Aperture to be removed from the Appstore

In article ,
Sandman wrote:


Nothing bogus, and some are minor but still bothersome. Not sure
what of the above you think will be in LR6, there hasn't been any
official word from Adobe yet. The things that are being rumored
are things like content-aware editing.

adobe has already stated that facial recognition, gpu offloading,
major speed improvements, including import/export are coming.

blogs.adobe.com is having DB issues right now so I can't confirm this.

that's your problem.

plus, it's been reported elsewhere anyway.


nospam:
far more people prefer lightroom's ui than they did aperture.
that's partly why aperture was a dud.

Sandman:
How do you figure?

adobe has said so.

And without a source, it's just more hot air.

adobe is a source. in fact, it's the only source for it.

and you need to stop calling things hot air whenever you feel like it.
everyone can see through that bull****.

Sandman:
By the same logic, far more people prefer Windows UI than the Mac
UI and Windows is far superior than Macs.

nope. more people use windows but that doesn't mean they prefer it.
most use it because that's what they're given. they aren't choosing
it.

I.e. just like with Lightroom, since Windows users doesn't have an
alternative.
It's the exact same thing.

nothing at all like that, and there are plenty of alternatives on
windows, including not using lightroom at all.


Sandman:
Just because Android and Windows is used far more than iPhone and
Macs doesn't mean they have superior UI or that far more people
think they do.

that's also not the same thing.

It is.

not even close to the same thing.

this is about a choice of two apps on the same platform, not
hardware platforms.

No, Windows users could never choose Aperture.

that's the whole point.

A smart phone buyer has more
choice in smart phone than a Windows user has for photo management apps.

this isn't about smartphones. stop moving the goalposts.

Sandman:
I'm sure some people think the Lightroom UI is better than
Aperture, but I would bet the reason why most people are using
Lightroom is due to Aperture not being available to Windows
users, and most people use Windows, so they had no choice what so
ever.

nope. this has nothing to do with windows users. stop moving the
goalpost.

Of course it does. Stop moving the goalpost.

i'm not the one moving *anything*.

this is solely about aperture versus lightroom. not windows, not
smartphones, not anything else.

aperture was a commercial failure, which is why it was cancelled. it's
as simple as that.

apple doesn't cancel successful products. why would they? it makes no
sense.

they do, however, cancel duds, which is exactly what they did here,
along with canceling the xserve, g4 cube, ipod hifi and other failures.

Sandman:
For Mac users, some switched due to Aperture not being updated
enough, plus it's easier to use the same tool as your Windows
colleagues do, since there is a line of support.

lightroom has always held the lead over aperture.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion.

it's not my opinion. it's a verifiable fact and a well known one at
that.

anyone who claims otherwise is full of ****.

Sandman:
OSX Photos, now in public beta, is no Aperture
replacement. It's hardly even a iPhoto replacement. We'll see
how it matures, and if it will truly have non- destructive
plugins (which some have claimed, but can't back up).

nospam:
it slots between iphoto and aperture, exactly as intended.

Sandman:
No, it doesn't. It currently "slots" beneath iPhoto, lacking many
features of iPhoto. Perhaps when it's out of beta, it will close
to iPhoto, but currently it isn't.

one key area in which it's ahead is speed. it's way the **** faster
than iphoto.

Not really, no. I have 80k photos in iPhoto and it's blazing fast. Photos
isn't slow, but it's not faster than iPhoto. But, it's still in beta.

photos is faster than iphoto by every single report out there.

here's one:
http://readwrite.com/2015/03/04/os-x-yosemite-10-10-3-first-impressions
The app itself has a noticeable speed advantage over iPhoto.
Navigating between events is quick and peppy. Even when sorting
through years of photos at a time, there is little to no noticeable
sluggishness. Being able to see your photos all at once is also an
interesting experience on a larger screen. What was a novelty on the
iPhone and iPad has become a useful feature on the desktop

here's another:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2880099/first-look-photos-for-os-x.html
...Its navigation is more nimble and, from what I can tell, its
performance is significantly improved over iPhoto¹s, which I found
sluggish with large image libraries.

also, when iphoto first came out it was a total slug. there's no way
you could ever have had 80k photos in it. it wasn't until iphoto 6
until it was a reasonable speed and supported more than 25k photos.

http://www.cnet.com/news/iphoto-6-0-speed-improvement-claims-genuine/

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
Nothing bogus, and some are minor but still bothersome. Not
sure what of the above you think will be in LR6, there hasn't
been any official word from Adobe yet. The things that are
being rumored are things like content-aware editing.

nospam:
adobe has already stated that facial recognition, gpu
offloading, major speed improvements, including import/export
are coming.

Sandman:
blogs.adobe.com is having DB issues right now so I can't confirm
this.

that's your problem.

It's not a problem for me at all.

plus, it's been reported elsewhere anyway.

I'm assuming you mean rumors and the supposed leaked information, no official
word from Adobe yet.

nospam:
far more people prefer lightroom's ui than they did
aperture. that's partly why aperture was a dud.

Sandman:
How do you figure?

nospam:
adobe has said so.

Sandman:
And without a source, it's just more hot air.

adobe is a source. in fact, it's the only source for it.

No source from you, as usual. Still hot air.

and you need to stop calling things hot air whenever you feel like
it. everyone can see through that bull****.

No bull****. You make a claim, and you don't provide support for that claim.
That makes the claim hot air. If you want it to be anything else, provide
support.

Sandman:
By the same logic, far more people prefer Windows UI
than the Mac UI and Windows is far superior than Macs.

nospam:
nope. more people use windows but that doesn't mean they prefer
it. most use it because that's what they're given. they aren't
choosing it.

Sandman:
I.e. just like with Lightroom, since Windows users doesn't have an
alternative. It's the exact same thing.

nothing at all like that

Exactly like that.

and there are plenty of alternatives on
windows, including not using lightroom at all.

Haha, yeah right.

Sandman:
Just because Android and Windows is used far more
than iPhone and Macs doesn't mean they have superior UI or
that far more people think they do.

nospam:
that's also not the same thing.

Sandman:
It is.

not even close to the same thing.

Incorrect.

nospam:
this is about a choice of two apps on the same platform, not
hardware platforms.

Sandman:
No, Windows users could never choose Aperture.

that's the whole point.

Indeed.

Sandman:
A smart phone buyer has more choice in smart phone than a Windows
user has for photo management apps.

this isn't about smartphones. stop moving the goalposts.

*woosh*

Sandman:
I'm sure some people think the Lightroom UI is better
than Aperture, but I would bet the reason why most people are
using Lightroom is due to Aperture not being available to
Windows users, and most people use Windows, so they had no
choice what so ever.

nospam:
nope. this has nothing to do with windows users. stop moving the
goalpost.

Sandman:
Of course it does. Stop moving the goalpost.

i'm not the one moving *anything*.

Incorrect.

this is solely about aperture versus lightroom. not windows, not
smartphones, not anything else.

*woosh*

aperture was a commercial failure, which is why it was cancelled.
it's as simple as that.

More hot air.

apple doesn't cancel successful products. why would they? it makes
no sense.

AppleTV.

they do, however, cancel duds, which is exactly what they did here,
along with canceling the xserve, g4 cube, ipod hifi and other
failures.

Thank you for your personal conclusion, void of any actual facts from Apple.
For the record, I think you may be right, but as usual, you're just full of hot
air. You should stop wording your claims as if they were facts.

Sandman:
For Mac users, some switched due to Aperture not
being updated enough, plus it's easier to use the same tool
as your Windows colleagues do, since there is a line of
support.

nospam:
lightroom has always held the lead over aperture.

Sandman:
Thanks for sharing your personal opinion.

it's not my opinion

It most certainly is.

it's a verifiable fact

You just can't verify it. I.e. more hot air.

anyone who claims otherwise is full of ****.

Anyone who claims things without supporting them provides nothing but hot air.
Oh, hi nospam.

Sandman:
OSX Photos, now in public beta, is no Aperture
replacement. It's hardly even a iPhoto replacement. We'll
see how it matures, and if it will truly have non-
destructive plugins (which some have claimed, but can't
back up).

nospam:
it slots between iphoto and aperture, exactly as
intended.

Sandman:
No, it doesn't. It currently "slots" beneath iPhoto,
lacking many features of iPhoto. Perhaps when it's out of
beta, it will close to iPhoto, but currently it isn't.

nospam:
one key area in which it's ahead is speed. it's way the ****
faster than iphoto.

Sandman:
Not really, no. I have 80k photos in iPhoto and it's blazing fast.
Photos isn't slow, but it's not faster than iPhoto. But, it's
still in beta.

photos is faster than iphoto by every single report out there.

