| Revision as of 02:35, 29 June 2007 editPGSONIC (talk | contribs)1,367 edits Shouldn't there be a criticisms section?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:59, 18 November 2024 edit undoOXYLYPSE (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,688 edits Rm nonsenseTag: 2017 wikitext editor |
| (184 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Old peer review|reviewedname=Adobe Systems|archive=1}} |
|
{{WikiProject Business & Economics| class=B | importance=High}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{macprojectarticle}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Computer graphics|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Companies|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=mid|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Apple Inc.|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Typography|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archives|banner=yes|age=90|bot=ClueBot III}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Adobe Inc./Archive|format= %%i|age=2160|<!--90 days-->|header={{automatic archive navigator}}|maxarchsize=100000|minkeepthreads=4|numberstart=1}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
| {{cite web |last1=Peterson |first1=Jake |title=Adobe Photoshop's New Terms of Service Demands the Right to Access Your Work |url=https://lifehacker.com/tech/photoshops-terms-of-service-demands-the-right-to-your-content |website=] |date=June 6, 2024}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cleanup== |
|
== Lawsuit == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adobe Inc. is currently getting sued by the United States Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-files-complaint-against-adobe-and-two-adobe-executives-alleged-violations ) Shouldn't this be added? ] (]) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've added the ] 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--] 10:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Should "incorporated in Delaware" be added in the first sentence? == |
|
I have assessed this article B Class ] article on the grounds that the article needs ] as many of the citiations orginate from the company itself.--] 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed it has been reverted after I made a similar edit on Roblox Corporation. I'd like to open up discussion here to gather opinions, as this sentence is still in articles such as ] and ]. ] (]) 00:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Adobe Captivate == |
|
|
Moved Captivate from the recently acquired list to the current list, since version 2 was recently released under the Adobe brand.--] 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Tagging ] for relevant discussion. ] (]) 00:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Current and former products == |
|
|
|
::According to , "more than 60% of ] companies" and "more than 90% of U.S.-based companies that went public in 2021" are incorporated in Delaware. The article also points out why this is this is such an attractive choice. Furthermore, is almost double that of its population. |
|
|
::Because "big corporation incorporated in Delaware" is such a ubiquitous concept, while also being quite inconsequential for anything not law- or tax-related, this is hardly ever relevant to mention, especially in the lead or first sentence. I can see a "Litigation" section á la "Big Corp. was sued at the Court of Delaware, its place of incorporation, for ...", but not much else. |
|
|
::In both examples mentioned above, the source is either a financial document or an investor FAQ. I've also seen cases that link straight to the incorporation papers. None of these is a reliable, secondary source that somehow highlights why this is relevant to mention. |
|
|
::Thereby, I stand by my prior opinion that this kind of info should be excluded unless it is highlighted by secondary sources. In fact, if mentioned without the appropriate context why so many companies are Delawarian, this might even be confusing to the reader and should therefore be actively avoided. ] []] 06:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for your response. I also support the option of omitting it from the first sentence after thinking. This is definititely a stylistic consistency issue and it concerns a fair amount of articles (just search for "incorporated in Delaware"). |
|
|
:::I am also interested in a ] if this talk page does not garner enough discussion, given how many articles it concerns. ] (]) 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sorry for inconvenience and delay to joint the clips of adobe systems... == |
|
The product listing for PhotoDeluxe was recently removed. This is fair enough, as it is no longer produced (see ). 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 re'''cently added ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
okay and thanks enough ] (]) 13:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Before proceeding with this I've suggested it here to allow consultation first. ] 21:28, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''PageMaker'''<br> |
|
|
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 ]; 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. ] 07:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I added ] to the product list as its own entry. It's not listed in teh ] 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. ] 18:14, 20 September 2006 (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? ] 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 " <g> -- ] 02:07, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Links to ] instead of ]== |
|
|
|
|
|
Some articles that should link here are instead frequently linked to ]. You can help keep the two straight by checking . ] 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: ] 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) |
|
|
* $1,666,581 thousand (reverted) |
|
|
* 1.66 billion USD (right if you round down) |
|
|
* 1.67 billion USD (right if you round to the nearest) |
|
|
Unless there is a Wiki or financial standard for rounding, which this breaches, perhaps we can just leave it alone until next year! ] 08:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Can you clarify the following data please? From : |
|
|
:*Revenues/turnover (US$ 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''? |
|
|
|
|
|
:] 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 Misplaced Pages information box? Good question. |
|
|
] 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 $450.40 million NI. I don't know how to make this any clearer. ] 20:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the terminological review. I'm certain it will be useful to someone who doesn't have that knowledge. I didn't know how to interpret the data-type I listed. For example, "1294.7 US$ Mn (2003)". I suppose that means 1.2947 US$ Bn. ] 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 ;-) ] is best known for its ] and corresponding ] software. They were also dominant in the professional ] market and helped designers create compelling digital experiences on the web and beyond. ] 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 <u>bought</u> ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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. ] 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? ] 03:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: The people in the company pronounce it Ah-Dough-Bee. ] 21:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: And the building material also has three syllables in English dictionaries. - ] 21:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Interesting - thanks! ] 03:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone who knows IPA add the IPA pronounciation to the page too ? --] 06:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Someone put in recently. for the second vowel is unlikely in American or British English, so I've put in the U.S. pronunciation (see ]). However, the use of final 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 . ] 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. ] 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. ] 16:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd agree with ] 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? ] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I found about the lights. See picture . ] 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I found a about this thing. ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
* 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Any objections? --] 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. --] 19:40, 4 October 2006 (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 .] 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: Trying looking at the date on that. December 2005. It's April 2007 now... — ] 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.) - ] 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
