Although it makes plenty of money from the Windows platform, Adobe’s home has always been the Mac, where graphic artists still depend on Photoshop as a primary tool for image editing. While that situation may not change any time soon, the arrival of an apparent rival, Apple’s Aperture, may move things in a totally unexpected direction.

Over the years, long before Aperture arrived, there had been rumors that Apple might just be working on an application to compete with Photoshop, in the same fashion that Final Cut Pro competed with Adobe Premiere. The end result was that Adobe discontinued the Mac version of Premiere. Of course, some folks in the film editing business tell me that development of Premiere had languished and that the arrival of Apple’s application was a blessing.

But Photoshop isn’t languishing, so where does Aperture fit in? Should Adobe fear that Apple will cherry pick its most popular applications and build competitors? Well, for now at least, that doesn’t seem to be happening. Aperture lacks many of the features that graphic artists take for granted in Photoshop, such as its paint tools. Instead, Aperture is designed strictly as a “post-production tool for photographers.”

Some might even regard it as, for now at least, a companion for Photoshop. You take advantage of Aperture’s own capabilities, then bring the image into Photoshop to complete your work. But we’re also talking about a program that will stand at version 1.0, plus the expected bug fix updates. When it’s time to debut Aperture 2.0, will Apple crib features from Photoshop to expand its own application’s reach? This must be something that, despite any assurances to the contrary, is causing nightmares for a lot of people at Adobe.

Of course, competition is healthy. Photoshop really has no compelling rival, and if that rival comes from Apple, so be it. Perhaps Adobe will be forced to be even more innovative in future versions of its flagship application. Or perhaps it’ll pack up its things and let Mac users fend for themselves. Right now, it doesn’t seem in the cards. Mac users provide far too much income for Adobe to remove another application from the platform. Next to Microsoft Office, anyone seeking to do serious content creation puts Photoshop at the top of the list, and Aperture, based on what it offers, doesn’t seem ready to alter those shopping lists any time soon, except to add one additional product.

But where is Apple going with all this? If you look at its lineup of professional software, for example, you’ll find the likes of Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and Shake, to name a few. They have all become serious, indispensable tools for creative people. Add to that iLife ‘05, iWork (or AppleWorks) and FileMaker Pro and you can pretty well spend your entire workday immersed in Apple software and never have to look at any third party product. In that sense, it’s almost a throwback to the days of the very first Mac, where the only software available came with the computer, and it was supplied by Apple.

Yes, you say, there are thousands of third party applications for the Mac, ranging from simple system add-ons and maintenance tools to vertical market software that can run medical and legal offices. There are over a thousand accessories for the iPod, and it doesn’t seem likely Apple is going to replace the vast majority of these products any time soon, or ever. At the same time, third party developers know full well that Apple will encroach on their turf when it fits its strategic needs.

Right now, for example, the newest iMac G5 has the makings of a credible media center computer. But, unlike the competition running Microsoft Windows, it doesn’t record TV shows. Now you could make a logical argument that a Mac isn’t a terribly good TV set, and some of you no doubt recall the failed Mac TV experiment many years ago. But that was then and this is now. Apple is a totally different company. It picks and chooses new features carefully, and if it sees the demand for TiVo-like digital video recording capabilities, it will add them. Or pick up someone’s technology to adapt to its needs, in the same fashion as SoundJam was acquired and was used as the basis for iTunes.

So should Germany’s Elgato Systems expect an offer from Apple to acquire its EyeTV technology? Does the departure of Elgato’s chief executive, Freddie Geier, to run Apple Germany, have any significance? Well, before joining Elgato in 2003, Geier did work for Apple, so maybe it’s just a coming home party.

On the other hand, I wonder how far Apple is going to take its media center aspirations. Perhaps it won’t enter EyeTV’s territory. Or maybe it’ll just buy the product line and give it a unique twist after undergoing refinement in Apple’s development labs. Or maybe, just maybe, Elgato needs to consider Apple’s plans in the same fashion as Adobe has to consider what direction Aperture may take.

