Posted on June 15th, 2009 by Tom Arah
The future for Acrobat.com – and for the office?
Those with a long memory may well remember Adobe’s first attempt to conquer the business market with the launch of Acrobat Exchange and its promise of the “paperless office” built around the round-robin swapping of PDFs. The arrival of the internet largely put paid to that original all-encompassing vision but now, sixteen years later, Adobe is back for a second bite at the cherry with the announcement of the official out-of-beta launch of Acrobat.com.
So is Adobe likely to be any more successful this time around? The recent press briefing, given by product manager Eric Larsen and hosted within Acrobat.com itself, was certainly interesting…
As I’ve written previously, I was seriously impressed by the Acrobat.com beta service which offered central document storage, a powerful online word processor, PDF conversion and even small-scale web conferencing. If nothing else, it was worth joining just to post large PDFs centrally rather than sending them as email attachments that might not get through.
Now the service is going to be expanded with an online presentations package and an online spreadsheet meaning that you have the same core office apps as provided by Google Docs, but with a lot more power and a far superior user interface and experience.
Even more important strategically are Adobe’s announcements regarding the immediate availability of new APIs designed to let developers integrate Acrobat.com into their own custom apps and especially the imminent launch of a mobile service aimed at smartphones such as the iPhone.
Despite these announcements, my initial response to the briefing was sceptical based on three major areas of concern:
The first of these – the question of security and uptime – is generic and applies to any cloud-based service. Erik tried to play down these issues but I wasn’t convinced by his argument that cloud-based services are inherently more secure than “notebooks walking out of the door” and statistically less likely to crash or be unavailable than desktop apps (the point is that these are local risks that we’re responsible for).
Other doubts were specific to Acrobat.com. In particular the new suite still lacks the most important productivity app of all, and the one that best demonstrates the advantages of a univerally-accessible centralized cloud-based approach: an email inbox. When this point was raised early on, Erik tried to play down the importance of email promising that he would show how Acrobat.com could “do it better” but that sounded hollow.
The biggest concern of all is a potential show-stopper. Acrobat.com is currently gaining over 100,000 new users every week but that’s because it is free. I’d assumed that that’s how the service would continue, but the focus of the briefing was on the fact that Acrobat.com is now to be a subscription service starting at $15 a month for US users. Worse, based on Adobe’s grossly unfair UK pricing, that probably means close on £15 a month when European availability is delivered in due course. You’d need to add a lot more than an online spreadsheet to justify that.
During the briefing however, each of these doubts was largely addressed and largely allayed.
Regarding security and uptime, every organization will make its own decisions but as Erik put it, the move to cloud-based computing is a “mega trend” ie the advantages are such that it will happen, the only question is how. Moreover Adobe could have a major strength on this front. When I asked about AIR-based access to Acrobat.com, Erik revealed that, while this will only be online to begin with (ie outside the browser), Adobe is working hard on a system to enable offline storage and access to documents – essential both for local backup and to avoid downtime. Providing these offline capabilities is not easy because Acrobat.com is designed to enable multiple users to work on the same central document, but it is in the pipeline.
Regarding the email issue, Erik pointed out that you can email colleagues from within the app but that this is largely unnecessary. Indeed the whole point of Acrobat.com is to get away from the inefficiencies of the email round-robin. Instead Erik showed how his team had worked together to produce the launch paper and presentation, with everyone always working on the latest, up-to-date, centrally-hosted version. Particularly impressive was the ability to drag back on a timeline and see how the document had changed over time and Erik talked about how Adobe is working on a system whereby those few emails associated with a project are automatically attached as metadata within this timeline.
By this stage it was clear that Acrobat.com should not be seen as an essentially standalone online suite but rather as a collaborative tool – more Google Wave than Google Docs.
Such collaboration is the key to Acrobat.com and, crucially, it turns out that it’s only if you’re taking advantage of its workgroup capabilities that you are expected to pay (Adobe’s message on this front is hopelessly garbled and gives the impression that the main benefit you are paying for is PDF conversion!).
In other words the service will still be available for free to individual users including basic collaboration and web conferencing to give a taster of what’s possible. Even better – and a real lesson learned from PDF-based workflows – you aren’t expected to pay if you’re invited to collaborate on a project. It’s only the initiator that needs to be a subscriber.
