or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's Intel Aperture 1.1 Update pushed back
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Intel Aperture 1.1 Update pushed back

post #1 of 112
Thread Starter 
You win some, you lose some -- So far Apple Computer is one-for-two when it comes to meeting a self-imposed deadline on updating its Pro software applications to run on its new Intel Macs, as tipsters report the Aperture 1.1 Universal update has slipped by a couple of weeks.

The update to Apple's new professional photography workflow application will offer improved RAW image quality, RAW fine tuning, auto noise compression, a new color meter, enhanced export controls, and dozens of other improvements. But most importantly, it will unleash the software on the company's existing and forthcoming Intel-based system.

Apple had previously told customers the Aperture 1.1 Update would be made available in "March," but informed tipsters now say the release has slipped to "the middle of April." The PowerPC version of the software has been a hit with professionals, as analysts reported "surprisingly strong" sales during the first month it went on sale.

Although Aperture is a relatively new product -- announced in October with the first shipments in November -- Apple chose not to defer its release in favor of adding native Intel support. The company is facing off against Adobe Systems, who in January introduced a similar piece of software dubbed "LightRoom," which was designed to lure back its professional audience. LightRoom, however, is still in pre-release condition.

Interestingly, fillings seen by AppleInsider suggests Apple initially had thoughts of naming its Aperture software "LightTable." On a similar account, it also contemplated renaming its Rendezvous technology "Aloha," later settling on "Bonjour."
post #2 of 112
Slipped by a few weeks....


ARGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


post #3 of 112
Perhaps Melgross is right. Maybe we should see how fast Apple release it's universal apps before 'throwing stones' at Adobe.
post #4 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Perhaps Melgross is right. Maybe we should see how fast Apple release it's universal apps before 'throwing stones' at Adobe.

Grow up people. It's a couple of weeks' delay, not 2nd quarter 2007 or anything.

Sheesh.
post #5 of 112
And as far as I can tell, 95% of Apple's apps are already UB'd.

Which app isn't UB yet besides Aperture?
post #6 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And as far as I can tell, 95% of Apple's apps are already UB'd.

Which app isn't UB yet besides Aperture?

Final Cut Express, and Shake. No date for the Universal updates have been given.
post #7 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And as far as I can tell, 95% of Apple's apps are already UB'd.

Which app isn't UB yet besides Aperture?

AppleWorks

Yeah, I know.
post #8 of 112
Apple Remote Desktop isn't yet, however there are tricks to get it to run using Rosseta.
I'm a Computer Geek. If I'm not here I'm either sleeping or I died.
Reply
I'm a Computer Geek. If I'm not here I'm either sleeping or I died.
Reply
post #9 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And as far as I can tell, 95% of Apple's apps are already UB'd.

Which app isn't UB yet besides Aperture?

I don't think Shake is UB already...
post #10 of 112
Yup! Big, difficult programs, or unimportant ones, aren't going to be updated any faster by Apple, then they could, or would have been, if they were from anyone else.

No one should think otherwise.
post #11 of 112
It's interesting how some third party big, complex programs were Intelized faster than Apple managed, for example CInema 4D.

Anyway, Aperture should now be out mid-April, so it's another 2 weeks.
post #12 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisG
Apple Remote Desktop isn't yet, however there are tricks to get it to run using Rosseta.

It should be updated when OS X Server is Universal.
post #13 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by Project2501
I don't think Shake is UB already...

Hmmm...my bad. I had seen a few articles about Shake on Intel a few weeks back and how performance was much better on Intel-based Macs and assumed it was released.

I don't think the complexities (or simplicities) of creating an Intel binary (or UB) is what is holding Shake and Aperture back though...I think they're just generally squashing bugs and adding more features...a very normal procedure if you ask me. No sense in releasing something (even a UB) if loose ends aren't tied yet.
post #14 of 112
Hmmm . . . maybe the problem isn't with the universalization of the application . . . maybe it's an issue with the dozens (hundreds) of other changes to the program. But hey, any excuse to complain, right?
-- Jason
Reply
-- Jason
Reply
post #15 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I don't think the complexities (or simplicities) of creating an Intel binary (or UB) is what is holding Shake and Aperture back though...I think they're just generally squashing bugs and adding more features...a very normal procedure if you ask me. No sense in releasing something (even a UB) if loose ends aren't tied yet.

Sounds right to me. I haven't used either of these apps personally (sad!) but perhaps they could also be tied up due to plugin issues?
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #16 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by jasong
Hmmm . . . maybe the problem isn't with the universalization of the application . . . maybe it's an issue with the dozens (hundreds) of other changes to the program. But hey, any excuse to complain, right?

Well, to put a more positive spin on that idea...

Aperture isn't just being UB'ed the way that FC Studio is. It's actually being updated to a new version with new features, and it's highly dependent on OS X 10.4.6 features (raw versioning, Nikon D200 support).
post #17 of 112
Why is it that some of you guys are willing to give Apple leeway, but not Adobe?

If anything, it should be the other way around. At least Adobe gave us a timeline, and let us know that it will be a new version with many new features.

Apple has said nothing.
post #18 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
It's interesting how some third party big, complex programs were Intelized faster than Apple managed, for example CInema 4D.

I read somewhere that Maxon uses some very lean and mean coding for Cinema4D. They use for 95% the same codebase for Mac/PC, wich saves them a lot of time. They're just very efficient.
Well ... they're Germans
(and no, I'm not German)
2x2.7 PowerMac - 1.25 Powerbook - 10.4 Tiger - '65 Mustang
Reply
2x2.7 PowerMac - 1.25 Powerbook - 10.4 Tiger - '65 Mustang
Reply
post #19 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why is it that some of you guys are willing to give Apple leeway, but not Adobe?

If anything, it should be the other way around. At least Adobe gave us a timeline, and let us know that it will be a new version with many new features.

Apple has said nothing.

Apple did give a timeline, They said March, and the discussion here is because they just announced it was slipping into mid-April. The issue people have with Adobe and MS (unfair and unfounded as it may be) is with the length of their timeline.
-- Jason
Reply
-- Jason
Reply
post #20 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why is it that some of you guys are willing to give Apple leeway, but not Adobe?

If anything, it should be the other way around. At least Adobe gave us a timeline, and let us know that it will be a new version with many new features.

Apple has said nothing.

Mostly because Adobe apps will be a year late vs a month late and will set you back 300-500$ rather than 50-100$ (or free in the case of Aperture).

Also...Apple hasn't complained about the whole deal. Only Adobe and MS have complained so far. For all we know, making a Universal Binary of these Pro apps wasn't a huge deal for Apple...the reasons for being late might simply be 1. completing features 2. squashing bugs.

'course, Apple would never complain about UBing an app because it would look rather bad on their part but...lets face the reality, all of these apps will be UB within the next month.

Heck, like I said, Shake was being demoed early March on Intel-based Macs...so, it's already UB...just not released. And I think I heard something similar about Aperture. So it's no unreasonable to conclude that UBing wasn't Apple biggest problems.
post #21 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why is it that some of you guys are willing to give Apple leeway, but not Adobe?

If anything, it should be the other way around. At least Adobe gave us a timeline, and let us know that it will be a new version with many new features.

Apple has said nothing.

Waiting 30 more days as opposed to 180+. That is why I am cool with Apple. That and the fact I don't use Aperture or Shake, yet. Adobe and Office I am in every day. In fact, I am on my Core Duo mini right now (2 GB ram) and I have to say that both run well enough I am not complaining like I was. They run faster than my Mini G4 could run'em.

I am in FCS a lot as well, so it is a plus that went UB but I have decided to wait and see how the line shakes out before upgrading my 20" iMac G5 1.8 GHz (which is doing just fine). Memrom and quad cores are dancing in my head. I believe the motovating reasons Apple switched to Intel will show up in late 06 or 07. Then we will be like, yeah, what a great move. The Core DUO stuff now is great, so don't get me wrong. I just feel it is going to get a lot better.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #22 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Mostly because Adobe apps will be a year late vs a month late and will set you back 300-500$ rather than 50-100$ (or free in the case of Aperture).

Also...Apple hasn't complained about the whole deal. Only Adobe and MS have complained so far. For all we know, making a Universal Binary of these Pro apps wasn't a huge deal for Apple...the reasons for being late might simply be 1. completing features 2. squashing bugs.

'course, Apple would never complain about UBing an app because it would look rather bad on their part but...lets face the reality, all of these apps will be UB within the next month.

Heck, like I said, Shake was being demoed early March on Intel-based Macs...so, it's already UB...just not released. And I think I heard something similar about Aperture. So it's no unreasonable to conclude that UBing wasn't Apple biggest problems.

Would you agree that Apple has no excuse not to have all their pro apps UB by release of the new power macs? If this doesn't happen(and I think Apple probably will have them ready), I dont' see how anyone could bitch about Adobe.
post #23 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Perhaps Melgross is right. Maybe we should see how fast Apple release it's universal apps before 'throwing stones' at Adobe.

I'm throwing fracking big ass boulders at AdobeMedia

Apple just slipped a few weeks. No worries mateys. End of April latest.
post #24 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Why is it that some of you guys are willing to give Apple leeway, but not Adobe?

If anything, it should be the other way around. At least Adobe gave us a timeline, and let us know that it will be a new version with many new features.

Apple has said nothing.

Uh yeah, Adobe said over a YEAR, and Microsoft originally planned to release Longhorn/Vista in 2004. 2004!

Wow, at least we got a timeline from Adobe and Microsoft.

Apologies for dragging Microsoft into this but AdobeMedia and Microsoft are the UniversalBinary babies we're all waiting on so I'll lump them together.
post #25 of 112
Oh, hi Melgross We appear to be on opposite sides of the "UB" fence this time round. I challenge thee to a duel! Adobe sucks ass! Apple coders rulz! *slaps Melgross with glove*
post #26 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Perhaps Melgross is right. Maybe we should see how fast Apple release it's universal apps before 'throwing stones' at Adobe.

You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.
post #27 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by jasong
Apple did give a timeline, They said March, and the discussion here is because they just announced it was slipping into mid-April. The issue people have with Adobe and MS (unfair and unfounded as it may be) is with the length of their timeline.

No, Apple did NOT give a timeline for Shake, or FCE. We've been through that already.
post #28 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Heck, like I said, Shake was being demoed early March on Intel-based Macs...so, it's already UB...just not released. And I think I heard something similar about Aperture. So it's no unreasonable to conclude that UBing wasn't Apple biggest problems. [/B]

Just where was it being demoed? You don't that it is ready. You're just guessing. Apple set a time for Aperture. If they miss it by two or three weeks, I'm not bothered. It's really no big deal.

But they never said anything about Shake or Express other than they will let us know sometime in the future. That's completely nebulous.

If they were anyway near being close, they would have said so. Just like they did with the FCP Suite.

I think that they have barely gotten started. I think that the heavy work was waiting for the team to finish the FCP Suite.

Hell, the code for Express is shared to a great extent with FCP, and there hasn't been an announcement about that either.
post #29 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
Waiting 30 more days as opposed to 180+. That is why I am cool with Apple. That and the fact I don't use Aperture or Shake, yet. Adobe and Office I am in every day. In fact, I am on my Core Duo mini right now (2 GB ram) and I have to say that both run well enough I am not complaining like I was. They run faster than my Mini G4 could run'em.

I am in FCS a lot as well, so it is a plus that went UB but I have decided to wait and see how the line shakes out before upgrading my 20" iMac G5 1.8 GHz (which is doing just fine). Memrom and quad cores are dancing in my head. I believe the motovating reasons Apple switched to Intel will show up in late 06 or 07. Then we will be like, yeah, what a great move. The Core DUO stuff now is great, so don't get me wrong. I just feel it is going to get a lot better.

Don't you guys read?

Screw Aperture being late. It doesn't matter. We're not talking about that.

Shake is far more important. Just because you don't use it doesn't lessen the point any. Guys here, who quite obviously don't use PS in any real way, have been complaining about Adobe.

It's the principle of blame we're talking about here, not whether one actually uses the program or not.
post #30 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
I'm throwing fracking big ass boulders at AdobeMedia

Apple just slipped a few weeks. No worries mateys. End of April latest.

Come on Sunil, read back. It isn't aperture that's the problem.
post #31 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.

In my mind that's a seperate issue. Apple can discount the upgrade to UB on the pro software because they know it will drive sales on new powermacs. The delay in the release of UB software has been the topic of much heated debate here and is the crux of the matter IMO. Is 2007 a reasonable timeframe for CS3? I've thought not previously, but I'm going to see how fast Apple can get their lineup UB before my final judgement.
post #32 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Uh yeah, Adobe said over a YEAR, and Microsoft originally planned to release Longhorn/Vista in 2004. 2004!

Wow, at least we got a timeline from Adobe and Microsoft.

Apologies for dragging Microsoft into this but AdobeMedia and Microsoft are the UniversalBinary babies we're all waiting on so I'll lump them together.

What's the timeline for Shake or Express?

What excuse does Apple have there?

They are on their own development tools, aren't they? It should be a breeze, right?

It doesn't even have a suite to be reconciled with.
post #33 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Oh, hi Melgross We appear to be on opposite sides of the "UB" fence this time round. I challenge thee to a duel! Adobe sucks ass! Apple coders rulz! *slaps Melgross with glove*

Well, you lose this one.

There is NO excuse to be blaming one company without blaming the other one equally.
post #34 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
You can knock that talk off right now. Apple is letting you upgrade to UB's for $50.

That's with NO upgrade. While the upgrade prices are pretty good, Adobe has made somewhat similar offers in the past.

Don't forget that these prices are really to get people to upgrade to the suite, not only the univ binaries. People who need to go Universal would do so anyway when the next version came out.

But, Apple has two reasons why they are willing to let so many do this cheaply.

One is to get as many people, as fast as possible, to buy Intel machines. This gives them a reason to do so. And for speed, it's necessary. It runs faster on x86.

The other is when moving them over to the suite, Apple gets much more upgrade money than before. If you upgraded just FCP, it cost between $299 and $349, depending on where you bought it. Now, the upgrade will be between $649 and $699.

Apple has just locked in all of those people who had NO intention of buying the other programs in the suite. Now, they have no choice.

It makes that suite deal (pun intended, look a lot less sweet over the next upgrade.

Adobe hasn't done that yet. I hope this doesn't give them the idea.

How many here have been thinking about that?
post #35 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
In my mind that's a seperate issue. Apple can discount the upgrade to UB on the pro software because they know it will drive sales on new powermacs. The delay in the release of UB software has been the topic of much heated debate here and is the crux of the matter IMO. Is 2007 a reasonable timeframe for CS3? I've thought not previously, but I'm going to see how fast Apple can get their lineup UB before my final judgement.

Fair enough, but come on - this is the second time Adobe has relied on an Apple update to sell stagnant software.

There is no doubt that converting big programs to UB's is a big job, no one here is saying it isn't. But, Adobe being a bunch of moron's really did nothing to prepare for this situation. And in one way or another, they are going to pay a price for that.
post #36 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Fair enough, but come on - this is the second time Adobe has relied on an Apple update to sell stagnant software.

There is no doubt that converting big programs to UB's is a big job, no one here is saying it isn't. But, Adobe being a bunch of moron's really did nothing to prepare for this situation. And in one way or another, they are going to pay a price for that.

You haven't read the articles (actually, blogs) on this, have you/ They are thought to be very good.

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html

http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...24/560461.aspx

These give a good understanding, from the developer's viewpoint as to why it ain't an easy decision.
post #37 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You haven't read the articles (actually, blogs) on this, have you/ They are thought to be very good.

http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/200...osh_and_t.html

http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...24/560461.aspx

These give a good understanding, from the developer's viewpoint as to why it ain't an easy decision.

"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "

Does he mean, a large Application like FCP? I'm sorry, but the truth is Adobe has not been proactive in moving to Xcode. You can make excuses for them all you want, and Adobe can make all the excuses for their laziness they want as well. But the truth is, I have never seen so much hatred and disgust for that pig of a company. The REALITY is, customers are tired of paying for these huge software upgrades simply for compatibility reason, when programs like Photoshop and Illustrator have evolved at a snails pace.
post #38 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
"Now, Apple is doing an amazing job at catching up rapidly, but the truth is we don't yet have a shipping XCode in hand that handles a large application well. "

Does he mean, a large Application like FCP? I'm sorry, but the truth is Adobe has not been proactive in moving to Xcode. You can make excuses for them all you want, and Adobe can make all the excuses for their laziness they want as well. But the truth is, I have never seen so much hatred and disgust for that pig of a company. The REALITY is, customers are tired of paying for these huge software upgrades simply for compatibility reason, when programs like Photoshop and Illustrator have evolved at a snails pace.

FCP is a much smaller program than PS is.

Shake comes closer. And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?
post #39 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
FCP is a much smaller program than PS is.

Shake comes closer. And, where is Shake? What is the excuse that you are willing to give Apple for its absense?

This may seem like a stupid question but, don't you think that intel power mac sales will suffer until cs3 is released? I know this assumes that intel power macs will be released this fall, but give intel's roadmap this seems likely.
post #40 of 112
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
This may seem like a stupid question but, don't you think that intel power mac sales will suffer until cs3 is released? I know this assumes that intel power macs will be released this fall, but give intel's roadmap this seems likely.

To a certain extent, but not by as much as some people think. MBP sales certainly aren't suffering. Not everyone uses Macs for PS, even though according to the press, that seems to be "fact". Many Powermacs are used for video. Many are used in publishing. Some are used for audio. Some are used as servers in schools. InDesign works pretty well through Rosetta. Quark will be there. It's plug-in companies that also have to move their tails.

Powermac sales have suffered so much during the past two years that it's doubtful that they will suffer more once Intel versions come out. I think that we will see the surge in buying from enthusiasts, like myself, who either never used them for PS, or who don't really need them anymore, but want then anyway. That will sustain sales until the PS suite comes out in April, or so. If these machines use a new design case, as they are rumored to, that alone will sell a fair number of machines. It's shallow, I know. But, that's what Apple's whole line is predicated on, not just performance and OS.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's Intel Aperture 1.1 Update pushed back