Aperture what is with this company just leave it be

Up until this point, you could expect Apple, Adobe, Capture One, Nik Capture NX and anyone else I know of to update the current version of their software to work with current camera releases no other strings attached. Period. In order to get this update, we are changing that precedent and it simply isn't right. Look, we obviously disagree, so for my part I am done unless you can offer something more concrete than Apple can simply do what they please.

Mike Bisom1 wrote:

more concrete than Apple can simply do what they please.

There is nothing more concrete. That's the point. I'm _totally_ in favor of greater rights for buyers -- but right now, under the contracts you signed (or accepted), that's the situation.

My advice is to work to make this _not_ an empty, no-consequence threat:

Mike Bisom1 wrote:

"But they had better come out with an update to A3 that supports current cameras."

You are dealing with the world's highest-capitalized corporation (as of 25 October 2012). You are -- as best as I know -- totally, completely, inconsequential to Apple. The question for you is, "How can I change that?"

"How can I change that?"

Class action. I bought a Canon 40D before Aperture "officially" aupported it. I bought it under the very real imoression that the software would catch up to current hardware. It did. I bought a Canon Nikon D300s before Aperture "officially" aupported it. I bought it under the very real imoression that the software would catch up to current hardware. It did. I bought a Nikon D7000 before Aperture "officially" aupported it. I bought it under the very real imoression that the software would catch up to current hardware. It did. I bought a Nikon D600 under the impression my current version of the software would support current cameras. It won't.

I guess I don't understand the question. The current app (Aperture) is supported on the current hardware. It is not supported on a 2 1/2 year old version of the operating system. It _is_ supported on the current operating system, as well as the operating system that shipped a year before that.

When I purchased Aperture 3 (or 1 or 2 for that matter), I bought it because Apple sells it as a workflow solution. When I bought Aperture 3, it worked with 10.6. And as I illustrated, I had a historical expectation that it would work with Raw files from current cameras. Both the OS and the App where current when I bought it. As a matter of fact, I went through all of these hoops upgrading from my G5 machine and Aperture 2... but I had all of this information up front. In any case, I still own the current version of Aperture. However, I cannot use it with the Raw files of a current camera (in my case the D600 in the OP's case the Canon 5DMIII) without signficant cost both in dollars and downtime while I upgrade everything that now needs to be upgraded becasue now I need to update the OS. I was ambushed. Apple has never done this before. No other software vendor has ever done this before. If Apple wants to update Aperture to make use of the new features in it's newest operating system, more power to them. Go for it. I then know beforehand what the consetquences of me purchasing new equipment will be. And again, I went through all of that just over a year ago (June 2011) when I started my transition to Intel Macs. But again, I knew A3 wouldn't work on a G5 system. My choice was to update of find other solutions, fair enough. This is like having a G5 and Aperture 2 only now there is a 2.1 udpate that will work with the "newest" cameras only you need to upgrade to Intel. It_isn't_right no matter how you slice it. And this policy sets a precedent. As you say, Apple has no concern over me or my opinion whatsoever. So if I, as a consumer, allow them to just walk all over me, then all other companies will follow suite. Do you have CS6 running on 10.8... well the incremental update for ACR only runs on 10.9. In other words, it won't be long and we will be paying software vendors not for new versions, but for simple udpates. Heck, that is a model Adobe would just love. But not even Microsoft is that brazen. But wait, if no one bothers to speak up, lets just start charging for any 'ole update. Let's throw in Adobe's model and not only make you pay for each incremental update but charge you more if you try so skip an update! We don't care if you need it.

Mike,

I know for a fact that Adobe did not support the camera RAW for the Nikon D800 in Lightroom 3. A professional photographer friend of mine had to upgrade to LR 4 to use it.

Ernie

I have no issue with LR3 not supporting a D600 or a D800 or any other camera that was released after LR4 came out. I would have no issue if Apple had released Aperture 4, and whatever conditions A4 required, that would be fine. I would have all the information I need up front. I have handled these transitions several times in the past. This is the first incremental upgrade that requires an OS update to work with current generations of camera Raw files with the current generation of a professional application. It is simply wrong.

Well lets see, after "upgrading" to Mountain Lion, I have lost one plug-in that has been discontinued (OnOne photo frame); it simply doesn't work anymore. And Photoshop CS5 and Mnt. Lion don't play well with color management and dual screens. It seems somewhat well known, you can Google it. In other words, updating the OS isn't as cut and dry as you might like to make it out to be.

And joy of joys... Java is broken. I have to download an update to Java (it's not in Apple's software update) to run a ROES program (remote order entry system) whicm most of the labs I work with use. Only even after the update it still doesn't work. Please, tell me again how "easy" a new OS is??