If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: which means the posts will be within a second or two of each other, at the most. Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:32 -0500 4 seconds. Not 4 minutes as I orginally wrote. not only do you fail at telling time but you fail at math. 32-29 = 3 seconds. Citing a message ID is arguing? no. bitching that it wasn't included is. That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other message" is not very helpful. What other message? the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and are about to read. common sense. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
In article , Sandman
wrote: Nothing to do with my news server. The time stamp is applied at your end. nospam: it's not at my end. both messages were posted within a fraction of a second of each other. Sandman: Your news client sets the date, and apparently it set the date to the time of writing it, not the time of pushing it to the server. So three minutes apart is the time it took you to write the first and start the second. interesting theory, but it's completely wrong. That's why it's a theory. it's wrong from the start and makes no sense anyway. the time stamp is a function of when the post is actually posted. eric even posted the relevant reference for how it works. even though i know you're full of **** Nothing I wrote above was "****", it was all 100% true, and a theory to explain the different timestamps. it's 100% false. i tested it anyway. i made several posts to other threads, written several over an hour apart. the time stamps showed the time the post was actually posted to the newsserver, not the time the post was begun or completed at my end. Curious then that the two earlier posts had time stamps three minutes apart. they weren't. he even posted the time stamps. he, like you, cannot tell time. after posting the batch, all of the posts were at the most, within a couple of seconds of each other, confirmed on two different servers. Neat. And using those same servers, what were the timestamps of those two earlier posts you made - those that show up three minutes apart on my (and Eric's) server? bull**** they do. the two posts were made within 3 *seconds* (not minutes) of each other, on 12/5/14 at 21:10 gmt/4:10 pm est/1:10 pm pst. you and eric can't tell time. Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital Subject: The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 23 Message-ID: Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital Subject: The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 134 Message-ID: as i said, the problem is not at my end. It isn't a problem at all, at anyone's end. But your posts were timestamped three minutes apart. no they weren't. see above. not that the time stamps have *any* relevance to the topic. it's nothing more than another ridiculous diversion from eric. That I agree with. I was trying to give a theory to explain the disrepancy of your timestamps, which in fact was a very valid theory. it's completely bogus and doesn't even pass the sniff test. Still waiting for more info - like the timestamps you see on the posts on those two test servers you used above, but for those initial two posts. you could check the timestamps yourself, however, they're listed above. you're full of ****. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 15:46:58 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: which means the posts will be within a second or two of each other, at the most. Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:29 -0500 Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:10:32 -0500 4 seconds. Not 4 minutes as I orginally wrote. not only do you fail at telling time but you fail at math. 32-29 = 3 seconds. Citing a message ID is arguing? no. bitching that it wasn't included is. That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other message" is not very helpful. What other message? the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and are about to read. common sense. It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Citing a message ID is arguing? no. bitching that it wasn't included is. That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other message" is not very helpful. What other message? the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and are about to read. common sense. It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it. yes it was. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:51:36 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Citing a message ID is arguing? no. bitching that it wasn't included is. That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other message" is not very helpful. What other message? the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and are about to read. common sense. It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it. yes it was. This is getting silly. You have absolutely no idea of what I have on my screen. I'm stopping at this point. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
In article , Sandman
wrote: for some people the transition will be a huge pain in the ass and for others there will be absolutely no hassle whatsoever. most people fall in the middle somewhere. Whether or not it will be a hassle or problem for anyone hasn't been mentioned by me. I am stating the current state of the transition, and it applies to everyone. No one can use iCloud Photos on the Mac, and no one can use iCloud Photos on iOS without removing the iTunes-synced photos. The transition applies equallly to everyone. Whether or not it's a problem or how much you are affected by it is a totally seperate question which I haven't talked about. there will be a transition but it *will* differ for different people. nospam: lightroom now supports directly importing aperture libraries, making it easier than it was several months ago. Sandman: Indeed. Not that it was all that hard before. it's a lot more straightforward than it was before since it's now a feature in lightroom, whereas before it was a manual process. It was a three-step manual process. I don't know how the built in process works so I can't compare. in other words, you're talking out your ass. nospam: so no, the transition is without question, not the same for everyone. not even close to similar, let alone the same. Sandman: It's identical. Whether or not it is a problem for many or most, or whether or not they are affected by it is another question all together. then it's not identical. It is. If you change the speed limit of a road from 55 to 70, it's equal to everyone driving on that road, whether or not you drive your car at that speed or not. You can drive on that road at 45 before and after the transition and you will not be affected by the transition/change, but it is equal to you as anyone else. that's a bogus analogy, but nevertheless, for the drivers who were already going 70 there is no difference, other than they no longer need to worry about a speed trap. for those who go 80+, they'll still need to look for cops but the price of the ticket will likely be lower and for those still driving 55, they're now a danger to everyone else. identical means the same. if it varies for different people, then it cannot be identical. "Identical" is one word, the question is *what* is identical, not just "identical". Since the correct initial claim is: "The transition is the same for everyone" One can note that it doesn't say that the transition *affects* everyone the same, but it applies equally to everyone. I.e. you're nitpicking. it's not nitpicking at all, and not everyone will have a transition, namely those who don't use icloud at all. nospam: not only that and as i've said it before, making any decision now is premature. the wisest thing to do is wait until photos ships and see whether it fits one's needs and at *that* point, decide what to do. Sandman: Which is exactly what I am doing. if you've switched to lightroom already, you've made your decision. As I've said, I'm using both. which means you have not decided yet. doing so at this point is not a good idea. How do you know? What little we know of Photos for OSX isn't very promising. bull****. what's known about photos is *very* promising. non-destructive plug-ins is *extremely* powerful. nospam: adobe knows that so they're desperately trying to grab as many users as they can *before* photos comes out, because once those users switch to lightroom they won't switch back to photos. Sandman: Sure they could. I am currently using both Lightroom and Aperture from the same base photos, so if Photos turns out to be great, switching to it would be as easy as if I had never used Lightroom. they 'could' but they won't. I'm waiting for a reason for this. it's common sense. people have far better things to do than switch back and forth between asset management apps, especially when the raw conversion is incompatible. it's a hassle to switch once and an even bigger hassle to switch back, plus the conversion is a lossy process so doing it twice is a really stupid thing to do. WTF? I am *currently* using *both* Aperture/iPhoto *and* Lightroom for the same photos. I have the full power of all three applications available for all my photos. When Photos is released and if it's awesome, switching to it from my Aperture/iPhoto library will be as easy had I never even installed Lightroom. that's a complete mess. if you're still using aperture, you haven't switched and you're playing both sides of the fence. you're keeping two separate databases maintained with two different raw processing engines. I've never claimed that I've switched. I am using both Aperture and Lightroom and have their respective databases using the same photos. yes you did claim that, and juggling 3 different asset management apps is flipping insane. not only is that totally insane and just asking for problems, but you're probably the only person to do that. What? In what way, prey tell, is that insane? They are completely seperate and since neither ever touches the original files, it's totally safe. twice the work for zero benefit. pick one and stick with it. those who have switched from aperture to lightroom have abandoned aperture. switching *back* is not on their radar. No one need to "switch" anything. Both are applications that have an internal database that point to files on the HD. Both can also manage those files internally, but you can elect to have the photos untouched on the HD. *everything* in Aperture is inside the Aperture library, except the original photos - same with Lightroom. they definitely have to switch since the two apps use separate databases and separate raw conversion engines. you can't make a change in aperture and then switch to lightroom to do something else. using two asset management apps is crazy! adobe knows this and is desperately trying to get people to switch to lightroom