Skip navigation
This discussion is archived

A word from Apple...

20717 Views 261 Replies Latest reply: Apr 19, 2008 9:48 AM by gbeberman RSS
  • wildnis Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 1:48 PM (in response to Joe Schorr)
    Dear Joe,

    thanks a lot for the update - thats great for maybe most users. We as pros had to move on. We can't wait month after month till we process our work.
    Unfortunately we had to move to lightroom - was not our choice but you did not leave us any options.
    Personally I'm VERY disappointed with Apple, making money and stocks is fine - but to promote THE PRO application and leave the real pros hanging - thats not fine.

    Good luck to AP - it will take a lot to get us back. We invested into AP from release date and now we have to figure out that everything else is more important to Apple but the Pros - very disappointing!
    MBP 15'' 2.33 MHZ, 2GB, Mac OS X (10.5)
  • Network 23 Level 6 Level 6 (11,500 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 2:06 PM (in response to Mitch Aunger)
    Mitch Aunger wrote:
    Well, from the sound of it (i don't use LR), if you drag and image from LR to iPhoto and "import it", you now have 2 copies of that image. With Aperture and all the other applications, you only have 1 image. I can use an image that is managed by Aperture in iPhoto and not end up with duplicates all over my drive.


    Now, that actually depends on how you've set up iPhoto. If you change the (relatively recently added) preference for how iPhoto imports images, so that it doesn't copy images into its own secret folders, then it won't make a second copy.

    All Aperture images are known to the other applications... i can open iDVD and use the media navigator to view my Aperture images without having Aperture open. All the applications are just simply aware of all of my images.
    That's what is meant by integration.
    What you're doing is copy/paste and duplicating.


    Aside from the fact that I just proved that integration with non-Apple apps does not necessarily (and if you know your apps, actually does not often) result in copy/paste duplicating (heck, I didn't even copy and paste, I dragged and dropped), what you're doing is defining "integration" as "I live in an all-Apple universe." Since I use apps from Apple, Adobe, and a wide variety of smaller vendors, the ability of Apple apps to provide direct access to other Apple app libraries is not so critical. It's useful, to be sure, but hardly universally useful once you cross the border out of Appleistan. I find that drag-and-drop closes the gap considerably, since most pro apps execute that through a reference link and not a file embed. Also, I often prefer to use another file browser like iView Media Pro or Adobe Bridge to locate a file more quickly and efficiently, than through Apple's embedded browse interfaces.

    By the way...Lightroom's slide show feature gives you direct access to your iTunes music library, right from inside Lightroom. So the integration is not an Apple exclusive. Part of the beauty of OS X, actually, is that Apple has also made inter-application integration work quite well with non-Apple apps without having to copy files.
    PowerBook G4 15" Aluminum and Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.4.11)
  • Proggie Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 2:11 PM (in response to Sarge_)
    Of course I understand how aperture works. There is no reason why iPhoto or any other app can't use Aperture's definitions of a version and generate the output based on the RAW and the instructions for making the version, including all the adjustments. All it has to know is that you're selecting the version of a photo from aperture, look up the adjustments that need to be made in the aperture database and render the final image using the aperture/OS engine. Doing the book in iPhoto was just an example. Same goes for iWeb/iDVD, or any other app that has ability to use Aperture's photos. I want it to use the best image possible and if it means waiting for it to generate the image from RAW then so be it. But I dont' want to be stuck with the one pregenerated preview image that may be fine for some purposes (such as instant slideshow) but too small for others.
    PowerBook G4 1.5GHz, Mac OS X (10.5.1), 2GB RAM
  • Sarge_ Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 2:31 PM (in response to Proggie)
    What is it you can't do in Aperture that you need high res for? Just photo books, from what I can see. Why not make those directly in Aperture?

    If you give to much ability to manipulate RAW files to iPhoto and other iApps, it obviates Aperture altogther. I think they're trying to maintain product differentiation, which would mostly seem to make sense.

