or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces Aperture - Page 6

post #201 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by bikertwin
I don't understand. On the one hand hand you're derisive of anyone who isn't a super-high-dollar pro, but on the other hand you seem to be a cheerleader for the little guy, who only makes 40 grand a year.

The guy (or gal) who makes 40 grand a year as a photographer simply cannot expect his or her computer to run any pro app the way a six-figure-income pro will. That's life.

Also workload is a factor: the 6-figure guy probably NEEDS way more power than the little guy

Little guy takes 500 shots at a wedding:
Big shot takes 1200 shots at a pro football game

Little guy has a week or two to get the photos done and proof sheets made
Depending on when the paper/magazine goes to press or when teh web site is updated, the big guy may only have a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes.


To whome much is given, much is expected.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #202 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Also workload is a factor: the 6-figure guy probably NEEDS way more power than the little guy

Little guy takes 500 shots at a wedding:
Big shot takes 1200 shots at a pro football game

Little guy has a week or two to get the photos done and proof sheets made
Depending on when the paper/magazine goes to press or when teh web site is updated, the big guy may only have a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes.


To whome much is given, much is expected.

I'm a student and I had a weekend to get 700 prints edited and printed. I would have loved Aperture to speed it up!
post #203 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
They seemed to be far more interested in pulling the high end photogs in than the little guy.

At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.
post #204 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Great first post, welcome to the forum! I agree and for people like me who are in education it's even cheaper - only £220 - which I suppose isn't that much less than the US full price!

50 bucks
post #205 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Farewell.

Goodbye my dear, and good luck.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #206 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Also, remember that it doesn't really handle PS files well. Only flattened ones. You would have to go back to the original layered file in PS, then re-import it into Aperture again if you would want to make a change.

I think that Adobe should put more effort into supporting Macs (don't get me wrong, they do a great job). In my opinion Adobe should build their next creative suite for Mac around the Core* technologies.

Now, this would make it harder for Adobe to supply a version of. say photoshop, that has the _ exact same_ functionality on Macs as on other platforms, but my reasoning is this:

While Apple are releasing some software that can be seen as competing products to Adobes (Final Cut. Motion), Aperture might cost Adobe sales of photoshop express. On the other hand Apple does not target Adobes grassroots technology in the same way that Microsoft does. As an example, while Apple chose to adopt PDF as a core technology with widespread support in Mac OS X, MS has chosed to release a competing technology (Metro), because they see the potential gain of owning such a standard.

Aperture and Photoshop will complement eachother very nicely, and increased sales of Aperture might yield increased sales of Photoshop (and/or the whole CS) to Adobe. If Adobe built their next CS around Core Image and Core Data and they worked close with Apple, the two products could interact in truly amazing ways. One that comes to mind, as has been suggested above, the ability to perform some editing in Aperture, fire it over to Photoshop, and then have the effect be applied automatically when you return to Aperture, in the same lossless way without having to make a copy of the image at all.

Too many big companies today are too narrow sighted to see the real benefits of establishing and maintaining real partnerships with products that complement eachother, instead of competing.
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #207 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by kwsanders
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.

The differance is that PSE is GARBAGE, the GUI is that of a pro tool dumbed down to the level of what adobe thinks consumers are, dumb unintelegent retards.

PSE is an insult to my intelegence. What I really expected when getting the demo of PSE was like photoshop express...same gui, just less features.

</rant>

$500 to manage your etier collection in the way this iwill isnt bad -- just look at how expencive friggen lenses can be! Many small time photographers I know get PS because they need it, but for what they do, this could easily do the job, and to be quite honest, this could do away with the need to upgrade photoshop every release, honestly, what sort of pixel level editing does a photogropher (PHOTOGRAPHER!=DESIGNER) need that isnt in PS7? or even 6?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #208 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by kwsanders
At $500 per copy, I think the little guy is going to have a hard time buying it anyway to tweak their photos, especially when you can get Photoshop Elements 3.0 for around $80.

The differance is that PSE is GARBAGE, the GUI is that of a pro tool dumbed down to the level of what adobe thinks consumers are, dumb unintelegent retards.

PSE is an insult to my intelegence. What I really expected when getting the demo of PSE was like photoshop express...same gui, just less features.

</rant>

$500 to manage your etier collection in the way this iwill isnt bad -- just look at how expencive friggen lenses can be! Many small time photographers I know get PS because they need it, but for what they do, this could easily do the job, and to be quite honest, this could do away with the need to upgrade photoshop every release, honestly, what sort of pixel level editing does a photogropher (PHOTOGRAPHER!=DESIGNER) need that isnt in PS7? or even 6?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #209 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I'm a student and I had a weekend to get 700 prints edited and printed. I would have loved Aperture to speed it up!

My comment was specific to hardware -- the precieved "need" for dual proc dual core may be accurate for a high level pro, but rookies can do with less hardware wise, just like in video with FCP, if all you are doing is 30 second SD commercials, you dont need as much as the guy doing long form HD/film telecien.

I knowwhat it is like to want/need more power in college, right now I have a 1400MHZ windows box with 384 meg of ram and a mac mini 1.2 / 512.
But hey, I graduate in May and then PM+23inch display here I come
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #210 of 538
Quote:
So, the expectation was that the machines should be more like this.

dual core 2GHz $1,800

dual core 2.5GHz $2,300

Quad core 2.3GHz $2,800

Quad core 2.5GHz $3,300

I do agree with that.

The dual 2.0 G5 has been with us for 3 years. It's ridiculous it's even in the current line-up.

A dual core 2 gig G5 for £999 would have been a killer product.

They had the chance to really do something different with the Pro' line up. But they screwed it up a little.

A couple of single Dual Coress and a couple of Quad Core beasts would have been bettere. It's a thought.

And why Apple don't do monitor bundle pricing to drive sales fo the Power Mac? I don't know...

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #211 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
I think that Adobe should put more effort into supporting Macs (don't get me wrong, they do a great job). In my opinion Adobe should build their next creative suite for Mac around the Core* technologies.

Now, this would make it harder for Adobe to supply a version of. say photoshop, that has the _ exact same_ functionality on Macs as on other platforms, but my reasoning is this:

While Apple are releasing some software that can be seen as competing products to Adobes (Final Cut. Motion), Aperture might cost Adobe sales of photoshop express. On the other hand Apple does not target Adobes grassroots technology in the same way that Microsoft does. As an example, while Apple chose to adopt PDF as a core technology with widespread support in Mac OS X, MS has chosed to release a competing technology (Metro), because they see the potential gain of owning such a standard.

Aperture and Photoshop will complement eachother very nicely, and increased sales of Aperture might yield increased sales of Photoshop (and/or the whole CS) to Adobe. If Adobe built their next CS around Core Image and Core Data and they worked close with Apple, the two products could interact in truly amazing ways. One that comes to mind, as has been suggested above, the ability to perform some editing in Aperture, fire it over to Photoshop, and then have the effect be applied automatically when you return to Aperture, in the same lossless way without having to make a copy of the image at all.

Too many big companies today are too narrow sighted to see the real benefits of establishing and maintaining real partnerships with products that complement eachother, instead of competing.

I agree that it would be wonderful if Adobe did that. But they won't.

Customers want their apps to be the same as the app on the other platform in that it must have the same features. With Apple garnering only 27% of PS's sales, that will never happen.

I've dealt directly with Adobe over the years, both as a lab owner, and as a beta tester since 1990. I can tell you that many of Adobe's programmers and even management are very much pro Apple.

But business necessities come first. When PS and other programs from Adobe were first ported over to Windows, it was done with regret. Few in Adobe wanted that to happen.

Realistically though, Apple was rapidly fading from the scene. Even in its strongholds its numbers were going down. Adobe had to protect themselves as a company, or they felt that they too might be in severe trouble.

Despite Adobe's astonishment, their products were received with enthusiasm from the PC community. This has happened every time that prominent Mac programs were ported over to Windows (surprise, surprise!!!)

This didn't help Apple. But Adobe is not to be blamed for Apple's problems.

As PS and other programs increased their PC marketshare to 50% and beyond, Adobe found that it could no longer make two completely different versions of their product. In the '90's as Apple came up with new software technologies, Adobe could not support them as they would have previously. Otherwise their PC customers would rightly have complained (it isn't just us, you know).

So unless, somehow, Apple manages to claw its way up to over 50% (well over 50%), we will not see Adobe, or any other cross platform company significantly increase support for Apple only technologies, if those technologies give new features to the product. If they increase the performance of the product that's different. Adobe was the first large company to support the PPC chip (except for Wordperfect), and the first to support Altivec.
post #212 of 538
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.

I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.

MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.
post #213 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.

I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.

MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.

But Microsoft has the market share - and that's what counts. I would love Adobe to take advantage of the Mac features but it would make Windows users irate. Also Adobe currently has less features on the Mac - lots of Acrobat tools are Windows only.
post #214 of 538
Adobe doesn't have features; it has programes.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #215 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
That is the point of Core Image Core Data is to increase performance to some ways and inrease productivity in other ways.

I can see the point on one hand Windows users complaining that PS for Mac has features that PS for Windows doesn't. It should be simple enough for Adobe to explain that OS x has features that Windows doesn't.

MS is certainly on a path of directly competing with Adobe. While Apple has been cooperating with Adobe. Adobe should be more amicable to cooperate with Apple.

Both Apple and MS cooperate with and compete with Adobe.

They are in the middle of two companies who want to control their OS's destinies. They both feel that they are best served in that by moving into Adobe's territory.

What I found to be both interesting and distressing was when Adobe and MS developed the OpenType standard. Apple was nowhere to be seen.

It shows how alliances change depending upon need. Quite a while ago it was Apple and MS that developed the Trutype technology to compete with Adobe's Type 1 technology. The idea being to force Adobe to open its standard to everyone, and thus to increase the number of companies developing type in that format as well as bringing the price down.

As Opentype is mostly based on TruType, it was surprising and confusing that Apple wasen't involved.

Also, remember that FCP and Aperture are assults against Adobe, so the issue isn't clear.
post #216 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Adobe doesn't have features; it has programes.

It has features in Acrobat that are not included on the Mac version - as I said.
post #217 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Adobe doesn't have features; it has programes.

Ah, but their programs ARE their features. Without them, they would have nothing.
post #218 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
It has features in Acrobat that are not included on the Mac version - as I said.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when you have a smaller marketshare.

When I asked Adobe about that a few years ago, the responded with; "Mac users don't need these aspects of the program." Or for that matter, the extra program.

But I am willing to make a bet that if Apple had 60% of their business, we WOULD have it.
post #219 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Both Apple and MS cooperate with and compete with Adobe.

Case in point, Windows Paint! Why buy Photoshop when you have Paint?
post #220 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Case in point, Windows Paint! Why buy Photoshop when you have Paint?

Well, uh, not what I had in mind.

MS is competing with Adobe's PDF format, though we don't know how that's going to turn out.

They also have a fairly decent image editing app out recently.

When MS took Powerpoint years ago and put it into Office, it killed what was the best presentation program around; Adobe's Persuasion.

They did what they did to Netscape. Gave an app away that was being beaten in quality and sales.
post #221 of 538
Quote:
Also, remember that FCP and Aperture are assults against Adobe, so the issue isn't clear.

Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.

FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.

Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.

I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.

Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.

But Adobe should.
post #222 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.

FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.

Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.

I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.

Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.

But Adobe should.

Apple is doing what it has a responsibility to do. Gain market share in markets it doesn't already have, make the Mac a more attractive market and develop programs where no solution is present.

The problem is that Apple needs Adobe and Microsoft so can't compete with them - even when they do make inferior products. Keynote is directly competing with PowerPoint but because PowerPoint is so bad it doesn't effect Office sales. Also Excel and Word are needed (even though they are the most infuriating programs known to man!)

Adobe took out a key feature of Photoshop Elements for the Mac due to the popularity of iPhoto. Apple is slowly competing with more and more and this is causing problems because Apple does it best. However, Aperture doesn't compete with anything but iPhoto!
post #223 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Both cases are a little more complicated than simply attacking Adobe.

FCP came about because of Adobe's refusal to help Apple. Also the fact that Premeire was lagging behind its full potential.

Aperture I more believe is Apple showing what good user intefaces should be, and the function of applications that use the Core API's.

I can understand if Apple says this is what I wish Adobe would do, if they don't, then we do it ourselves.

Apple is developing these apps because Adobe can't or won't.

But Adobe should.

Actually, FCP was not aimed at Adobe at all. Adobe was just in the middle. Premier was an amateur program. I used it since ver 1, but it had gotten pretty confused after some years. It was never a Pro program until now on the PC with ver 7. Even so, it's a low end pro program.

Apple aimed FCP at Avid. Avid had moved away from Apple following its marketshare loss, and had come out with its highend programs only on NT. When Mac users complained, Avid said they hadn't forgotten their loyal Mac users, and came out with a small progran designed to help move those loyal users projects over to NT.

The uproar and loss of sales at Avid caused them to fire their entire top management team and reorganize the company. Afterwards they released their high end stuff for the Mac as well.

But, as a result of this situation, Apple decided to have its own editing suit and bought the program from Macromedia that became FCP. They had already bought the three DVD editing and production programs from Astarte that became DVD Studio.
post #224 of 538
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.

Anyone who thinks Adobe is going to replace it's current filter set with coreimage is FULL of crap, or has no access to advanced apple info or info from Adobe systems.


Quote:
Originally posted by Smircle
Not surprisingly, the minimal hardware specifications require a CoreImage-compatible GFX chip. Aperture imho is the stick in Apple's carrot-and-stick strategy to move Adobe towards using Core* in its products.

The recommended system specs are mind-boggling, though:
- Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster
- 2GB of RAM
- One of the following graphics cards:
* ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
* ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
* NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
* NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
* NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
post #225 of 538
no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)

Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.
post #226 of 538
No, I haven't read the previous pages, and no, I'm not a complete n00b.. okay well maybe I am at Macs.. but anyways how exactly does Aperture compare to Photoshop?
Ask me for any coding help I can help you full time.
Reply
Ask me for any coding help I can help you full time.
Reply
post #227 of 538
Quote:
Apple aimed FCP at Avid.

I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.

Avid and FCP are in many ways two entirely different animals. FCP is largely a software solution. Pro Avid gear is a hardware heavy system with real time-multistream-DVE hardware accelorators, its own RAID storage system that can cost $50,000.

When FCP v1 was released the cheapest Avid system (Avid Xpress) was about $20,000. FCP was in no way in the same league for features or speed with Avid at that point.

Where FCP did compete with Avid was in desktop DV editing. At that point Avid was the champ in multistream real time uncompressed SD, and Avid did not offer low cost DV software.

Over time Avid has released cheaper software based solutions. With improvments in desktop hardware and OS API's FCP has been able to adopt more of Avid's advantages.

Still at this time FCP is not at all the same as a top pro Avid system. FCP is good as a low cost solution for DV and uncompressed SD. It's getting better for HD.

Quote:
Apple is slowly competing with more and more and this is causing problems because Apple does it best.

Outside of the FCP-Premeire example, how do you see it causing a problems?
post #228 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.

Anyone who thinks Adobe is going to replace it's current filter set with coreimage is FULL of crap, or has no access to advanced apple info or info from Adobe systems.

I agree.
post #229 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
[B]no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by sjk
There's no mention of GPU memory requirements under the Minimum System Requirements on the Tech Specs page. Is it because the 12" PB isn't listed that you say Aperture requires 128MB? Looks like my rev. B iMac G5 qualifies, barely.

APPLE says that it requires min. 128 Video memory. Not us.
post #230 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
Where do you make up such crap? Apple doesn't give two bits if Adobe uses core*anything. It's not advantages to Apple in anyway.. and most importantly would isolate Adobe mac apps from the windows versions making them different, on each platform. You can't have the mac version run a coreimage "focus blur" on the mac, and then have the normal Adobe code run the "focus blur" on windows. Technically this would mean your documents wouldn't be the same even if you did edit them in Photoshop.. It kills crossplatform compatibility. You really should think before you say things like this.

Good point.

Unnecssarily rude, but I see your point.

I don't think its true that Apple doesn't care if Adobe uses CoreImage. All of Apple's graphic apps use Core Image Core Sound, that's the reason these tools are there.

The user of Aperture will be in this situation. Any manipulation in Aperture will be in Core Image, when that picture is imported to PS will then use Adobe API's.

On the same accord if you edit an image in Core Image then save it as a common image file. It will still be crossplatform.
post #231 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.

Avid and FCP are in many ways two entirely different animals. FCP is largely a software solution. Pro Avid gear is a hardware heavy system with real time-multistream-DVE hardware accelorators, its own RAID storage system that can cost $50,000.

When FCP v1 was released the cheapest Avid system (Avid Xpress) was about $20,000. FCP was in no way in the same league for features or speed with Avid at that point.

Where FCP did compete with Avid was in desktop DV editing. At that point Avid was the champ in multistream real time uncompressed SD, and Avid did not offer low cost DV software.

Over time Avid has released cheaper software based solutions. With improvments in desktop hardware and OS API's FCP has been able to adopt more of Avid's advantages.

Still at this time FCP is not at all the same as a top pro Avid system. FCP is good as a low cost solution for DV and uncompressed SD. It's getting better for HD.



Outside of the FCP-Premeire example, how do you see it causing a problems?

I missed this post, so mine is out of order.

Apple was showing, and has done it very well, that their equipment, which is also used in turn-key systems from Avid, could compete on Avids low end.

Apple has essencially made Avids low cost systems obsolete. With real time boards, they have been creaping upwards steadily. With the FC Suite they have cut into Avids feature set, and in a number of areas surpassed it. Avid's Express software has been playing catchup . Avids hardware has been pushed out of many editing suites.

Adobe's Premier is what we know as "collateral damage".

I wouldn't classify Apple's solution as competing against Avids hi end systems, but as FC Studio and the hardware solutions that have come onto the market to work with it have gotten more sophisticated, Apple's has taken more and more of Avids workload.

The Quad is going to reduce that difference even more. Many more effects will be realtime with that. It's one of the reasons I'm looking foward to getting it.

The thing here that is exciting about FC Studio is that about one third of all pro video editors are now using it. That includes the pro's who can't, because they work on PC's. I got that from a survey done, I think, by DV Magazine.

If this keeps moving upwards, and with the features Apple has been adding, it seems as though it will, then Avid will be squeezed into the hi end productivity corner. with so many studios using FC Studio, Avid will have to keep supporting the Mac. There is now too much custom software on the high end that is being ported over from Unix.

A problem with Adobe?
post #232 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't know if I can agree with that. FCP cannibalized Premeire's market.

Even though FCP was twice as expensive. And what did Adobe do? They ran away!

Sissies
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #233 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
no offense This application wasn't designed for people with imacs. It's design for photo editors who drop 50k like you might drop a penny ;-)

No offense? I simply made a statement about Aperture's hardware requirements relative to my iMac, which wasn't intended to imply I meant to purchase it for that system.
post #234 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Offspring
No, I haven't read the previous pages, and no, I'm not a complete n00b.. okay well maybe I am at Macs.. but anyways how exactly does Aperture compare to Photoshop?

That's a very general question. Maybe look through Photoshop-related comments in previous post here and similar comments on other sites (e.g. MacInTouch), then formulate specific questions that haven't already been answered?
post #235 of 538
Quote:
When MS took Powerpoint years ago and put it into Office, it killed what was the best presentation program around; Adobe's Persuasion.

They did what they did to Netscape. Gave an app away that was being beaten in quality and sales.

They'll find it alot harder to 'kill' Apple. And Apple are making it harder to do so. This isn't the same Apple of 1997.

And Steve Jobs has been making this abundently clear to Adobe and M$.

Aperture may not be a direct competitor to Photoshop for now.

But to me, it's more Photoshop than Photoshop for the Photographer.

Aperture is a clear signal from Apple that if Adobe won't do it. Apple will. And with more style, simplicity and elegance and Power.

Apple's Pro and Consumer software is generally excellent and has, in general, sawn the legs off the competition. It will be interesting to see where Aperture goes...

I think it makes interfaces from Adobe and M$ embarrassing to look at...

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. If Adobe or M$ were to pull the plug on Apple...I have no doubt that Apple would be there to answer the challenge. With Open Office for the Mac...and iWorks, it's clear Apple are on that track... And with Funhouse 'knocked up in Cocoa within a week' and Aperture...Apple is showing Adobe their monopolies are not invulnerable... Steve Jobs doesn't like being at the behest of others. The 'drop' Office threat and the '2nd place' attitude of Adobe to Macs... Personally, I think he's putting the pieces in Place from iPod to Aperture so he and Apple can do what they want...and teh finger to M$/Adobe and companies like them in the process... Just like Apple gave 'teh finger' to IBM. Apple just aren't going to be held to ransom or held down any more. I think that's a GOOD THING. TM.

