Print 63 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Jun 5 at 8:26 PM

Adobe promises Acrobat 9 will transform the process of creating and sharing information

Adobe unveiled the newest version of its Acrobat software today. Adobe says that Acrobat 9 is a significant upgrade and promises it will transform the process of creating and sharing electronic documents.

Acrobat 9 adds native support for Flash technology that allows users to embed Flash Player compatible video and applications directly in PDF documents. To view the content, the PDF recipient only needs to have the Adobe Flash Player installed.

Another key feature of Acrobat 9 is the ability to unify multiple content types into a single document with PDF Portfolios. The PDF Portfolios allow the creation of PDFs containing documents, video, audio and 3D objects in one compressed PDF file.

The software also features templates that allow the integration of those types of media into a professional layout. The new software also adds live collaboration platform for live collaboration within a PDF document. The interactive content for PDF collaboration is enabled by working through

Adobe Acrobat 9 will be available in three versions for Windows systems including Acrobat 9 Pro Extended, Acrobat 9 Pro and Acrobat 9 Standard. Mac users only get Acrobat 9 Pro. All versions are expected to be available in July 2008 in English, French, German and Japanese languages. The full version of Acrobat 9 Pro Extended is going to retail for $699, Acrobat 9 Pro will sell for $449, and Acrobat 9 Standard will retail for $299.

Adobe doesn't say that the Yahoo ads that DailyTech reported in late 2007 would appear in PDF documents will now be offered. The online Acrobat documents will be the most likely spot for the ads to show up.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

High Prices
By gigahertz20 on 6/2/2008 12:44:32 PM , Rating: 5
With prices like $699 for Pro Extended and $449 for just Pro, no wonder Adobe products are so popular on bittorent websites.

RE: High Prices
By tastyratz on 6/2/2008 12:49:04 PM , Rating: 5
with so many free and low cost full featured pdf solutions out there adobe is just not pricing their products to be competitive. The ability to edit a pdf file at a cost more then an entire ms office suite retail? anyone in their right mind without a direct business need would use word with a free pdf converter, or any of the free pdf editors out there. Acrobat is fairly barebones in terms of features if you ask me. This is one reason why acrobat will never expand beyond the business sector.
Acrobat standard should be priced at $99 if they ever expect to get more than a few niche sales

RE: High Prices
By gyranthir on 6/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: High Prices
By SunAngel on 6/2/2008 4:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
Editing PDF's really isn't what Acrobat is meant for, it's for managing documents and protecting them from edits. Portable document formats so that you can make sure the items you send out are the items that everyone gets, and what you get back.

sure that is partially correct. i believe what made adobe acrobat popular in corporate america is its ability to easily create and distribute documents. also makes documents easy to manage from a creator's standpoint.

RE: High Prices
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
The did have a product called Adobe Acrobat Elements, and it was $99, but no one bought it. So they discontinued it.

And the feature set was limited so that not many corporations saw the price advantage over the Acrobat Standard version.

RE: High Prices
By imperator3733 on 6/2/2008 2:24:24 PM , Rating: 3
Did Elements have a smaller feature set than Standard? If so, that's the problem. Instead of creating another version with fewer features than Standard, Adobe should just make Standard $99. People might actually buy it if they dropped all the prices by $200.

RE: High Prices
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it had a limited feature set. They sell tons of licenses of Acrobat Standard and Professional all over the world. They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.

Depending on your buying power Adobe offers great discounts via volume licensing.

RE: High Prices
By imperator3733 on 6/2/2008 2:51:55 PM , Rating: 3
But I'm sure plenty of regular consumers would like to be able to edit PDFs. Adobe is completely unable to compete in that market when they charge $299 for their cheapest PDF editor. I would think that quite a few consumers would get Standard if it was sold for $99.

RE: High Prices
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 3:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Acrobat is NOT a PDF Editor, you do your editing in your word processors or other applications then port it to PDF.

Acrobat Standard lets you create PDFs, and do very very minimal edits.

PDF's in general aren't meant to be edited.