    It would be nice if you had those controls in the other apps, but I'm not sure what good it does - why not just tab over to Aperture and make the changes - the preview is immediately updated to whatever quality level you set for the previews.
    Mac Pro Octo Core w/ Quadra FX 4500, 8GB RAM, quad fibre, 150GB WD10k, 3x 750GB, Mac OS X (10.5.1), MacProOcto-MacProC2D–MBpro15-MB13-3 C2D MacMinis–10TBxRAID-iPhone-4 iPods
  • David G Chapman Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 2:42 PM (in response to Rich Hayhurst)
    Hi Rick,

    I think Apple have some really, really smart developers. And their smarts were to create an algorithm that OS X core image could execute. The variables that this uses are camera specific (as in RAW.plist). There is no real mystery in this file, but likely quite a bit of trial and error. Still, other writers are correct in my view, Adobe and others can do it months faster than Apple, so either Apple screwed up this hugely important interface and made it difficult to add new cameras, or they didn't. If they didn't (and we all believe they had the smarts to avoid this black hole), then where are they?

    Finally, the absence of substantive roadmaps is why Apple frustrate enterprises and professionals: it's great to add mystery and excitement for mass market consumers, but that marketing stance is anathema for business. Joe's comments were marketing and directional but not specific and definitely not substantive. I bear Joe no ill, he is guaranteed to be covered in Confidentiality and NDA's just like many of us.
    15" MBP 2.4GHz 4Gb / Quad 2.5G5 X1900 4.5Gb 2x500Gb, Mac OS X (10.5.1), When my Windows pc grows up, it wants to be a doorstop
  • Don Louv Level 1 Level 1 (15 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 3:16 PM (in response to wildnis)
    Read Apple's SEC filings to understand why iPod, MacBookAir, and iMac get the attention. They generate a ton more revenue for Apple than Aperture. SJ doesn't care about the "pro" applications.

    While many may argue, Apple has always been, and will always be, run as a hardware company, not a software company. Yeah, there is some great software there. But that's not the way the company runs.

    Adobe will always be a software company.

    Internal company priorities, resources, respect and rewards will be applied in line with the above.
    bleeding six colors., Mac OS X (10.5.1)
  • Proggie Level 4 Level 4 (1,300 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 3:21 PM (in response to Sarge_)
    you misunderstood me. I don't want to make any adjustments in iPhoto or any other app. I just want to use an iApp and have the ability to use a version of a photo from Aperture. That photo would have been adjusted in Aperture. All it needs is to be understood by the iApp. Currently to make that happen you have to create a preview which renders the version. I want the rendering to be done by the iApp using the instructions that it already has defined in Aperture. That way in the iApp I'm not stuck with the predetermined size/quality of the preview. This would also allow the option to not even render previews ahead of time. Currently you must have previews for all images that you want to use in iApps, and currently I don't create previews for all my images. If I create a low res preview for aperture slideshows, why should that determine what image is used in iPhoto/iDVD/iWeb or any other 3rd party app (for example for the blurb.com website).
    PowerBook G4 1.5GHz, Mac OS X (10.5.1), 2GB RAM
  • F Harvell Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 4:42 PM (in response to Mitch Aunger)
    Mitch, I believe that you are missing the whole of Apple's Aperture problems. There are multiple issues combining to create the mutinous mood. One is the extremely long lapse since the last update. Another is the excruciating lack of support for popular, "pro" cameras from Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, Olympus, etc. A third, public relations problem for Apple which is the secretive silence on the status of the product (which since its introduction has had questioned support) and total lack of information and estimated timelines for new (and existing) camera support.

    On the long lapse since an update, I can join you in that I look forward to an update but the existing application works for me today (except for lack of support for my D300).

    On the lack of raw support, I am so extremely dissatisfied that I can hardly express my disgust without resorting to words that shouldn't be said. How is it that nearly every other raw converter application running on the mac has viable raw converters for most of the popular cameras within days or weeks of the camera's introductions but the king-of-the-platform, Apple itself, arguably the biggest, baddest technology company in the world with their entrenched creative customer base and substantial media influence, cannot release a raw converter in over two months (or more). It's just plain incredible that Apple has the arrogance to treat their customer base with such disregard. This is the source of the mutiny.

    Event the secretive Apple has traditionally used high-profile events to make announcements. So far, in this current Apple debacle, Apple has missed two very high profile events: Macworld Expo and PMA 2008. Both have arrived and nothing from Apple. When can we expect something, WWDC in June or later?

    The lack of support for newer cameras may be the source of the mutiny but it is the lack of information of any sort from Apple that fuels the fire. Many people using "pro" apps are using them for their business. The term "pro" comes from professional, which, at least in today's vocabulary translates into work in exchange for money. Apple needs to provide these customers with more information so that they can plan, even roughly, on when in their business they will need either extra time or money to spend on Apple products.

    In summary, while it may be a wise strategy for someone to continue working with an existing camera until all of the pieces are in place, the reality is that the digital camera market is still only approaching maturity. The newer cameras can provide a solution for a salable picture today that would not be possible with the "existing" camera. It is asinine for Apple to think that, in these fast paced times, it is acceptable to their professional customers to just sit on their hands and be satisfied with Apple's briefest mention of "will soon release an upgrade that includes RAW format support for new cameras and other exciting new features" and requests to "please stay tuned." The mutiny is in full rage and I'm about to join the ranks.
  • Mitch Aunger Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 5:00 PM (in response to F Harvell)
    I am not missing the point in any way shape or form... i'm simply stating that not everyone is "mutinous" nor do i even think it is the majority. I am waiting patiently. I am not a pro and i have not chosen to buy a camera that is not yet supported. I will wait.

    I also do not know the level of complexity for Apple to integrate the newest RAW support and therefore i choose not to bash them for not getting it done as quickly as some people would desire. It may be insanely hard and may take some time. It may be simple. I do not have a clue. I do not think it is appropriate to complain about this subject without knowing the details.

    Do you really think that if it was so simple that they would risk damaging their reputation with the community by simply putting off getting the simple updates out? I may be naive, but I tend to think they aren't that crazy. It must be fairly complicated to do it right.

    I'm leaving this discussion now as i don't think any new information is coming here. Good luck to all.
    24" iMac 2.8, Mac OS X (10.5.1), iPhone and some newtons that i don't use any more :(
  • Sarge_ Level 1 Level 1 (0 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2008 5:26 PM (in response to Mitch Aunger)
    Mitch Aunger wrote:
    I am not missing the point in any way shape or form... I am waiting patiently. I am not a pro and i have not chosen to buy a camera that is not yet supported. I will wait.


    But if you made your living with it...?


    I also do not know the level of complexity for Apple to integrate the newest RAW support and therefore i choose not to bash them for not getting it done as quickly as some people would desire. It may be insanely hard and may take some time. It may be simple. I do not have a clue. I do not think it is appropriate to complain about this subject without knowing the details.


    Well, how about the fact that every other pro photo app has support for those cameras within days of the camera's release, not MONTHS. Does that tell you something about how impossibly difficult it is for everyone else?


    Do you really think that if it was so simple that they would risk damaging their reputation with the community by simply putting off getting the simple updates out? I may be naive, but I tend to think they aren't that crazy. It must be fairly complicated to do it right.

    I'm leaving this discussion now as i don't think any new information is coming here.


    New information comes from Apple marketing, not these discussion forums. Duh!

    Apple is a great hardware company, but after two years of working almost exclusively with their in-house apps, it seems to me they still understand the consumer and student markets better than the business market when it comes to software development, support and features. It's great that it's all so easy to use for school children, but the manner in which they develop for and communicate with the business/pro level customer is not telling of much comprehension of 'business' needs.

    I'll keep the hardware, but I'm about done with the software, all the way around.

    To Wit - you have to open Firefox to view many websites, Calendar has no auto alarm default with new appointments, iPhone can't sync w/ BT or be used as a modem, and who uses their 'Office' apps. 20 years late with a viable spreadsheet program (I shouldn't say that, I haven't tried it). And now this most recent failed foray into the pro photo market.

    If you need to do business, you needs apps from people for whom that is their core focus. There's no shame in that either, the problem behind everyone's disgust is that Aperture didn't live up to it's "professional" marketing. The product is slower than advertised (for starters, the demo video showed absolutely fluid adjustments and editing, no hanging, which is LIghtroom's reality, but not Aperture's) and even for the patient, they cannot produce RAW support for pro cameras, MONTHS after the competition... Honestly?
    Mac Pro Octo Core w/ Quadra FX 4500, 8GB RAM, quad fibre, 150GB WD10k, 3x 750GB, Mac OS X (10.5.1), MacProOcto-MacProC2D–MBpro15-MB13-3 C2D MacMinis–10TBxRAID-iPhone-4 iPods
  • Adsy Level 1 Level 1 (25 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2008 3:22 AM (in response to scott nichol)
    I was the one who first posted the Automator fix. I agree that the 'Show package contents' is not ideal, but Apple has been known to have somewhat complicated Knowledge Base articles before.

