Apple's 'Photos' for OS X to come with pro-level image search, editing, plugins, more

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 92
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,091member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Maybe the mods have the week off?

     

    A week??!! Even Ferris Bueller had only one day off...

  • Reply 42 of 92
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member

    I wonder if it will be written in Swift or ObjC?

  • Reply 43 of 92
    strixstrix Posts: 22member
    Here's what I want from iCloud:

    Document on my Mac Pro. Document on my MacBook Pro. Document on my iPad.
    It's the same document. Three files, three locations. Not stored in the cloud.
    When I make a change on one, the change is made on the other two.

    New document created on my Mac Pro.
    That new document is created automatically on my MacBook Pro and my iPad.
    Identical folder trees on each, within my local account. Meaning that if I create a new folder in Documents, name it something, and drag existing files there from elsewhere, I want that all to happen on my other devices at the same time.

    No storage. Screw keeping MY content in someone else's hands. iCloud as a conduit for syncing local content across all my devices. But I am still in possession of the files.

    Unfortunately, iCloud seems to be trending toward Steve's reality (at NeXT)/dream (for everyone) of "dumb terminal/server stores account/login anywhere and see your things".

    I'm with tallest skil and bageljoey all the way on this.
  • Reply 44 of 92

    The new Photos for Yos' is inline with Apple being one of the worlds largest camera makers!

     

    Consider the popularity of iPhone photography the move to transit iPhoto into a semi-pro territory is a smart and logical step following the newly presented higher integration between platforms and inter-app communication.

     

    Developers would love another market being opened up for add-ons, pleasing users and strengthening the Apple ecosystem.

     

    Think we will se a feature on the subject at demon Fireball within a week or two.

  • Reply 45 of 92
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by photoshop59 View Post

     

    Creeps who want to 'ban' free speech, when it is rational and reasonable are reminiscent of history's worst dictators.  Check out the 1st amendment you liberal censor, and try to understand what America is all aout.


     

    The 1st amendment doesn't force others to give you a platform for your speech. This is Apple Insider's house and if they don't like what you're saying then they have the right to kick you out. Not happy about it? Start your own forum. That independent entrepreneurial spirit is what America is all aout.

  • Reply 46 of 92
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Originally Posted by photoshop59 View Post

    Creeps who want to ‘ban free speech...



    You don’t have that here.

     

    ...when it is rational and reasonable,,,


     

    So like nothing you’ve posted.

     

    Check out the 1st amendment...


     

    I didn’t know this was the United States of AppleInsider. Probably because it isn’t.

     

    You have the freedom to lie. You just don’t have the freedom to post those lies here.

  • Reply 47 of 92
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    My Broadband 50 internet package has a maximum upload speed of 3Mb/sec. Coming home with even just 100 photos means hours of uploading. That's inconvenient. It's also a nuisance if one's files are large. The handful of hi-res Photoshop files and video clips for a simple three-minute presentation add up to 5-10GB for each project. Cloud storage for that workflow is expensive and WAAAAY too slow.

    Obviously no one is forcing anyone to use the cloud instead of conventional local storage so I'm not objecting or complaining. I'm just saying that it's not a good approach for people who work/play with big files. We would be better served by a system that lets us use our LAN to perform the kind of handy sync offered by iCloud, but Apple doesn't seem interested in providing that. A tool that would track updates to my iTunes library on one machine and replicate it across the other three would save me hours of boredom.

    I've been wanting something like this for a long time. I would buy an apple server for my home if it had the capability of running iTunes 24/7 and I could sync/ backup ALL of my devices to my server in my home at LAN speeds. From the server, it could trickle up all, or a portion of my data to iCloud for offsite storage - but the current mechanism of going directly to and from icloud for everything is slow, inefficient and uses more of my bandwidth than is necessary!
    It would also be nice to be able to store all of my purchased video content locally within my home rather than transferring it from the cloud everytime I want to watch it on Apple TV or a 16GB IPad.
  • Reply 48 of 92
    gtfssmgtfssm Posts: 1member
    "On Tuesday, Apple revealed a bit more background on the upcoming app, telling Ars Technica that Aperture-level features will be built into the title at launch, including image search, editing, effects and third-party extensibility, or plugins. "

    It says on the article, the 27th. I read it on the 28th ... perhaps when it was updated.

    The problem with this sort of shoddy reporting, is that it fails to achieve the single aim of reporting, notably, to inform. Instead, it confuses.
  • Reply 49 of 92
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    When they say "third party applications"- does this mean we can get actions? If so- that'd be huge for the general consumer- essentially competing with Photoshop elements
  • Reply 50 of 92
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,670moderator
    iCloud as a conduit for syncing local content across all my devices. But I am still in possession of the files.

    I'd prefer it that way too, have iCloud as a version tracker or something and sync the large files locally. There's little point in pushing hundreds of MBs of data onto the internet and back down when the iOS devices are sitting next to a computer. 802.11n or ac will move those huge files in seconds vs minutes/hours via the internet and iCloud could have an optional backup.
    tenly wrote:
    I would buy an apple server for my home if it had the capability of running iTunes 24/7 and I could sync/ backup ALL of my devices to my server in my home at LAN speeds. From the server, it could trickle up all, or a portion of my data to iCloud for offsite storage - but the current mechanism of going directly to and from icloud for everything is slow, inefficient and uses more of my bandwidth than is necessary!

    This is where Apple could make an iOS Server rather than a Mac server and it would be much cheaper than the Mini. Their Airport Time Capsule is supposed to do some of the required functionality like wireless backups of multiples devices but it needs more:

    https://www.apple.com/airport-time-capsule/

    If you are out and about listening to music on an iPhone, it should be possible to tell it that the song is rubbish and you don't ever want to hear it again. When you do this, it would send a message to iCloud marking that song to be removed and the local server at home would pick up on that message and mark the song for removal from your personal library. This can happen with photos, photo edits, emails and so on. It can confirm all destructive changes on the source server.

    Because iOS has such a lightweight interface, the iOS server can be managed using a virtual interface like how the iOS simulator works. You'd then be able to open up settings panels or apps and manage the server's content just as you would on an iPhone or iPad even using an iPhone or iPad in the house.

    They could give it all the features of OS X Server:

    https://www.apple.com/uk/osx/server/features/

    Things like XCode version control. They could even allow you to develop apps on iOS devices using Swift and sync the files through your local server and via iCloud when in remote locations but you'd be able to check out a project remotely on an iPad as your local server would be hooked to the network 24/7.
  • Reply 51 of 92
    mini71mini71 Posts: 1member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    That last sentence really troubles me ... So Apple is telling us to migrate if we are pros ... or is this one person's opinion? If it is official then Apple is saying Photos won't cut it for those of us now using Aperture in a pro environment and that's horrible to learn. I would like to see this spelled out officially though. If true, so be it I guess, we will have no choice. Also if true, this is nothing like the FCPro 7 to X situation where in fact X turned out to be very professional after a few updates, OK a lot.

    I don't think that the statement about Lightroom migration in the article is true. It was reported initially by TechCrunch (and repeated by others) but subsequently retracted... The ApertureExpert blog has a more positive and take on this and claims to have been briefed by Apple staff.

  • Reply 52 of 92
    asterionasterion Posts: 109member

    I presume this app will be free...?

  • Reply 53 of 92
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,771member
    EDIT: Decided to remove post about iTunes because it's OT in this thread.

  • Reply 54 of 92
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    asterion wrote: »
    I presume this app will be free...?

    Of course. Everything except final cut is free now. And technically FileMaker
  • Reply 55 of 92
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,651member

    MainStage and Logic Pro also remain payware. Also, the complete set of GarageBand loops are payware, presumably for licensing reasons.

  • Reply 56 of 92
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

     

    MainStage and Logic Pro also remain payware.


    Forgot about those- thanks!

  • Reply 57 of 92
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,656member

    I am not a pro level photographer, so much of the feature discussion doesn't affect me. But like most folks, I have many snapshots that Apple recognizes I need to somehow manage. I like the idea of everything, everywhere. The easier, the better. I also agree Apple would be a bit foolish to make a system that doesn't allow for local storage. But I'm rather curious - when we upload a photo to iCloud, just what can Apple do with it? Guess I gotta read those ToS documents. And I rather suspect many people won't do that, or won't trust it, perhaps for good reasons.

  • Reply 58 of 92
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member

    Hope Photos will be optimized for multiple monitors like Aperture.

  • Reply 59 of 92
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    I wonder if it will be written in Swift or ObjC?


     

    Objective-C. I assume that the new Photos app has been in development for a while now and the first most Apple engineers heard about Swift was at WWDC. Apple managed to keep the announcement of Swift very quiet. :) 

  • Reply 60 of 92
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post



    I'm still confused about the "photo libraries in the cloud" idea. Will I still have my own physical storage of them, or are they asking me to go all cloud

     

    take a look at how they do it for music -- chances are, it's pretty similar. ill save you some time -- youre free to keep as much local on the device as you can fit. 

     

    do you really think theyd force you to use icloud connectivity *only*? really?

Sign In or Register to comment.