RE: High Prices
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2008 4:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Quite correct. Acrobat is NOT a MS Word competitor. It's just a way of sending documents which basically are electronic replacements of paper printed documents that are fixed publications and where the result will look pretty much the same when viewed by any machine (unlike HTML where what it looks like varies all over the place). It's a paper replacement technology, and the business plan has the readers given away free while they make money off of the software that creates it. So far it's worked well.

In other words, PDFs replace printers, not word or page processors.

RE: High Prices
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2008 4:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - One can also look at it as a technology to replace Postscript (something that was Adobe's as well).

RE: High Prices
By mmntech on 6/2/2008 1:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
That and a lot of office suites now such as OpenOffice allow you to make your own PDF files with one click ease. Given that Adobe doesn't own the format, it can be implemented into any program. You don't even need to pirate Acrobat to make PDFs. Granted Acrobat does allow you to embed media into documents and it does allow you to created editable forms. I don't think those features are worth $700 though. I think Acrobat has kind of outlived it's original purpose. The software is bloated, slow, and complicated. Even the reader is like that. You need to buy the $300 basic version just to complete simple, everyday tasks, such as merging PDF files. Alternative reader programs such as Apple's Preview can do that, and it comes "free" with the OS. There are open source ones for Windows that do that too.

RE: High Prices
By glitchc on 6/2/2008 2:00:21 PM , Rating: 3
A serious question:

If PDF is an open format, why did Microsoft face such difficulties in adding the PDF export feature to Office?

RE: High Prices
By imperator3733 on 6/2/2008 2:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I was wondering. People shouldn't have to download an add-on just to make PDFs.

RE: High Prices
By TomZ on 6/2/2008 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and I hope this is "fixed" in the next version of Office.

I am glad that Microsoft included this feature, and that other apps have native save to PDF functionality. Buying and maintaining Acrobat, with its endless series of bugs, was getting on my nerves, and I'm glad to stop using it.

RE: High Prices
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 2:38:59 PM , Rating: 5
Its open to everyone else. They wanted royalties from Microsoft. Because they can pay them. Hence why Microsoft gave them the finger and pulled support for PDFs from Office 2007.

Also why I get pissed when people complain about Office 2007 not having native PDF support. Blame Adobe, not Microsoft.

RE: High Prices
By Ihmemies on 6/2/2008 3:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Office 2007 doesn't allow you to save files as PDF by default, but you can download a file which enables saving as PDF from

Of course it's extra effort, but better than installing some gimmick "print as pdf" plugins.

RE: High Prices
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:08:35 PM , Rating: 3

Anyone may create applications that read and write PDF files without having to pay royalties to Adobe Systems; Adobe holds patents to PDF, but licenses them for royalty-free use in developing software complying with its PDF specification.

RE: High Prices
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
True, but these really aren't typical consumer products.

The same thoughts about torrents holds true for Microsoft office and other tools that are used for conducting business, or doing homework. (these are more typical consumer products).

All of you know the deal and the consequences of pirating software etc.

RE: High Prices
By AlexWade on 6/2/2008 3:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
At those prices, it would be cheaper to get the free ColdFusion version, which allows for local access and one external IP address, and use the built-in feature of ColdFusion to make PDF's. All you need is little web page creation experience and a ColdFusion tag, and you are done. I'll bet ColdFusion will support all of the new features in Acrobat.

I will
By Regs on 6/2/2008 12:42:38 PM , Rating: 4
Crap my pants if I could edit text on a pdf.

Until that day...just make sure you wake me up.

RE: I will
By Runiteshark on 6/2/2008 12:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, editing a PDF is worse then pulling teeth. I cannot think of one other application that is so terrible when it comes to editing.

RE: I will
By kamel5547 on 6/2/2008 12:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is... its actually pretty easy with Acrobat 5.0, and some other competitors do a far better job. 8 was truely the worst as far as I can tell, and I have to assume 9 will be worse than that at text editing. It just doesn't seem to be a feature they want you to use.

RE: I will
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2008 4:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
You aren't supposed to edit a PDF other than changing one letter here and there sorts of changes.

