My responce to Apple's request to try Photos as an Aperture user

We are users, not Apple, and there is no guarantee that Apple will see this. Use the feedback menu option in Aperture to send this directly to Apple.

My main reason to buy the expensive Apple computers has always been the advanced software that is only available on a Mac.

I considered to buy a Mac Pro to replace my iMac to be used with Aperture, GarageBand and Xcode, but no longer. Why invest in expensive computers, if the software cannot do more than the software on my iPad, which is extremely limited - only full screen apps, no direct access to the file system, generally awkward to use.

Yes by all means use feedback, but this should be broadcast all over the net. Like the original poster Aperture to me is the main reason I use Apple, I have based a business around Aperture workflow. I also use FCPX.

I will add, I too am looking at Premier, its impressive and guess what it works best on a PC with mercury, I can't see Adobe tossing aside its pro base can you for those that want to integrate with Facebook easier.

I feel very let down by Apple.

Let me explain why this is happening.

As you know, Apple dominates the mobile device market place (i.e. iPhone and iPad). However, they do not dominate the desktop computer marketplace. The approach Apple is taking is to try to pull iPhone and iPad customers into their desktop market by making the programs for Macintosh as similar as possible as the apps found on iOS. In fact, you can see how the latest Mac OS looks more like iPad.

Personally, I require absolutely no integration between my photo editing (and organizing) on a Mac and the photos I take with my iPhones. I understand that some people want this integration. I had expected / hoped that Apple would have a simple photo program that would integrate with iOS, and have a separate, more powerful, photo program that runs on Macintosh that has little or nothing to do with iOS.

To understand the philosophy better just remember this. iOS leads, Mac OS follows.

The new "Photos" program may be terrific. It's too early to tell. What bothers me the most is that once Photos comes out, Aperture will no longer be available for sale. This is one of the big disadvantages with downloaded software versus software sold on optical disc. ( Look at all the people who still purchase iLife 06 so they can have the popular iMovie 06. )

To give a little background, I started with Apple in 1979 with the Apple II, and have purchased over 100 Macs both personally and professionally. Presently, I own about 10 Macs (Mac Pros and MacBooks) and about 12 iOS devices. (Lots of IPod Classic's too.) So, if there is a bigger Apple fan than me, I've never met one.

If I understand correctly, 3d party developers can write extensions for Photos app so that may be a way to bring advanced tools into the app.

But I don't know if I agree with your take on what Apple are doing.

I have to disagree, Apple are not trying to lure iPhone / iPad users to Apple desktops. In my option Apple are quietly and lowly dropping the desktop. I recently went in to the Apple Store in Manchester UK, and your luckly to see a desktop, maybe 4 at the most on show, but with dozens and dozens of phones and iPads to play with.

I have said it many times before, and it needs repeating, Apple are a phone maker first and foremost , with computers a left over from the past. I must also agree with others, why buy an expensive Apple, to run software that's excally the same on a much cheaper windows machine, with no Apeture i see no point for me in my next upgrade being an Apple product.

Well the phone is where the vast bulk of the (vast) profits are. That's the new reality.

I don't believe that Apple are 'dropping the desktop', nor do I think that they are trying to lure iOS users to OS X. I think it's a bit more simple than that. They are quietly building up a steady suite of software that

1. Provides a very similar user experience on OS X, the Cloud and iOS. Moving between the three interfaces retains a similar experiences, even if the OS X version is more capable.

2. Shares data across the three interfaces so that you can move from device to device effortlessly

3. Is (and for pro users this is the key point) good-enough-for-most-people

So, create a doc in Pages on your Mac, switch to a Windows machine and continue working on it in the web browser and then finish it off on your iPad or iPhone later. It's quite a trick when it works. But Pages present an excellent example of an app that's 'good-enough-for-most-people'. Write letters and simple page-layouts and so on. But if you want a complex word-processing document, then you go to a 3rd party vendor - MS, Nisus, Mellel - for a more powerful specialised app to do your job.

The advantage for Apple is clear. A common suite of apps that work pretty much the same throughout the ecosystem. The user can move effortlessly from one gadget to another and it's all quite seamless. As good middle of the road apps they're relatively easy to maintain and develop. Plus, there is also a healthy aftermarket for 3rd party developers to specialise in. Easy to use Spreadsheet: Numbers. Complex financial planning: Excel. So, Apple are happy, the other vendors are happy developing into a market where they are not competing with Apple.

This is actually still a better offer for most users than Windows. You still have to buy these apps on Windows, but they're all free on Macs.

When Apple was in trouble it went after niche markets - video and photography being two - aggressively. Now they don't need to do that. If you're a iPhone photographer (and face it, more people are than are DSLR shooters) then Photos will likely be just what you want. If you're a specialised shooter you need to go 3rd party - LR, CaptureOne whatever.

Not saying I like this. I'll miss Aperture. And I'd be a nervous FCP or Logic user. But that seems to be what they are doing.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, no reason to not keep Aperture or produce a version of Photos that does what Aperture users need. No way will I be saving 3TB of raw in anybodies cloud.

It doesn't have to be one or the other

Of course it doesn't have to be but it does seem to be what they are choosing...

no reason to not keep Aperture

Well, reason or not, that's what they have decided to do. Presumably they have their own reasons.

or produce a version of Photos that does what Aperture users need.

Well not so sure about that. I don't believe the powerful file management tools in Aperture (especially for working with Referenced Libraries) have a place in Photos. After all it's optimised for everything to be in the Cloud, and hence my comment about iPhone shooters. It has the power to consolidate referenced libraries but no ability to relocate masters and so on. I think the tools they chose to incorporate into the first version are a significant message.

No way will I be saving 3TB of raw in anybodies cloud.

Well again, it seems to require repeating, but you are not required to use the Cloud with Photos.