steroids (much like Final Cut Pro is, sort of, iMovie on steroids, Logic is Garageband on steroids, and I believe DVD Studio Pro is iDVD on a couple of Loritab and vodkas), and lines up more closely with Adobe's (beta) Lightroom, with the major difference being Aperature needs an extremely beefy machine to run well.

Aperture is strictly photo manipulation, and geared toward RAW format photography which photoshop can't handle anyway. Photoshop does a hell of alot that doesn't have anything to do with photo manipulation, so they're not in competition. Alternatively, Adobe just released a free beta of Lightroom, which is in competition with Aperture.

Sorry, your proposal is impractical. It would take a lot more than a year to create a good photo editing program that's as confusing as Photoshop.
- PrBl

Gimp is great, and is free. It's not all that different from PS, now.

Only hangups are no CMYK, and it doesn't support PS plugins for some reason.

In response to post #20

Aperture is strictly photo manipulation, and geared toward RAW format photography which Photoshop can't handle anyway.

Correction:
Photoshop has had the native ability to work with RAW photo's since version 8 (CS). Give it a try, it's quite good at what it does.

Gimp for windows and mac would be nice.

Once Adobe added the Yahoo toolbar to the automatic update in Adobe Reader they lost all right to continue to exist as far as I'm concerned. There needs to be a standards based replacement for PDF so we can cut them off for good.

I hope their lunch gets eaten.

It's interesting to see how Adobe handles stuff. When Apple released Final Cut Pro, they promptly dropped Premiere for Mac. And thus creating a great market for Apple. And it looks like Adobe has learned from that lesson. Apple released Aperture, and Adobe rushed out a beta of Adobe Lightroom, just to try to keep their customers from jumping ship. But with Photoshop they don't have any competition, so Adobe don't have to rush.

Hopefully some smart Cocoa developer creates a Photoshop alternative, so Adobe looses a bit of their dominance. That's good for all parts (except for Adobe).

All this "Photoshop Killer" chat is ridiculous. Like others have said, Photoshop is a PRO app, NOT a consumer app. It's not made for your grandmother. It's made for industry pro's.

And you get what you pay for. I'm glad Photoshop doesn't cost 50 bucks. If it did I'd be a little skeptical of it's abilities.

Oh, and let me guess...you think 3D Studio Max should be under $100? Spare me.