PDF is a printer-replacement technology, it's not a word processor product. Editing it directly is like editing postscript (which PDFs kind-of replace although non-HP laser printers probably still use postscript). You can, but it's painful.

RE: I will
By Aloonatic on 6/5/2008 5:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
I work in a scanning bureau and most of the output we produce is either TIFF or PDF, pretty much the same thing most of the time when scanned. Thankfully more want PDF now than TIFF it seems. TIFF is a hateful format sent by the devil to torment man kind.

We also deal with a lot of electronic documents which are converted to be archived.

The text editing function is something that I have never really understood.

Either make a possible to edit properly or not at all.

Most people want completely uneditable images which is fine and can be done but why make it sort of possible?

It just annoys people who want to edit the text and can't quite do what they want and irritates people who want to use PDFs as an archive who think that a PDF is uneditable and therefore a 100% accurate representation of a document at a certain time and then find out that they can be tampered with.

For the record, for much of the manual entry bookmarking we still use Acrobat 4, much more user friendly and faster for what we do. This and the scanning software we use is one of the main reasons why Vista has been a pain and abandoned in certain departments, but it's not MS's fault that older software is better than the more recent releases.

The only real benefit of later versions (for us) has been the batch processing features.

I am always weary of Acrobat releases since Acrobat 6, what a mess that was.

RE: I will
By Oregonian2 on 6/5/2008 8:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest advantage of the later versions of Acrobat (starting with version 8 I think) is that .pdf's can be made (not with the reader obviously) such that a .pdf form can be filled out using reader (even if reader can't save it). Adobe had some mysterious connection with a spendy third party who "did" the filloutable versions for the US Government in making .PDF tax forms, but didn't allow the normal Acrobat package to make them -- until version 8. Obviously a great thing if one is making out forms in PDF -- much easier to read the results as compared to printing it and filling things in by hand. :-)

RE: I will
By amanojaku on 6/2/2008 12:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
The professional version of Acrobat allows you to edit PDFs. This has existed since Acrobat was first created. The Acrobat most people use is the free reader which, naturally, does not allow editing.

RE: I will
By Regs on 6/2/2008 12:52:43 PM , Rating: 5
Thank you for explaining that. I'll be sure to invest 300 dollars for this program.

RE: I will
By daftrok on 6/2/2008 12:59:31 PM , Rating: 3
LOL. But seriously what is up with these crack addict prices? 300 bucks just for standard? How about you divide these prices by ten and then watch piracy go way way down.

RE: I will
By Regs on 6/2/2008 1:17:38 PM , Rating: 1
The Lead programmer, who drives a Hummer, has to drive 50 miles to work each day which means he spends mucho grandee on gas.

And how on earth are these people going to be able to pay off their mortgage on the 4 door garage house ??!?!?!? Are you insane?

RE: I will
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
Editing is something you do in the document before you make it a PDF. PDF's are meant to be protected from editing.

How would you like it if someone edited your PDF of some time sensitive or cost sensitive information, and then sent it back to you trying to hold you to the new information.

They are meant to avoid changes, provide protection, provide electronic signatures, and be secure.

RE: I will
By achintya on 6/2/2008 2:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Erm, I thought for those purposes encryption and digital signatures were created?

RE: I will
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
Read thru the Wiki, the portability features are the strongest part of it.

Portable means that it isn't going to be broken, screwed with, or have errors when it's been ported around.

You do the editing of the documents in your word processors or spreadsheets, etc.

RE: I will
By Runiteshark on 6/2/2008 2:26:19 PM , Rating: 3
Well damn, I had no idea. I guess I'll get the Professional Professional version of acrobat, since Adobe Acrobat Professional 8, simply isn't professional enough.

I know you can edit them with professional, but it still sucks.

dear lord.
By swankpimp on 6/2/2008 12:43:20 PM , Rating: 5
Sweet. More bloatware with lots of features that no one uses. Ever.

I'm still using Acrobat 5 withotu a problem.

RE: dear lord.
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 12:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
Well said.

RE: dear lord.
By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:13:58 PM , Rating: 3
Lots of these features

Are used by professionals every day, and that is why they seperate them into different product subsets.

So if you don't need CAD integration, or FLV video play back, you get the less expensive version.

RE: dear lord.
By Screwballl on 6/2/2008 4:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
agreed.... I use Foxit which is free small and lightweight so no need for massive resource hog software just to open a simple 200KB PDF file....
Adobe is placing itself out of the reach of the general public and as these other free or low cost solutions get the word out, companies like Adobe will be left to the commercial sector.

Open Office is free and can import and export to PDF.
Foxit Reader is free and can read any PDF. They also have a cheap paid PDF editor program that is hundreds cheaper than Adobe and has just as many options.
PrimoPDF is free, installs into your printer area and lets you export to PDF.

There are dozens more stable and easy to use programs that are slowly taking over the market. I try to get the word out about Foxit Reader as much as possible.

RE: dear lord.
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2008 4:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
Foxit Reader is free and can read any PDF.

This is true for Adobe's Acrobat reader too.

RE: dear lord.
By BarkHumbug on 6/3/2008 3:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
While you are correct I guess you missed this part of his post:

Foxit which is free small and lightweight so no need for massive resource hog software just to open a simple 200KB PDF file

RE: dear lord.
By Oregonian2 on 6/3/2008 2:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
I find Acrobat reader also to be small and lightweight (unless using a PC made more than ten years ago perhaps). I've five good sized .PDF files open simultaneous at the moment and it's using up less than 3% of this PC's puny 1-Gb of RAM. Amount of disk that it's using is way way way way less than 1% of this machine's puny hard drive as well. If one is using Windows 9X or Windows ME, and foxit uses uses little resources there, then you've got a point (but may have better options to solving the "resource" problem).

RE: dear lord.
By Trisped on 6/3/2008 5:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, bloat. I don't see why people still use it.
You can't edit it, but it takes twice as long to load as Word.

By nismotigerwvu on 6/2/2008 12:49:34 PM , Rating: 5
Let me know when all of this has been worked into Foxit :)

By GoodBytes on 6/2/2008 2:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Will you still need a super computer just to load a PDF and fast scroll (Logitech MX Revolution mouse) without having it totally confuse? Or it will it be like other non-Adobe Reader/Writer software out there where its thin and light and does the same job correctly and smoothly on a Pentium 1 as it should.

RE: Super-computer?
By kyleb2112 on 6/5/2008 1:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I don't know how software designed to scroll text and graphics fails so miserably at that simple task. You can load the same pdf into Foxit reader and it's sooth as silk. The emperor has no clothes at Adobe.

pdf995 works just fine thank you!
By DrApop on 6/2/2008 3:12:38 PM , Rating: 2

nuff said!

Make pdf's, combine pdf's, convert pdf's, etc. Well worth the free cost to download and install!!

or just pay $300 to adobe...ridiculous!

By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2008 4:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
Free so long as you don't mind the ads in their products (how they make their money).

Wow, another new version will be forced to buy
By GroBemaus on 6/2/2008 1:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
$Adobe$ comes up with so many new versions of their acrobat it makes me sick. Oh, you want the older cheaper version still? Guess what? We had the sales stopped, you must now buy the new version or go without. Thank you, please come again :)

By gyranthir on 6/2/2008 2:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Every software company does this.

And cheaper? Acrobat Standard has been the same price each release.

By dickeywang on 6/2/2008 3:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
I'd rather to see Adobe release the 64-bit flash player for both Windows and Linux. They were claiming that they are working on that 3 years ago, but we still haven't seen a 64-bit flash player now. With more and more PCs equipped with 4GB even 8GB of memory, the problem of lacking of 64-bit support for flash player become more and more serious.

By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2008 4:15:15 PM , Rating: 3
Just can't wait to download .PDFs with nice flashy moving ads in the side columns and bottoms and tops and all over. Adding flash is so wonderful!

Acrobat 8.0 was really bad!
By Segerstein on 6/2/2008 1:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
Acrobat 8.0 was a really bad product. It still has problems with my Vista64. I cannot even print from MS PowerPoint 2007 since I get the "Invalid printer command" error message.

