Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

They can't be serious about the iCloud storage?

I have nearly a Terabyte of images right now on my hard drives and it gets larger every day. Transfer rate will suck compared to fast drive rates. And I can't imagine the cost. Its an extra $100 for 50 GB. So will it be $2000 to upload my stuff to an iCloud. Hopefully there will be an option to keep the files locally and only use the icloud for recent stuff. If I see any software or plugins that help me move to lightroom I may jump the gun on this one. I am hoping they will come up with something that moves the adjustments too. I would hate to lose all of that. I have been with Aperture since 1 and its sad to see it go.

Posted on Jun 27, 2014 8:18 PM

Reply
31 replies

Jun 27, 2014 9:04 PM in response to bob Keenan

Hi Bob,


The Apple Discussions ToU prohibits me from speculating on future products.


There has never been a program that allows one to export the Version+Original pair, _and retain the relationship between them_. The relationship is what allows the database to produce the Image on the fly by applying the text instructions in the Version file to the Original image-format file.


You can always export your Originals, and you can always create new image-format files by exporting your Images. Your adjustments have never been at risk. But the only way to keep them change-able, and attached to the Original, has been via the Aperture database.

Jun 28, 2014 2:00 AM in response to papalapapp

Well, typical Apple, the statement simply addresses the fact that development is discontinued and says nothing at all about the upcoming application.


So, we're left reading tea leaves and waiting to see what they actually produce... So from the bottom of my tea cup:


Note the capitalisation and the use of the word 'and'...


So are you sure that the "new Photos app" and "iCloud Photo Library" are the same thing? I'm not and frankly, even with excellent broadband - which most of the world doesn't have, heck even the US has poor broadband coverage compared to a lot of places - the overhead in processing large amounts of data would still suffer from massive latency.


So - and like everyone else here, I'm only guessing - if you've got local storage for apps Pages and Numbers, why wouldn't you have the same for much larger files like photos? Or do you think Apple believe you should not be able to see your photos when mobile, away from home or outside of broadband coverage? There's so much there that seems to me to suggest, if you think cooly about it, that local storage is a must and the Library in the Cloud is a convenient way to share, not the only location for your shots.


Of course, I might get different results after the next cup, but the thing is the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Jun 28, 2014 3:26 AM in response to Yer_Man

Cloud storage doesn't make any sense for RAW files. What should I do with 2 TB of RAW files, or even a 64 GB card full of 36 MP RAW files on my iPhone? Or even the preview images of my whole library? If they are smart, you can sync your iPhone snaps over the cloud of course, and some preview images as JPEG to your mobile device, that you can edit in a limited way, and the sync the adjustments back to Aperture. Sorry, "Photos".

Jun 28, 2014 5:46 AM in response to papalapapp

I think there's a difference between "enable" and "force". I'd be truly surprised if local storage were not an option. That would seem completely illogical, particularly for Aperture users, with professional needs.


Clearly, Adobe Lightroom will be the natural software to replace Aperture with.


Yosemite's "Photos" application will supposedly have many of Aperture's features, and allow easy access to external editors.


For hard-core Aperture users, this announcement is disappointing. But don't despair yet: I'm sure there are great solutions coming from Apple and Adobe.

Jun 28, 2014 7:38 AM in response to Organism

As good as Apple can be, I really don't buy the idea that one app can satisfy both consumers and professionals (or even "prosumers") with a single app. They are totally different markets, and Apple has made the bold choice to abandon professionals. Nothing in their limited public statements suggests that there will be any professional-level services in the new app—everything mentioned is geared toward iPhone users (casual photography).


Sure, there might be plug-ins, and add-ons, and desperate workarounds, but that's not what I'm looking for.


And I'm not looking for subscription models, either. I don't want to have to pay a ransom every month just to maintain access to my photos (Adobe).

Jun 28, 2014 7:50 AM in response to papalapapp

papalapapp wrote:


"With the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, ..."

I guess it's how people undersand this statement since there is no mention of local-only stoage.

Enabling ≠ requiring.

And if it was "required" in order to us Photos app in any way, you need to purchase iCloud storage for your TBs of photos.

Theres will be not be any "requirement" to use iCloud fro any/all photos.

Most likely, it will work like the Shared photo streams available now but with more options.

Jun 28, 2014 7:58 AM in response to Yer_Man

Well, typical Apple, the statement simply addresses the fact that development is discontinued and says nothing at all about the upcoming application.

Yes, but if you look at the past it is very likely that the new software will only have half of the functions compared to the current version of iPhoto, so why don't cut of the local sync. See what they did with iWork or iMovie. I think the new Photos app will be reduced to the functionality of the photos for iOS 8 app to make them more compatible, don't expect more. But I think it was a good decision to don't use the old name "iPhoto" for the new app. If they gave the new Pages a new name and a new file extension, there would be much less discussions on this change. So lets wait for the final photos app. Hope Springs Eternal.

Jun 28, 2014 8:05 AM in response to Csound1

I can't think of a single area where consumers and professionals use the same software to do their actual work. iMovie has Final Cut, Pages/Microsoft word has Indesign, Garage Band has Logic Pro, etc. In my study of interface design, I see no evidence that you can happily supply the needs of such widely-differing groups of users.


I think Apple is abandoning the professional photographers. Aperture was their gambit to regain this market, and it failed to do so.


The question is whether or not they'll drive away the prosumers, too.

Jun 28, 2014 8:09 AM in response to preludio

preludio wrote:


I can't think of a single area where consumers and professionals use the same software to do their actual work. iMovie has Final Cut, Pages/Microsoft word has Indesign, Garage Band has Logic Pro, etc. In my study of interface design, I see no evidence that you can happily supply the needs of such widely-differing groups of users.

Totally irrelevant, the only thing we know about the new app is that Apple have not published its feature set. Everything else is speculation.

They can't be serious about the iCloud storage?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.