before that window of opportunity closes. Not sure how this supposed "desperation" is manifasting itself. All I've seen is them posting about an upcoming migration tool for Aperture users when Aperture was EOL:ed, and then releasing it. That's a nice service for stranded Aperture users (or rather, those that feel stranded), and hardly "desperate". that's part of their desperation. they know quite well that the moment photos comes out, unless it's pure garbage (which is not likely), users will switch use photos because it's free. the sooner they can get people to switch to lightroom, the fewer that will switch *back* to photos even though it's free. it's common sense. nospam: nevertheless, for those that live in a cave, apple is switching to cloudkit, which is entirely new and incompatible with what came before. you get one or the other. Sandman: This is of course false. iOS Photos has the ability to see albums synced from iTunes and albums synced from iCloud Photos. "You get one or the other" isn't a reason, it's an empty claim. nothing about it is false. http://www.imore.com/troubleshoot-ic...c-images-from- iphoto Everything about it is false. The link above explains the current state of affairs, just like I did in my OP. But, it doesn't give any reason as to *WHY*, which is exactly what I said. The link above agrees with everything I said. no it doesn't. it says you have to pick one or the other, which is the case. first of all, this isn't about ios photos, it's about mac photos, which is not available yet. No, this is about iOS Photos, since that's what the OP was about. You're just confused. then why do you keep mentioning aperture and lightroom? obviously it's about mac photos, not ios photos. second, it's about the new cloudkit. No, it isn't. It may be what you THINK it is about, but it isn't. CloudKit is an API to transfer data from the cloud, that's all. yep, and it works much better than what came before. it's also not compatible with what came before. third, an app can continue to use the old coredata/icloud model if it wants, but it's incompatible with using cloudkit. iOS Photos does *NOT* use Core Data + iCloud, so this is an irrelevant point. it uses core data, as does mac iphoto and aperture. Enabling iCloud for Core Data stores *everything* in Core Data in iCloud. not necessarily. you have obviously never written an app that uses them. i have. Sandman: Cloudkit does NOT store data on your device, it's a transfer protocol using API's to read data from the Cloud. Cloudkit doesn't sync anything, you would still use Core Data to store local copies of photos. so what? that doesn't change anything i said. It does, since any developer can use CloudKit *and* Core Data + iCloud. They are not exclusive funcitonalities and it's not "one or the other". they 'could' but that would be a *total* waste of time and effort. developers could also support ios 5 if they wanted to, but that too is a total waste of time and effort. the reality, as has been demonstrated by just about every single app since last fall, is that users need to switch from the old syncing to the new syncing. that poses a serious problem for those who have devices running 10.10/ios 8 *and* 10.9 or earlier/ios 7 or earlier. photos on ios is not the issue and has little to do with photos on the mac other than the name. Sigh. Photos on iOS *IS* the issue. Here is the video again and see the issue first hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSyBkDF7pJc That's the current mess you're stuck with unless you turn on iCloud Photos, which you *CAN NOT DO* if you wish to have photos from your Mac (or PC) on your iOS device. that video confirms exactly what i said. it's one or the other. photos on mac is not done. go call apple and help them finish it and have it work the way you want it to work if you think you know better. I would be more interested in fixing iOS Photos to work neatly during this transitional period. why do you think it's called a transitional period? not only that, but photos on ios is likely to be revised to work with photos on mac. Maybe, but it would be better to be revised to work nicely during the period up until Photos for the Mac is released. there's no point in revising something that's a dead end. nospam: photos will be done when it's done, but probably released before it's truly done. Sandman: And probably will be less than iPhoto functionality-wise. another completely bogus assumption. Assumption, yes. Bogus no. Based on what we know. You may not have the same assumption, which is fine, but that's my assumption and I have posted many times about why this is a perfectly valid assumption. your assumption is based on your own prejudices against iphoto. you are assuming that photos will be *less* than iphoto. that is completely unfounded. photos will likely be something in between iphoto and aperture, eventually growing to do nearly all of what aperture did. That is indeed a bogus assumption. It isn't based on any information from Apple at all. That's fine as far as expectations or hopes goes, and I want to believe you're right, but there is nothing official that says that this is even remotely going to be true. one thing you got correct is that it's not based on any information. if you actually look at apple's developer documentation, you can clearly see just how powerful photos will be and more importantly, how capable third party extensions can be when they're non-destructive, something aperture and lightroom do not support. that much is clearly obvious from what apple has already shown, which wasn't all that much anyway. This is false. What Apple has shown is a mere shadow of iPhoto. What you're *hoping* for is that when released it will be a lot *more* than what Apple has shown us. And I am right there hoping with you, I'm just not holding my breath. the signs are obvious. the mere fact that it has non-destructive plug-ins is *huge*. not even lightroom can offer that (unless it's in the yet unreleased lightroom 6 which it probably isn't). all they had last june was a canned demo that showed a couple of features. there was no actual app at that time. however, there have been numerous hints along the way. None of which "hint" at your claim, of course. The closest thing you've come is that they've said it will support plugins. That's all. nope. i said non-destructive plug-ins along with other stuff. Or rather - support it! Show me these "hints" that puts Photos somewhere between iPhoto and Aperture feature-wise. start he http://www.apple.com/ after that, read the various tech journalist commentaries on photos and what apple is doing. the information is out there for those who want to see it. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Citing a message ID is arguing? no. bitching that it wasn't included is. That wasn't bitching. I was pointing out that just saying "other message" is not very helpful. What other message? the one that is posted within 3 seconds of the one you're currently reading. half the time you would have seen it already and the other half the time it would be the one you saw in the list of new posts and are about to read. common sense. It wasn't on my screen at that stage: I hadn't scrolled down to it. yes it was. This is getting silly. You have absolutely no idea of what I have on my screen. i have a very good idea of what's on your screen because i've used a variety of newsreaders over the years. newsreaders query the server for new posts so at a minimum, you would have seen the number of unread articles since your last visit, which would have been at least 2 for this thread. since your reply was a couple of hours after mine, there were likely more than just 2 posts in the group. in other words, the fact that there were additional posts to read was on your screen. I'm stopping at this point. good idea. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
The mess that is Photos on iOS and OSX
In article , nospam wrote:
nospam: for some people the transition will be a huge pain in the ass and for others there will be absolutely no hassle whatsoever. most people fall in the middle somewhere. Sandman: Whether or not it will be a hassle or problem for anyone hasn't been mentioned by me. I am stating the current state of the transition, and it applies to everyone. No one can use iCloud Photos on the Mac, and no one can use iCloud Photos on iOS without removing the iTunes-synced photos. The transition applies equallly to everyone. Whether or not it's a problem or how much you are affected by it is a totally seperate question which I haven't talked about. there will be a transition but it *will* differ for different people. There *is* already a transition, and it applies to everyone equally. No one is exempt from it. nospam: lightroom now supports directly importing aperture libraries, making it easier than it was several months ago. Sandman: Indeed. Not that it was all that hard before. nospam: it's a lot more straightforward than it was before since it's now a feature in lightroom, whereas before it was a manual process. Sandman: It was a three-step manual process. I don't know how the built in process works so I can't compare. in other words, you're talking out your ass. Since I've made no comment about the built in process, your above comment is as usual disconnected from what was said. nospam: so no, the transition is without question, not the same for everyone. not even close to similar, let alone the same. Sandman: It's identical. Whether or not it is a problem for many or most, or whether or not they are affected by it is another question all together. nospam: then it's not identical. Sandman: It is. If you change the speed limit of a road from 55 to 70, it's equal to everyone driving on that road, whether or not you drive your car at that speed or not. You can drive on that road at 45 before and after the transition and you will not be affected by the transition/change, but it is equal to you as anyone else. that's a bogus analogy, but nevertheless, for the drivers who were already going 70 there is no difference, other than they no longer need to worry about a speed trap. for those who go 80+, they'll still need to look for cops but the price of the ticket will likely be lower and for those still driving 55, they're now a danger to everyone else. Talk about totally missing the point. nospam: identical means the same. if it varies for different people, then it cannot be identical. Sandman: "Identical" is one word, the question is *what* is identical, not just "identical". Since the correct initial claim is: "The transition is the same for everyone" One can note that it doesn't say that the transition *affects* everyone the same, but it applies equally to everyone. I.e. you're nitpicking. it's not nitpicking at all, and not everyone will have a transition, namely those who don't use icloud at all. Since no one ever claimed it would be a transition for those that doesn't use iCloud, you're nitpicking, just like I said. You focus on small details instead of seeing the big picture in order to create an argument. nospam: not only that and as i've said it before, making any decision now is premature. the wisest thing to do is wait until photos ships and see whether it fits one's needs and at *that* point, decide what to do. Sandman: Which is exactly what I am doing. nospam: if you've switched to lightroom already, you've made your decision. Sandman: As I've said, I'm using both. which means you have not decided yet. Since I've never claimed to have decided, what point is it that you're imagining you're making? nospam: doing so at this point is not a good idea. Sandman: How do you know? What little we know of Photos for OSX isn't very promising. bull****. what's known about photos is *very* promising. Nope. non-destructive plug-ins is *extremely* powerful. They could be, but would be just a tiny funcitonality for Photos. Plus, Plugins for iOS8 are *not* non-destructive. In fact, Photos for iOS is "non-destructive" in the same way iPhoto is, meaning that you can do any edits you want, both built in and using plugins, but you can never remove only one of them, all you can do is revert to original and start over if you dislike the end result. I.e. just like how iPhoto is non-destructive. There's a risk that this is the kind of non-destructive editing you have in Photos for OSX, which means it sucks big time. In both Aperture and Lightroom you can make a myriad of changes and use the "checkboxes" to toggle a specific setting on or off. nospam: adobe knows that so they're desperately trying to grab as many users as they can *before* photos comes out, because once those users switch to lightroom they won't switch back to photos. Sandman: Sure they could. I am currently using both Lightroom and Aperture from the same base photos, so if Photos turns out to be great, switching to it would be as easy as if I had never used Lightroom. nospam: they 'could' but they won't. Sandman: I'm waiting for a reason for this. it's common sense. people have far better things to do than switch back and forth between asset management apps, especially when the raw conversion is incompatible. The raw conversion has nothing to do with it, it's within the app. They *can* use multiple asset management, and they *can* thus "switch" back. 100% true statement. nospam: it's a hassle to switch once and an even bigger hassle to switch back, plus the conversion is a lossy process so doing it twice is a really stupid thing to do. Sandman: WTF? I am *currently* using *both* Aperture/iPhoto *and* Lightroom for the same photos. I have the full power of all three applications available for all my photos. When Photos is released and if it's awesome, switching to it from my Aperture/iPhoto library will be as easy had I never even installed Lightroom. that's a complete mess. Incorrect. Works like a charm, i.e. just as it's intended to do. nospam: if you're still using aperture, you haven't switched and you're playing both sides of the fence. you're keeping two separate databases maintained with two different raw processing engines. Sandman: I've never claimed that I've switched. I am using both Aperture and Lightroom and have their respective databases using the same photos. yes you did claim that Message-ID? and juggling 3 different asset management apps is flipping insane. I'm waiting for an actual reason for this. You've yet to come up with a single reason. nospam: not only is that totally insane and just asking for problems, but you're probably the only person to do that. Sandman: What? In what way, prey tell, is that insane? They are completely seperate and since neither ever touches the original files, it's totally safe. twice the work for zero benefit. Not twice the work, and a lot of benefit. pick one and stick with it. Why? I'm still waiting for a reason why it's "insane". You've failed three times to answer that question now. nospam: those who have switched from aperture to lightroom have abandoned aperture. switching *back* is not on their radar. Sandman: No one need to "switch" anything. Both are applications that have an internal database that point to files on the HD. Both can also manage those files internally, but you can elect to have the photos untouched on the HD. *everything* in Aperture is inside the Aperture library, except the original photos - same with Lightroom. they definitely have to switch since the two apps use separate databases and separate raw conversion engines. you can't make a change in aperture and then switch to lightroom to do something else. Well Duh. using two asset management apps is crazy! Incorrect. They have their uses. Lightroom has slightly better noise reduction, Aperture has Faces support and a better workflow, and a lot better curves interface (as I posted about earlier). Photos and movies in Aperture show up in iMovie for use in video projects. nospam: adobe knows this and is desperately trying to get people to switch to lightroom before that window of opportunity closes. Sandman: Not sure how this supposed "desperation" is manifasting itself. All I've seen is them posting about an upcoming migration tool for Aperture users when Aperture was EOL:ed, and then releasing it. That's a nice service for stranded Aperture users (or rather, those that feel stranded), and hardly "desperate". that's part of their desperation. You keep repeating that, but you've yet to support it. they know quite well that the moment photos comes out, unless it's pure garbage (which is not likely), users will switch use photos because it's free. Who told you this? You make an awful lot of unsupported claims. "Common sense" means you know jack **** about how they are approaching this. the sooner they can get people to switch to lightroom, the fewer that will switch *back* to photos even though it's free. it's common sense. Ah, jack **** it is then. You know nothing and you keep making claims about them being desperate. Figures. nospam: nevertheless, for those that live in a cave, apple is switching to cloudkit, which is entirely new and incompatible with what came before. you get one or the other. Sandman: This is of course false. iOS Photos has the ability to see albums synced from iTunes and albums synced from iCloud Photos. "You get one or the other" isn't a reason, it's an empty claim. nospam: nothing about it is false. http://www.imore.com/troubleshoot-ic...c-images-from- iphoto Sandman: Everything about it is false. The link above explains the current state of affairs, just like I did in my OP. But, it doesn't give any reason as to *WHY*, which is exactly what I said. The link above agrees with everything I said. no it doesn't. it says you have to pick one or the other, which is the case. *I KNOW*, but I was asking for the technical *REASON* for this exclusivity, which you said you knew, but as it turns out, you know *nothing* about why this is the case. And as I have explained, there is no actual technical reason for this exclusivity, and someone at Apple *choose* to make them exclusive, for unknown reason. This was you reply to that correct statement: "the reasons are known and well understood by those who aren't trolling." And since you have been 100% unable to explain this reason, by your own admission, you're trolling. nospam: first of all, this isn't about ios photos, it's about mac photos, which is not available yet. Sandman: No, this is about iOS Photos, since that's what the OP was about. You're just confused. then why do you keep mentioning aperture and lightroom? I'm not. obviously it's about mac photos, not ios photos. What is "obvious" to you is of no concern to me. nospam: second, it's about the new cloudkit. Sandman: No, it isn't. It may be what you THINK it is about, but it isn't. CloudKit is an API to transfer data from the cloud, that's all. yep, and it works much better than what came before. it's also not compatible with what came before. It's not meant to be compatible. It's a totally different thing. It's like saying that iCloud isn't compatible with Dropbox. Core Data is an API for storing data locally on the device. Core Data + iCloud is a function to auto-sync all that data to iCloud CloudKit is an API to read and write data to iCloud You *CAN* use Core Data + iCloud and CloudKit at the same time. For instance, you could use Core Data + iCloud for your documents and CloudKit to sync settings. They are NOT exclusive technologies. All of this is, as I've said many times, moot, since iOS Photos *does* *not* *use* Core Data + iCloud. Using CloudKit in iOS Photos is in no way, shape or form in conflict with Core Data + iCloud. nospam: third, an app can continue to use the old coredata/icloud model if it wants, but it's incompatible with using cloudkit. Sandman: iOS Photos does *NOT* use Core Data + iCloud, so this is an irrelevant point. it uses core data, as does mac iphoto and aperture. Sigh. It *does not* use Core Data *+ ICLOUD*. Every app that writes data to storage uses Core Data. Sandman: Enabling iCloud for Core Data stores *everything* in Core Data in iCloud. not necessarily. you have obviously never written an app that uses them. i have. https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/iCloudDesignGuide/Chapters/DesignForCoreDataIniCloud.html Sandman: Cloudkit does NOT store data on your device, it's a transfer protocol using API's to read data from the Cloud. Cloudkit doesn't sync anything, you would still use Core Data to store local copies of photos. nospam: so what? that doesn't change anything i said. Sandman: It does, since any developer can use CloudKit *and* Core Data + iCloud. They are not exclusive funcitonalities and it's not "one or the other". they 'could' but that would be a *total* waste of time and effort. Not necessarily. But the point is, you incorrectly stated that it was "one way or the other", I am correcting that misinformation. I wouldn't recommend it either. nospam: photos on ios is not the issue and has little to do with photos on the mac other than the name. Sandman: Sigh. Photos on iOS *IS* the issue. Here is the video again and see the issue first hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSyBkDF7pJc That's the current mess you're stuck with unless you turn on iCloud Photos, which you *CAN NOT DO* if you wish to have photos from your Mac (or PC) on your iOS device. that video confirms exactly what i said. it's one or the other. Dman it, why can't you READ? I *know* it confirms the current state of affairs, I am the one that made the video. What it *DOESN'T* do, is explain the *REASON*, which you claimed you knew: "the reasons are known and well understood by those who aren't trolling." That was a response to this: "Now we have a new service called "iCloud Photos", still in beta. If you enable it on your iOS device, it will remove all synced photos from iTunes since for unknown reasons these cannot co-exist." Now, some five posts later, you have been 100% unable to explain those supposed reasons you claimed to know for these not being able to co-exist. I have explained that they technically *CAN* co-exist and you have had nothing but hot air in response. nospam: not only that, but photos on ios is likely to be revised to work with photos on mac. Sandman: Maybe, but it would be better to be revised to work nicely during the period up until Photos for the Mac is released. there's no point in revising something that's a dead end. iOS Photos isn't a dead end. nospam: photos will be done when it's done, but probably released before it's truly done. Sandman: And probably will be less than iPhoto functionality-wise. nospam: another completely bogus assumption. Sandman: Assumption, yes. Bogus no. Based on what we know. You may not have the same assumption, which is fine, but that's my assumption and I have posted many times about why this is a perfectly valid assumption. your assumption is based on your own prejudices against iphoto. Incorrect, I rather like iPhoto. you are assuming that photos will be *less* than iphoto. that is completely unfounded. It's completely founded. nospam: photos will likely be something in between iphoto and aperture, eventually growing to do nearly all of what aperture did. Sandman: That is indeed a bogus assumption. It isn't based on any information from Apple at all. That's fine as far as expectations or hopes goes, and I want to believe you're right, but there is nothing official that says that this is even remotely going to be true. one thing you got correct is that it's not based on any information. I.e. bogus. My assumptions are based on what we *know*, your assumptions are based on what you *hope*. if you actually look at apple's developer documentation, you can clearly see just how powerful photos will be and more importantly, how capable third party extensions can be when they're non-destructive, something aperture and lightroom do not support. See above. "Non-destructive plugins" may not be as amazing as you're hoping them to be. They're not on iOS. nospam: that much is clearly obvious from what apple has already shown, which wasn't all that much anyway. Sandman: This is false. What Apple has shown is a mere shadow of iPhoto. What you're *hoping* for is that when released it will be a lot *more* than what Apple has shown us. And I am right there hoping with you, I'm just not holding my breath. the signs are obvious. I'm not interested in your made up "signs". Base your assumptions on facts rather than wishes. the mere fact that it has non-destructive plug-ins is *huge*. It could be, but it's not a given. And having non-destructive plugins as the only added benefit over what we know would make it rather worthless. not even lightroom can offer that (unless it's in the yet unreleased lightroom 6 which it probably isn't). If the plugin architecture in OSX Photos is anything like the plugin architecture in iOS, I very much prefer the Aperture/Lightroom way to deal with plugin edits. And there is every reason to assume that this will be the case. Think about it for a second. A non-destructive workflow means that the application needs to be aware of all the parts of the edit chain. 1. Original 2. Saturation 3. Contrast 4. Third party plugin edit 5. Levels 6. Crop Now, if this workflow is to be any good, the user needs to remove any step of that chain at any time - like you can in Lightroom/Aperture. So if you remove step 2 above, in order for Photos to correctly display the edited photo, it needs to re-run the third party plugin again using the new "version" of the photo prior to sending it to the plugin. At this point, we don't know if this is at all possible. It isn't possible on iOS, but that could equally be due to UI contraints. And since step 4, the plugin, could be a super-intensive CPU-hogging HDR-compressing task, havinng that rerun each and every time you alter the saturation or contrast would be a UI nightmare. nospam: all they had last june was a canned demo that showed a couple of features. there was no actual app at that time. however, there have been numerous hints along the way. Sandman: None of which "hint" at your claim, of course. The closest thing you've come is that they've said it will support plugins. That's all. nope. i said non-destructive plug-ins along with other stuff. What "other stuff"? More hot air, perhaps? Sandman: Or rather - support it! Show me these "hints" that puts Photos somewhere between iPhoto and Aperture feature-wise. start he http://www.apple.com/ You failed, again. after that, read the various tech journalist commentaries on photos and what apple is doing. I am not interested in tech journalists, I want you to support your claim. You can't, so you should just shut up. the information is out there for those who want to see it. But you're just unable to locate it, gotcha. I see you again snipped my screenshots that support my comparison of Photos and LR/Aperture/iPhoto -- Sandman[.net] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The current Photo mess on iOS and OSX | Sandman | Digital Photography | 12 | December 5th 14 03:37 PM |
Don't mess with Homeland Security!! | Gary Edstrom | Digital Photography | 2 | February 4th 11 06:20 PM |
The format mess | SimonLW | Digital Photography | 7 | February 10th 07 06:48 PM |
Did ACDSee mess me up? Need some help | baker1 | Digital Photography | 10 | January 21st 06 05:16 PM |