The interface for adding headers/footers is terribly slow. And they have removed the support for ebook pdfs in 8.0.

Last time I wanted to do some color separation for a special color and it could not be done. Batch processing is also not a strong point of Acrobat.

The one thing that I like about Acrobat though is the support for tagged PDFs. It also creates PDFs from which one can copy-paste without problems --- unlike from some created with other tools where you often paste text garbage.

Now Announcing the AAH initiative!
By Etsp on 6/2/2008 4:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
With the advances of technology, and the increasing popularity of cloud computing, I would like to announce my new distributed computing initiative, call Adobe At Home. With AAH, it will be a give and take approach, when you're devoting all of your CPU cycles to opening an Adobe 9 doc, you can tie into the AAH network and hopefully get that 3 page doc opened in under 10 minutes (10 minute mark only applicable systems with at least 4 cpu cores), and when your system is idle, it will do some good in the world by helping other people open their PDF's!

The standard for document sharing
By DXRick on 6/2/2008 5:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Acrobat is still the standard program for creating documents that need to be read by many different people. They give away the reader for this reason. Everyone on a Mac or PC can easily open it.

So, although companies may have Office installed on all of their employee's computers, Acrobat is used for docs that need to be shared outside of the organization.

wake me when
By judasmachine on 6/2/2008 6:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
...they release a new version of foxit.

More to hate...
By PWNettle on 6/2/2008 6:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yay, now there will be Flash ads in PDFs too. Just what everyone needed. More bloat and marketing assault.

Foxit Reader + PDF Creator = $0
By zero2dash on 6/3/2008 12:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'll stick with that 2-fer-$0 combo, thanks.

And I'll dump another log onto the "no wonder Adobe software is the most pirated in the world" fire.

Adobe Reader 9.0
By richardh11 on 6/3/2008 12:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
I can't wait for the 50MB download of Adobe Reader 9.0 !

For Mac user...
By vic1218 on 6/3/2008 1:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
Check out this article on AppleInsider, might give you an idea on whether to upgrade or not...

I find myself confused
By Asmordean on 6/3/2008 1:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
I create the advertisements for the place I work. I spend hours using InDesign, Photoshop, and Illustrator to get everything right then export it to a PDF for the newspapers/magazines/billboard/etc. to print.

I fail to see why on earth I want flash, sound, video, or anything that you can't get a printer to do.

I've no intention of creating a webpage using PDFs.

I can see the attraction of a bundled up document format that does all this but I fail to see why they jammed it into PDFs instead of something new. Call it... oh I don't know PMF? (Portable media format)

By Shawn on 6/3/2008 3:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
I can't wait for an even more bloated version of Acrobat Reader.

Lack of Understanding
By urnotserious on 6/3/2008 5:41:32 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, seems no one here has "really" used Adobe Acrobat anytime soon. Acrobat is not merely a PDF generation tool, that can be done by lots of things. No the Pro tools allow you to all sorts of things from form creation to editing of PDFs with no original document ( I just did both of theses for a large gov't organization ) to so much more. The pro tools are not meant for everyday users. Also the new embedding are relevant to allowing a single overall format to handle ones distribution needs.

Lastly I buy my Acrobat via their bundles way cheaper that way.

Bloated & Expensive!
By p645n on 6/3/2008 3:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
I finally bit the bullet & purchased Adobe CS3 Design Premium -- This after years of pirating the software.
I use Photoshop almost daily & I require the "locked" document that a PDF is weekly --therefor the kick you in the gut price of Adobe products was something I felt I had to endure.
Anyways -- imagine how I felt when my retail copy of Acrobat 8 that is included with CS3 Design Premium wouldn't allow me to configure it as I wanted -- Imagine how I felt when I had to uninstall my legal, bloated, expensive copy of Acrobat 8 and reinstall my pirated copy of Acrobat 7 -- it is the only option I have.
As an aside -- I've had more problems with CS3 in general then I ever had with the illegal copies of Acrobat, Photoshop & InDesign I've used over the years.
Adobe -- Never again!

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone
Related Articles

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki