no new aperture

Ronald M said:
Why I do not want any program that has a library. Whomever came up with that concept should never be allowed to write another line of code.
Click to expand...

For backup and sidecar files. The moment users start messing with file structures (and they do) apps stop working. This is likely a decision as much about customer service and complaints as anything, which is why iPhoto was also nixed. Photos have become to computing what fonts have been to computing.
 
apple, adobe, google, yahoo (flickr), sony, leica.

they have one thing in common: to them we are numbers.

I help people with iphoto all the time.....OMG what a nightmare

look at the history of "Word" or windows for that matter.

People HATE to learn a new interface, and most of the time it's pointless and arbitrary.

What's been goin on at flickr lately is just classic in this same vein.
 
Last time I looked M$ had not discontinued Word or Excel or ceased to support old file versions. You can open a 15 year old Word file just fine on the latest Windows PC.

Apple has just stabbed a large part of its customer base in the back.
 
Ansel said:
Last time I looked M$ had not discontinued Word or Excel or ceased to support old file versions. You can open a 15 year old Word file just fine on the latest Windows PC.

Apple has just stabbed a large part of its customer base in the back.
Click to expand...

don't get me started. after 2003 word interface was destroyed. It's awful now. Old versions will not open new word files, without upgrades which confuse general users.

OSX WORD is totally different than Win Word.

bla bla bla. TY god Word is superfluous now.

Back in 2000 it was a nice program. Now it's a bloated monstrosity.

And I'm not even going to bring up "Outlook".

I agree with those here who decry "libraries" in general.

I would not worry much about Apple's bottomline.
 
uhoh7 said:
don't get me started. after 2003 word interface was destroyed. It's awful now. Old versions will not open new word files, without upgrades which confuse general users.

OSX WORD is totally different than Win Word.

bla bla bla. TY god Word is superfluous now.

Back in 2000 it was a nice program. Now it's a bloated monstrosity.

And I'm not even going to bring up "Outlook".

I agree with those here who decry "libraries" in general.

I would not worry much about Apple's bottomline.
Click to expand...

Whats new. Word has always been awful. At least M$ haven't abandoned it.
 
Honestly, Im surprised Aperture lasted even this long. For a number of years now Apple's software focus has been on mobility ...any real desktop apps are non-existent - and market share of Aperture has never been significant and was falling every year. I do wonder where Apple will end up as I certainly prefer their OS-X based platforms but detest the iOS ones...
 
craygc said:
I do wonder where Apple will end up as I certainly prefer their OS-X based platforms but detest the iOS ones...
Click to expand...

Though I am very happy w/ iOS based hw.. I don't want to c iOS behavior in osx based machine to the point where they cannot be distinguished.

Gary
 
It is simple, never trust Apple if you're a pro, for it does not make money from the pros. It is a mass market mobile device company and thats it.
I have just bought aperture because I could not reinstall my Photoshop Elements license. Its not too bad, but the interface is old and I do not really like to be forced to add a photo to my library before modifying it. So I guess i'll just keep it until it becomes way too obsolete.

Anyway, I never import my photos directly into my Aperture/iPhoto library, but I store them in a separate file structure before importing them. I do not trust Apple to manage all my photographs into a database/library that can be corrupted.
 
I wonder if Apple reads this thread. Seems to me they are pulling a "Kodak." Do they realize the loyal following they have? For many of us, the whole point of buying Mac was for photography.
 
I bought a couple of versions of Aperture, but never learned to use it. My workflow is to ingest/rename/tag using Photo Mechanic, and then doing everything else in Photoshop, which I am comfortable using.

That said, I'm disappointed that the most serious alternative to Photoshop is gone, because when there is little or no competition, Adobe can act in its worst ways, especially re pricing (hello Acrobat pro versions for the Mac).

I don't think Apple will lose many computer sales by cancelling Aperture. It is still a great platform for photo processing/editing. That said, if I had invested time in learning and using Aperture, I'd be pissed too.
 
One thing that I did in Aperture was to NOT save my originals in the Aperture Library. Not through any brilliance or foresight on my part, but I have several programs and wanted to be able to access the originals independently of Aperture. I have Bridge and Elements, Capture One, DxO and all the native programs for each of my cameras. I thought it would be a good idea and now it's really looking good. Now to export all the versions I want to keep to a "finished" file and I'll be somewhat secure. I keep remembering that Print Shop program that I bought a year before Lion came out and when I upgraded I was out a print program as "Apple no longer supports Power PC programs....." Why do I feel this is going to happen again?
 
Aristophanes said:
There is no indication Apple is forcing anyone to use the cloud for OS X.

For iOS almost certainly because devices do not have the storage space.
Click to expand...

But it does seem, given all the annoying cloud-based features I have to turn off after just loading Mavericks, that Apple wants to move in this direction... for all devices, desktop machines included. :(
 
It's really sad that photography is no longer our primary concern. I have become fatigued by digital workflow savvy and the constant need to learn the next "endall" program. I feel that I no longer have possession of my images, that if I refuse to be "current" that those images will simply go away...
This is the revelation for me to preserve my work with hard copies. Not hard copies of every image but the select few that I feel best represent me as a photographer. The raw files will vanish as will I someday, I must be realistic about all of this program (money, profit) driven sinkhole that digital photography has become.

I guess I could employ someone to remain current for me (which would free me to concentrate on photography). :D
 
Maybe the transition to LR won't work, and they'll have to keep aperture alive. :D

Say: Maybe if we could get enough of us outraged, abandoned users together, we could file a class action lawsuit against Apple, to force them to support Aperture. Does anyone know how many copies of Aperture are out there? How many Aperture users are being abandoned?
 
Jamie Pillers said:
But it does seem, given all the annoying cloud-based features I have to turn off after just loading Mavericks, that Apple wants to move in this direction... for all devices, desktop machines included. :(
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt Apple wants the guy with 6TB of RAW files in their cloud.

Even Adobe probably does not want that customer bringing that much overhead to them.

Apple supports 2 OSs and a huge chunk of their customer base, including many professionals, require persistent connectivity. So Apple pretty much has no choice but to build in similar processes, library structures, and interfaces between the Mac and iOS.

Power users are a cost centre. Some bemoan the lack of certain features in Aperture not realizing that the market for many of these features is minuscule.

Remember: iOS is on devices where Apple and the consumer expect NO desktop computer at all in the mix. None. The general consumer trend is away from any home computer and all towards mobile devices supported for storage, transmission, and presentation on the cloud. The home darkroom PC for power users it turns out is fractionally small market. So Apple looks to be building a platform with the Mac where Photos will be a container with an OS-level library structure (photos have become like fonts). Those small user bases who demand atypical features can source their needs from an app.

This will contrast with Adobe who are tied almost wholly to the desktop and its stalled and even declining sales. Adobe will have lost almost the entire mid- to low-end market to Apple's built-in free app, and they will rely on professional pricing via subscription, monolithic software that needs to phone home every 90 days.

It is Adobe that looks to be in trouble in the long run. I am not sure they can adapt to the mobility, non-desktop, and cloud services in the same way as the company that controls all this at an OS-level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom