Thank you for the overwhelming response

It was heartening to see the number of emails that I received in response to FrameMaker – Is and will remain to be …. The emails were both encouraging and critical. There were good suggestions as well as valid complaints. I would request you to keep the emails and the feedback coming, as it provides us with very valuable inputs.

I received a few emails and comments regarding Mac support. Adobe discontinued FrameMaker software for the Apple Macintosh operating system on April 21, 2004. The decision to discontinue FrameMaker on the Macintosh operating systems was based on the market conditions for FrameMaker. The majority of our customers use FrameMaker on Microsoft Windows and Sun Solaris platforms. FrameMaker 7.2 will continue to be available on Microsoft Windows and Sun Solaris platforms. Adobe is continuing Macintosh development for flagship print and web publishing solutions such as Adobe Creative Suite, Photoshop, Illustrator, Contribute and many others. Having said that, I believe there are some good workarounds available now for using windows applications on Mac. It may be possible to use one of them for FrameMaker.

The response from Europe was very encouraging. I do plan to travel to Europe during the 2nd qtr of 2007. It would be great if I could meet some customers and users at that time to understand their Technical Communication workflows and to hear their inputs on FrameMaker. Please send me a message at aseem(at)adobe(dot)com if it is possible for you and your team to take out an hour or two for the meeting.

Thank you

Aseem Dokania, Product Manager – FrameMaker

Comments for this post have been switched off. Please send your comments to aseem at adobe dot com.

adobe

adobe

Posts from multiple members of the Adobe TechComm team.

9 thoughts to “Thank you for the overwhelming response”

  1. We have been with Adobe FrameMaker under emulation for years now, waiting for a native version for some time.We have not upgraded my windows versions to maintain compatibility with our Mac versions.We are fortunate to have PowerPC Mac’s, we have not purchased new Intel based Mac’s yet, although this day is coming.We need an upgraded version of FrameMaker which is in-sync with Solaris, Windows, and MacOSX pretty badly…

  2. The day I will believe that Adobe can sell more FrameMaker licenses on Solaris than it can on MacOS X is the day that Adobe ports Creative Suite to Solaris. In other words, never.I say this despite being one of the few who do run Frame on Solaris. I use applications such as Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe InDesign, and Adobe Acrobat (get the idea?) on the Mac, and then I wheel my chair around to integrate what I’ve prepared on the Mac into Frame documents on a Sun workstation. Although I also own a Mac license, it is just awful to use under Classic, and its days are numbered.FrameMaker has an incredibly solid reputation of interoperability, one that is marred by lack of support for MacOS X. In the early 1990’s, I convinced my company to take the “ultimate Interleaf upgrade” and move to Frame because of its ability to support all three platforms in use at the time. Today, more than 15 years later, I work with a group of consultants who exchange documents between all three platforms.I’m at the end of the upgrade path with Frame– I depend on interoperability between Windows and Mac versions of Frame, and until Adobe restores support for the Mac platform, I’ll sit patiently on the sidelines along with a growing number of customers– I know at least a dozen in the same situation.Hopefully, Adobe will realize that not supporting Frame on a healthy mix of platforms is like a grocery store not selling milk and eggs. Even though you might not make uniform profits on all of your products, you still have to sell milk and eggs or you won’t have any customers.Adobe, it’s time to do the right thing and bring FrameMaker back as a first-class product with support for MacOS X. Once you re-create the synergy between platforms that you have lost, you’ll see a newly enlivened market for your product.

  3. Funny — in my work (musical instruments/software) I’ve dealt with most people using FM on Mac, just a couple on Windows, and none on a Sun machine. And the two copies on Windows were clearly pirate copies. Statistics are really odd, sometimes.

  4. I would like to add my vote for a Mac OS X version of FrameMaker. I have published a 550-page book using this software on the Mac, and was midway through another when I learned that an OS X version would not be produced.Adobe owes the Mac community more than this. From Photoshop through Pagemaker to Illustrator and GoLive and Freehand and beyond, these products began on the Mac and Adobe would not be where it is today without the loyal Mac community.There are certain things that corporations must do to repay the debt that they owe society and this is one example. This software is used for technical publication. There is nothing else like it. I’ve tried to transition my work to InDesign, it simply doesn’t do the same job. Just the autonumbering plug-ins needed to replicate FrameMaker alone cost more than the cost of InDesign.Adobe, it’s time to step up and do the right thing. You owe us this one. We are on bended knees, pleading with you. Show us your business is about more than simply the bottom line.

  5. I would like to add my vote for a Mac OS X version of FrameMaker. I have published a 550-page book using this software on the Mac, and was midway through another when I learned that an OS X version would not be produced.Adobe owes the Mac community more than this. From Photoshop through Pagemaker to Illustrator and GoLive and Freehand and beyond, these products began on the Mac and Adobe would not be where it is today without the loyal Mac community.There are certain things that corporations must do to repay the debt that they owe society and this is one example. This software is used for technical publication. There is nothing else like it. I’ve tried to transition my work to InDesign, it simply doesn’t do the same job. Just the autonumbering plug-ins needed to replicate FrameMaker alone cost more than the cost of InDesign.Adobe, it’s time to step up and do the right thing. You owe us this one. We are on bended knees, pleading with you. Show us your business is about more than simply the bottom line.

  6. I agree that Adobe should really reconsider FrameMaker for the Mac. My hunch about the supposed declining market for the Mac version had a lot to do with folks such as myself waiting on an OS X version. I never upgraded to v. 7 because it wasn’t OS X native. There were probably a lot of us out there like that.To this day, there’s still not a complete FM replacement on the Mac. And if anyone looks at the pdf documentation of any Apple products, you can see that even THEY still use FM (which probably means Jobs never goes down to the publications dept. to see scores of Macs still running Classic).I think there are a lot of folks who would buy FM in a heartbeat if it were OS X native. And I will never believe that all things equal there’s a greater market for the Sun Solaris version than a Mac version.

  7. I agree with John Rankin. Running Windows on Macs just for FM makes little sense. It creates a multitude of security holes where none existed before. Making FM Gold in Codeweaver is the way to go. Microsoft’s Office Suite is Gold, so FM should be a cinch.Also, keep in mind that Crossover for Mac and Linux are parallel products. If Adobe provided Crossover with Adobe funding to Gold FM for Macs, it would be a giant step toward making it Gold for Linux too. That’s two operating systems for the price of one. And between them, the two will soon own 10-15% of the scientific and technical market, maybe more if Vista continues to fizzle.As I said before, markets abhore vacuums. Back in the mid-1980s, Word Perfect delayed bringing their market-ruling product to the new Macs. Thanks to the enthusiasm of Bill Gates, Microsoft did not. It created two new products, Word and Excel, that then crossed over to beat Word Perfect in the Windows market.If Adobe doesn’t offer a way to run FM effectively on Macs and Linux, someone will create something FM-like for the two platforms and, soon after that, it will migrate to Windows.

  8. If Crossover Mac plus FrameMaker could achieve Gold status — everything just works — that would be an acceptable option for this Mac user. The biggest risk is that if there is a problem, Crossover might say it’s an Adobe problem and Adobe might say it’s not a supported platform, leaving the user stranded.It would seem to me that it is in Adobe’s commercial interests to collaborate with the people at CodeWeavers on a Mac FrameMaker solution, at least to conduct a feasibility review.Given that the above post says FrameMaker will continue to be Windows and Solaris only, should we Mac users stop posting comments?

  9. The market conditions for the Macintosh platform have changed significantly since 2004 and bear a second thought. I think that given the less-than-warm reception of Vista, Adobe could make a strong case for publishing on the Mac by reintroducing Framemaker, and capitalizing upon Windows discontent simultaneously.

Comments are closed.