-
All replies
-
Helpful answers
-
Aug 4, 2016 1:56 PM in response to Csound1by freediverx01,I'm sure Tim Cook is tickled pink that you're satisfied.
Unfortunately, Wall Street expects growth, rather than just large sales and profits.
-
Aug 4, 2016 2:01 PM in response to freediverx01by Csound1,I very much doubt that Tim even knows my name, or whether he is 'tickled' any color.
-
Aug 4, 2016 3:47 PM in response to freediverx01by Terence Devlin,How is FCPX any better at selling hardware than Aperture? I still run FCPX just on a 2009 27" iMac. If anything, Aperture (which I use extensively) gave me a much bigger incentive to upgrade my hardware than FCPX (which I use sparingly.)
Er, because folks who use FCPX regularly as opposed to sparingly - i.e professionally - prefer the higher powered machine.
When they cancelled Aperture, Apple abandoned a legion of loyal pro and prosumer photographers
Two things: a: just how big is this legion? No one seems to know and b: no they didn't "abandon" them. They left them with machines that can run any number of alternative applications. A machine that can even run Windows.
Adobe is now pushing Lightroom users to subscribe to their own cloud hosting service. In fact they just released an Apple TV Lightroom app
Really? Well that will help sell AppleTVs then, no? I think that's called a win-win for Apple.
and they've given away thousands or millions of their most devout customers to Adobe.
Well which is it? Thousands or Millions? And how do you know? And really. "Devout"? You realise it's a computer, not a religion, right? And you know, LR runs on what? Oh yes, Macs, and who makes those? Apple... See how it works?
-
Aug 4, 2016 9:09 PM in response to Terence Devlinby Marc P,Aperture continues to deliver almost fine on El Capitan and from what I read, will probably run as well on Siera (I'll do the upgrade once it's confirmed). If this is so, Apple will have heard us. It has included a very good RAW converter in OSX (it compares pretty well to Capture One for my cameras) and we can benefit from Aperture's superior DAM. We can use all professional tools we have available (my workhorse is Capture One) and import the result to Aperture. In the meantime, developers are working on Photo plug ins (I am impresed by Affinity and Creative Kit) and Photo continues to evolve. So yes, I regret Apple's decision inasmuch as things are a little harder, but net/net, they still support my work and my photographic output/quality is improving . But then I am only an amateur with close to 300,000 frames that I keep in hundreds of albums from shoots on all continents spanning 50 years of seeing the world change. Dilbert once said, "Change is Good, You go First"; I've been doing so for years and I think Apple is leading the way... Yes it hurts a little in the process but as long as the quality of my work/output improves, that's fine.
-
Aug 5, 2016 12:19 AM in response to Marc Pby léonie,In the meantime, developers are working on Photo plug ins (I am impresed by Affinity and Creative Kit) and Photo continues to evolve.
The Photo Editing extensions are easier to use than the Aperture plug-ins used to be, because the graphical user interface is more consistent across all extensions.
Two things are annoying, however:
- We need now extensions for things that could have been done in Aperture as lossless edits. Every time I use an extension it will create a new quasi master, wasting storage, and the edits cannot be undone separately.
- And the costs for the extensions keep accumulating. I have by now paid more money for the applications that offer Photo editing extensions, than I ever paid for Aperture, and still do not have any good tools for brushed adjustments. So it is still a bit lacking. I sincerely hope, that the necessary updates to the Photo Editing extensions for macOS Sierra will be free, and be released in time for the upgrade. I would hate to have to buy the upgrades over and over gain, with each system upgrade.
-
Aug 5, 2016 1:18 AM in response to Marc Pby Terence Devlin,Aperture continues to deliver almost fine on El Capitan and from what I read, will probably run as well on Siera (I'll do the upgrade once it's confirmed). If this is so, Apple will have heard us.
Not sure it has anything to do with Apple hearing anything. AppleWorks worked for years after it was End-of-life'd until one day it didn't anymore. And tho' that was in the region of 5 or 6 years there were still people caught out - even tho' they had that amount of time to move on to other apps or to convert legacy documents. They didn't.
That for me is the concern about threads like this. Right now you have a problem: One day Aperture will cease to work. If you wait to address that problem until Aperture actually ceases to work you'll have managed to convert the problem into a crisis. Now is the time seek out and adopt an alternative and figure out how you're going to get there. There is no point in waiting.
Aperture will work for minimum of three or maybe four years, maybe even longer, but one day there will be a change in some underlying element of the OS. It won't be designed to stop Aperture, it'll just be a consequence of something else. That's a promise.
As for Photos... You really think Apple are going to replace the power and functionality of an $80 app with a free one? You really think that they're going to compete with expensive apps LR and Capture One with a giveaway? Apple have walked away from the pro and serious hobbyist photo software market. The idea that Photos one day might function as a replacement for such software it is, to put it nicely, optimistic in the extreme.
-
Aug 5, 2016 4:36 AM in response to Marc Pby freediverx01,> Aperture continues to deliver almost fine on El Capitan and from what I read, will probably run as well on Sierra
Yes, fortunately Aperture hasn't self-destructed... yet.
>If this is so, Apple will have heard us.
Apple knew in advance how disruptive it would be to abandon Aperture users and has decided, for now, to make some minor effort not to break Aperture with new macOS releases.
>It has included a very good RAW converter in OSX... We can use all professional tools we have available... and import the result to Aperture.
Apple has always handled Camera RAW support in the operating system, not in individual applications like iPhoto or Aperture. This speaks more to their foresight in architecting this correctly years ago rather than to any special consideration for Aperture users.
I'm mostly fine with Aperture's built-in editing tools and available third party extensions. What I'm not fine with is the notion of giving up its elegant, intuitive, Mac-native user interface and sophisticated DAM features in exchange for an abomination from Adobe or some other developer.
>developers are working on Photo plug ins (I am impresed by Affinity and Creative Kit) and Photo continues to evolve.
Actually I've noticed a dearth of third party Photos extension development in the year since the app was released. Google has made no effort to make NIK Collection work natively with Photos, and this is no doubt exacerbated by Apple's insistence of the use of their App Store for the distribution of Photos extensions. Popular extensions like PTLens are not available, and as Adobe is now aggressively competing with Apple via Lightroom and Creative Cloud, they have no plans to offer Photos extensions to allow use of their apps as as external editors for Photos users.
>Yes it hurts a little in the process but as long as the quality of my work/output improves, that's fine.
How will you feel if Sierra (or the 2017 release of macOS) finally breaks support for Aperture? How do you feel now, knowing that your Aperture library is persona non grata in Apple's iCloud Photo Library?
-
Aug 5, 2016 4:42 AM in response to Terence Devlinby freediverx01,>Now is the time seek out and adopt an alternative and figure out how you're going to get there. There is no point in waiting.
The issue is not procrastination but rather the lack of suitable alternatives. Many of us can't stand Adobe's business model or user interface design, and yet they appear to be the closest thing to a viable alternative. Migrating to Adobe means abandoning the Apple ecosystem and everything that attracted us to it in the first place.
-
Aug 5, 2016 4:45 AM in response to Terence Devlinby freediverx01,>You really think Apple are going to replace the power and functionality of an $80 app with a free one?
I'd happily pay $300 for a new, cloud-native version of Aperture.
-
Aug 5, 2016 7:59 AM in response to freediverx01by Terence Devlin,What I'm not fine with is the notion of giving up its elegant, intuitive, Mac-native user interface and sophisticated DAM features in exchange for an abomination from Adobe or some other developer.
And the alternative is?
-
Aug 5, 2016 8:03 AM in response to freediverx01by Terence Devlin,The issue is not procrastination but rather the lack of suitable alternatives. Many of us can't stand Adobe's business model or user interface design, and yet they appear to be the closest thing to a viable alternative. Migrating to Adobe means abandoning the Apple ecosystem and everything that attracted us to it in the first place.
So, you can't find an alternative that you like so you're what? Going to wait until you have to find one. Because that day will come. It will come when Aperture stops working or when you migrate to a new OS, if that's what's right for you. The only untenable thing is doing nothing.
I'd happily pay $300 for a new, cloud-native version of Aperture.
That's pretty much the price point Aperture started at. But your 300 bucks won't be enough to convince Apple.
-
Aug 5, 2016 8:17 AM in response to Terence Devlinby Csound1,This Aperture kerfuffle just makes me glad I stuck with film, developer and fix always work, I just use digital stuff for snapshots.
-
Aug 5, 2016 8:34 AM in response to Csound1by Terence Devlin,I'm quite delighted with digital. Has made so much more possible for me. And no app is perfect, so you're always making compromises. I looked at them all and settled on LR. Not perfect, sure, but works well and is infinitely more capable as an editor/processor than Aperture. But yes, a clunky interface. So swings and roundabouts...
-
Aug 5, 2016 8:49 AM in response to Terence Devlinby Csound1,I agree that no app is perfect, but I am reluctant to replace a well tried system with another just for the h*ll of it. Film works, and provides quality that digital barely dreams about. One day film will be untenable, but not yet (kinda like Aperture is now)
For unimportant (to me) stuff digital is fine, but for quality film still rules.
And I am old and kinda ornery
-
Aug 5, 2016 8:52 AM in response to Csound1by Terence Devlin,Well I noticed about the ornery part before... I'm young you see