End of the road for Aperture?

On 2014-06-28 19:33:13 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2014062717094870571-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

It seems that Apple is making some changes to its Pro image editing
app philosophy. They are shelving plans for further development of
Aperture. Apparently sometime next year they will release a a new
Photo App for OSX, iPhoto will be replaced. This might be a rumor at
this stage as I haven't seen anything official from Apple.

When iOS 7 is updated to iOS 8 in September some of the elements of
the new Photo App and Cloud storage will be found there.

http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/2...t-of-aperture/

As far as I know, Jonas is the only shooter here using Aperture.

Yeah, I'm really bummed out about this. Because I really don't like
Lightroom.

Then carry on using Aperture. Just be aware that development wise it is
in a state of stasis, and has been since 2010, and will still function
under Yosemite.

I doubt the new Photos App is going to be a replacement for the
features found in Aperture as that seems to be targeting the iPhone
wielding consumer.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014062821294844303-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

As far as I know, Jonas is the only shooter here using Aperture.

Yeah, I'm really bummed out about this. Because I really don't like
Lightroom.

Then carry on using Aperture. Just be aware that development wise it is
in a state of stasis, and has been since 2010, and will still function
under Yosemite.

apple said they will update it for compatibility, but no new features.

photos won't be out until next year, so aperture might even be updated
for whatever comes after yosemite, which will be 'fall 2015'.

I doubt the new Photos App is going to be a replacement for the
features found in Aperture as that seems to be targeting the iPhone
wielding consumer.

not completely, but so far, photos looks like it will do more than
iphoto did (which wasn't much), plus it will have extensions where
third party developers can add their own non-destructive functionality.
that means there's quite a bit of potential in photos, and the cloud
makes it all that much more attractive.

in other words, it could potentially grow to be a replacement and then
some.

there are also a *lot* more iphone/ipad wielding consumers than there
are mac users. the biggest problem with iphoto/aperture and certainly
lightroom is managing media across multiple devices, photos should
solve that issue.

adobe is *also* working on that too, but their solution has to be
cross-platform and therefore it will not work anywhere near as
seamlessly as photos will with macs and ios devices.

on the other hand, lightroom will integrate with other adobe products
much better than photos.

On 2014.06.28, 21:30 , PeterN wrote:
On 6/28/2014 12:22 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

snip


I take issue with renting s/w by calendar time and not by work done. If
I used it 5 days a week an hour/day or more that would be something else.


I am not exactly thrilled with the shoe rental concept either.
Having said that, if software must be rented for non-commercial use, I
would prefer a time rental over a use concept. I think that a use
concept would have a tendency to stifle creative experiments. While at a
quick glance a use concept for commercial use, if coupled with a time
concept for non-commercial use, could easily create enforcement issues,
that would probably be more of a distraction for Adobe, than it would be
worth.

For commercial use where the s/w is being used daily, calendar billing
makes sense.

For private use, in my case at least, it's borderline. I may succumb in
time, but it goes against my general avoidance of rents.

Microsoft's '360' s/w rental is the least appealing to me, but the Adobe
one isn't much better.

--
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

On 6/29/2014 7:15 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2014.06.28, 21:30 , PeterN wrote:
On 6/28/2014 12:22 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

snip


I take issue with renting s/w by calendar time and not by work done. If
I used it 5 days a week an hour/day or more that would be something
else.


I am not exactly thrilled with the shoe rental concept either.
Having said that, if software must be rented for non-commercial use, I
would prefer a time rental over a use concept. I think that a use
concept would have a tendency to stifle creative experiments. While at a
quick glance a use concept for commercial use, if coupled with a time
concept for non-commercial use, could easily create enforcement issues,
that would probably be more of a distraction for Adobe, than it would be
worth.

For commercial use where the s/w is being used daily, calendar billing
makes sense.

For private use, in my case at least, it's borderline. I may succumb in
time, but it goes against my general avoidance of rents.

Microsoft's '360' s/w rental is the least appealing to me, but the Adobe
one isn't much better.

Everyone has to decide what makes sense for their usage. All I can do is
point out what makes sense for me, and why.




--
PeterN

On 6/28/2014 11:14 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 21:56:34 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 6/28/2014 9:30 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 6/28/2014 12:22 PM, Alan Browne wrote:

snip


I take issue with renting s/w by calendar time and not by work done. If
I used it 5 days a week an hour/day or more that would be something else.


I am not exactly thrilled with the shoe rental concept either.
Having said that, if software must be rented for non-commercial use, I
would prefer a time rental over a use concept. I think that a use
concept would have a tendency to stifle creative experiments. While at a
quick glance a use concept for commercial use, if coupled with a time
concept for non-commercial use, could easily create enforcement issues,
that would probably be more of a distraction for Adobe, than it would be
worth.


That should have read SW rental, not shoe rental.

I thought you were making a bowling reference.


BowLing is a Chinese restaurant.

--
PeterN

On 2014-06-28 20:11:06 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


It seems that Apple is making some changes to its Pro image editing app
philosophy. They are shelving plans for further development of
Aperture. Apparently sometime next year they will release a a new Photo
App for OSX, iPhoto will be replaced. This might be a rumor at this
stage as I haven't seen anything official from Apple.

See

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06...ture_adobe_anx
iously_awaits_arrivals/
or http://tinyurl.com/m8oqptc

more link bait.

aperture was *not* abruptly axed.

it's been obvious for years that it's been dead.

Dead or just "finished?" I know this runs contrary to currently
prevailing philosophy of software developers and software companies,
but certain software can be completed without becoming dead.

Is bash dead? It's been more or less "done" for many years...

In article 2014062821294844303-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-06-28 19:33:13 +0000, Sandman said:

Savageduck:
It seems that Apple is making some changes to its Pro image
editing app philosophy. They are shelving plans for further
development of Aperture. Apparently sometime next year they will
release a a new Photo App for OSX, iPhoto will be replaced. This
might be a rumor at this stage as I haven't seen anything
official from Apple.

When iOS 7 is updated to iOS 8 in September some of the elements
of the new Photo App and Cloud storage will be found there.

http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/2...t-of-aperture/

As far as I know, Jonas is the only shooter here using Aperture.

Sandman:
Yeah, I'm really bummed out about this. Because I really don't
like Lightroom.

Then carry on using Aperture. Just be aware that development wise it
is in a state of stasis, and has been since 2010, and will still
function under Yosemite.

I doubt the new Photos App is going to be a replacement for the
features found in Aperture as that seems to be targeting the iPhone
wielding consumer.

Yeah, which is weird, since iPhoto is already a user-friendly application.
Why not just dump "Photos" on the iPhone and have iPhoto available for both
platforms, cloud-enabled and non-destructive synced edits?


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-06-30 06:40:43 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2014062821294844303-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-06-28 19:33:13 +0000, Sandman said:

Savageduck:
It seems that Apple is making some changes to its Pro image
editing app philosophy. They are shelving plans for further
development of Aperture. Apparently sometime next year they will
release a a new Photo App for OSX, iPhoto will be replaced. This
might be a rumor at this stage as I haven't seen anything
official from Apple.

When iOS 7 is updated to iOS 8 in September some of the elements
of the new Photo App and Cloud storage will be found there.

http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/06/2...t-of-aperture/

As far as I know, Jonas is the only shooter here using Aperture.

Sandman:
Yeah, I'm really bummed out about this. Because I really don't
like Lightroom.

Then carry on using Aperture. Just be aware that development wise it
is in a state of stasis, and has been since 2010, and will still
function under Yosemite.

I doubt the new Photos App is going to be a replacement for the
features found in Aperture as that seems to be targeting the iPhone
wielding consumer.

Yeah, which is weird, since iPhoto is already a user-friendly application.
Why not just dump "Photos" on the iPhone and have iPhoto available for both
platforms, cloud-enabled and non-destructive synced edits?

I have a feeling Apple isn't even going to try to contest the
"Pro/Prosumer" photo editing software arena, and leave that to Adobe.
If they were, they would have done more to polish Aperture over the
last 4 years. They are letting it die on the vine.
They are obviously going for a consumer targeted app which will have
features which will wow the iPhone crowd, and give most vacation &
hobby shooters enough. I would imagine there is going to be more of a
blending of the Photos app for iOS & OSX to provide what appears to be
a slick and UI transparent. Obviously they are going to push cloud
storage for image files and social media sharing.

