I have said it before, I will say it again, if you are a PRO, or an orginization who relies on your software to do what it is that makes you money, NEVER select a tool that is version 1.0 to be the core of your workflow because 99% of the time it is too inmature, apature is a great example of this. so was Final cut Pro, just wait till 2.0 and you will see a world of differance, and by 3, you may not recognise it.
Can we, and Apple afford to wait another two years until it reaches ver. 3?
I found FCP to be much better at ver. 1.0.1 than Aperture seems to be. Apple also updated that sucker on a constant basis. It seemed to have poured over each and every review, and fixed all the problems they found, and added many of the featurers by ver. 1.5 six or so months later.
I've said that if apple does that, they'll be fine. But if they don't, they may not get another chance. If the rep sx months down the line is still as bad as it is, people will just avoid it, and not give it another chance.
Apple also has far more on their plate now, with the switchover, than they had then. They may not have the resources to do it until later, if at all.
Regarding hardware and software... I'm just wondering, could it be that Apple is
a) not releasing
b) releasing too late
c) releasing too buggy
because they just have got their hands full with milking their cash cow... And I don't blame them, I would too. Damn, why did they come up with the ipod and itunes store... it's not good for the weird people ! \
If PS was new, and no one used it, like Aperture, your comments might be meaningful. But, as you know very well, millions of people use it every day.
I also know that you are being your usual self here about this.
Adobe's interface is liked very much by the vast majority of its users, even if you don't seem to like it.
Surely it works both ways. If someone doesn't place a lot of importance on user-interface, they'll buy Photoshop. If someone doesn't care about some of the Aperture bugs, they'll buy Aperture.
Aperture offers something that's never been done before...a full workflow for photographers. Bugs won't stop it from being popular.
Surely it works both ways. If someone doesn't place a lot of importance on user-interface, they'll buy Photoshop. If someone doesn't care about some of the Aperture bugs, they'll buy Aperture.
Aperture offers something that's never been done before...a full workflow for photographers. Bugs won't stop it from being popular.
Heck Windows is popular and has tons of bugs.
That's true to a certain extent. But remember this; people get used to the way something works.
Back in the "old days" when XYWrite was the biggest WP, people studied it, took courses on how to use it, and loved it because of its power.
It was a tough program to use. There were at least a couple of hundred two key combo's that you needed to learn in order to really use the program.
But the expression in those days was that the first WP that you learned was always the one you liked best. Gee, I wonder why?
PS is far better than that of course. But consider that PS also has hundreds of elements in it, and you can understand why it is complex. There simply isn't any way to make a program as versatile as PS is, simple.
I think that I can guarantee that if Aperture ever gets as many elements in it as PS has, it will be far more complex to use than it is now. If Apple keeps it as simple as it is now, and doesn't put more capability into it, then it can remain simple.
Please let's not start our argument about what Aperture can do vs. PS because I'm saying this, but Apple has stated quite clearly that Aperture is NOT a replacement for PS.
If it ever does become one, however, it will gain a great deal of complexity in its interface as well. There is simply no way to add those vast numbers of controls without also adding complexity to the interface.
I use CAD programs as well. There are programs for the home user that have fairly simple interfaces, and are easy to use. But the professional programs are vastly more complex, because they have to be. Several of these programs literally have thousands of commands, and dozens of menu's. Menu's within menu's. You just have to learn the program.
The same thing is true of 3D programs. The easy ones are too simple for professional use, and the professional ones are too complex for casual users. These programs can take many months to learn well enough to actually be productive.
But that's not the fault of the programs. It's the nature of the beast.
Most pro's who use PS on a regular basis, as I used to, which is to say, four or more hours five or six days a week, don't find the program difficult at all.
That's true to a certain extent. But remember this; people get used to the way something works.
Ha ha ha ha ha!! This is the exact same argument the MS-DOS users made when the Mac (and Windows) came out. "Real men" take it on the chin and learn the hard way to do it because it's more powerful.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Photographers don't need 80% of what's in Photoshop. They just don't. Take a look at the Photoshop page at Adobe:
Quote:
Find out how Photoshop meets the special requirements of professionals in the following industries.
Photography
Graphic design
Engineers and architects
Scientists and healthcare professionals
Film and video
Photography is just one small facet of what Photoshop does. Why does a photographer need all that complexity?
Easy: They don't.
On top of that, Photoshop has evolved over many years. It's never been revamped. There's no cohesion: ACR and Bridge are add-ons, and they feel like it.
People "like" Photoshop they way they "liked" DOS: They put in all that blood, sweat, and tears, and are afraid of losing that investment in time. (Been there, done that myself.)
Put a photographer who's moving over to digital in front of Photoshop and put him/her in front of Aperture, and where do you think he/she will get more done?
[B]Ha ha ha ha ha!! This is the exact same argument the MS-DOS users made when the Mac (and Windows) came out. "Real men" take it on the chin and learn the hard way to do it because it's more powerful.
That's not the point, there are plenty of women using it as well, such as my 14 year old daughter. She's used it for 3 years. If she can do it, so can you.
Quote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Photographers don't need 80% of what's in Photoshop. They just don't. Take a look at the Photoshop page at Adobe:
Photography is just one small facet of what Photoshop does. Why does a photographer need all that complexity?
Easy: They don't.
That page seems to have disappeared. I understand that. You're right. Not everyone needs all of the features. I'm not saying that for someone who only needs what Aperture has now, PS is a requirement. I've never said that. I've never said that PS is focussed on the exact same area as Aperture is aiming at either.
What I'm saying is that Aperture is a simple program. Simple programs can have simple interfaces. Complex ones need complex interfaces. People who need a complex program to do their work learn how to use it. That' all. If someone finds that Aperture does all that they need, fine. But, id they start to use it and find that it doesn't, then they will go to PS. That's not hard to understand.
Actually, for the same functions that PS and Aperture share, PS isn't harder to use at all.
But, right now, Aperture lacks features that many photographers use for the highest quality work. It's funny, but MacWorld came in today. One of the articles is about PS's HDR feature. This is something that many of us have been asking Adobe for quite a while. Now that it's in the program, more and more people are using it.
I like some of the features that Aperture has. If Apple fixes the many problems it also has, it should do well. But it isn't unique in its parts. Apple has taken ideas and features from a number of programs. The unique part of it is that no other program right now, has ALL of these features in one place.
Quote:
On top of that, Photoshop has evolved over many years. It's never been revamped. There's no cohesion: ACR and Bridge are add-ons, and they feel like it.
That's not true. PS was rewritten almost from the ground up, starting with 4.5, and finishing with 5. ACR and Bridge are new. You think Adobe has no more plans for them? Do you think that they will remain static?
Just as Apple took ideas from PS, such as Hilight/Shadows, Adobe will take from Aperture. And then Apple will take from PS again, and 'round we go. Other programs will partake in the banquet as well, and everything will get better.
Quote:
People "like" Photoshop they way they "liked" DOS: They put in all that blood, sweat, and tears, and are afraid of losing that investment in time. (Been there, done that myself.)
That's not fair at all. It also isn't correct. Anything that you do with Aperture that involves image correction can be done in PS as easily as in Aperture. And right now, those features in PS outclass Aperture in quality of results.
Quote:
Put a photographer who's moving over to digital in front of Photoshop and put him/her in front of Aperture, and where do you think he/she will get more done?
That's just your opinion. You don't know that to be true. If I show that person what they can do with their images in PS vs. Aperture, they may very well rush to buy a copy of PS instead.
The fact is that photographers can buy much simpler and cheaper programs than PS to do their work. Many of my customers did just (photographers are ever a cheap lot!) that! But after a while most would graduate to PS because it gives far more control over their images. And over time they find that they want to do more with them.
So, sure, for the guys who do basic straightfoward work, Aperture is fine. But for anyone else, it might not be.
I'll tell you this. Many of those on the Mac who use PS will also use Aperture.
And most of those on the Mac using Aperture will also use PS.
Hopefully there'll be another update at MWSF06, or perhaps 10.4.4 will fix some things, since some of the docs have this comment, which often means an update is coming:
> This document will be updated as more information becomes available.
Hopefully there'll be another update at MWSF06, or perhaps 10.4.4 will fix some things, since some of the docs have this comment, which often means an update is coming:
> This document will be updated as more information becomes available.
Apple is at least doing a good job of documenting problems, and providing some workarounds.
I'm hoping that it is indicative of them working on fixes for most of them shortly.
Now let me tell you my view on Aperture's future. I predict that Aperture will go on to become an extremely successful product, perhaps even the dominant application for professional photographers in the coming years. No, this is not just the Kool-Aid talking. I'd be a lot more pessimistic about Aperture's prospects if we hadn't just seen the very same scenario play out over the past few years with Final Cut Pro.
and he concludes with:
Quote:
In short, I'm bullish on Aperture. Consider all of your feelings about Final Cut Pro 5 today. I predict Aperture will have a similar reputation when it hits version 5. In the meantime, there will be pain and missteps and many more mixed-to-negative reviews. But I believe Apple will stay the course, and mold Aperture into the extraordinary application that version 1.0 only hints at.
I feel similarly, although I don't think it'll take 5 versions to be a dramatic product.
I feel similarly, although I don't think it'll take 5 versions to be a dramatic product.
That is what we are ALL hoping for, in the future, for this product, is it not?
However, we can only discuss what is here NOW. We can only discuss the rather lame 1.0.1 update, which didn't even fix some of the problems it was put out to fix.
Let's look at the possibility of Thinksecret's announcement, and wonder if Apple has been piling major resources into it (if it really does exist (TWO Quatro 4500 boards?)).
That is what we are ALL hoping for, in the future, for this product, is it not?
However, we can only discuss what is here NOW. We can only discuss the rather lame 1.0.1 update, which didn't even fix some of the problems it was put out to fix.
Let's look at the possibility of Thinksecret's announcement, and wonder if Apple has been piling major resources into it (if it really does exist (TWO Quatro 4500 boards?)).
The app is less than 1 month old. Sure...the 1.0.1 update is lame but an update in less than a month is better than what most companies offer. Give it time. If you're expecting all problems to be resolved a month after release, you're asking for too much (even if you think you're think you're entitled to a flawless app at a 500 dollar price tag.)
The ThinkSecret announcement is about FCP (unless I'm not understanding the connection you're making with FCP.)
The app is less than 1 month old. Sure...the 1.0.1 update is lame but an update in less than a month is better than what most companies offer. Give it time. If you're expecting all problems to be resolved a month after release, you're asking for too much (even if you think you're think you're entitled to a flawless app at a 500 dollar price tag.)
The ThinkSecret announcement is about FCP (unless I'm not understanding the connection you're making with FCP.)
I know it's a month or so old. I'm always comparing it to FCP, because everyone in the industry is comparing it to FCP.
What we are comparing is the ver. 1.0 products, and where Apple took them. In the first update to FCP, Apple made several major fixes, and added several features that had been asked for. The Aperture 1.0.1 update didn't come close to that.
So, we are following this to see if Apple can, or will, follow that very aggressive schedule they followed for FCP.
The article from TS indicated that Apple has a MAJOR product(s) coming out in a short time. If so, it could affect the number of people on the Aperture project. Apple might, rightfully so, consider that such an important hi-end product requires more resources than they can give to the Aperture team. Some might even be pulled off the project, for a while.
If this article is true, these products will change the editing landscape. There is no doubt about that. But hi-end product releases like this MUST be ready to go from the beginning. Avid is a tough competitor. THEY are the standard. They have also put several other competitors out of business over the past few years. Apple can't tread falsely when going head to head here. If these products are real, they can result in a vast increase in sales to the video production indusrty. This is in an area where the average turn-key product is between $20,000 and $100,000.
That's why I was making references to these products.
