What the **** is Apple doing? I used to be the biggest Apple fanboy since I first started using Apple products probably 15 years ago or so, and everything they do these days constantly tries to erase their history. I simply can't justify any serious support or approval of their decisions anymore. Today's Apple apologists simply don't consider the past.
After a week of use, I absolutely love the Photos. My early 2009 iMac just cannot handle 40,000 photos with iPhoto. However after about 1 hour of imports from the existing iPhoto library, Photos just take those 40,000 photos in without any hesitation and scroll like a knife cut through a melting butter. It is bad business for Apple though. I could live the 2009 iMac for another two year if Apple is going to improve performance like Photos does.
I do suspect that the database engine has been improved substantially although I only have 7000 photos to test with. iPhotos was never intended to handle professional size photo databases -- thus Aperture. It is time for a reworking of the guts for sure, I just don't like some of the other changes.
I beg to differ with your hyperbole regarding Photo.
I don't think even the development team would make such exaggerated claims (and doubtfully with as much vitriol). I dare say you have no business calling me a troll.
I am not a life long fan of Apple although I did buy my 1st Mac in Mar 1984 and have been a developer since 1986 (they called Certified Developers back in the day). I worked at Apple in engineering for several years (was there for the earthquake). I am not nor do I ever plan to be one of those that simply loves everything they do but I have believed in them long to be a long term AAPL stock holder. Take a look at the what The Verge and MacWorld says. They do not back all of what I have said but there are weaknesses in Photo IMHO.
Oh, and take a chill pill, you're going to have a stroke.
Edit: I did not catch this in your previous post but you seem to have the gall to attack me for my opinion when you have little or no experience with it : Slurpy says "I love the new Pages and Numbers and use them everyday, so sounds like I'll love this too."
I couldn't care less about your history, and when you bought your first Apple product. I really couldn't.
Yes, the "1000x better" was obviously an exaggeration. Good catch. I was responding to your lie: "It does not do what iPhoto does (editing, viewing)." Not only does it include editing, but the editing tools are vastly more numerous and comprehensive than what's included in iPhoto.
So yes, your original post was sensational and deceptive, not to mention lacking a shred of objectivity. I'm sure Photos isn't perfect, but every hands-on had very positive thing to say, and your post was nothing but a negative rant, not listing a single positive aspect, with the predictable "Apple is doomed on this road" trash. Instead of backing up your claims, your respond with irrelevant garbage. Photos has more editing options than iPhoto. That's a fact. Every single preview states that it is superior in the major aspects. That's a fact. It is MUCH faster, smoother, and more responsive than iPhoto. That's a fact. Your rant contained none of these facts, but only vitriol, a childish resistance to change, and I gave it the response it deserved.
You also seem completely blind to the "bigger picture" and the vision Apple is working towards. Which is seamless, synced access to all your content whether you're using a Mac, iPhone, or iPad. Photos is a huge step towards that, even if it doesnt include every single feature in existence. Your response to someone exclaiming "I can't wait!" was "Yes you can. It sucks.". Yeah, you sound reasonable.
I couldn't care less about your history, and when you bought your first Apple product. I really couldn't.
Yes, the "1000x better" was obviously an exaggeration. Good catch. I was responding to your lie: "It does not do what iPhoto does (editing, viewing)." Not only does it include editing, but the editing tools are vastly more numerous and comprehensive than what's included in iPhoto.
So yes, your original post was sensational and deceptive, not to mention lacking a shred of objectivity. I'm sure Photos isn't perfect, but every hands-on had very positive thing to say, and your post was nothing but a negative rant, not listing a single positive aspect, with the predictable "Apple is doomed on this road" trash. Instead of backing up your claims, your respond with irrelevant garbage. Photos has more editing options than iPhoto. That's a fact. Every single preview states that it is superior in the major aspects. That's a fact. It is MUCH faster, smoother, and more responsive than iPhoto. That's a fact. Your rant contained none of these facts, but only vitriol, a childish resistance to change, and I gave it the response it deserved.
You also seem completely blind to the "bigger picture" and the vision Apple is working towards. Which is seamless, synced access to all your content whether you're using a Mac, iPhone, or iPad. Photos is a huge step towards that, even if it doesnt include every single feature in existence.
I agree with you. I suspect a lot of people may be freaking out because they don't at first notice all the editing abilities in the adjustment section as Photos ships with them all collapsed. I think the histrionics will subside when they find them all and realize it is far more powerful than iPhoto ever was. Not to mention all the waling about having to use iCloud, of course you don't have to if you don't want to, or like I have, you can be selective on a per device bases what does and what doesn't. The whole eco system wide set up is very flexible.
One think I'd point out to new users, you have to disable Apple TV from iCloud photo sharing and then re enable to remove the old shared libraries and see new ones with Photos. I had a mix of both for a while until I did that.
