Replacement to Aperture

I know that, but for iPhoto one could not switch libraries within the software. As I recall one had to change the library pointer then restart the software. Aperture made switching libraries very easy without needing to change settings or to restart the program.

So is it confirmed then that multiple libraries will not be readily supported in the new Photos OSX like they are in Aperture? This was one feature I really loved for helping to keep our massive collection of family photos manageable. I used to use iPhoto, but as the library grew, iPhoto bogged down.

Not at all. Nothing is confirmed yet, because there is only a Beta version being tested, and Beta versions can change any day, without prior warning

The current Photos Beta supports switching between libraries, but only one library can be the main library and sync with iCloud, just like you now can only have one Aperture library or Photo Library use the photo streams.

So, if you want all your photos in iCloud Photo Library, merge the respective libraries into one library. And do not include the photos that you do not want in iCloud.

I know that, but for iPhoto one could not switch libraries within the software.

iPhoto 3.6 has a "Switch to Library" in the File menu, just like Aperture, also "Open in Aperture".

In Photos you double-click the library you want to open.

This is a massive failure on Apples part to continue supporting existing users. This has become a repeated situation over the years. This whole iCloudification of everything is just a means to sell cloud storage on their part. I have 6TB of photos and the biggest iCloud plan is 1TB. They are only pandering to consumers taking selfies. There is no way on this earth I will pay Apple to use their cloud service. Anyone else get completely screwed over by .mac? I had a paid subscription and used it for a lot of things like web hosting, photo sharing, file sharing, keychain sync etc. etc. Well they just decided one day to drop it and replace it with nothing. I have zero confidence that Apple will not do the same again. I also suffered the iWeb demise, Final Cut transition and now Aperture. Apple really have no integrity.

Again: You don't have to use the Cloud.

I prefer to think of it as you don't have to use Photos.

I see that as much better solution to the problem.

Allan I'm no fan either, as I believe you know. But folks read these forums and its easy to come away with a misapprehension.

I stand by my statement as I look for a non-Apple replacement for Aperture which Photos is certainly not.

Terence,

It is clear that you don't have to use iCloud, and personally I can think for no reason to do so, the point is that the changes to Photos seems to be driven primarily to support the use of iCloud. All Apple focus on Photos is directed at iCloud. It appears to be their primary feature. You actually have to read a lot of information that mentions iCloud very prominently before finding any form of small print that says you can use local storage.

It is grand that you have taken it upon yourself to rectify Apples total obsession with iCloud but frankly they are the ones causing the continual backlash in here about Photos and iCloud.

I have an Adobe subscription but much prefer Aperture. It is a major shame that Apple have taken this path.

I wasn't writing to correct what Apple are saying, I was simply clarifying the situation for folks who might read your post and come away with an incorrect reading of the situation.

I didn't say that iCloud was required, I know it isn't. I simply vented my frustration at Apple castrating software for the sake of iCloud.

You need to ask yourself why you are having to clarify this message so often. Maybe you should be correcting Apples advertising not continually posting 'corrections' to other forum users. If you think people will get the wrong impression from here what do you think they are getting from the official Apple market position?

It looks to me that Apple is deliberately giving the impression that it is all about iCloud. They really want the selfie crowd to buy into it. It obviously isn't aimed at anyone with serious media libraries.

I just stopped my company buying additional Mac Pro systems. Apple have lost the plot and consequently lost a dedicated user who has bought just about every Apple product since the IIe

I don't work for Apple. I don't really care about their advertising, even less about your company's buying decisions. What I care about is the ordinary person - who may yes, heaven! be a person who takes selfies - landing on this thread from a google search and getting the wrong impression. That's all.

Photos is "all about iCloud". Just like a Aperture was all about Raw. But that doesn't mean you can't do other things.

We actually don't know yet how much of a realistic replacement to Aperture that Photos is going to be. Certainly it's not looking good unless you are one of the unimaginative 'selfie crowd' with your head in the iClouds and even the name 'Photos' is downmarket and uninspiringly promises little. Furthermore, Apple's marketing of 'Photos' at this stage looks very discouraging to professionals and serious amateurs (like myself) who exclusively shoot RAW format and often 1,000 images in a good week.

However, it's very simple - If Apple don't offer at least equivalent features to Aperture's, then users are going to vote with their feet. Plan B is likely to be Capture One Pro or Lightroom (if I can avoid using wretched clouds and subscriptions!). The trouble is that Apple are more interested in their profits and share price and would not appear to care so much about who buys their products anymore - Quality sacrificed by Quantity.

But let's wait and see.

As an interim to a Plan B I assume that by sticking with OS Yosemite one can run both Aperture and Photos on the same machine?

As an interim to a Plan B I assume that by sticking with OS Yosemite one can run both Aperture and Photos on the same machine?

Yes. Both iPhoto and Aperturewill continue to work with Photos installed. It must be this way, since Photos will come as part of MacOS X and cannot be installed selectively.

What I don't understand is why a company the size of Apple can't have a "pro" division, developing pro solutions for the pro user. They can still pedal Photos to the masses. What can be wrong with providing best solution for heavy weight users? what could be wrong with the pr that would generate?

Apple still innovate, I have no idea if the watch is of use or Apples move into the Electric Vehicle sector is a good idea, but why dump the reputation of a company like this.

It would be like Harley Davidson deciding to only make mopeds because they can sell more mopeds than big bikes.

Tell them here feedback

We can't change their direction for you. You won't get an answer but if enough people complain then they may take it on board.

Cheers

Pete