Aperture hasn't been "better" than Lightroom for ages.
This probably sounds somewhat silly (admittedly, it is), but I wasn't arguing which was better - rather I was arguing that just because more people use one over another is not an indication of better. More people use Windows than OS X but I doubt many here (other than the trolls) would argue that makes Windows better. More McDonald's hamburgers are eaten than any others, and we all know theirs are rubbish. There are more cockroaches in the world than people but that doesn't make them superior ;-)
Apple stopped development of Aperture a long time ago.
Makes me question using Logic...
I hate that they're abandoning Aperture before launching its replacement. I guess I'm going to switch to Lightroom 5, but I started testing it this week in anticipation of this, and it just feels so clumsy and clunky by comparison.
Why? There's barely any of it in this thread.
BS. Does it seem at all like Apple to say, “Yes, we’re known for building both hardware and software that works together seamlessly and in a way that absolutely no other company can do because we control both and can build one to compliment the other, SO NOW GO USE SOFTWARE FROM THIS THIRD PARTY WHO IS EXPLICITLY KNOWN FOR BUILDING THE WORST, LEAST OPTIMIZED SOFTWARE ON OUR PLATFORM”?!
We're getting a replacement. You do know that, right? And as yet we don't know its exact feature set.
Lightroom is an excellent program. It's great for organizing and doing some basic photo adjustments. For me personally, nothing beats the combination of Lightroom and CS5. I do have Aperture, but I didn't like it. It just doesn't have the tools like CS5.
SpamSandwich wrote: »
Well, the Aperture news is surprising and disappointing. Hopefully this means Apple will be buying Adobe.
I don't use aperture, so I can't comment intelligently on that.
I do use iPhoto and have mixed feelings. I think I paid for it too. It isn't great, and is a huge memory hog, slow, and not particularly intuitive. If this means a better Yosemite app, well...OK. But i needs to be backwards compatible too. I have legacy machines (as do many people) and they shouldn't be abandoned.
What would truly suck would be a Yosemite app that has no option to function without cloud storage. Many people simple want local options only, refuse to upload anything. And of course, I doubt a cloud option will be unlimited and free, meaning I will stick to local storage for many things...as will many people.
A killer feature for a Yosemite photo app would be to have an option for your own "cloud" storage location: your photos live on a HD you own connected to the mac, and it shares it out to all your other macs and devices through your interwebs connection seamlessly.
All good points. Adobe has always had cross-platform development at the core of their software designs. Shaves a little off the development budget because they can hire fewer people who are experts in one platform. But yes, it leads to lowest-common denominator UI design that acts as a boat anchor. And not just a boat anchor for Adobe and its products. It slowed down OS X adoption among pros over a 10 year period before Adobe ported Photoshop to OS X.
I think the Beats acquisition is more about music industry connections and the potential for bridging the massive Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood divide. Apple can and will eventually revolutionize much of the entertainment industry. But they need to do it very deliberately. Getting Iovine and Dre on board is just one small step. And I'm sure Ive could drastically improve Beats' hardware overnight. If he wanted to.
So how much is Adobe worth now? Let's see. Its market cap is about $35 billion. Add a premium to lock in the deal with its board, and that would raise the acquisition price to $45 to $50 billion. But is it really worth $50 billion to Apple? To buy Adobe just to kill off its Windows offerings, re-write everything in Swift for OS X, and own several segments of the "pro apps" market? Hoping that Adobe's Windows-using customers will switch to Mac? Not sure it's worth it.
I’ll hold you to that. I hope beyond hope myself that Photos is a replacement to Aperture, but shipping freely with every Mac, I seriously doubt it. I doubt if it will even have RAW support.
Really leads me to believe that you’re wrong.
This doesn't surprise me and I think they even mentioned something during the keynote, or someone did. The fact that the new Photos app is going to have some great image editing capabilities that were highlighted on the phone, and yet be easy to use, leads me to believe that's the way things are heading. iPhoto's biggest issue was performance, and Craig stated that the new Photos app will be high performance.
They also said in the keynote that this was replacing iPhoto. Again, I have no idea why this is news.
So again, no surprise here.
Couldn’t be happier. Can’t have Photos and iPhoto in the same ecosystem. This bodes well for iOS, too. It’s nonsense to have both.
The loss of Aperture, though, is inexcusable unless Photos picks up the slack.
Well, no, a Lightroom killer. Nothing that any of Apple’s three applications do even touches Photoshop in image creation.
That's what doesn't make sense about this story. Apple is usually tight lipped about everything. Why would they announce this now after so many months of nothingness on the Aperture front? All it does is encourage people to jump ship to Adobe. Something isn't right with this story and leads me to believe more will be announced in the near future.
If Apple thinks that we all believe they plan to continue on with other Pro Apps they're crazy. Though I'm not excited about it, I'm headed full tilt into Adobe including their video software which will replace Final Cut Pro X. The integration of my stills and video was so important but they've given up so I'm doing the same. Don't want to but it's Adobe Premier and Lightroom full steam ahead. Lord, Adobe must be salivating! Isn't it great to not have any competition. Apple you've lost a lot of credibility in my mind. Truly disappointing.