Related Articles:

• A Look at Apple’s Scheme to Take Over the Windows Desktop
• The Night Owl’s Firefox 3.0 First Look
• So is Safari Safe?
• Do You Really Need Microsoft Office?
• Newsletter #441 Preview: How Apple and Google Plan to Destroy Microsoft

While everyone looks to the iPod as Apple’s biggest innovation ever, it’s the small things that count. When the iMac appeared in 1998, the biggest criticism focused on what it lacked, and that was the floppy drive and SCSI port. Cynics might suggest it was a cost-cutting move at the time, but Apple’s decision to embrace a PC peripheral port, USB, began a trend that eventually encompassed the entire computer industry.

Of course it took a while for Apple to deliver a suitable replacement for floppies, one with more resiliency and more capacity, and that was a CD burner. In fact, Apple was late to the party with the standard CD burner. You can, by the way, still by an external floppy drive for your Mac if you have a spare $30. But Apple was the first computer maker to tell you that it was time to move on to something better.

SCSI? Well, it’s still available for professional users, but lots of them have since moved on to FireWire.

But once an internal modem became standard issue on all Macs, you expected that it would last for a good look time. Yes, it’s still there on an Apple laptop, but it’s now an optional, external extra on desktop Macs, with the lone exception of the cheapest Mac mini. The departure of the modem, without fanfare or even an explanation, may seem a little premature, of course. I caught a survey from Pew Internet Project that, as of May of this year, some 66 million Americans, or 53% of those who go online from their homes, have broadband connections.

The survey, however, doesn’t provide a breakdown of Mac versus PC users, and it would be interesting to see whether there’s much of a difference. Of course, a much larger number of people have broadband at the office, but when you’re talking about consumer-oriented products, such as the iMac, I think strictly home, even though it’s an excellent work computer.

The question, then, is why Apple would remove a feature required by, say, 47% of its customers in the U.S. alone? To save a few dollars in production? Yes, the external USB-based modem will set you back $49, but it costs a lot less when reduced to a tiny circuit board for internal use. Clearly Apple wants you to switch to broadband, but despite the will, there isn’t always a way, and where there’s a way it may be just too expensive a luxury.

Sure, broadband Internet is terrific, and in some areas of the country, you can get it for less than dial-up set you back just a few years ago if you pay attention to the special offers, particularly for entry-level DSL. And even that is a real plus, particularly when you have to retrieve 100MB in updates from Apple, a circumstance that arrives all too often. Imagine doing that on a dial-up, and it can be an uncertain, irritating experience. You may just give up on critical updates because you can’t tie up your phone line for that long, and there’s no dealer within a reasonable distance to make a copy for you.

Unfortunately, there are still areas around the U.S. where broadband is not available at an affordable price, or at all. Yes, there is a satellite alternative, from DIRECWAY, provided by the same folks who bring you DirecTV. But it’s $59.99 per month, plus a $599.98 fee for installation and equipment. For $99.99 a month, plus $99.99 up front, you can pay for the equipment over 15 months, by the way. Worse, download speeds range from 500K to 700K, and upload speeds from 70K to 128K. That’s no better than many of those cheap DSL plans. There’s also the issue of poor latency, because of the time it takes your request to reach the satellite and return back to earth. But if you have no alternative and live in a location where satellite TV is available, it is an imperfect solution.

Other possible broadband alternatives include land-based wireless or even your power lines, though the technology for the latter is still highly experimental. So in time your location and even your budget should not prevent you from experiencing the Internet on the fast lane. Unless you must send and receive faxes on your Mac, you can regard the modem as, potentially at least, a dying breed.

At the same time, I think Apple is being just a little premature in dispensing with standard modems. Far too many of you need them. It may be because broadband is too expensive or not readily available. It may be that you are content with or only able to afford $10 for a budget dial-up service. You see, aside from downloading software updates and videos from Apple, there are millions of Mac users out there who do not care a whit for broadband. Indeed, you are perfectly happy going online to check your email and perhaps consult the news, stock prices, or your bank statement.

In fact, and it may come as a surprise to some of you, but those modest tasks can be accomplished quite efficiently via a modem. It may take longer to get from here to there, but if you are a little patient, you’ll get the information you need.

Those huge Apple updates? Well, that’s another matter entirely.

Related Articles:

• The WWDC Report #4: The Products Apple Doesn’t Talk About
• The Argument Against Major Mac Redesigns
• The Case of the Missing iPhone: Did Apple Screw Up?
• The Illusion of the Cheap Mac
• Newsletter #442 Preview: Are Mac Styles in a Rut?