Apple seeds OS X 10.10.3 Yosemite beta with tweaked Photos app

Posted:
in macOS edited March 2015
Apple on Monday pushed out to developers and public beta testers a fresh OS X 10.10.3 version, building on recent releases introducing a new Photos app and APIs for MacBook Force Touch capabilities.




The new OS X 10.10.3 beta release, dubbed build 14D127a, comes exactly one week after the last version introduced a fresh Yosemite Recovery tools update.

According to its release notes, today's beta build improves operating stability, compatibility and security.

Apple asks developers to continue testing Safari compatibility with Wi-Fi captive networks, such as those found in hotels, airplanes, airports and other public areas. Also noted are screen sharing features and Arabic and Hebrew localization.

Developers can download the latest beta version through Apple's Developer Portal, while public beta testers will find the build in Software Update.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    Downloading the public beta right now.

    My Mac's snappier even though the update isn't even installed yet. Wow.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    Downloading the public beta right now.

    My Mac's snappier even though the update isn't even installed yet. Wow.

    LOL.

    Hopefully it doesn't screw up the weeks worth of photo uploading I just finished.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,198member
    The Photos app has been getting somewhat better with each beta release but I think it's going to be a hugely disruptive release when it hits general availability. Unless you have a very high speed broadband connection it takes weeks to upload a large photo collection. I have about 26,000 photos and they're still not all in the cloud. I have a 200 GB iCloud disk and the photos will consume about 60 GB when or if it eventually finishes. The slowness is one thing but the aggressiveness of the upload is quite another thing. It will consume as much bandwidth as possible which makes doing anything else on your connection a real challenge. I pretty much have to turn it off whenever I want to use my connection for anything else. Yeah, I'm limited by location to only 6Mbps DSL so my case may be on the fringes of what others experience, I.e., large data and a small pipe. In any case, I still expect Apple to see a flood of complaints once this thing hits the streets and millions more people start experiencing the behaviors that I've been seeing since I first installed the beta on my machine.

    The other thing I can't figure out is how to connect more than one computer to the same Photos collection. I can connect all of my iDevices to my photo collection, which is very cool because it only keeps thumbnails of the photos on the devices which means even 15,000 photos takes very little storage on the device. But when I try to attach a second OS X device running 10.3 to the same collection it won't even let me turn on the feature so my only access to my photos on other OS X machines is via the iCloud web client.

    I'm still thinking this thing is far from what Apple would consider release quality for the average consumer who expects it to "just work." Welcome to the reality of (semi) "big data" models in a world of limited connectivity like we have in the U.S. This type of application is going to expose just how pathetic many internet service providers are in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. We've been sold a toy connectivity solution at a high price. The Photos app will start to expose the frayed edges of the rest of the solution. It won't be pretty.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,193member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DewMe View Post



    The Photos app has been getting somewhat better with each beta release but I think it's going to be a hugely disruptive release when it hits general availability. Unless you have a very high speed broadband connection it takes weeks to upload a large photo collection. I have about 26,000 photos and they're still not all in the cloud. I have a 200 GB iCloud disk and the photos will consume about 60 GB when or if it eventually finishes. The slowness is one thing but the aggressiveness of the upload is quite another thing. It will consume as much bandwidth as possible which makes doing anything else on your connection a real challenge. I pretty much have to turn it off whenever I want to use my connection for anything else. Yeah, I'm limited by location to only 6Mbps DSL so my case may be on the fringes of what others experience, I.e., large data and a small pipe. In any case, I still expect Apple to see a flood of complaints once this thing hits the streets and millions more people start experiencing the behaviors that I've been seeing since I first installed the beta on my machine.



    The other thing I can't figure out is how to connect more than one computer to the same Photos collection. I can connect all of my iDevices to my photo collection, which is very cool because it only keeps thumbnails of the photos on the devices which means even 15,000 photos takes very little storage on the device. But when I try to attach a second OS X device running 10.3 to the same collection it won't even let me turn on the feature so my only access to my photos on other OS X machines is via the iCloud web client.



    I'm still thinking this thing is far from what Apple would consider release quality for the average consumer who expects it to "just work." Welcome to the reality of (semi) "big data" models in a world of limited connectivity like we have in the U.S. This type of application is going to expose just how pathetic many internet service providers are in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. We've been sold a toy connectivity solution at a high price. The Photos app will start to expose the frayed edges of the rest of the solution. It won't be pretty.

     

    Yup. The photos app is fantastic, as is the iCloud photo library concept, but unfortunately uploads speeds will make the initial experience painful. For most people with decent sized photo libraries, the initial upload will take days, if not weeks. Worse, progress is pretty opaque. Connection speeds are definitely the weakest component of any ambitious cloud services going forward. So yes, I expect a lot of pain. I meticulously culled by photo library before turning it on from my Mac, got down to 6,000 photos, made sure the Mac stayed awake, kept the photo app open, yet after several days it was only 1/2 finished. There is no ETA. The average user will blindly turn this on, and won't realize how much time will actually be needed before the process is complete and the benefits are available. Also, I can see this absolutely destroying Apple's datacenter bandwidth. Hopefully they are ready for hundreds of millions of iOS/OSX owners simultaneously uploading thousands of terabytes of data. 

  • Reply 5 of 18
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    dewme wrote: »

    The other thing I can't figure out is how to connect more than one computer to the same Photos collection. I can connect all of my iDevices to my photo collection, which is very cool because it only keeps thumbnails of the photos on the devices which means even 15,000 photos takes very little storage on the device. But when I try to attach a second OS X device running 10.3 to the same collection it won't even let me turn on the feature so my only access to my photos on other OS X machines is via the iCloud web client.

    How exactly do you expect two Macs share the same Library other than what is on the cloud? Are you Macs logged in using the same Apple ID? I have several all able to see the same cloud data but obviously not each other's Libraries.
  • Reply 6 of 18
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Yup. The photos app is fantastic, as is the iCloud photo library concept, but unfortunately uploads speeds will make the initial experience painful. For most people with decent sized photo libraries, the initial upload will take days, if not weeks. Worse, progress is pretty opaque. Connection speeds are definitely the weakest component of any ambitious cloud services going forward. So yes, I expect a lot of pain. I meticulously culled by photo library before turning it on from my Mac, got down to 6,000 photos, made sure the Mac stayed awake, kept the photo app open, yet after several days it was only 1/2 finished. There is no ETA. The average user will blindly turn this on, and won't realize how much time will actually be needed before the process is complete and the benefits are available. Also, I can see this absolutely destroying Apple's datacenter bandwidth. Hopefully they are ready for hundreds of millions of iOS/OSX owners simultaneously uploading thousands of terabytes of data. 

    It is interesting that most of the comments so far have been about the new photos app. Frankly I'm not surprised. Apples view of the net certainly doesn't reflect my reality, as such I have little faith in cloud based services replacing local storage. Backups maybe, file resources for friends and the like certainly but the cloud is no place to store vast quantities of data like is represented by most photo collections. Even if the bandwidth is there the reliability isn't.

    As for the photos app the only thing Apple can do is to suggest that people find high speed connections to the net. Frankly that isn't easy either.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,902member
    Downloading the public beta right now.

    My Mac's snappier even though the update isn't even installed yet. Wow.

    Not to make light of things but Apple does need to sit back and optimize much of Yosemite. I have a brand new MBP 13" and I still get inexplicable beach balling. I'd understand if I was working the machine hard but it happens at the weirdest times and frankly I'm not sure why.

    For sake of conversation we can call the next Mac OS major release Joshua Tree. So what I'm hoping to see in Joshua Tree is Apple focusing on optimizations. That would mean enhanced video drivers for the new Broadwell chip to start with. Then they need to go to work on core parts of the operating system that are just pathetic, here they can start to optimize access to secondary storage which has proven to be awful compared to what is available on Linux and other operating systems of note.

    My hope for Joshua tree is that they focus on performance as a core feature of the OS major update. Sure things like Siri type voice recognition would be nice
  • Reply 8 of 18
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    wizard69 wrote: »
    Not to make light of things but Apple does need to sit back and optimize much of Yosemite. I have a brand new MBP 13" and I still get inexplicable beach balling. I'd understand if I was working the machine hard but it happens at the weirdest times and frankly I'm not sure why.

    For sake of conversation we can call the next Mac OS major release Joshua Tree. So what I'm hoping to see in Joshua Tree is Apple focusing on optimizations. That would mean enhanced video drivers for the new Broadwell chip to start with. Then they need to go to work on core parts of the operating system that are just pathetic, here they can start to optimize access to secondary storage which has proven to be awful compared to what is available on Linux and other operating systems of note.

    My hope for Joshua tree is that they focus on performance as a core feature of the OS major update. Sure things like Siri type voice recognition would be nice

    I'm running it on four Macs ranging from a 2010 15" i7 MBP, a 2011 13" i5 MBP, a 2014 Mac Mini and a new 6 core MP and no beach balling on any of them. Something is going on your end I suspect. Networking maybe or perhaps a need for Disk Warrior to fix the drive?
  • Reply 9 of 18
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,198member
    How exactly do you expect two Macs share the same Library other than what is on the cloud? Are you Macs logged in using the same Apple ID? I have several all able to see the same cloud data but obviously not each other's Libraries.

    Yes, everything is under the same iCloud account. I expect that I should be able to simply select iCloud Photo Library as I do on iDevices and the photo library already in my iCloud account should be available on the OS X computer using the Photos app as opposed to the iCloud web client. Everything works as expected with iOS but not with my other OS X computers. I'll attribute this to the fact that this is still Beta software.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member

    It's great that Apple is going all-in with the cloud, but I'm wondering if they shouldn't be using some of the billions to provide an internet service for its customers. As others have said, once folk start experiencing slow service, extra charges and throttling from the ISPs then it won't be pretty.

  • Reply 11 of 18
    nzmininzmini Posts: 1member
    Are any of you experiencing problems with the Google Drive client on Yosemite? It suddenly won't launch on the beta (well, not suddenly, for the past three releases including this one). I can't get it to work.
  • Reply 12 of 18
    cmauscmaus Posts: 32member
    I think Apple has the solution already. Go to an Apple Store and have their WIFI connection to upload your photos/videos. (I'd guess Apple would take care of having the fastest upload connection that's available on their Apple Stores).
  • Reply 13 of 18
    rcfarcfa Posts: 786member
    The cloud is a stupid fad perpetrated on us courtesy of ISPs refusal to transition rapidly to IPv6 and the NAT we have to use as consequence.
    There's no reason a device like AppleTV or any sort of HomeKit hub server with attached storage cannot provide all the "cloud" services on people's own hardware, without NSA snooping etc.
    The cloud is useful for customer site encrypted remote backup, and mobile device rendezvous points (like BTMM).
    I'm not going to store terabytes of data, mail, and media on Apple's servers, not when my annual subscriptions cost as much as buying the storage myself, not even when it's free and we have the (un)Patriot Act.

    Photos is a decent upgrade in terms of capability from iPhoto, but it's an unbearable downgrade for Aperture users.
    Apple destroys its pro segment, because nothing they offer has any reliable long term staying power upon which to build.

    Any platform needs a room for users to grow, a consumer-only platform is a toy platform.
    If the photo library and media interface were available in a "PhotoKit", then maybe third party pro apps could replace Aperture, but what we have now is horrid:
    Lightroom with obnoxious workflow, zero compatibility with all the adjustments made, no integration into iCloud, and outrageous subscription fees is no alternative.

    Jobs was smart when he simplified the product matrix into pro and consumer, but by Apple now axing the pro part they are making a huge mistake; simple is good, oversimplified is bad.

    Photos lacks key features of Aperture, not the least of it a decent plug-in interface, metadata editing (can't even set a copyright string), rating system (not all pictures are equally good), precise numerical adjustments, etc.

    In short: horrible!
  • Reply 14 of 18
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,198member

    I think Apple is doing just about everything they can to mitigate the issues with slow internet connections and storage optimization on iDevices. In fact I'd like to see them extend the storage optimization strategy they are using with iDevices to the desktop OS. If I have a large photo collection I should have the option of storing the whole thing in the iCloud but selectively choosing which devices, iOS and OS X, I want to store the full fidelity photos on. Apple should also use the optimization they do with iTunes Match to your photos, so it you have the same photos on multiple devices say in Aperture it doesn't try to upload the same photo multiple times. I think there's also an issue with uploading your photo library from Aperture: it appears to upload every edit version of every photo so you'll end up with quite a lot of duplication that can eat up gigabytes of iCloud storage. At the very least the import to Photos from Aperture should allow you to limit the number of versions of each photo it imports.

     

    Another thing: once you've moved your photos from Aperture to Photos - you can't go back. 

     

    The Photos app is actually quite impressive. However it represents a jumping off point for a lot of people who have only been dabbling with cloud based storage solutions. I think a lot of people have probably been throwing a few things on iCloud or Dropbox for convenience but never stressing the model like we'll see with Photos. This is going to be the first all-in cloud based solution for a lot of people and I expect to see a lot of hiccups for people who don't have super fast connectivity. Apple has clearly been preparing for this on their end and no doubt they will be able to handle the load. But all of the inadequate internet plumbing between personal connections and the massive Apple storage centers is going to be pushed closer to its limit. It's already stressed with Netflix and other streaming services and this will add additional burden to the already overburdened infrastructure. At the end of the day Apple is doing the right thing and the service providers are going to have to step up and provide the infrastructure needed to support even more Photos style cloud based solutions. This is only the beginning.

  • Reply 15 of 18
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    rcfa wrote: »
    The cloud is a stupid fad perpetrated on us courtesy of ISPs refusal to transition rapidly to IPv6 and the NAT we have to use as consequence.
    There's no reason a device like AppleTV or any sort of HomeKit hub server with attached storage cannot provide all the "cloud" services on people's own hardware, without NSA snooping etc.
    The cloud is useful for customer site encrypted remote backup, and mobile device rendezvous points (like BTMM).
    I'm not going to store terabytes of data, mail, and media on Apple's servers, not when my annual subscriptions cost as much as buying the storage myself, not even when it's free and we have the (un)Patriot Act.

    Photos is a decent upgrade in terms of capability from iPhoto, but it's an unbearable downgrade for Aperture users.
    Apple destroys its pro segment, because nothing they offer has any reliable long term staying power upon which to build.

    Any platform needs a room for users to grow, a consumer-only platform is a toy platform.
    If the photo library and media interface were available in a "PhotoKit", then maybe third party pro apps could replace Aperture, but what we have now is horrid:
    Lightroom with obnoxious workflow, zero compatibility with all the adjustments made, no integration into iCloud, and outrageous subscription fees is no alternative.

    Jobs was smart when he simplified the product matrix into pro and consumer, but by Apple now axing the pro part they are making a huge mistake; simple is good, oversimplified is bad.

    Photos lacks key features of Aperture, not the least of it a decent plug-in interface, metadata editing (can't even set a copyright string), rating system (not all pictures are equally good), precise numerical adjustments, etc.

    In short: horrible!

    Jobs' simplification was largely to hardware. In fact it was Jobs who killed server edition of OS X. the hardware is still bracketed into consumer and pro grades today.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    Quote:


      I'll attribute this to the fact that this is still Beta software.


    I'll attribute it to PEBKAC.

  • Reply 17 of 18
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    dewme wrote: »
    Yes, everything is under the same iCloud account. I expect that I should be able to simply select iCloud Photo Library as I do on iDevices and the photo library already in my iCloud account should be available on the OS X computer using the Photos app as opposed to the iCloud web client. Everything works as expected with iOS but not with my other OS X computers. I'll attribute this to the fact that this is still Beta software.

    So you mean kind of like iTunes Match? A single Library seen and shared by all. Only one Mac would keep the master library in that scenario. I had not thought of that way to use it.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    clymansclymans Posts: 18member

    I have what may be a dumb question.  I have looked at my current devices and googled this a bit and have found the answer to be one that I don't like, but maybe some of you that have worked with it will say differently.

     

    Will I be able to share the same Photos library using a specific apple ID that isn't the primary Apple ID set up in the iCloud settings on an iDevice or OS X?

     

    What I would really like is the ability to have as many Apple IDs as needed to be set up on a device and have all iCloud features available to be activated or deactivated in each one of them.

     

    That way I can use my primary individual iCloud account for documents, calendars, etc. and then use a secondary group account for photos.  That way my whole family can have individual data for the items that are appropriate, but share a single photos library.  Then we would all have access to everyone's photos and not just the one's we've taken on our device.

     

    We all currently have individual (5 of them) Apple IDs set up with family sharing along with a 6th Apple ID that I use as the master account for purchases to share with the 5 individual accounts.  That scenario works for us in all ways except for photos.  I would like to use Photos as an offsite backup and to share photos between the IDs instead of a third party solution like Dropbox, but at this time, I don't think it will work for us.

     

    Can anyone confirm this is still the case?  If I'm completely off on how I have this set up and anyone has suggestions to make it work the way I'd like, I'm open to changing our setup to work better, as well.  Thanks. 

Sign In or Register to comment.