PPS. Huh. Both M$ and Adobe seem to have forgotten where they have come from....
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #236 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
Even though FCP was twice as expensive. And what did Adobe do? They ran away!

Sissies

My comments to Adobe when they told me about it was that they should fix the program and lower the price to $449 list. The price had crept up to close to $600 over the years.

I thought it would sell in that range if it were fixed.
post #237 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
They'll find it alot harder to 'kill' Apple. And Apple are making it harder to do so. This isn't the same Apple of 1997.

And Steve Jobs has been making this abundently clear to Adobe and M$.

Aperture may not be a direct competitor to Photoshop for now.

But to me, it's more Photoshop than Photoshop for the Photographer.

Aperture is a clear signal from Apple that if Adobe won't do it. Apple will. And with more style, simplicity and elegance and Power.

Apple's Pro and Consumer software is generally excellent and has, in general, sawn the legs off the competition. It will be interesting to see where Aperture goes...

I think it makes interfaces from Adobe and M$ embarrassing to look at...

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. If Adobe or M$ were to pull the plug on Apple...I have no doubt that Apple would be there to answer the challenge. With Open Office for the Mac...and iWorks, it's clear Apple are on that track... And with Funhouse 'knocked up in Cocoa within a week' and Aperture...Apple is showing Adobe their monopolies are not invulnerable... Steve Jobs doesn't like being at the behest of others. The 'drop' Office threat and the '2nd place' attitude of Adobe to Macs... Personally, I think he's putting the pieces in Place from iPod to Aperture so he and Apple can do what they want...and teh finger to M$/Adobe and companies like them in the process... Just like Apple gave 'teh finger' to IBM. Apple just aren't going to be held to ransom or held down any more. I think that's a GOOD THING. TM.

PPS. Huh. Both M$ and Adobe seem to have forgotten where they have come from....

I'm not talking about killing Apple. But it surely would hurt.

Apple has shown no interest in either Star Office or Open Office.

iWork has a nice little program in Pages. But almost no one is buying it. It sits on the shelf, and Apple has shown no interest in doing anything with it to make it competitive.

It takes years to build a program up to the point where it can start to replace a "standard". Look to the competition between Adobe and Quark.

Even though Quark has been universally vilified over many years. And even though from the very beginning, inDesign has been heralded as the better program, the much better program with each new release. With that, Adobe is praised for good customer relations. And even though Quark has been slow getting new and useful releases out of the door. And even with their totally reviled lack of customer support, and the lack of respect many companies and individual users have felt radiating from Quark, most of the publishing industry is STILL standardized on Quark Express.

Why is that?

Because once Quark established itself, and many third party software companies wrote software to extend and support the program, and after companies built their workflow's around the Quark Publishing System, It became extremely difficult to extricate themselves from it. Even though many want to.

Even if we believe, as Mac users, that Aperture is the most wonderful program of its type ever conceived, and even if we think that after several upgrades, the program can, in someway, compete with PS, it will still have a LONG way to go before most others think that.

It is also hobbled most seriously by the very fact that is IS a Mac only program. Apple would have to do what Adobe does, and release it on Windows as well. Remember that with only 27% of PS users on the Mac, this can't make any headway against PS as a one platform solution.

Apple would also need a viable publishing program as well as a vector drawing program. Even if this does turn into an image manipulation program as PS is, it won't be enough.

I'm not convinced that Apple, no matter what we might think, is considering any of that. And believe me, it would be needed. Industry is moving away from the stand-alone program.

It started with the Office Suite. It moved to the Corel Suite for graphics. Others did the same thing, such as Macromedia.

Apple then bought and wrote programs to complete the FC Suite. Adobe had that with CS, and now CS2.

Apple would have to have their own publishing suite as well.

I actually thought that they might be interested in doing that at one time, but they have passed up every opportunity to pick up programs that would help them in any way, even in graphics.

When MetaCreations sold off their graphics programs, Apple was thought of as a natural buyer. But Corel bought them. Again, when Corel then sold them more recently, and with Apple's big push into software, they again failed to pick any up.

When the word was out that Macromedia might be up for sale, I thought that Apple had a great chance of really moving in and solidifying important areas of their offerings.

Flash, the most widely used standard of its type could have been owned by Apple. Apple would have acquired Freehand. A program they would need to compete with Adobe - if they wanted to. Director, a VERY important content creation as a counterpart to DVD Studio.

Other area's of endeavor that Macromedia is expert in would have helped Apple come up to speed quickly.

But Apple has been conspicuous by its absence.

I don't think that Apple is thinking of competing directly with Adobe.

And, I don't think that it matters in the slightest where MS and Adobe came from. You could say that about many of Apple's longtime developers who have slipped over to Windows support, or have left entirely.
post #238 of 538
I don't think Apple wants to compete with MS and Adobe but I agree with LBB. If you push Apple they will quickly show you that they are indeed one of the best software houses in the biz.

Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.

When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.

Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.

Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.

Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.

Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.

I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.

Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #239 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I don't think Apple wants to compete with MS and Adobe but I agree with LBB. If you push Apple they will quickly show you that they are indeed one of the best software houses in the biz.

Adobe and Apple have been maintaining a love/dislike relationship for a while.

When Adobe tried to crank up PS licensing fees back in the mid 90s Apple created Quickdraw GX which was more efficient than PS in many areas.

Adobe got lazy with Premiere and Avid was being dumb so now they have Final Cut Pro to contend with. Apple will only compete when you fail to create the right type of product as a 3rd party.

Aperture is yet another shot across the bow of any Mac developer that thinks they can outdo Apple with a bunch of marketing.

Apple hasn't tried to compete in the Groupware/Office Suite area yet because they want to give deference to MS but Mac users will only wait so long before they get pissed. We neeed a Mac bases solution.

Adobe....dropping Apple would be the worst thing they could do. The graphics market wouldn't just fall to Adobe. Apple would simply state they are coming out with a high end app and the market would instantly fracture. Adobe would maintain the houses that are dedicated to an Adobe workflow but Apple would eat the independent Graphics Artists up as they are more flexible.

I think Adobe's apps have stagnated honestly. Indesign is the app that I believe has seen the most rapid improvement but there seems to be a lot of brain drain as to what to do with illustrator and photoshop.

Honestly if you're a topflight programmer I think working for Adobe is behind working for say a Google, MS and Apple.

I agree that Apple has a lot of talent for seeing how a solution to a problem should be resolved in software. There isn't any question about that, if they put their best talent on the job, and continue to develop the product instead of dropping the ball, which they have done several times.

Quickdraw GX was brilliant. At the time MS had nothing at all of note in that area. Open GL was not much more than an organized set of primitives. GX was amazing. I still have all the old demos and programs that came out to take advantage of it.

But it is also an example of what I'm saying. It wasn't there to nudge Adobe. It was there because MS had recently bought (Geez, now I forget which program it was. SoftImage?) the most popular Unix based 3D program out there to push NT into 3d design. An area that it hadn't been at all. An area that Apple was beginning to get into. All 3D work used Open GL or some other proprietary software. Apple brought out GX to compete with GL. GX had high level routines for texture, etc. that GL didn't have. It was much more advanced - and much faster as well. I well remember Apple coming to my old user group here in NYC and demoing it while answering our questions.

But where is it now? Far away. Why? It was an Apple only standard. No major company supported it. So it died.

Office is very well done for the Mac. It's pretty much agreed that it is better on the Mac then on Windows. It has been since the OS X version. It just needs a database compatible with Access. But Filemaker takes care of 85% of that.

I don't think that Adobe would just drop Apple support. They might do what many other companies have done. Fail to release simultaneously. Fail to support speed enhancements.

Too many independent graphic artists have Adobe's programs as their life work. They won't give them up so easily. They will move to the PC instead.

The first thing Aperture would have to do is to support PS's layering environment the way inDesign and Illustrator do. Without that, no one would consider leaving PS. That might be a licensing issue.
post #240 of 538
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
APPLE says that it requires min. 128 Video memory. Not us.

Where have they said that? Not here, as I mentioned earlier.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple introduces Aperture