In this new light I have to say that the new Acrobat.com looks a lot more attractive. I’m not sure that it’s got what it takes to seize the average office especially as Microsoft and Google are clearly working on their own similar solutions. However, Acrobat.com will certainly attract Adobe’s existing design-focused userbase especially as we can expect tighter integration with the CS apps in future.
Moreover by raising the design bar, Acrobat.com will be a hard act for anyone to follow. Crucially, unlike Google Docs, Acrobat.com feels like a polished desktop app so you quickly forget that you are working online.
Most importantly, by shifting away from today’s workgroup collaboration built on the email exchange of multiple fixed standalone PDFs towards a single live document shared online, Acrobat.com does indeed make a credible pitch at “doing it better.”
Ultimately Acrobat.com’s biggest strength as a cloud-based platform for the future comes from Adobe’s past experience with Acrobat on the desktop – it has learned how not to do it.
Tags: acrobat, acrobat.com, adobe, digital design, Google, google docs, google wave, pdf
Posted in: Newsdesk, Real World Computing
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
6 Responses to “ The future for Acrobat.com – and for the office? ”
Leave a Reply
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
Authors
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement
Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk





























June 15th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Only sipping from the Adobe koolaid could convince me that this service is worth paying for. With a multitude of ways of sharing documents and free solutions for creating PDFs Adobe are up against severe competition (unlike some of their other businesses). Apart from the eye-candy I have yet to see the prime selling proposition from Acrobat.com. As you say yourself the collaboration tools are pretty basic at the moment. With Google shortly to offer ‘Wave’ how can Adobe expect to get away with charging subscriptions? (Particularly the absurd rates quoted above). And on the other hand they need to provide a lot more assurances about QoS and security if they are pitching to corporate customers. It clearly isn’t being targeted at the right market.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
I’ve been using the Buzzword service regularly with a class of school children, as an alternative to Word. We’re still finding document content occasionally goes missing, crashes within Flash, and problems when the connection grinds to a halt. There’s no way I could justify to my boss that we should pay for it, when these problems still exist, but what about these types of apps being tailored to the education sector?
We’re being told to make use of new technology, yet what we’re being given by the the Local Authorities isn’t up to the job and so we’re crying out for something like Acrobat.com.
Any thoughts?
June 18th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Hi Clive. Not sure if Adobe can ensure better reliability for paying subscribers, but you’d have to hope so and Erik did talk about terms of service guarantees (but no details).
Regarding targeting education (for free) I’d say that was an excellent idea – get them early. But clearly the first target market will be Adobe’s home ground: the designer.
And (to Chris) this is where I think Acrobat.com does have a huge “selling proposition”, over and above the overall design and experience (which shouldn’t be dismissed). The clue is in the name. Other sites can let you collaborate on the early stages of producing text, numbers and presentations but, via PDF, Acrobat.com can let you collaborate on any project and throughout the workflow right up to final delivery.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am
If “the move to cloud-based computing is a ‘mega trend’”, it is rather in the way that the move to subprime mortages was a megatrend in the financial markets. There is no such place as the cloud. It is all on someone (else’s) hard disk, subject to their laws and regulations etc. It might be useful to use such services when away from a computer with all the software loaded, but otherwise, I cannot see why there is an advantage (does anyone not have a word processor on their computer?)
Secondly, I am skeptical about how people actually collaborate. As a writer and an editor I do not accept that documents can be bolted together on an assembly line. Someone has to take responsibility for the overall document,words and design, and the traditional email flow of versions is actually a more natural way to work.
This is an interactive site on which we can leave comments. It would be quite different if we could alter Tom Arah’s (generally excellent) articles at will without his approval. Seems like there is lots of woolly thinking in the clouds.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I like the financial analogy – and that’s why I think offline AIR-based access is so important. The idea of a central virtual bank is a lot more attractive if you also get to keep your money in your back pocket. I’d say Microsoft Live Mesh is the best current example of how the cloud can work alongside the local meaning the latest version of your documents are just there to hand however you want to access them.
As for what you say about collaboration I think some poeple want the live collaboration on original content creation and others want more traditional pdf-style annotation and approval of a fixed document that one person is in charge of. Acrobat.com can do both and as soon as you’re talking about collaborating with more than one person I think the central hosted approach makes more sense than email.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:09 am
[...] but, in design terms, this lowest common denominator approach proves disastrous. For example in a comparison between the barebones HTML-based Google Docs and the slick Flash-based Acrobat.com, I’d [...]