Contrary to you, I have used both.

here's one:
http://readwrite.com/2015/03/04/os-x-yosemite-10-10-3-first-impressions
The app itself has a noticeable speed advantage over iPhoto.
Navigating between events is quick and peppy. Even when sorting
through years of photos at a time, there is little to no noticeable
sluggishness. Being able to see your photos all at once is also an
interesting experience on a larger screen. What was a novelty on
the iPhone and iPad has become a useful feature on the desktop

As I said, Photos is not slow, but neither was iPhoto.

here's another:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2880099/first-look-photos-for-os-x.html
...Its navigation is more nimble and, from what I can tell, its
performance is significantly improved over iPhoto¹s, which I found
sluggish with large image libraries.

That's too bad. iPhoto had a photo library limit of 250,000 images, maybe he
had more than that? My 80,000 image library was smooth as butter.

also, when iphoto first came out it was a total slug.

True - because Apple didn't anticipate the enormous amount of photos people
collected when digital cameras were becoming a standard.

there's no way
you could ever have had 80k photos in it.

I didn't have 80,000 photos in the first version of iPhoto, I do in the
current.

it wasn't until iphoto 6
until it was a reasonable speed and supported more than 25k photos.

http://www.cnet.com/news/iphoto-6-0-speed-improvement-claims-genuine

Yes, and iPhoto 6 was released in 2006.


--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

plus, it's been reported elsewhere anyway.

I'm assuming you mean rumors and the supposed leaked information, no official
word from Adobe yet.

it was from adobe.

nospam:
far more people prefer lightroom's ui than they did
aperture. that's partly why aperture was a dud.

Sandman:
How do you figure?

nospam:
adobe has said so.

Sandman:
And without a source, it's just more hot air.

adobe is a source. in fact, it's the only source for it.

No source from you, as usual. Still hot air.

what part of adobe do you not understand?

whenever anyone shows you're wrong, you respond with the hot air
bull****.

and you need to stop calling things hot air whenever you feel like
it. everyone can see through that bull****.

No bull****. You make a claim, and you don't provide support for that claim.
That makes the claim hot air. If you want it to be anything else, provide
support.

i did provide support. stop lying.

aperture was a commercial failure, which is why it was cancelled.
it's as simple as that.

More hot air.

nope. it's exactly why it was cancelled.

apple doesn't cancel successful products. why would they? it makes
no sense.

AppleTV.

apple tv is a very successful product. you're wrong yet again.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/...topped-1b-in-2
013-becoming-apples-fastest-growing-hardware
In response to the new data released by Cook, analyst Horace Dediu of
Asymco took to Twitter to reveal he estimates that sales of the Apple
TV have increased by 80 percent year over year. That would make the
Apple TV the company's fastest-growing hardware product.

they do, however, cancel duds, which is exactly what they did here,
along with canceling the xserve, g4 cube, ipod hifi and other
failures.

Thank you for your personal conclusion, void of any actual facts from Apple.
For the record, I think you may be right, but as usual, you're just full of
hot air. You should stop wording your claims as if they were facts.

they are facts. they are not personal conclusions.

apple cancelled all of those because they didn't sell. that's a fact,
no matter how much you argue otherwise.

you're wrong. simple as that.

one key area in which it's ahead is speed. it's way the ****
faster than iphoto.

Sandman:
Not really, no. I have 80k photos in iPhoto and it's blazing fast.
Photos isn't slow, but it's not faster than iPhoto. But, it's
still in beta.

photos is faster than iphoto by every single report out there.

Contrary to you, I have used both.

wrong again.

here's one:
http://readwrite.com/2015/03/04/os-x-yosemite-10-10-3-first-impressions
The app itself has a noticeable speed advantage over iPhoto.
Navigating between events is quick and peppy. Even when sorting
through years of photos at a time, there is little to no noticeable
sluggishness. Being able to see your photos all at once is also an
interesting experience on a larger screen. What was a novelty on
the iPhone and iPad has become a useful feature on the desktop

As I said, Photos is not slow, but neither was iPhoto.

photos is faster. period.

here's another:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2880099/first-look-photos-for-os-x.html
...Its navigation is more nimble and, from what I can tell, its
performance is significantly improved over iPhoto¹s, which I found
sluggish with large image libraries.

That's too bad. iPhoto had a photo library limit of 250,000 images, maybe he
had more than that? My 80,000 image library was smooth as butter.

it's too bad you're wrong again.

also, when iphoto first came out it was a total slug.

True - because Apple didn't anticipate the enormous amount of photos people
collected when digital cameras were becoming a standard.

nope. it's because they did a sloppy job in writing it.

there's no way
you could ever have had 80k photos in it.

I didn't have 80,000 photos in the first version of iPhoto, I do in the
current.

it was a slug with far less than 80k photos.

it wasn't until iphoto 6
until it was a reasonable speed and supported more than 25k photos.

http://www.cnet.com/news/iphoto-6-0-speed-improvement-claims-genuine

Yes, and iPhoto 6 was released in 2006.

iphoto was originally released in 2002.

it took four years to make it not suck and it's still not as fast as
other options.

On 2015-03-10 19:07:50 +0000, nospam said:

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

plus, it's been reported elsewhere anyway.

I'm assuming you mean rumors and the supposed leaked information, no official
word from Adobe yet.

it was from adobe.

Please cite.
If it was Adobe a URL would be enough. However, the official blog and
most of the other official Adobe sources don't seem to have much with
regard to projected features in the future LR6 all of which have been
harvested from the Beta. A web search just returns all the usual
speculated upon rumors from questionable sources.
http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/category/lightroom-product

Since the final release is scheduled for a March delivery I expct a
notification via CC soon, and all the run through of the changes by the
usual suspects (Kost, Kloskowski, White, Kelby, etc) once that happens.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
plus, it's been reported elsewhere anyway.

Sandman:
I'm assuming you mean rumors and the supposed leaked information,
no official word from Adobe yet.

it was from adobe.

Note: no support.

nospam:
far more people prefer lightroom's ui than they
did aperture. that's partly why aperture was a dud.

Sandman:
How do you figure?

nospam:
adobe has said so.

Sandman:
And without a source, it's just more hot air.

nospam:
adobe is a source. in fact, it's the only source for it.

Sandman:
No source from you, as usual. Still hot air.

what part of adobe do you not understand?

What part of source do you not understand?

whenever anyone shows you're wrong, you respond with the hot air
bull****.

Hot air means you've made a claim but have failed to support it. Get used to
it, you're doing it *a lot*.

nospam:
and you need to stop calling things hot air whenever you feel
like it. everyone can see through that bull****.

Sandman:
No bull****. You make a claim, and you don't provide support for
that claim. That makes the claim hot air. If you want it to be
anything else, provide support.

i did provide support. stop lying.

You're the one who is lying, you did not provide support. Merely claiming that
there exists support somewhere is not showing support.

nospam:
aperture was a commercial failure, which is why it was
cancelled. it's as simple as that.

Sandman:
More hot air.

nope. it's exactly why it was cancelled.

Note: no support for your claim. I.e. hot air.

nospam:
apple doesn't cancel successful products. why would they? it
makes no sense.

Sandman:
AppleTV.

apple tv is a very successful product. you're wrong yet again.

The point is that AppleTV hasn't been updated since the last major Aperture
update; 2012. If Aperture didn't get any updates because it was "unsuccessful",
then why isn't AppleTV getting any updates if it's so "very" successful?

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/...topped-1b-in-2
013-becoming-apples-fastest-growing-hardware

Estimates (for 2013) are fine, but not to back up an explicit claim. A lot of
people are reporting how Chromecast and similar solutions are outselling the
AppleTV:

http://www.parksassociates.com/blog/article/ces-summit2015-pr3

nospam:
they do, however, cancel duds, which is exactly what they did
here, along with canceling the xserve, g4 cube, ipod hifi and
other failures.

Sandman:
Thank you for your personal conclusion, void of any actual facts
from Apple. For the record, I think you may be right, but as
usual, you're just full of hot air. You should stop wording your
claims as if they were facts.

they are facts. they are not personal conclusions.

They are personal opinions and personal conclusions until such time you support
them as facts.

apple cancelled all of those because they didn't sell.

Note: Explicit claim without support.

that's a fact, no matter how much you argue otherwise.

Note: still no support for a claim nospam calls "fact".

you're wrong. simple as that.

You just can't show it. Ironic, isn't it? I am the one asking YOU to support
YOUR claims. I have made no claims other than to say that I think you may be
right. But as of yet, no support for the things you hilariously call "facts".

nospam:
one key area in which it's ahead is speed. it's way the ****
faster than iphoto.

Sandman:
Not really, no. I have 80k photos in iPhoto and it's
blazing fast. Photos isn't slow, but it's not faster than
iPhoto. But, it's still in beta.

nospam:
photos is faster than iphoto by every single report out there.

Sandman:
Contrary to you, I have used both.

wrong again.

Unlikely.

nospam:
here's one:
http://readwrite.com/2015/03/04/os-x-yosemite-10-10-3-first-impressions
The app itself has a noticeable speed advantage over iPhoto.
Navigating between events is quick and peppy. Even when sorting
through years of photos at a time, there is little to no
noticeable sluggishness. Being able to see your photos all at
once is also an interesting experience on a larger screen. What
was a novelty on the iPhone and iPad has become a useful
feature on the desktop

Sandman:
As I said, Photos is not slow, but neither was iPhoto.

photos is faster. period.

Wrong again.

nospam:
here's another:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2880099/first-look-photos-for-os-x.html
...Its navigation is more nimble and, from what I can tell, its
performance is significantly improved over iPhoto¹s, which I
found sluggish with large image libraries.

Sandman:
That's too bad. iPhoto had a photo library limit of 250,000
images, maybe he had more than that? My 80,000 image library was
smooth as butter.

it's too bad you're wrong again.

Haha, you're seriously claiming that my iPhoto library isn't smooth as butter?
Really?

nospam:
also, when iphoto first came out it was a total slug.

Sandman:
True - because Apple didn't anticipate the enormous amount of
photos people collected when digital cameras were becoming a
standard.

nope. it's because they did a sloppy job in writing it.

Not according to Apple, no. And since you have no support as usual, your
opinion isn't worth much on the matter.

nospam:
there's no way you could ever have had 80k photos in it.

Sandman:
I didn't have 80,000 photos in the first version of iPhoto, I do
in the current.

it was a slug with far less than 80k photos.

There was a 25,000 limit in the first iPhoto, but it was pretty slow with fewer
than that. I don't remember how many photos I had at the time in it.

nospam:
it wasn't until iphoto 6 until it was a reasonable speed and
supported more than 25k photos.

http://www.cnet.com/news/iphoto-6-0-speed-improvement-claims-genuine

Sandman:
Yes, and iPhoto 6 was released in 2006.

iphoto was originally released in 2002.

No ****, Sherlock. The point is that iPhoto was able to manage 250,000 photos
quickly and smoothly in 2006. Now it's 2015 and it handles very large photo
libraries very good.

it took four years to make it not suck and it's still not as fast as
other options.

Well, it sure is faster than Lightroom, that's for sure. No idea what "other
options" you're in reference to.

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

far more people prefer lightroom's ui than they
did aperture. that's partly why aperture was a dud.

Sandman:
How do you figure?

nospam:
adobe has said so.

Sandman:
And without a source, it's just more hot air.

nospam:
adobe is a source. in fact, it's the only source for it.

Sandman:
No source from you, as usual. Still hot air.

what part of adobe do you not understand?

What part of source do you not understand?

ok, all you want to do is argue. **** that noise.

when someone provides proof, you don't get to dismiss it simply by
saying 'hot air'.

adobe has the numbers. so does apple. aperture was a failure. it's as
simple as that.

nobody cancels a successful product, but they do cancel unsuccessful
products, which is what apple did. common sense, something you
completely lack (most obvious in restaurant selection).

as for numbers, adobe has talked about how lightroom has outsold
aperture on several occasions (2x in '07, ~3x in '08 and ~4x in '09,
growing each year). in other words, out of the gate, lightroom had a
lead and it kept getting *bigger*.

this is common knowledge to anyone who has paid any attention to the
two apps. also, adobe's numbers were from an independent research
company (infotrends), so it's not biased in any way.

lightroom won. aperture lost.

the users voted for lightroom. apple realized it had better things to
do than work on an app that wasn't selling. apple cut their losses and
moved onto other projects. very simple.

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
far more people prefer lightroom's ui than they did
aperture. that's partly why aperture was a dud.

Sandman:
How do you figure?

nospam:
adobe has said so.

Sandman:
And without a source, it's just more hot air.

nospam:
adobe is a source. in fact, it's the only source for
it.

Sandman:
No source from you, as usual. Still hot air.

nospam:
what part of adobe do you not understand?

Sandman:
What part of source do you not understand?

ok, all you want to do is argue. **** that noise.

What am I arguing *with*? You have provided nothing to argue with, no facts, no
source, no links.

when someone provides proof, you don't get to dismiss it simply by
saying 'hot air'.

I never have.

adobe has the numbers. so does apple. aperture was a failure. it's
as simple as that.

But you have yet to actually provide those numbers from Apple and Adobe, nor have
you provided the stated reasons from Apple for them EOL:ing Aperture. All you
have are *empty claims*. Not one single support for them.




--
Sandman