Totally agree on not wanting to use iCloud. I don't want any of my personal stuff like photos sitting in the cloud. Foolish stuff.
Separately from personal preferences, back to a factual/objective question:
Assuming that one does not (will not) use iCloud for anything (no account, no appleID, etc), is this strictly a step down in functionality? In other words, assume that I never want to do any hosting/sharing/publishing of my personal photos online, how does this new app compare with "local" iPhoto.
This ^^ is my worry. Without breaking your NDA ("DNA" above, haha), what are your thoughts on the above?
Read above comments. I am more impressed than at first with two days usage (no Photos Help in beta so it takes a few hours to fully figure out) but I see me using both Aperture and Photos for the next year or so. I love Photos though if you use iPhoto no worries, it will be a nice transition and fear not. :smokey:
I'm sure RAW support is there. The bigger question is going forward will Apple be as timely in adding support when new cameras come out. Without an Aperture user base (small as it might be) there will be even less motivation for Apple to add new cameras.
I am sure Apple will continue to update RAW support for new cameras very quickly.
As an Aperture user I am disappointed though not surprised there are no pro level features in Photos. I do want to say to those who state that any serious/pro level photographer or retoucher uses only Lightroom, that is not true. I am about as pro as it gets and I prefer Aperture to Lightroom. And nearly all the other pro photographers and retouchers I know use Capture One Pro. Adobe may have made the more popular product, but Mac users of all people should know that more popular does not mean better.
That said the debate is over as Aperture is dead or at least EOL. I've been trying to get used to LR for some months now but can't get used to how clunky it is. I will probably move to C1P for my home business, since that is what we use at work. If the new Photos app has the ability to use an external editor so I can do more sophisticated edits in Photoshop, then I may use Photos for my personal photo library.
I considered moving to Bridge for managing my photos, but Adobe's recent removal of the Output module from Bridge has made me suspicious that they are planning to push people into using Lightroom instead.
I agree with you on many points: C1P is a really good program. Easy to understand, has 'all the pro tools we need'. LR can indeed feel clunky, I gave up my 30 day test drive, not bothering again.
Fortunately Aperture simply will continue to work, but no updates. And no incentive for 3rd party devs to create plugins, which fortunately can be done for Photos. So I am expecting to see curves as one of the first Pro Tools to come available as a 3rd party plugin for Photos.
In a statement to Ars Technica, an Apple representative spoke of a number of newly-confirmed features that will make their way into the iPhoto/Aperture replacement. Ars Technica specifically shares:
When asked about what Aperture-like features users can expect from the new Photos app, an Apple representative mentioned plans for professional-grade features such as image search, editing, effects, and most notably, third-party extensibility.
Where are all the people who thought Photos would have Aperture featuress?
I don't know but I know a lot of us hoped it would have. Just spent the night playing with it. Sadly this is iPhoto gone to the cloud I won't elaborate due to the DNA (not that seems to bother AI but it does me).
I will say, it's a great product for the masses' holiday snaps and the like but useless for a serious photographer. I just don't understand why Apple don't just keep Aperture. Lots of photographers prefer it to Lightroom. We have Garage Band and Logic Pro X, we have iMovie and FCPro X why on earth can't we have Photos and Aperture Pro X? /rant
That sounds like a shame.
So Adobe has won with Lightroom. I wish Apple wouldn't let them.
Yeah, that's how I feel as well, but it's only because I would have been happiest to stay with Aperture regardless of LR's superiority in assorted areas. Apple just didn't want to keep even one eye on it, and for the little money it brought in who can blame them?
Lost in all of the comparisons to past image programs is that it's a free, bundled with the system, app, which makes its calendar of feature adds solidly in the iPhoto history. For better or worse they won't be adding any functions in the future to satisfy what anyone says is missing from it and needed. New features will be according to how they fit into Apple's plans, not the user who isn't using it for lack of them.
For work related shoots or serious hobby stuff I couldn't afford the space on the cloud I need (I do a lot of bracketing so 100 MB files for one image in HDR) and yes Photos can be used purely locally and works with RAW if wished, but if I'm storing locally Aperture is better for my work flow than Photos as it is now (and Lightroom IMHO). So I will use both Aperture and Photos. I just wish Aperture would continue to be developed.
I don't have 100mg masters and setting aside the cost of storage for a moment, RAW files easily make an afternoon of shooting a 20 gig project. After a few months it's 500 gigs. My home upload isn't nearly up to snuff for dealing with that. So unless there's something I'm missing here, that was a dealkiller at 1 gig. So regardless of its RAW capabilitiy we're really talking about it handling jpgs, which is a big difference, especially for the non pro who shoots 75% RAW, which there are a lot of.
I agree with you on many points: C1P is a really good program. Easy to understand, has 'all the pro tools we need'. LR can indeed feel clunky, I gave up my 30 day test drive, not bothering again.
Fortunately Aperture simply will continue to work, but no updates. And no incentive for 3rd party devs to create plugins, which fortunately can be done for Photos. So I am expecting to see curves as one of the first Pro Tools to come available as a 3rd party plugin for Photos.
I hope you are right about the third-party extensions being able to recreate some of the Aperture user-experience. Maybe a company like Topaz Labs will publish a set of pro-tools for it. The only problem is that those are all big question marks right now.
I hope you are right about the third-party extensions being able to recreate some of the Aperture user-experience. Maybe a company like Topaz Labs will publish a set of pro-tools for it. The only problem is that those are all big question marks right now.
Looking at the fact that companies/devs created plug-ins for Aperture I see no reason to believe that won't happen to OSX Photos as well. Perhaps the enticement is even greater now as everyone with a (OSX 10.10) Mac has Photos. I think it's more a question of when.
The lost abilities, like curves, add gps info et cetera are quite big, to me, and I'd love to be proven right that 3rd party devs will jump at the opportunity. Otherwise I'll simply make those changes to my photos in Aperture, before adding them to Photos.
I don't have 100mg masters and setting aside the cost of storage for a moment, RAW files easily make an afternoon of shooting a 20 gig project. After a few months it's 500 gigs. My home upload isn't nearly up to snuff for dealing with that. So unless there's something I'm missing here, that was a dealkiller at 1 gig. So regardless of its RAW capabilitiy we're really talking about it handling jpgs, which is a big difference, especially for the non pro who shoots 75% RAW, which there are a lot of.
Yes, I agree. RAW storage is quite an issue. Like you I can see multiple GB sized libraries grow in weeks. Even when not shooting bracketed sets and merging 16 bit images, as you say, 22 MP RAW images alone are pretty large. I currently use two 6 TB RAIDs one as the master and one as the daily cloned back up using Carbon Copy Cloner (set to auto back up everyday via a script). I have tried numerous so called on line back up systems but nothing is geared up to cope with the size we are talking about. I have 75Mb/s upload and find it isn't my end that's the issue, it's the other end. Many have such slow connections it would take weeks (if not months lol) to transfer 6 TBs. I am now in a place with photography where I have been with HD video for many years, in terms of storage. It is all stored locally and backed up locally. Ideally with an off site copy taken weekly.
So Photos is great for personal stuff and that's what it is about, not for those of us shooting hundreds of RAW images a week. Lightroom is clunky and poor in file handling. I love the powerful stacking and database abilities in Aperture. BTW at least Photos has smart albums and and keywords. It has many great features and can only get better. However, it can't get around the issue of the internet speeds we have to live with in the USA though. If we had 1 Gb/s upload ability I am sure Apple could make an Aperture like version but not with the transfer speeds we have now. Then there is the price of storage even if we had 1 Gb/s upload. I can build 6TB RAID zero Thunderbolt set ups for under $300. So that's where I'm at. I am not complaining about anything other than the EOL of Aperture which seems absurd to me.
One light at the end of the tunnel could be if Photos gets extensions and more abilities then it might be quite usable just locally, let us not forget the cloud option is just that, an option. Ironically and this made me chuckle... Photos has an option to save room on your Mac by uploading the large files and only keeping optimized JPEGs on the Mac. Again, ideal for the amateur but not terribly useful with a 500 GIG Library of RAW images.
Looking at the fact that companies/devs created plug-ins for Aperture I see no reason to believe that won't happen to OSX Photos as well. Perhaps the enticement is even greater now as everyone with a (OSX 10.10) Mac has Photos. I think it's more a question of when.
The lost abilities, like curves, add gps info et cetera are quite big, to me, and I'd love to be proven right that 3rd party devs will jump at the opportunity. Otherwise I'll simply make those changes to my photos in Aperture, before adding them to Photos.