I LOVE this. It's such a massive cleaner approach to iPhoto and Aperture. I used Aperture for about 6 months but went back to iPhoto. A big update came to Aperture but I ended up going back to iPhoto. This interface is so much better than iPhoto and does all the things that it and Aperture did.
Frankly those oldies that can't handle new interfaces need to get with it. The old HIG SUCKS and gets in the way of doing the thing computers were designed for... you know... work.
No brushes. No way to do B&W because there is no RGB sliders. It may be OK for pictures of stuff for the family album, but it's not set up for any real artwork. Not even file numbers when you view photos. I've used Aperture since the beginning (I have never used iPhoto) coming from PhotoShop. I hardly make any adjustments because I can get it right in my camera. I guess this is great for iPhone pictures. And except for pictures of my dog, I never use my phone camera. Why can't Apple keep Aperture and have Photos also? It's not like they can't afford to have two teams. Now I understand what my editor friends were complaining about with Final Cut Pro. None of them has gone back since the change.
I LOVE this. It's such a massive cleaner approach to iPhoto and Aperture. I used Aperture for about 6 months but went back to iPhoto. A big update came to Aperture but I ended up going back to iPhoto. This interface is so much better than iPhoto and does all the things that it and Aperture did.
Frankly those oldies that can't handle new interfaces need to get with it. The old HIG SUCKS and gets in the way of doing the thing computers were designed for... you know... work.
I can't wait until this is released proper.
I can handle a new interface, it's the loss of the doing away with the features I use. iPhoto doesn't do everything Aperture does. No brushes, edge adjustments. I don't need filters for silly effects. Definitely, not for documentary photographers.
I don't get where the negativity is coming from. The app is nowhere near perfect but it is far better than the slow, clunky iPhoto. There is always resistance to change. Some of the change has been for the better, some not, but I like this new app.
I like being able to have the same photo library on all my devices. It's like iTunes Match for photos & I like it in that regard. What needs serious tweaking is the organization options for the actual photos themselves.
I'm sure they'll add all of the Aperture features to it over time, like what happened when Final Cut Pro 7 went to Final Cut Pro X, and the whole debacle over multi camera editing. That said, with Apple having so much money in the bank, you'd think they'd hire more developers to make sure the software is solid and feature-complete in the first place. There are issues in software development at Apple right now. Apple needs to really get a handle on it or it's going to be their demise. The amount of bugs getting out these days is disturbing. That said, again, I like where this new app is going and if Apple can address the aforementioned issues, it's going to be a solid iPhoto/Aperture replacement.
Yes, to the much better than iPhoto. Completely agree.
No, to them adding all the features of Aperture. It's simply not going to happen. Dare I say, it can't. One of Aperture's strengths for advanced users is it's organizational structure and workflow. Even if Photos gets all of Aperture's editing capabilities (which I find doubtful), I don't see how they can make its organizational structure as flexible as Aperture and still be drop-dead simple for novices. This is targeted to the folks for whom Collections and Moments, along with a handful of albums, are sufficient to organize their photos; and all they want to do is like their Favorites and post them on FB and Instagram. That said, a massive improvement to the meta-data handling (star ratings, flags, advanced metadata searching, proper geolocation support, etc) would go a long way to closing the gap and perhaps could be done within the new Photos interface. It remains to be seen if 3rd parties step in to add back more of Aperture's features through plug-ins.
The comparison to FCP is not valid. That was paid, professional software. Apple HAD to make the improvements to earn the sales. Photos is going to be bundled for free with the OS. There is little to no motivation for Apple to make it a true Aperture replacement.
Apple wrote the book on Human interface guidelines. Everyone realized they nailed it and copied them. Now, they are making changes that go so far against those guidelines, it's not even funny.
Didn't they write that in Mac OS 9 days?
My god people, try to keep up with the times will you. A lot has happened since then. I mean OS X has had ten - I repeat - ten (actually eleven if you count the 10.0 beta, although 10.1, MAJOR versions since then and in all of them the design has changed slightly. It's become more refined.
While people can claim that an androgynous interface is a bad thing they are wrong. Think about it. The only thing that has changed from the iOS version to the desktop version is the mouse context. You can go from an iPad to a Mac Pro and still know 100% how to use it while gaining more power when going to desktop. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
It's really funny how people are saying that Apple is killing the file/folder mentality they created and yet that's exactly how Photos works. You see Events (folder), you go into the event to see a list of the events (more folders), and then you see the photos (files). You right click on the file to get info. View it by double clicking it (hey aren't these desktop methods of access?). Once opened you can edit it (reminiscent of running an application on double click).
Oh... my... god... Photos is a freaking operating system.
This is the thing people are failing to see - how Apple is changing the face of OS usage. Look at Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie, and now Photos and you'll see that Apple is actually taking a lot of the OS interface away from the OS and putting it into the applications themselves. Apple's ageing HIG cannot factor that sort of change and so the HIG is pretty much dead and anyone religiously sticking to it are going to be left behind.
An OS should only be there to launch applications and provide foundation to the applications running on it. It should be simple, clean, minimalist, enough to tie the apps to the user. A great OS is one that people don't need to think about its existence. Once people know they are using an OS the OS has failed in its goal.
By dumping file handling to the apps you are in fact making more sense. Why should Numbers know about Pages documents when loading documents when it can't do anything with them or visa versa. But just seeing Numbers documents when opening Numbers makes a world of logical sense.
You can call it a dumbing down if you want but to do so shows a lack of logic. People think Word is so powerful because it has so many bells and whistles but think about where the power NEEDS to be. I tried the other day to have one table calculate data from another table in Word 2013. I couldn't do it and yet I can in Pages. So which app is ACTUALLY more powerful? An app that lets you change text any way you want or an app that allows you to present data in powerful ways? And yet Pages is so incredibly easy to use. Compared to Word it's a dumbed down interface and yet I can do more of what I need to do in Pages than I can in Word.
Complexity in an interface is a fool's errand. Apple is making powerful things dead easy to use and that's is infinitely more powerful than having a bunch of tools no one uses anyway in front of me.
I can handle a new interface, it's the loss of the doing away with the features I use. iPhoto doesn't do everything Aperture does. No brushes, edge adjustments. I don't need filters for silly effects. Definitely, not for documentary photographers.
It has/will have plugins. The initial release is a foundation release exactly like Final Cut Pro was. You're railing on a beta.
I used Aperture for about 6 months but went back to iPhoto. A big update came to Aperture but I ended up going back to iPhoto. This interface is so much better than iPhoto and does all the things that it and Aperture did.
Then you really didn't use much of Aperture's capabilities and it's no wonder you went back to iPhoto. This isn't an insult. Just a statement that Aperture was overkill for your needs, in which case sticking with iPhoto was probably the right choice. But for those of use who use more of Aperture's capabilities, it's clear that this does not do all the things Aperture did.
No, to them adding all the features of Aperture. It's simply not going to happen. Dare I say, it can't. One of Aperture's strengths for advanced users is it's organizational structure and workflow. Even if Photos gets all of Aperture's editing capabilities (which I find doubtful), I don't see how they can make its organizational structure as flexible as Aperture and still be drop-dead simple for novices. This is targeted to the folks for whom Collections and Moments, along with a handful of albums, are sufficient to organize their photos; and all they want to do is like their Favorites and post them on FB and Instagram. That said, a massive improvement to the meta-data handling (star ratings, flags, advanced metadata searching, proper geolocation support, etc) would go a long way to closing the gap and perhaps could be done within the new Photos interface.
I don't understand the organisation comments. There was no actual organisation aspects I could see in Aperture that iPhoto didn't already have.
My god people, try to keep up with the times will you. A lot has happened since then. I mean OS X has had ten - I repeat - ten (actually eleven if you count the 10.0 beta, although 10.1, MAJOR versions since then and in all of them the design has changed slightly. It's become more refined.
While people can claim that an androgynous interface is a bad thing they are wrong. Think about it. The only thing that has changed from the iOS version to the desktop version is the mouse context. You can go from an iPad to a Mac Pro and still know 100% how to use it while gaining more power when going to desktop. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
It's really funny how people are saying that Apple is killing the file/folder mentality they created and yet that's exactly how Photos works. You see Events (folder), you go into the event to see a list of the events (more folders), and then you see the photos (files). You right click on the file to get info. View it by double clicking it (hey aren't these desktop methods of access?). Once opened you can edit it (reminiscent of running an application on double click).
Oh... my... god... Photos is a freaking operating system.
This is the thing people are failing to see - how Apple is changing the face of OS usage. Look at Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie, and now Photos and you'll see that Apple is actually taking a lot of the OS interface away from the OS and putting it into the applications themselves. Apple's ageing HIG cannot factor that sort of change and so the HIG is pretty much dead and anyone religiously sticking to it are going to be left behind.
An OS should only be there to launch applications and provide foundation to the applications running on it. It should be simple, clean, minimalist, enough to tie the apps to the user. A great OS is one that people don't need to think about its existence. Once people know they are using an OS the OS has failed in its goal.
By dumping file handling to the apps you are in fact making more sense. Why should Numbers know about Pages documents when loading documents when it can't do anything with them or visa versa. But just seeing Numbers documents when opening Numbers makes a world of logical sense.
You can call it a dumbing down if you want but to do so shows a lack of logic. People think Word is so powerful because it has so many bells and whistles but think about where the power NEEDS to be. I tried the other day to have one table calculate data from another table in Word 2013. I couldn't do it and yet I can in Pages. So which app is ACTUALLY more powerful? An app that lets you change text any way you want or an app that allows you to present data in powerful ways? And yet Pages is so incredibly easy to use. Compared to Word it's a dumbed down interface and yet I can do more of what I need to do in Pages than I can in Word.
Complexity in an interface is a fool's errand. Apple is making powerful things dead easy to use and that's is infinitely more powerful than having a bunch of tools no one uses anyway in front of me.
No, missing the user interface guidelines of an intuitive application is what is missing. The placement of icons in illogical places that require excessive mouse movement to get around, the lack of using color, size, and shape as easy indicators to know what you are looking at, the lack of a border around the window so that your foremost window is clearly obvious on a large screen with many windows open, etc.
I'm all for simple, but at some point TOO simplistic gets in the way of productivity. That's what we are seeing right now. It's an opposite swing from the excessive complexity that Microsoft did with Word.
A mouse based, multiple window interface is NOT the same as a single window touch screen interface. Apple said that from the start. Microsoft had the idea of using one interface across both devices and failed miserably at both. Making documents compatible between devices and being able to use both devices in a logical manner is great, but making them function identical when they are vastly different is not a plan for success.
Can anyone let me know if you can create your own smart albums? And if you can organize a folder of albums/events (putting all of 2015 events in one folder, all of 2014 events in one folder)
I just tested tge nee Photos App. It works far better than iPhoto, which for me is extremely laggy and annoying to use. Great work Apple! I can't wait for the official release.
My god people, try to keep up with the times will you. A lot has happened since then. I mean OS X has had ten - I repeat - ten (actually eleven if you count the 10.0 beta, although 10.1, MAJOR versions since then and in all of them the design has changed slightly. It's become more refined.
While people can claim that an androgynous interface is a bad thing they are wrong. Think about it. The only thing that has changed from the iOS version to the desktop version is the mouse context. You can go from an iPad to a Mac Pro and still know 100% how to use it while gaining more power when going to desktop. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
It's really funny how people are saying that Apple is killing the file/folder mentality they created and yet that's exactly how Photos works. You see Events (folder), you go into the event to see a list of the events (more folders), and then you see the photos (files). You right click on the file to get info. View it by double clicking it (hey aren't these desktop methods of access?). Once opened you can edit it (reminiscent of running an application on double click).
Oh... my... god... Photos is a freaking operating system.
This is the thing people are failing to see - how Apple is changing the face of OS usage. Look at Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie, and now Photos and you'll see that Apple is actually taking a lot of the OS interface away from the OS and putting it into the applications themselves. Apple's ageing HIG cannot factor that sort of change and so the HIG is pretty much dead and anyone religiously sticking to it are going to be left behind.
An OS should only be there to launch applications and provide foundation to the applications running on it. It should be simple, clean, minimalist, enough to tie the apps to the user. A great OS is one that people don't need to think about its existence. Once people know they are using an OS the OS has failed in its goal.
By dumping file handling to the apps you are in fact making more sense. Why should Numbers know about Pages documents when loading documents when it can't do anything with them or visa versa. But just seeing Numbers documents when opening Numbers makes a world of logical sense.
You can call it a dumbing down if you want but to do so shows a lack of logic. People think Word is so powerful because it has so many bells and whistles but think about where the power NEEDS to be. I tried the other day to have one table calculate data from another table in Word 2013. I couldn't do it and yet I can in Pages. So which app is ACTUALLY more powerful? An app that lets you change text any way you want or an app that allows you to present data in powerful ways? And yet Pages is so incredibly easy to use. Compared to Word it's a dumbed down interface and yet I can do more of what I need to do in Pages than I can in Word.
Complexity in an interface is a fool's errand. Apple is making powerful things dead easy to use and that's is infinitely more powerful than having a bunch of tools no one uses anyway in front of me.
I disagree. In many instances I want the apps to be "aware" of what "surrounds them".
Think of putting an Excel table in a Word document. Or things like "merge" for mail addresses.
Heck, in Pages you cannot even copy a single page and repeat it.
I used Excel extensively for years, to a point in which it almost replaced Word and was pretty much everything I used for writing and cost estimates.
I tried to use Numbers.
Want to link to a tab in a different Numbers file? Not possible.
Want to decide precisely when a page break is inserted? Not that easy.
Want to group cells (easier to see than "hide" or "unhide" thanks to the little icon and far easier to use for sheets where sometimes you want details to be shown and otherwise you don't)? Impossible.
The list goes on and on (creation of lists in cells).
You see. Making things easy is one of the greatest things Apple ever did. But now they seem to be "dumbing them down" too much. People complaining about Photos aren't iPhoto users, they are Aperture users. And Aperture users are the ones that paid 200 USD back in the days.
And probably the ones that would pay for iCloud storage. But they are now flocking to Creative Cloud instead because it offers them what they are seeking for.
So, yes, making things easier is a huge plus. But there's a subtle line between this and dumbing them down.
Having a set of "semi-pro" apps in your portfolio, even if sales are slim, gives you a foothold in the pro market on one side and allows you to test features on the other. Much like car manufacturers that put the latest and greatest in their premium models and then let it tickle down to all other products.
Comments
What the **** is Apple doing? I used to be the biggest Apple fanboy since I first started using Apple products probably 15 years ago or so, and everything they do these days constantly tries to erase their history. I simply can't justify any serious support or approval of their decisions anymore. Today's Apple apologists simply don't consider the past.
After a week of use, I absolutely love the Photos. My early 2009 iMac just cannot handle 40,000 photos with iPhoto. However after about 1 hour of imports from the existing iPhoto library, Photos just take those 40,000 photos in without any hesitation and scroll like a knife cut through a melting butter. It is bad business for Apple though. I could live the 2009 iMac for another two year if Apple is going to improve performance like Photos does.
I do suspect that the database engine has been improved substantially although I only have 7000 photos to test with. iPhotos was never intended to handle professional size photo databases -- thus Aperture. It is time for a reworking of the guts for sure, I just don't like some of the other changes.
Are there any adjustment brushes like there were in Aperture?
Skin smoothing, Definition, etc.
Things like this:
I beg to differ with your hyperbole regarding Photo.
I don't think even the development team would make such exaggerated claims (and doubtfully with as much vitriol). I dare say you have no business calling me a troll.
I am not a life long fan of Apple although I did buy my 1st Mac in Mar 1984 and have been a developer since 1986 (they called Certified Developers back in the day). I worked at Apple in engineering for several years (was there for the earthquake). I am not nor do I ever plan to be one of those that simply loves everything they do but I have believed in them long to be a long term AAPL stock holder. Take a look at the what The Verge and MacWorld says. They do not back all of what I have said but there are weaknesses in Photo IMHO.
Oh, and take a chill pill, you're going to have a stroke.
Edit: I did not catch this in your previous post but you seem to have the gall to attack me for my opinion when you have little or no experience with it : Slurpy says "I love the new Pages and Numbers and use them everyday, so sounds like I'll love this too."
I couldn't care less about your history, and when you bought your first Apple product. I really couldn't.
Yes, the "1000x better" was obviously an exaggeration. Good catch. I was responding to your lie: "It does not do what iPhoto does (editing, viewing)." Not only does it include editing, but the editing tools are vastly more numerous and comprehensive than what's included in iPhoto.
So yes, your original post was sensational and deceptive, not to mention lacking a shred of objectivity. I'm sure Photos isn't perfect, but every hands-on had very positive thing to say, and your post was nothing but a negative rant, not listing a single positive aspect, with the predictable "Apple is doomed on this road" trash. Instead of backing up your claims, your respond with irrelevant garbage. Photos has more editing options than iPhoto. That's a fact. Every single preview states that it is superior in the major aspects. That's a fact. It is MUCH faster, smoother, and more responsive than iPhoto. That's a fact. Your rant contained none of these facts, but only vitriol, a childish resistance to change, and I gave it the response it deserved.
You also seem completely blind to the "bigger picture" and the vision Apple is working towards. Which is seamless, synced access to all your content whether you're using a Mac, iPhone, or iPad. Photos is a huge step towards that, even if it doesnt include every single feature in existence. Your response to someone exclaiming "I can't wait!" was "Yes you can. It sucks.". Yeah, you sound reasonable.
Meaning I have a really old photo and I would like to upload it, assign a date to it, and have it display in the correct chronological spot in Years.
I agree with you. I suspect a lot of people may be freaking out because they don't at first notice all the editing abilities in the adjustment section as Photos ships with them all collapsed. I think the histrionics will subside when they find them all and realize it is far more powerful than iPhoto ever was. Not to mention all the waling about having to use iCloud, of course you don't have to if you don't want to, or like I have, you can be selective on a per device bases what does and what doesn't. The whole eco system wide set up is very flexible.
One think I'd point out to new users, you have to disable Apple TV from iCloud photo sharing and then re enable to remove the old shared libraries and see new ones with Photos. I had a mix of both for a while until I did that.
I LOVE this. It's such a massive cleaner approach to iPhoto and Aperture. I used Aperture for about 6 months but went back to iPhoto. A big update came to Aperture but I ended up going back to iPhoto. This interface is so much better than iPhoto and does all the things that it and Aperture did.
Frankly those oldies that can't handle new interfaces need to get with it. The old HIG SUCKS and gets in the way of doing the thing computers were designed for... you know... work.
I can't wait until this is released proper.
No brushes. No way to do B&W because there is no RGB sliders. It may be OK for pictures of stuff for the family album, but it's not set up for any real artwork. Not even file numbers when you view photos. I've used Aperture since the beginning (I have never used iPhoto) coming from PhotoShop. I hardly make any adjustments because I can get it right in my camera. I guess this is great for iPhone pictures. And except for pictures of my dog, I never use my phone camera. Why can't Apple keep Aperture and have Photos also? It's not like they can't afford to have two teams. Now I understand what my editor friends were complaining about with Final Cut Pro. None of them has gone back since the change.
I LOVE this. It's such a massive cleaner approach to iPhoto and Aperture. I used Aperture for about 6 months but went back to iPhoto. A big update came to Aperture but I ended up going back to iPhoto. This interface is so much better than iPhoto and does all the things that it and Aperture did.
Frankly those oldies that can't handle new interfaces need to get with it. The old HIG SUCKS and gets in the way of doing the thing computers were designed for... you know... work.
I can't wait until this is released proper.
I can handle a new interface, it's the loss of the doing away with the features I use. iPhoto doesn't do everything Aperture does. No brushes, edge adjustments. I don't need filters for silly effects. Definitely, not for documentary photographers.
I don't get where the negativity is coming from. The app is nowhere near perfect but it is far better than the slow, clunky iPhoto. There is always resistance to change. Some of the change has been for the better, some not, but I like this new app.
I like being able to have the same photo library on all my devices. It's like iTunes Match for photos & I like it in that regard. What needs serious tweaking is the organization options for the actual photos themselves.
I'm sure they'll add all of the Aperture features to it over time, like what happened when Final Cut Pro 7 went to Final Cut Pro X, and the whole debacle over multi camera editing. That said, with Apple having so much money in the bank, you'd think they'd hire more developers to make sure the software is solid and feature-complete in the first place. There are issues in software development at Apple right now. Apple needs to really get a handle on it or it's going to be their demise. The amount of bugs getting out these days is disturbing. That said, again, I like where this new app is going and if Apple can address the aforementioned issues, it's going to be a solid iPhoto/Aperture replacement.
Yes, to the much better than iPhoto. Completely agree.
No, to them adding all the features of Aperture. It's simply not going to happen. Dare I say, it can't. One of Aperture's strengths for advanced users is it's organizational structure and workflow. Even if Photos gets all of Aperture's editing capabilities (which I find doubtful), I don't see how they can make its organizational structure as flexible as Aperture and still be drop-dead simple for novices. This is targeted to the folks for whom Collections and Moments, along with a handful of albums, are sufficient to organize their photos; and all they want to do is like their Favorites and post them on FB and Instagram. That said, a massive improvement to the meta-data handling (star ratings, flags, advanced metadata searching, proper geolocation support, etc) would go a long way to closing the gap and perhaps could be done within the new Photos interface. It remains to be seen if 3rd parties step in to add back more of Aperture's features through plug-ins.
The comparison to FCP is not valid. That was paid, professional software. Apple HAD to make the improvements to earn the sales. Photos is going to be bundled for free with the OS. There is little to no motivation for Apple to make it a true Aperture replacement.
Apple wrote the book on Human interface guidelines. Everyone realized they nailed it and copied them. Now, they are making changes that go so far against those guidelines, it's not even funny.
Didn't they write that in Mac OS 9 days?
My god people, try to keep up with the times will you. A lot has happened since then. I mean OS X has had ten - I repeat - ten (actually eleven if you count the 10.0 beta, although 10.1, MAJOR versions since then and in all of them the design has changed slightly. It's become more refined.
While people can claim that an androgynous interface is a bad thing they are wrong. Think about it. The only thing that has changed from the iOS version to the desktop version is the mouse context. You can go from an iPad to a Mac Pro and still know 100% how to use it while gaining more power when going to desktop. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
It's really funny how people are saying that Apple is killing the file/folder mentality they created and yet that's exactly how Photos works. You see Events (folder), you go into the event to see a list of the events (more folders), and then you see the photos (files). You right click on the file to get info. View it by double clicking it (hey aren't these desktop methods of access?). Once opened you can edit it (reminiscent of running an application on double click).
Oh... my... god... Photos is a freaking operating system.
This is the thing people are failing to see - how Apple is changing the face of OS usage. Look at Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie, and now Photos and you'll see that Apple is actually taking a lot of the OS interface away from the OS and putting it into the applications themselves. Apple's ageing HIG cannot factor that sort of change and so the HIG is pretty much dead and anyone religiously sticking to it are going to be left behind.
An OS should only be there to launch applications and provide foundation to the applications running on it. It should be simple, clean, minimalist, enough to tie the apps to the user. A great OS is one that people don't need to think about its existence. Once people know they are using an OS the OS has failed in its goal.
By dumping file handling to the apps you are in fact making more sense. Why should Numbers know about Pages documents when loading documents when it can't do anything with them or visa versa. But just seeing Numbers documents when opening Numbers makes a world of logical sense.
You can call it a dumbing down if you want but to do so shows a lack of logic. People think Word is so powerful because it has so many bells and whistles but think about where the power NEEDS to be. I tried the other day to have one table calculate data from another table in Word 2013. I couldn't do it and yet I can in Pages. So which app is ACTUALLY more powerful? An app that lets you change text any way you want or an app that allows you to present data in powerful ways? And yet Pages is so incredibly easy to use. Compared to Word it's a dumbed down interface and yet I can do more of what I need to do in Pages than I can in Word.
Complexity in an interface is a fool's errand. Apple is making powerful things dead easy to use and that's is infinitely more powerful than having a bunch of tools no one uses anyway in front of me.
I can handle a new interface, it's the loss of the doing away with the features I use. iPhoto doesn't do everything Aperture does. No brushes, edge adjustments. I don't need filters for silly effects. Definitely, not for documentary photographers.
It has/will have plugins. The initial release is a foundation release exactly like Final Cut Pro was. You're railing on a beta.
I used Aperture for about 6 months but went back to iPhoto. A big update came to Aperture but I ended up going back to iPhoto. This interface is so much better than iPhoto and does all the things that it and Aperture did.
Then you really didn't use much of Aperture's capabilities and it's no wonder you went back to iPhoto. This isn't an insult. Just a statement that Aperture was overkill for your needs, in which case sticking with iPhoto was probably the right choice. But for those of use who use more of Aperture's capabilities, it's clear that this does not do all the things Aperture did.
No, to them adding all the features of Aperture. It's simply not going to happen. Dare I say, it can't. One of Aperture's strengths for advanced users is it's organizational structure and workflow. Even if Photos gets all of Aperture's editing capabilities (which I find doubtful), I don't see how they can make its organizational structure as flexible as Aperture and still be drop-dead simple for novices. This is targeted to the folks for whom Collections and Moments, along with a handful of albums, are sufficient to organize their photos; and all they want to do is like their Favorites and post them on FB and Instagram. That said, a massive improvement to the meta-data handling (star ratings, flags, advanced metadata searching, proper geolocation support, etc) would go a long way to closing the gap and perhaps could be done within the new Photos interface.
I don't understand the organisation comments. There was no actual organisation aspects I could see in Aperture that iPhoto didn't already have.
Didn't they write that in Mac OS 9 days?
My god people, try to keep up with the times will you. A lot has happened since then. I mean OS X has had ten - I repeat - ten (actually eleven if you count the 10.0 beta, although 10.1, MAJOR versions since then and in all of them the design has changed slightly. It's become more refined.
While people can claim that an androgynous interface is a bad thing they are wrong. Think about it. The only thing that has changed from the iOS version to the desktop version is the mouse context. You can go from an iPad to a Mac Pro and still know 100% how to use it while gaining more power when going to desktop. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
It's really funny how people are saying that Apple is killing the file/folder mentality they created and yet that's exactly how Photos works. You see Events (folder), you go into the event to see a list of the events (more folders), and then you see the photos (files). You right click on the file to get info. View it by double clicking it (hey aren't these desktop methods of access?). Once opened you can edit it (reminiscent of running an application on double click).
Oh... my... god... Photos is a freaking operating system.
This is the thing people are failing to see - how Apple is changing the face of OS usage. Look at Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie, and now Photos and you'll see that Apple is actually taking a lot of the OS interface away from the OS and putting it into the applications themselves. Apple's ageing HIG cannot factor that sort of change and so the HIG is pretty much dead and anyone religiously sticking to it are going to be left behind.
An OS should only be there to launch applications and provide foundation to the applications running on it. It should be simple, clean, minimalist, enough to tie the apps to the user. A great OS is one that people don't need to think about its existence. Once people know they are using an OS the OS has failed in its goal.
By dumping file handling to the apps you are in fact making more sense. Why should Numbers know about Pages documents when loading documents when it can't do anything with them or visa versa. But just seeing Numbers documents when opening Numbers makes a world of logical sense.
You can call it a dumbing down if you want but to do so shows a lack of logic. People think Word is so powerful because it has so many bells and whistles but think about where the power NEEDS to be. I tried the other day to have one table calculate data from another table in Word 2013. I couldn't do it and yet I can in Pages. So which app is ACTUALLY more powerful? An app that lets you change text any way you want or an app that allows you to present data in powerful ways? And yet Pages is so incredibly easy to use. Compared to Word it's a dumbed down interface and yet I can do more of what I need to do in Pages than I can in Word.
Complexity in an interface is a fool's errand. Apple is making powerful things dead easy to use and that's is infinitely more powerful than having a bunch of tools no one uses anyway in front of me.
No, missing the user interface guidelines of an intuitive application is what is missing. The placement of icons in illogical places that require excessive mouse movement to get around, the lack of using color, size, and shape as easy indicators to know what you are looking at, the lack of a border around the window so that your foremost window is clearly obvious on a large screen with many windows open, etc.
I'm all for simple, but at some point TOO simplistic gets in the way of productivity. That's what we are seeing right now. It's an opposite swing from the excessive complexity that Microsoft did with Word.
A mouse based, multiple window interface is NOT the same as a single window touch screen interface. Apple said that from the start. Microsoft had the idea of using one interface across both devices and failed miserably at both. Making documents compatible between devices and being able to use both devices in a logical manner is great, but making them function identical when they are vastly different is not a plan for success.
It works far better than iPhoto, which for me is extremely laggy and annoying to use.
Great work Apple!
I can't wait for the official release.
Question: does it support some sort of backup (like Aperture Vault?).
Didn't they write that in Mac OS 9 days?
My god people, try to keep up with the times will you. A lot has happened since then. I mean OS X has had ten - I repeat - ten (actually eleven if you count the 10.0 beta, although 10.1, MAJOR versions since then and in all of them the design has changed slightly. It's become more refined.
While people can claim that an androgynous interface is a bad thing they are wrong. Think about it. The only thing that has changed from the iOS version to the desktop version is the mouse context. You can go from an iPad to a Mac Pro and still know 100% how to use it while gaining more power when going to desktop. That's not an easy thing to pull off.
It's really funny how people are saying that Apple is killing the file/folder mentality they created and yet that's exactly how Photos works. You see Events (folder), you go into the event to see a list of the events (more folders), and then you see the photos (files). You right click on the file to get info. View it by double clicking it (hey aren't these desktop methods of access?). Once opened you can edit it (reminiscent of running an application on double click).
Oh... my... god... Photos is a freaking operating system.
This is the thing people are failing to see - how Apple is changing the face of OS usage. Look at Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie, and now Photos and you'll see that Apple is actually taking a lot of the OS interface away from the OS and putting it into the applications themselves. Apple's ageing HIG cannot factor that sort of change and so the HIG is pretty much dead and anyone religiously sticking to it are going to be left behind.
An OS should only be there to launch applications and provide foundation to the applications running on it. It should be simple, clean, minimalist, enough to tie the apps to the user. A great OS is one that people don't need to think about its existence. Once people know they are using an OS the OS has failed in its goal.
By dumping file handling to the apps you are in fact making more sense. Why should Numbers know about Pages documents when loading documents when it can't do anything with them or visa versa. But just seeing Numbers documents when opening Numbers makes a world of logical sense.
You can call it a dumbing down if you want but to do so shows a lack of logic. People think Word is so powerful because it has so many bells and whistles but think about where the power NEEDS to be. I tried the other day to have one table calculate data from another table in Word 2013. I couldn't do it and yet I can in Pages. So which app is ACTUALLY more powerful? An app that lets you change text any way you want or an app that allows you to present data in powerful ways? And yet Pages is so incredibly easy to use. Compared to Word it's a dumbed down interface and yet I can do more of what I need to do in Pages than I can in Word.
Complexity in an interface is a fool's errand. Apple is making powerful things dead easy to use and that's is infinitely more powerful than having a bunch of tools no one uses anyway in front of me.
I disagree. In many instances I want the apps to be "aware" of what "surrounds them".
Think of putting an Excel table in a Word document. Or things like "merge" for mail addresses.
Heck, in Pages you cannot even copy a single page and repeat it.
I used Excel extensively for years, to a point in which it almost replaced Word and was pretty much everything I used for writing and cost estimates.
I tried to use Numbers.
Want to link to a tab in a different Numbers file? Not possible.
Want to decide precisely when a page break is inserted? Not that easy.
Want to group cells (easier to see than "hide" or "unhide" thanks to the little icon and far easier to use for sheets where sometimes you want details to be shown and otherwise you don't)? Impossible.
The list goes on and on (creation of lists in cells).
You see. Making things easy is one of the greatest things Apple ever did. But now they seem to be "dumbing them down" too much. People complaining about Photos aren't iPhoto users, they are Aperture users. And Aperture users are the ones that paid 200 USD back in the days.
And probably the ones that would pay for iCloud storage. But they are now flocking to Creative Cloud instead because it offers them what they are seeking for.
So, yes, making things easier is a huge plus. But there's a subtle line between this and dumbing them down.
Having a set of "semi-pro" apps in your portfolio, even if sales are slim, gives you a foothold in the pro market on one side and allows you to test features on the other. Much like car manufacturers that put the latest and greatest in their premium models and then let it tickle down to all other products.