I wouldn't know the percentages, but excepting for you, I have a
feeling that iDevice and Mac users who are in the serious photography
camp already have a version of PS CS & LR installed, or are subscribers
to the CC, or both. That is my situation, and I can think of several
folks with a similar SW load. I would imagine that most of those will
only use the new Photos App to manage and tweak their iDevice shots.

I have been working with LR Mobile, which is an interesting tool, not
quite what one might expect. Also, PS Touch on the iPad is a
surprisingly powerful tool which also integrates very nicely with the
CC file system.

Anyway, I guess we will have to see what September brings with the iOS8
version of the Photos App, and just how well that translates to
*Yosemite* next year.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 20140630001955625-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck:
Then carry on using Aperture. Just be aware that development
wise it is in a state of stasis, and has been since 2010, and
will still function under Yosemite.

I doubt the new Photos App is going to be a replacement for the
features found in Aperture as that seems to be targeting the
iPhone wielding consumer.

Sandman:
Yeah, which is weird, since iPhoto is already a user-friendly
application. Why not just dump "Photos" on the iPhone and have
iPhoto available for both platforms, cloud-enabled and
non-destructive synced edits?

I have a feeling Apple isn't even going to try to contest the
"Pro/Prosumer" photo editing software arena, and leave that to
Adobe.

Yeah, that much seems obvious. And if it weren't for the fact that Aperture
was a stellar application in this arena, I wouldn't mind it at all.

If they were, they would have done more to polish Aperture
over the last 4 years. They are letting it die on the vine. They are
obviously going for a consumer targeted app which will have features
which will wow the iPhone crowd, and give most vacation & hobby
shooters enough.

Indeed.

I would imagine there is going to be more of a blending of the Photos app
for iOS & OSX to provide what appears to be a slick and UI transparent.
Obviously they are going to push cloud storage for image files and social
media sharing.

Yeah, but the trend with apps for Apple has been that those apps that are
made iOS-first and then brought to OSX (Reminders, Notes, Facetime etc) are
too simplistic in their desktop version, while the apps that are OSX-first
and then brought to iOS (iPhoto, iMovie, Mail, Safari, etc) remains strong
featurefull applications on the Mac. By removing iPhoto, the trend tells us
it will be replaced by something inferior feature-wise, unfortunately.

I wouldn't know the percentages, but excepting for you, I have a
feeling that iDevice and Mac users who are in the serious
photography camp already have a version of PS CS & LR installed, or
are subscribers to the CC, or both.

And has no more than two computers to use it on.

That is my situation, and I can think of several folks with a similar SW
load. I would imagine that most of those will only use the new Photos App
to manage and tweak their iDevice shots.

Yeah, but with Aperture you had everything. It supported the iPhoto
library, Photo Streams and you had all that professional-level editing and
plugins and library management. It's a pity.

Lightroom is professional all right, but cut off and seperate from that
sphere.

In short, if you were a photographer and used Aperture, you didn't need any
other photo-management app for your computer. It linked in to everything.

I have been working with LR Mobile, which is an interesting tool,
not quite what one might expect. Also, PS Touch on the iPad is a
surprisingly powerful tool which also integrates very nicely with
the CC file system.

Yeah, both seperately. CC files can't access LR Mobile and vice versa. It's
really a matter of not going all the way with a somewhat decent idea. If
Adobe were to give me 1TB of online cloud storage for photos and make them
available seemlessly via CC files and LR Mobile, then we'd have a
contender.

Anyway, I guess we will have to see what September brings with the
iOS8 version of the Photos App, and just how well that translates to
*Yosemite* next year.

Yeah...


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-06-30 14:47:10 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 20140630001955625-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Savageduck:
Then carry on using Aperture. Just be aware that development
wise it is in a state of stasis, and has been since 2010, and
will still function under Yosemite.

I doubt the new Photos App is going to be a replacement for the
features found in Aperture as that seems to be targeting the
iPhone wielding consumer.

Sandman:
Yeah, which is weird, since iPhoto is already a user-friendly
application. Why not just dump "Photos" on the iPhone and have
iPhoto available for both platforms, cloud-enabled and
non-destructive synced edits?

I have a feeling Apple isn't even going to try to contest the
"Pro/Prosumer" photo editing software arena, and leave that to
Adobe.

Yeah, that much seems obvious. And if it weren't for the fact that Aperture
was a stellar application in this arena, I wouldn't mind it at all.

I can't say since I have no Aperture experience.

If they were, they would have done more to polish Aperture
over the last 4 years. They are letting it die on the vine. They are
obviously going for a consumer targeted app which will have features
which will wow the iPhone crowd, and give most vacation & hobby
shooters enough.

Indeed.

I would imagine there is going to be more of a blending of the Photos app
for iOS & OSX to provide what appears to be a slick and UI transparent.
Obviously they are going to push cloud storage for image files and social
media sharing.

Yeah, but the trend with apps for Apple has been that those apps that are
made iOS-first and then brought to OSX (Reminders, Notes, Facetime etc) are
too simplistic in their desktop version, while the apps that are OSX-first
and then brought to iOS (iPhoto, iMovie, Mail, Safari, etc) remains strong
featurefull applications on the Mac. By removing iPhoto, the trend tells us
it will be replaced by something inferior feature-wise, unfortunately.

I think Apple has given the Jon Ive philosophy too much weight based on
the success of the iPhone. Sometimes minimalism. clean, flat looks, and
catering to the lowest common denominator don't work.

I wouldn't know the percentages, but excepting for you, I have a
feeling that iDevice and Mac users who are in the serious
photography camp already have a version of PS CS & LR installed, or
are subscribers to the CC, or both.

And has no more than two computers to use it on.

That is my situation, and I can think of several folks with a similar SW
load. I would imagine that most of those will only use the new Photos App
to manage and tweak their iDevice shots.

Yeah, but with Aperture you had everything. It supported the iPhoto
library, Photo Streams and you had all that professional-level editing and
plugins and library management. It's a pity.

I gave up using iPhoto and its convoluted library system years ago and
I don't regret that one bit. I have all the library management I could
ever need with LR. That and all the editing flexibility I could want
with plug-ins and PS integration.

Lightroom is professional all right, but cut off and seperate from that
sphere.

Given Adobe's recent remarks regarding Lightroom, I suspect they have
some interesting developments in the wings.

In short, if you were a photographer and used Aperture, you didn't need any
other photo-management app for your computer. It linked in to everything.

I think that way about LR. The big difference is I don't have my entire
photo library in an Apple-like Photo stream. However, I have little
problem, exporting from LR to any sharing service, to my desktop, or a
cloud service such as Dropbox, or even my CC folder.

I have been working with LR Mobile, which is an interesting tool,
not quite what one might expect. Also, PS Touch on the iPad is a
surprisingly powerful tool which also integrates very nicely with
the CC file system.

Yeah, both seperately. CC files can't access LR Mobile and vice versa. It's
really a matter of not going all the way with a somewhat decent idea.

The first thing is to understand that LR Mobile is not an iPad
implementation of LR5, it is a tool to supplement LR5, especially given
that you are not working on actual files, but *Smart Previews* in
specific LR collections.

If Adobe were to give me 1TB of online cloud storage for photos and make them
available seemlessly via CC files and LR Mobile, then we'd have a
contender.

Well they give you 20GB for starters, compared to iCloud and its
initial 5GB. They have very good handling of RAW files, and
collaborative work. I find their sharing of RAW files and layered PSDs
to be done better than Dropbox which only sees files such as NEFs as
files, and layered files are problematic with DB.
Here is a CC PSD and that could also be published via Behance directly
from CC storage.
http://adobe.ly/TJFa8Y

They still have some other things to learn from Dropbox with regard to
sharing, but it is early in the life of CC. If they are going to
fulfill the potential of what they have I am sure they will end up will
competitive pricing for additional storage.

I think that Apple selling 200GB of iCloud space for $49/year with the
release of iOS8 & Yosemite is going to provoke a cloud storage price
war. As it is, I have my free 2.25GB of DB space along with my CC 20GB.
Then back in March Box had a promotional 50GB give-away (it is back to
the standard 10GB free, but I have my 50GB.). So there are going to be
things happening on that front.

Anyway, I guess we will have to see what September brings with the
iOS8 version of the Photos App, and just how well that translates to
*Yosemite* next year.

Yeah...


--
Regards,

Savageduck