For those of us that lived through FCPro to FCPro X I am sure this is all too familiar. FCProX turned out, eventually, to be pretty darned amazing but it took a lot of feedback to get there. So hopefully feedback from photography experts like yourself is listened to by Apple and I have high hopes it will be.
I too will be 'feeding' Photos from Aperture with its content for some time I suspect. In my case it will be the personal stuff not business or serious hobby stuff.
Yes, I agree. RAW storage is quite an issue. Like you I can see multiple GB sized libraries grow in weeks. Even when not shooting bracketed sets and merging 16 bit images, as you say, 22 MP RAW images alone are pretty large. I currently use two 6 TB RAIDs one as the master and one as the daily cloned back up using Carbon Copy Cloner (set to auto back up everyday via a script). I have tried numerous so called on line back up systems but nothing is geared up to cope with the size we are talking about. I have 75Mb/s upload and find it isn't my end that's the issue, it's the other end. Many have such slow connections it would take weeks (if not months lol) to transfer 6 TBs. I am now in a place with photography where I have been with HD video for many years, in terms of storage. It is all stored locally and backed up locally. Ideally with an off site copy taken weekly.
So Photos is great for personal stuff and that's what it is about, not for those of us shooting hundreds of RAW images a week. Lightroom is clunky and poor in file handling. I love the powerful stacking and database abilities in Aperture. BTW at least Photos has smart albums and and keywords. It has many great features and can only get better. However, it can't get around the issue of the internet speeds we have to live with in the USA though. If we had 1 Gb/s upload ability I am sure Apple could make an Aperture like version but not with the transfer speeds we have now. Then there is the price of storage even if we had 1 Gb/s upload. I can build 6TB RAID zero Thunderbolt set ups for under $300. So that's where I'm at. I am not complaining about anything other than the EOL of Aperture which seems absurd to me.
One light at the end of the tunnel could be if Photos gets extensions and more abilities then it might be quite usable just locally, let us not forget the cloud option is just that, an option. Ironically and this made me chuckle... Photos has an option to save room on your Mac by uploading the large files and only keeping optimized JPEGs on the Mac. Again, ideal for the amateur but not terribly useful with a 500 GIG Library of RAW images.
Question: Can you share your pictures on pinterest from Apple Photos?
Photos uses extension to share so even if not in this beta I see no reason why not very soon, there are currently a ton of places to share with, some i have't even heard of.
Lost in all of the comparisons to past image programs is that it's a free, bundled with the system...
This is actually a good point, but it cuts both ways...I'm starting to dislike having my applications so closely tied to OS updates. Yes, it's free. But you are also at the mercy of Apple's whims if you want to update your OS (which you'll eventually be forced to when you buy a new computer if not before). You'll be forced to accept a new version if Photos, too, for better or worse. Perhaps it will be more like iTunes in that you have a little wiggle-room to have a particular version which can work across multiple OS versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Read above comments. I am more impressed than at first with two days usage (no Photos Help in beta so it takes a few hours to fully figure out) but I see me using both Aperture and Photos for the next year or so. I love Photos though if you use iPhoto no worries, it will be a nice transition and fear not.
Thanks for all your comments on this thread. I suspect there is more editing power than people are thinking, but like you I may be looking to use both Aperture and Photos. I'm be watching for more details about the interoperability between the two applications. It sounds from some initial info that they can both use the same library in parallel, but other than the first import into Photos, edits are not synced between the two applications. So I'll be curious to see just what is shared (ie, can I use Aperture to continue to tag new photos with GPS coordinates and have the location information available in Photos, if you add new photos in one do they show up in the other, etc).
All about sharing, integration, and slick look. Little to nothing about converting raw, editing, adjusting and anything that a photographer would want. This would be fine if Apple didn't abandon Aperture. Big mistake.
I'm missing future updates to Aperture as well. Still, not that the program stops working all of a sudden. It's supported throughout OSX 10. As much as I prefer that program, I wouldn't want to call it a mistake. At $79 it's hardly a big revenue. iPhones are, so the tighter the ecosystem integration the more enticed people will be to Get A Mac. If I'm not mistaken.
Would you upgrade to 10.11 if Aperture did not run? I would not.
I have C1P, but I just find I am not as efficient with it as Aperture. I have tried many times, but I just keep turning back to Aperture for the speed of its GUI, key bindings and workflow; which I can operate in my sleep. C1P produces some great quality results, it just takes a long time for me to get those results. I suspect I will resist any changes from Apple that prevents me from using Aperture in the future. That includes OS upgrades and new HW roll out which forces newer incompatible versions of the OS upon me. Call it a log jam, I guess. I suspect, I am not alone. Keep Aperture working until I find an acceptable alternative, and we won't have an issue.
As an Aperture user I am disappointed though not surprised there are no pro level features in Photos. I do want to say to those who state that any serious/pro level photographer or retoucher uses only Lightroom, that is not true. I am about as pro as it gets and I prefer Aperture to Lightroom. And nearly all the other pro photographers and retouchers I know use Capture One Pro. Adobe may have made the more popular product, but Mac users of all people should know that more popular does not mean better.
That said the debate is over as Aperture is dead or at least EOL. I've been trying to get used to LR for some months now but can't get used to how clunky it is. I will probably move to C1P for my home business, since that is what we use at work. If the new Photos app has the ability to use an external editor so I can do more sophisticated edits in Photoshop, then I may use Photos for my personal photo library.
I considered moving to Bridge for managing my photos, but Adobe's recent removal of the Output module from Bridge has made me suspicious that they are planning to push people into using Lightroom instead.
Not sure when it's arriving, but LightRoom may have some competition in the future.
Would you upgrade to 10.11 if Aperture did not run? I would not.
I have C1P, but I just find I am not as efficient with it as Aperture. I have tried many times, but I just keep turning back to Aperture for the speed of its GUI, key bindings and workflow; which I can operate in my sleep. C1P produces some great quality results, it just takes a long time for me to get those results. I suspect I will resist any changes from Apple that prevents me from using Aperture in the future. That includes OS upgrades and new HW roll out which forces newer incompatible versions of the OS upon me. Call it a log jam, I guess. I suspect, I am not alone. Keep Aperture working until I find an acceptable alternative, and we won't have an issue.
That's an understandible stance. Aperture really is a good product. Never mind we've grown accustomed to it, that can happen to any program. But Aperture really is intuitive, fluid, takes very little shortcuts to get a job done. Now I have no idea what will happen to it with a future OSX update, though perhaps running it in a VM would be ok for some people.
I do think in due time the best alternative will be Apple's new Photos with 3rd party plugins for all features Apple didn't put in themselves. I certainly hope they will be of good quality, and not be of similar poor quality that some export plugins for Aperture were.
I do think in due time the best alternative will be Apple's new Photos with 3rd party plugins for all features Apple didn't put in themselves. I certainly hope they will be of good quality, and not be of similar poor quality that some export plugins for Aperture were.
I have some concerns about this approach. One of the things that I really like about Apple software is that it in fact does not have many 3rd party plug-ins or extensions. Everything is designed by one organization and with a common usage model, flow and design philosophy. There are not many 3rd party extensions which causes issues when they interoperate with each other or need to get synced up with upcoming base SW changes when new versions are released. If I wanted that I would switch back to Windows or use Android. However, I'll try to keep an open mind. Maybe it will be different, but after so many years of seeing the other model fail, I have my doubts. Lets hope it works. I'll keep on eye on it.
Comments
Read above comments. I am more impressed than at first with two days usage (no Photos Help in beta so it takes a few hours to fully figure out) but I see me using both Aperture and Photos for the next year or so. I love Photos though if you use iPhoto no worries, it will be a nice transition and fear not. :smokey:
I am sure Apple will continue to update RAW support for new cameras very quickly.
Of course, and Aperture. Watch the video on the Verge.
That said the debate is over as Aperture is dead or at least EOL. I've been trying to get used to LR for some months now but can't get used to how clunky it is. I will probably move to C1P for my home business, since that is what we use at work. If the new Photos app has the ability to use an external editor so I can do more sophisticated edits in Photoshop, then I may use Photos for my personal photo library.
I considered moving to Bridge for managing my photos, but Adobe's recent removal of the Output module from Bridge has made me suspicious that they are planning to push people into using Lightroom instead.
I agree with you on many points: C1P is a really good program. Easy to understand, has 'all the pro tools we need'. LR can indeed feel clunky, I gave up my 30 day test drive, not bothering again.
Fortunately Aperture simply will continue to work, but no updates. And no incentive for 3rd party devs to create plugins, which fortunately can be done for Photos. So I am expecting to see curves as one of the first Pro Tools to come available as a 3rd party plugin for Photos.
http://petapixel.com/2014/07/01/apple-representative-confirms-3rd-party-extensibility-robust-editing-features-in-osx-photos-app/
Did you notice? The dreadful iPhoto icon has finally gone!
Shame most Mac OSX icons are circular, I prefer the rounded rectangle of iOS.
Craig?
Yeah, that's how I feel as well, but it's only because I would have been happiest to stay with Aperture regardless of LR's superiority in assorted areas. Apple just didn't want to keep even one eye on it, and for the little money it brought in who can blame them?
Lost in all of the comparisons to past image programs is that it's a free, bundled with the system, app, which makes its calendar of feature adds solidly in the iPhoto history. For better or worse they won't be adding any functions in the future to satisfy what anyone says is missing from it and needed. New features will be according to how they fit into Apple's plans, not the user who isn't using it for lack of them.
I don't have 100mg masters and setting aside the cost of storage for a moment, RAW files easily make an afternoon of shooting a 20 gig project. After a few months it's 500 gigs. My home upload isn't nearly up to snuff for dealing with that. So unless there's something I'm missing here, that was a dealkiller at 1 gig. So regardless of its RAW capabilitiy we're really talking about it handling jpgs, which is a big difference, especially for the non pro who shoots 75% RAW, which there are a lot of.
I agree with you on many points: C1P is a really good program. Easy to understand, has 'all the pro tools we need'. LR can indeed feel clunky, I gave up my 30 day test drive, not bothering again.
Fortunately Aperture simply will continue to work, but no updates. And no incentive for 3rd party devs to create plugins, which fortunately can be done for Photos. So I am expecting to see curves as one of the first Pro Tools to come available as a 3rd party plugin for Photos.
http://petapixel.com/2014/07/01/apple-representative-confirms-3rd-party-extensibility-robust-editing-features-in-osx-photos-app/
I hope you are right about the third-party extensions being able to recreate some of the Aperture user-experience. Maybe a company like Topaz Labs will publish a set of pro-tools for it. The only problem is that those are all big question marks right now.
Looking at the fact that companies/devs created plug-ins for Aperture I see no reason to believe that won't happen to OSX Photos as well. Perhaps the enticement is even greater now as everyone with a (OSX 10.10) Mac has Photos. I think it's more a question of when.
The lost abilities, like curves, add gps info et cetera are quite big, to me, and I'd love to be proven right that 3rd party devs will jump at the opportunity. Otherwise I'll simply make those changes to my photos in Aperture, before adding them to Photos.
Yes, I agree. RAW storage is quite an issue. Like you I can see multiple GB sized libraries grow in weeks. Even when not shooting bracketed sets and merging 16 bit images, as you say, 22 MP RAW images alone are pretty large. I currently use two 6 TB RAIDs one as the master and one as the daily cloned back up using Carbon Copy Cloner (set to auto back up everyday via a script). I have tried numerous so called on line back up systems but nothing is geared up to cope with the size we are talking about. I have 75Mb/s upload and find it isn't my end that's the issue, it's the other end. Many have such slow connections it would take weeks (if not months lol) to transfer 6 TBs. I am now in a place with photography where I have been with HD video for many years, in terms of storage. It is all stored locally and backed up locally. Ideally with an off site copy taken weekly.
So Photos is great for personal stuff and that's what it is about, not for those of us shooting hundreds of RAW images a week. Lightroom is clunky and poor in file handling. I love the powerful stacking and database abilities in Aperture. BTW at least Photos has smart albums and and keywords. It has many great features and can only get better. However, it can't get around the issue of the internet speeds we have to live with in the USA though. If we had 1 Gb/s upload ability I am sure Apple could make an Aperture like version but not with the transfer speeds we have now. Then there is the price of storage even if we had 1 Gb/s upload. I can build 6TB RAID zero Thunderbolt set ups for under $300. So that's where I'm at. I am not complaining about anything other than the EOL of Aperture which seems absurd to me.
One light at the end of the tunnel could be if Photos gets extensions and more abilities then it might be quite usable just locally, let us not forget the cloud option is just that, an option. Ironically and this made me chuckle... Photos has an option to save room on your Mac by uploading the large files and only keeping optimized JPEGs on the Mac. Again, ideal for the amateur but not terribly useful with a 500 GIG Library of RAW images.
For those of us that lived through FCPro to FCPro X I am sure this is all too familiar. FCProX turned out, eventually, to be pretty darned amazing but it took a lot of feedback to get there. So hopefully feedback from photography experts like yourself is listened to by Apple and I have high hopes it will be.
I too will be 'feeding' Photos from Aperture with its content for some time I suspect. In my case it will be the personal stuff not business or serious hobby stuff.
Question: Can you share your pictures on pinterest from Apple Photos?
Photos uses extension to share so even if not in this beta I see no reason why not very soon, there are currently a ton of places to share with, some i have't even heard of.
Lost in all of the comparisons to past image programs is that it's a free, bundled with the system...
This is actually a good point, but it cuts both ways...I'm starting to dislike having my applications so closely tied to OS updates. Yes, it's free. But you are also at the mercy of Apple's whims if you want to update your OS (which you'll eventually be forced to when you buy a new computer if not before). You'll be forced to accept a new version if Photos, too, for better or worse. Perhaps it will be more like iTunes in that you have a little wiggle-room to have a particular version which can work across multiple OS versions.
Read above comments. I am more impressed than at first with two days usage (no Photos Help in beta so it takes a few hours to fully figure out) but I see me using both Aperture and Photos for the next year or so. I love Photos though if you use iPhoto no worries, it will be a nice transition and fear not.
Thanks for all your comments on this thread. I suspect there is more editing power than people are thinking, but like you I may be looking to use both Aperture and Photos. I'm be watching for more details about the interoperability between the two applications. It sounds from some initial info that they can both use the same library in parallel, but other than the first import into Photos, edits are not synced between the two applications. So I'll be curious to see just what is shared (ie, can I use Aperture to continue to tag new photos with GPS coordinates and have the location information available in Photos, if you add new photos in one do they show up in the other, etc).
All about sharing, integration, and slick look. Little to nothing about converting raw, editing, adjusting and anything that a photographer would want. This would be fine if Apple didn't abandon Aperture. Big mistake.
I'm missing future updates to Aperture as well. Still, not that the program stops working all of a sudden. It's supported throughout OSX 10. As much as I prefer that program, I wouldn't want to call it a mistake. At $79 it's hardly a big revenue. iPhones are, so the tighter the ecosystem integration the more enticed people will be to Get A Mac. If I'm not mistaken.
Would you upgrade to 10.11 if Aperture did not run? I would not.
I have C1P, but I just find I am not as efficient with it as Aperture. I have tried many times, but I just keep turning back to Aperture for the speed of its GUI, key bindings and workflow; which I can operate in my sleep. C1P produces some great quality results, it just takes a long time for me to get those results. I suspect I will resist any changes from Apple that prevents me from using Aperture in the future. That includes OS upgrades and new HW roll out which forces newer incompatible versions of the OS upon me. Call it a log jam, I guess. I suspect, I am not alone. Keep Aperture working until I find an acceptable alternative, and we won't have an issue.
Not sure when it's arriving, but LightRoom may have some competition in the future.
https://affinity.serif.com/blog/welcome-to-affinity/
You should have a look at the reviews for Affinity Designer. I think these people mean business.
Anyway, with any luck you may have another option before the end of the year.
That's an understandible stance. Aperture really is a good product. Never mind we've grown accustomed to it, that can happen to any program. But Aperture really is intuitive, fluid, takes very little shortcuts to get a job done. Now I have no idea what will happen to it with a future OSX update, though perhaps running it in a VM would be ok for some people.
I do think in due time the best alternative will be Apple's new Photos with 3rd party plugins for all features Apple didn't put in themselves. I certainly hope they will be of good quality, and not be of similar poor quality that some export plugins for Aperture were.
I do think in due time the best alternative will be Apple's new Photos with 3rd party plugins for all features Apple didn't put in themselves. I certainly hope they will be of good quality, and not be of similar poor quality that some export plugins for Aperture were.
I have some concerns about this approach. One of the things that I really like about Apple software is that it in fact does not have many 3rd party plug-ins or extensions. Everything is designed by one organization and with a common usage model, flow and design philosophy. There are not many 3rd party extensions which causes issues when they interoperate with each other or need to get synced up with upcoming base SW changes when new versions are released. If I wanted that I would switch back to Windows or use Android. However, I'll try to keep an open mind. Maybe it will be different, but after so many years of seeing the other model fail, I have my doubts. Lets hope it works. I'll keep on eye on it.