    In any event, I am sure someone at Apple could, if they wished, put together an Applescript or something to perform the copy for users without too much trouble.
    MacBook C2D 2.0GHz, Mac OS X (10.5.1), 2GB/120
  • gguida Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2008 5:42 AM (in response to Joe Schorr)
    Thanks for the slightly comforting news.

    I do agree with most other posts here that professionals need a clearer road map on camera support. I ordered my 1Ds3 on the day it was released, received it on the day it arrived in the UK but still haven't been able to integrate it into my workflow since Aperture doesn't recognise it. That's £6000 having an undeserved nap. On a commercial level, the coming of new cameras is an excellent excuse for switching programs so I am surprised Apple didn't think it would be important to secure its client base as all the camera manufacturers have updated their models in the last few weeks. If I decide to go with Lightroom so I can finally use my new cameras, what will be the incentive to switch back to Aperture? A few new features certainly won't do it considering the effort needed to migrate a whole picture library. Will Aperture be the first to support the 1Ds4 in two years time? Will it matter then, in an established and mature market and with 200,000 pictures to migrate instead of 100,000?

    I would also be happy to see new features but would by far prefer to have existing performance problems solved. iView Media Pro was able to scroll through my 100,000 thumbnails in seconds, could find any picture instantly and generate a subset of the collection without any delay. Why can't Aperture do it? It's not about converting raw files on the fly, it's just about proper database management. And why be constrained by the Projects system? For wildlife photographers, our whole life work is one project. I am sure Microsoft will find a way to mess up iView Media until it becomes useless but Apple could take a leaf from their book now.

    Performance is also at the heart of the picture editing process problems. It works well enough, the principles are sound and forward looking but it's unbearably slow. Straightening an image or applying more than five or six dust patches takes minutes. Aperture is geared towards individual image editing, contrarily to Canon DPP or DxO Optics which are built for batch processing. They are, and can afford to be slow as you can do something else while they work. It's not true for Aperture. All those minutes waiting for a patch to finally follow my cursor do add up at the end of the day. Don't give me new features, give me more speed.

    I'll wait, but not very long.
    G5-2x2.5,MacBook, Mac OS X (10.5.1), + another 10 computers
  • t.t. Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2008 6:49 AM (in response to Joe Schorr)
    We've been staying tuned for 16 months, Joe. I have a stack of DVDs waiting to get processed and sent to my stock agency, shot with the Nikon D3 and D300. I'd like to keep everything in Aperture. That's why I'm waiting for the Aperture update, but am quickly losing interest as almost every other RAW processing software can accommodate the new cameras. Plus, as of Day One at PMA, there is no announcement of a Leopard or Aperture update, and nothing arriving in my software updates.

    Question: Why is Apple so seemingly ambivalent to their customers' software needs?
    mac pro, Mac OS X (10.5.1)
  • vFunct Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2008 7:30 AM (in response to Joe Schorr)
    Well, I started moving my workflow away from Aperture and towards Lightroom/Bridge. Obviously extremely popular D3/D300 support being 3 months late didn't help, but for me the lack of support for $30,000 digital backs are also important. I haven't seen any info on whether Leaf Aptus 75S backs are being supported (even though Leaf Aptus 75 backs are). And then there's the whole Hasselblad H3d and Phase One backs that we never obviously got support for.

    I'm sure the D3/D300 support will come soon, but then what about the next Nikon cameras? Or the latest digital backs? Do we have to wait another 3 or 4 months when Nikon releases their next generation cameras, such as a high-resolution version of the D3? Wait another year for the Leaf AFi support?

    It's this kind of behaviour that leads one to think of Aperture as something that doesn't support pro users.
    MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.1), 17
  • Tom Aellis Level 2 Level 2 (205 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 1, 2008 7:38 AM (in response to vFunct)
    Moz, about the Hassey and backs, that's not true, My H2 /96c *.fff files were support and they were great, awesome.
    However, in rel 1.5 Apple chose to simply..... TAKE IT OUT.

    Just on a whim I guess, they told me to wrap it up in a DNG file with my
    Flexcolor s/w. That one set me over the edge, and it hurt me to no end.

    I didn't know they still dont support the Hx models. True?
    Mac OS X (10.4.9), AE 802.11n -Few ATV's
1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 18 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.