barnett@vdsvax.crd.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) (10/22/90)
In article <1990Oct11.173733.14781@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |In article <34733@cup.portal.com> schuster@cup.portal.com (Michael Alan Schuster) writes: |>With Adobe finally licensing (and producing) direct-market interpreters |>for the HP printers, why don;t they do in the host-based clones (like |>Freedom of Press, UltraScript, Goscript, etc. etc) by producing one of |>their own... |One reason why they might legitimately hesitate to do this is the copying |problem. There are great practical advantages to selling interpreters |that are imbedded in a piece of hardware, because it makes them much |more difficult to pirate. I don't *quite* buy this argument. Adobe sells software anyway. (e.g. ATM. Illustrator.) Let me ask a related question. Illustrator can render a PostScript illustration to the screen. I don't know if it could render ANY postscript file currently, but it could if Adobe wanted it to. Why can't Illustrator be used to print a PostScript file on a non-PostScript device? (It doesn't). This really bugs me. When I want a hardcopy, ATM works great with any Macintosh program, *except* Illustrator, (I have Illustrator 1.9.3 ). I have a 200 dpi quickdraw printer, and I have to use Freedom of Press to print an Illustrator document. :-( Illustrator *could* render an image and transfer a high resolution bitmap out. Instead, it just gives you a screen dump at a lousy 72 dpi. I think Adobe is missing out on a market here. If Illustrator could be used as a host based PostScript interpreter, Adobe would sell a lot more copies. The software has to be more profitable than the hardware. Yes, pirate copies will exist. They exist now. But think of the leverage Adobe would get if you had to use Illustrator to print a PageMaker document! -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@ge-crd.ARPA, barnett@steinmetz.ge.com uunet!steinmetz!barnett
laukee@canon.co.uk (David Lau-Kee) (10/23/90)
barnett@vdsvax.crd.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) writes: >I don't *quite* buy this argument. Adobe sells software anyway. (e.g. >ATM. Illustrator.) >Let me ask a related question. >Illustrator can render a PostScript illustration to the screen. I >don't know if it could render ANY postscript file currently, but it >could if Adobe wanted it to. >Why can't Illustrator be used to print a PostScript file on a >non-PostScript device? (It doesn't). Think about it. $(s/w+ps)+$(hw) < $(s/w+ps)+$(h/w+ps) ------------- David Lau-Kee Canon Research Centre Europe, 17/20 Frederick Sanger Rd, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU25YD, UK. NRS: laukee@uk.co.canon, INET: laukee%canon@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: laukee@canon.uucp, PATH: ..!mcsun!ukc!uos-ee!canon!laukee Tel: +44 (0) 483 574325 Fax: +44 (0) 483 574360
pkr@media01.UUCP (Peter Kriens) (10/23/90)
I often notice the confusion about what Adobe Illustrator really is. It is "just" a drawing program that conforms to the rules specified in EPSF. It does NOT edit generic postscript files. In the contrary it uses a very small language consisting of one and 2 letter commands to describe the editable objects. This language is described in a prolog as procedures so that an Illustrator document can be executed on a postscript printer. But it definitely cannot read "any" postscript file,not even if they conform to EPSF. EPSF and Adobe Illustrator or something quite different. There is a document available from Adobe that describes the AI format in detail. You can get this trough the Adobe file server, for instructions send a mail to ps-file-server@adobe, if the first line contains: send Documents AIformat1.ps and in another mail send Documents AIformat2.ps you will get 2 postscript files which concatenated give you the syntax AI is using. Because if you write program that generate postscript code it can sometimes be quite handy to allow post-editing. If you conform to this specifications, your output is editable. You even dont have to include the prolog. This is the example adobe gives as minimal AI program: %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-1.2 %%BoundingBox: 72 72 154 154 %%TemplateBox: 0 0 612 792 %%EndComments %%EndProlog 0 G 72 72 m 154 72 L 154 154 L 72 154 L 72 72 L s /_Times-Roman 12 10 01 z [1 0 0 1 108 108] e 6 (line 1) t 6 (line 2) t T %%Trailer If you type this in you can read it on AI. Good luck. Peter Kriens
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/25/90)
In article <14508@vdsvax.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) writes: >|... There are great practical advantages to selling interpreters >|that are imbedded in a piece of hardware, because it makes them much >|more difficult to pirate. > >I don't *quite* buy this argument. Adobe sells software anyway. (e.g. >ATM. Illustrator.) I don't think software sales produce more than a tiny fraction of Adobe's income; indeed, one can debate whether the software's role is to make money directly or merely to encourage use of PostScript. The big bucks are in all those "genuine Adobe" imbedded interpreters. -- The type syntax for C is essentially | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology unparsable. --Rob Pike | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) (11/02/90)
In article <1990Oct24.170502.22224@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > I don't think software sales produce more than a tiny fraction of Adobe's > income; indeed, one can debate whether the software's role is to make > money directly or merely to encourage use of PostScript. The big bucks > are in all those "genuine Adobe" imbedded interpreters. Perhaps. I wonder how much profit can Adobe make on a $2000 printer vs. a $300 software package? If Adobe puts a copy of ATM on every desktop, with optional fonts, how much potential profit is there? -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/03/90)
In article <BARNETT.90Nov1161021@grymoire.crd.ge.com> barnett@crdgw1.ge.com writes: >> I don't think software sales produce more than a tiny fraction of Adobe's >> income; indeed, one can debate whether the software's role is to make >> money directly or merely to encourage use of PostScript... > >I wonder how much profit can Adobe make on a $2000 printer vs. a >$300 software package? ... I've no idea what the relative numbers are. However, I got slightly indignant mail from the software people at Adobe, stating firmly that they are there to make money and that software revenues are a growing (although as yet modest) fraction of Adobe's total. They did concede that promotion of PostScript is a not-insignificant secondary purpose. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry