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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
In article , -hh
wrote: ... lightroom on a low end mac mini was faster than aperture on a (then) top of the line powermac g5 and was not supported at all on a mac mini. Both of which are clearly the fault of the customers! /S that particular bit was the fault of apple but the result was that customers chose other products for that and other reasons. apple did improve the speed in later versions but customers voted with their wallets and aperture ultimately was canceled. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
On 2018-10-04 15:26, nospam wrote:
In article , Oregonian Haruspex wrote: I¹ve decided to move all my computers to Free software because I have little to no control over what Apple, MS, and Adobe do and they all seem to want to move everything into the cloud, discontinue important programs (I¹m looking at Apple and their abandonment of Aperture), blame users. too few people bought aperture for it to be a viable product. That would be Apple's fault - not users who gave it a pass. -- "2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do." - unknown protester |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
nospam wrote:
that particular bit was the fault of apple but the result was that customers chose other products for that and other reasons. It was slower and it cost more ... both are not the fault of the customer. apple did improve the speed in later versions but customers voted with their wallets and aperture ultimately was canceled. Apple originally asked $500, while Adobe started at $300. Sure, Apple later cut their price...but so too did Adobe. It’s utterly shocking that discerning customers chose cheaper AND better over just having an Apple logo. And this pattern is par for Apple, unfortunately: whenever their products have to compete on actual merit and price instead of the prestige of the logo...they lose. -hh |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
In article , -hh
wrote: that particular bit was the fault of apple but the result was that customers chose other products for that and other reasons. It was slower and it cost more ... both are not the fault of the customer. it only cost more for a brief time, and those who did pay $500 got a $200 gift certificate when the price was cut. apple did improve the speed in later versions but customers voted with their wallets and aperture ultimately was canceled. Apple originally asked $500, while Adobe started at $300. Sure, Apple later cut their price...but so too did Adobe. aperture later dropped to $199 while lightroom remained at $299, then apple cut the price to $79 when it was on the app store, forcing adobe to slash lightroom's price to $150. lightroom was the better product and could justify the higher price. Its utterly shocking that discerning customers chose cheaper AND better over just having an Apple logo. not at all. people don't buy for the apple logo and lightroom cost *more*. And this pattern is par for Apple, unfortunately: whenever their products have to compete on actual merit and price instead of the prestige of the logo...they lose. also wrong. apple competes on functionality, just like every other company. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
nospam wrote:
-hh wrote: that particular bit was the fault of apple but the result was that customers chose other products for that and other reasons. It was slower and it cost more ... both are not the fault of the customer. it only cost more for a brief time, and those who did pay $500 got a $200 gift certificate when the price was cut. A credit, not a refund. And even then, it wasn’t any cheaper ... and it still was a slower inferior product. apple did improve the speed in later versions but customers voted with their wallets and aperture ultimately was canceled. Apple originally asked $500, while Adobe started at $300. Sure, Apple later cut their price...but so too did Adobe. aperture later dropped to $199 while lightroom remained at $299, then apple cut the price to $79 when it was on the app store, forcing adobe to slash lightroom's price to $150. Kindly put dates to those. Lightroom was the better product and could justify the higher price. And that was because Apple couldn’t write as good of software..why? It零 utterly shocking that discerning customers chose cheaper AND better over just having an Apple logo. not at all. people don't buy for the apple logo and lightroom cost *more*.. Nope. Apple slashed the price on an inferior *and* unmaintained software product and savvy customers saw through their bull****. And this pattern is par for Apple, unfortunately: whenever their products have to compete on actual merit and price instead of the prestige of the logo...they lose. also wrong. apple competes on functionality, just like every other company. Mac Pro. -hh -hh |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
In article , -hh
wrote: apple did improve the speed in later versions but customers voted with their wallets and aperture ultimately was canceled. Apple originally asked $500, while Adobe started at $300. Sure, Apple later cut their price...but so too did Adobe. aperture later dropped to $199 while lightroom remained at $299, then apple cut the price to $79 when it was on the app store, forcing adobe to slash lightroom's price to $150. Kindly put dates to those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_(software)#Version_history 1.5 September 29, 2006...Price dropped from $499 to $299. 2.0 February 12, 2008...Reduced price to $199 in the US. 3.1.1 January 6, 2011...with a price drop to $79.99. https://www.macworld.com/article/116...oshop_lightroo m_4_and_cuts_price_in_half.html MAR 5, 2012 9:01 PM PT But perhaps the biggest news is that Adobe has permanently cut the price of Lightroom in half. Version 4 is priced at $149, as opposed to the $299 shipping price of version 3. v.3 was also discounted, it just wasn't permanent: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3134014 Lightroom was the better product and could justify the higher price. And that was because Apple couldnt write as good of software..why? because photo editing software is not their strength. other companies do a better job. no company does everything well. It? utterly shocking that discerning customers chose cheaper AND better over just having an Apple logo. not at all. people don't buy for the apple logo and lightroom cost *more*. Nope. Apple slashed the price on an inferior *and* unmaintained software product and savvy customers saw through their bull****. it was maintained, but its destiny was set early on. And this pattern is par for Apple, unfortunately: whenever their products have to compete on actual merit and price instead of the prestige of the logo...they lose. also wrong. apple competes on functionality, just like every other company. Mac Pro. mistake. nobody's perfect. iphone, apple watch, ipad, airpods, imac pro and many other products compete on both functionality and price, some of which are well ahead of any competition at any price. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 08:29:40 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: blame users. too few people bought aperture for it to be a viable product. Always blame the customer. not always, but in this case, customers chose other products. companies normally don't continue developing products that don't sell well, or at all. But it's the company's job to attract customers so saying that "customers chose other products" would be more accurately expressed as "customers chose better products". Which they did. it doesn't matter if the other products are better or not. what matters is that not enough people bought a given product for it to continue. It matters to the companies selling the competing products. In this situation better includes value for money. there are plenty of not so good products that outsell better ones. Apart from the fact that 'better' and 'not so good' are matters of opinion, closer examination usually reveals why one product outsells another. It is not always that one product is better than another. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: blame users. too few people bought aperture for it to be a viable product. Always blame the customer. not always, but in this case, customers chose other products. companies normally don't continue developing products that don't sell well, or at all. But it's the company's job to attract customers so saying that "customers chose other products" would be more accurately expressed as "customers chose better products". Which they did. it doesn't matter if the other products are better or not. what matters is that not enough people bought a given product for it to continue. It matters to the companies selling the competing products. In this situation better includes value for money. there are plenty of not so good products that outsell better ones. Apart from the fact that 'better' and 'not so good' are matters of opinion, closer examination usually reveals why one product outsells another. It is not always that one product is better than another. that's what i said. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
nospam wrote:
-hh wrote: apple did improve the speed in later versions but customers voted with their wallets and aperture ultimately was canceled. Apple originally asked $500, while Adobe started at $300. Sure, Apple later cut their price...but so too did Adobe. aperture later dropped to $199 while lightroom remained at $299, then apple cut the price to $79 when it was on the app store, forcing adobe to slash lightroom's price to $150. Kindly put dates to those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_(software)#Version_history 1.5 September 29, 2006...Price dropped from $499 to $299. 2.0 February 12, 2008...Reduced price to $199 in the US. 3.1.1 January 6, 2011...with a price drop to $79.99. https://www.macworld.com/article/116...oshop_lightroo m_4_and_cuts_price_in_half.html MAR 5, 2012 9:01 PM PT But perhaps the biggest news is that Adobe has permanently cut the price of Lightroom in half. Version 4 is priced at $149, as opposed to the $299 shipping price of version 3. v.3 was also discounted, it just wasn't permanent: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3134014 Discounted to $149 (again); Adobe had more “sales” than just one. That’s why the headline on your cite says that the news was a *permanent* price cut. Net result was that Apple simply wasn’t being competitive...in performance or price. Lightroom was the better product and could justify the higher price. And that was because Apple couldnšt write as good of software..why? because photo editing software is not their strength. other companies do a better job. no company does everything well. To turn a phrase, “nonsense”: Apple has been a graphical image based company since at least 1984 and lead the development of GUI’s. Plus they also had internal knowledge of future hardware & OS directions for longer term planning. It? utterly shocking that discerning customers chose cheaper AND better over just having an Apple logo. not at all. people don't buy for the apple logo and lightroom cost *more*. Nope. Apple slashed the price on an inferior *and* unmaintained software product and savvy customers saw through their bull****. it was maintained, but its destiny was set early on. Yeah, a $500 price tag will tend to do that in that market. Classical “Apple Tax” at work. Again. And this pattern is par for Apple, unfortunately: whenever their products have to compete on actual merit and price instead of the prestige of the logo...they lose. also wrong. apple competes on functionality, just like every other company. Mac Pro. mistake. nobody's perfect. Still waiting for them to deliver on their vaporware, 18 months (and counting) after they had their 4 years later “we goofed!”. iPhone, Antennagate. Batterygate. $79 standard battery replacement fee. apple watch, Battery life is now up to ... what, 36 hours? ipad, Retails for much more than their Android/Amazon counterparts. AirPods, How much will their batteries cost to be serviced? imac pro and many other products ... A desktop with no user access to upgrade RAM, nor any evidence of post-initial sale upgrades, despite Apple making that promise. And thanks to the T2 chip, high risk of complete data loss on a hardware failure. Similarly, glued together laptops...WTF! And further insult to injury is that it’s with an utter crap keyboard, to try to slim “1mm” off the device: repairing that unreliable bleeper isn’t cheap, either, as its removal breaks more stuff. ...compete on both functionality and price, some of which are well ahead of any competition at any price. For sufficiently tiny values of “some”. My 13” MBP cost more than my Dell 13”...and the latter has a much better keyboard, which allows it to actually be usable to touch type with. But gosh golly, the MBP line comes with a “touchpad” that’s more gimmick than anything else, and not available on their other products to allow software developer code unification. Similarly, “mail” still lacks productivity features that MS-Outlook had a decade ago. And “Photos” still doesn’t have a ranking system as good as iPhoto had. Nor is its library file cross-compatible...it was a one-way conversion which often failed if you had been a multi-generation iPhoto user. And replacing my Mac Pros with a trash can MP would incur a $2K per seat “Apple Tax” above how much they would replace with a Windows PC; roughly $7500 vs $5500. Can buy years of Adobe software for that delta, along with an on-site service contract...something that Apple *still* doesn’t offer at any price. As I said, Apple doesn’t really compete on performance. They’re a cachet which did achieve market differentiation, but the advantages they had in OSX are pretty much gone...and therefore, no longer worth paying significantly more for. -hh |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
One photog's not so great experience with Apple
In article , -hh
wrote: Lightroom was the better product and could justify the higher price. And that was because Apple couldn?t write as good of software..why? because photo editing software is not their strength. other companies do a better job. no company does everything well. To turn a phrase, nonsense: Apple has been a graphical image based company since at least 1984 and lead the development of GUIs. Plus they also had internal knowledge of future hardware & OS directions for longer term planning. apple's strength is not end-user image processing apps, which is very, very different from writing operating systems. microsoft has a lot of knowledge of windows internals but doesn't have an aperture equivalent. if you're going to criticize apple for not having a photoshop/lightroom equivalent, you need to bash microsoft and google too. It? utterly shocking that discerning customers chose cheaper AND better over just having an Apple logo. not at all. people don't buy for the apple logo and lightroom cost *more*. Nope. Apple slashed the price on an inferior *and* unmaintained software product and savvy customers saw through their bull****. it was maintained, but its destiny was set early on. Yeah, a $500 price tag will tend to do that in that market. Classical Apple Tax at work. Again. nope. aperture was priced similarly to other pro software at the time (photoshop, final cut, etc.). there also wasn't anything like aperture, so there could not have been an apple tax since there weren't any alternatives, let alone cheaper ones. it was an entirely new product category. lightroom 1.0 didn't ship until a year later (although there were beta versions available for mac users). apple responded to the competition by cutting aperture's price a second time, the very *opposite* of an apple tax. And this pattern is par for Apple, unfortunately: whenever their products have to compete on actual merit and price instead of the prestige of the logo...they lose. also wrong. apple competes on functionality, just like every other company. Mac Pro. mistake. nobody's perfect. Still waiting for them to deliver on their vaporware, 18 months (and counting) after they had their 4 years later we goofed!. the imac pro exists and the mac pro is coming. if you don't want to wait, buy something else. no big deal. nobody cares what you use. iPhone, Antennagate. Batterygate. $79 standard battery replacement fee. antennagate and batterygate happens to *every* *phone* and cannot be avoided. the laws of physics cannot be overturned. period. other phones lose signal when 'holding it wrong', which is why they explicitly tell the user *not* to do that for optimum reception, yet only apple gets criticized for abiding by the laws of physics. https://66.media.tumblr.com/952f4280...2d6/tumblr_mhw toiyy5Q1qcigboo1_1280.png https://66.media.tumblr.com/cb8a0efc...807/tumblr_mnj 2jmwjAD1qcigboo1_1280.jpg https://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5fql0ybHB1qcigboo1_1280.png https://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo6b28ZW9m1qcigboo1_640.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRBT80iA2wo&t=80 *all* batteries age and won't be able to deliver the peak loads that they once could when new, no matter what device it's in, from phones to cars and more. physics wins every time. that means android phones *also* have battery issues, including the very same sudden shutdowns that iphones had, except those don't get reported, and unlike apple, there is no fix. if there was, it would be unlikely to be pushed to all of the affected devices because android updates usually end after a year or two. https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/1...ave-developed- a-battery-early-shutoff-problem-and-its-becoming-a-safety-issue/ A number of Nexus 6P owners have reported an alarming battery problem with their phones as of Android 7.0 being released for the handset, which causes the phone to power down when the battery gauge still shows anywhere from 10 to 60% battery remaining. .... There are some reports that 6P owners with the issue who have their batteries replaced see the problem largely alleviated, again pointing to what seems fundamentally a hardware failure that has been made worse by software. another effect is that the phone gets stuck in a boot loop because booting requires peak demand and if the battery can't handle it anymore, it crashes mid-boot and starts over... the iphone 6 was criticized because it could bend when people intentionally tried to bend it. everything bends given sufficient force (or breaks). as it turns out, android phones are *easier* to bend (and even break), but that won't get the clicks so few people heard about it. here's two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTIaUH6PIvo&t=175 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU6Tv-OfXk0&t=155 if you're going to bash apple for fabricated -gates, you have to also bash other phones that have the same issues or are actually *worse*. apple *fixed* the problems. others did *not*. meanwhile, the current iphone xs and xr have a processor that rivals desktop computers, face id that not a single android phone can match (and won't for several years, if at all), the xs has the best display in the industry, as well as a lot more. http://www.displaymate.com/iPhoneXS_ShootOut_1s.htm Based on our extensive Lab Tests and Measurements the iPhone XS Max receives our DisplayMate Best Smartphone Display Award earning DisplayMates highest ever A+ grade by providing considerably better display performance than other competing Smartphones. apple watch, Battery life is now up to ... what, 36 hours? it's a couple of days in real world use, but that doesn't actually matter because anything over a day is sufficient since people take their watch off at night and drop it on the charger along with other devices. another non-issue. android wear watches have similar battery life (usually worse), so if you're going to bash apple watches for battery life you have to also bash android wear watches. which completely misses the point that the apple watch is *so* far ahead technologically versus android wear watches it's not even funny. it's a device that will save people's lives (and has). the apple watch is also the #1 watch in the world, and that was based on *last* *year's* numbers. this past year has seen a *huge* growth in sales... https://www.statista.com/chart/12878/apple-watch-vs-swiss-watches/ As our chart illustrates, that puts Apple ahead of the entire Swiss watch industry (think Rolex, Swatch etc.) for the quarter, supporting the companys claims that the Apple Watch became the top-selling watch in the world some time in 2017. ipad, Retails for much more than their Android/Amazon counterparts. nonsense. comparable android tablets cost as much or more than ipads. lower priced android tablets do exist, but they're not in any way comparable. there aren't any android tablets that match an ipad pro. zero. there are also a lot more ipad native apps and their quality is *much* higher than android tablet apps, which are usually just android phone apps running on a bigger display (i.e., not native). AirPods, How much will their batteries cost to be serviced? in-ear bluetooth headphones don't normally have replaceable batteries. it also doesn't matter, since the battery is rated to last 5+ years. that said, apple will service the battery for $50. i can't find a price for battery replacement for google pixel buds or bragi dash (which costs about *double* airpods) suggesting that there is no battery replacement option at all for those. oops. in other words, another fabricated issue. if you're going to bash apple's airpods, you have to also bash all other similar bluetooth headphones, especially the ones that cost more and are worse. imac pro and many other products ... A desktop with no user access to upgrade RAM, nor any evidence of post-initial sale upgrades, despite Apple making that promise. And thanks to the T2 chip, high risk of complete data loss on a hardware failure. anyone who loses data on any computer has only themselves to blame, regardless of cause. period. full stop. apple, microsoft, google, samsung, dell, lenovo, etc. are not at fault if the user ****s up. people need to accept responsibility for being negligent, and not just with computers either. hardware failures are also very, very rare. yet another non-issue. Similarly, glued together laptops...WTF! And further insult to injury is that its with an utter crap keyboard, to try to slim 1mm off the device: repairing that unreliable bleeper isnt cheap, either, as its removal breaks more stuff. microsoft does the same thing, but nobody gives a **** since it's not apple. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017...least-repairab le-ever-surface-laptop-is-made-of-glue/ iFixit's pictures, as ever, give a great look at the insides of the two machines. The Laptop has no external screws at all; to get into the system, iFixit had to peel off the glued-down fabric keyboard surround, an operation that obviously can't be undone, producing a machine that offers essentially no serviceability whatsoever. With the keyboard surround removed, the system reveals its internals, with components taped, soldered, or otherwise permanently affixed in place. Given how destructive one has to be to open the machine in the first place, perhaps that's not a big deal. .... ...In the 2017 Pro, the storage is now soldered onto the motherboard. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Microsoft+Surface+Laptop+Teardown/92915 Verdict: The Surface Laptop is not a laptop. Its a glue-filled monstrosity. There is nothing about it that is upgradable or long-lasting, and it literally cant be opened without destroying it. (Show us the procedure, Microsoft, wed love to be wrong.) .... The battery is difficult and dangerous to replace, giving the device a limited lifespan. oh, and that alcantara keyboard gets *really* dirty: https://bgr.com/2017/05/05/surface-laptop-keyboard-dirt-alcantara/ Sure, fabric might feel nice on your wrists and avoid that cold steel feel of many laptops, but the trade-off is*toting around a filthy gadget or performing an obviously much more complicated cleaning process than simply wiping the grime off. once again, if you're going to bash apple, you need to bash other companies for doing the *same* thing, or worse. rest of your ignorant hatred snipped. buy whatever fits your needs. nobody cares what it is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
One photog's not so great experience with Apple | Bill W | Digital Photography | 30 | September 26th 18 08:11 PM |
Chinese horrors. Apple suing Amazon retailer for selling fake Apple products | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 2 | October 21st 16 09:19 AM |
Maker of ad-blocker Apple ap mysteriously withdraws it...a week before Apple launches their own | Sandman | Digital Photography | 1 | September 21st 15 06:51 AM |
Tachihara 4x5 field camera - Looks Great - Works Great! | Marco Milazzo | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 8th 04 01:42 PM |
FS: Mamiya 645Pro outfit...great condition great price | [email protected] | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 3rd 03 07:40 PM |