I know it's a month or so old. I'm always comparing it to FCP, because everyone in the industry is comparing it to FCP.
What we are comparing is the ver. 1.0 products, and where Apple took them. In the first update to FCP, Apple made several major fixes, and added several features that had been asked for. The Aperture 1.0.1 update didn't come close to that.
So, we are following this to see if Apple can, or will, follow that very aggressive schedule they followed for FCP.
Hmm...ok I see what you mean. But did FCP receive major fixes and several feature in a 0.0.x update within the month it was released? I think we'll have to wait a few months before we see any serious bug fixes and changes to Aperture. Apple devs can code fast I'm sure...but not *that* fast.
When comparing to FCP you have to remember that Apple bought the application from Macromedia, then continued to work on it. It probably took far more time to bring FCP to market as compared to Aperture.
Hmm...ok I see what you mean. But did FCP receive major fixes and several feature in a 0.0.x update within the month it was released? I think we'll have to wait a few months before we see any serious bug fixes and changes to Aperture. Apple devs can code fast I'm sure...but not *that* fast.
Yes, it did.
In fact, everyone was surprised at how aggressive Apple was. They kept fixing problems and adding the features that reviewers lamented about, one after the other. When it got to ver. 1.5, people were saying that it looked better than most ver. 3 products. Actually, several reviews of the 1.0 product stated that it didn't look like a ver. one product. Apple added MAJOR features to the ver.1 product for free, that most people were saying that they expected to pay for in ver. 2!
This is why I'm concerned about this. I want to see those same aggressive moves on Apple's part.
The problem here is that it's stuck in a VERY bad area of timing.
Look what's happening. Mactels are coming out soon. Whether that's January or June, it still an area of intense work and concentration for Apple. If TS is correct about FCP Extreme, this is a product intro that FAR eclipses Aperture in importance, though I'm sure that there will be some here who disagree with that. Then we will see Leopard later this year as well.
Where does that leave this on their list of priorities?
Remember that the same thing happened to 10.4. It got squeezed out before Apple would have released it under any other circumstances. But the announcement of the Mactels had to have exclusive stage time at the dev. conf. last June. So they had to get it out earlier. Enough so, so that by the time of the conf. it would be old news. That led to a buggier release that was most likely planned.
We all fought about that release date, but in hindsight it seemed obvious to me.
Apple wanted this out for the Pro Photo Expo here in NYC. But did they have the manpower to really do it justice? I don't think so. I could see some problems with the program at the show, but it was under Apple's control, so we were limited to what we could see, or do.
The problems I saw, and some odd properties of the program I couldn't quite put my finger on, have proved to be real.
That's fine. But, now Apple has to get it together. They can't forget it just because they have bigger fish on the line.
The problem here is that it's stuck in a VERY bad area of timing.
...
Where does that leave this on their list of priorities?
Out of the left side of your mouth you say, "I want Aperture to succeed" but out of the right side of your mouth you spread this FUD crap.
Pure, 100%, unadulterated FUD.
The best way to spread FUD is to pose unanswerable questions. It's uncertain, so people can't fight the question.
FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD. Pure FUD.
Now, if we get back to reality, there are some interesting things here. It's clearly true that Aperture was rushed. I mean, where's the beautiful manual that products like FCP and DVD SP have?
But rather than FUD, maybe this is good news. Maybe Apple has a Universal Binary waiting in the wings, and they can't foist the manual and universal binary on unsuspecting consumers until they actually *announce* the Macintels in a few days.
Maybe Aperture 1.5 will be announced at MWSF? (OK, now I'm doing positive FUD, also known as "spin"! ) Maybe it'll be a universal binary, and a free manual will ship, too? Who knows?
But clearly Apple is putting a *lot* of effort into Aperture. They have to be, because this will turn into war with Adobe & Microsoft. Apple has to make it work.
If Apple weren't putting a *lot* of effort into Aperture, they would have just come out with a me-too product, like a Photoshop Elements clone or something like the lame new Microsoft graphics tools. Nothing innovative there. Compare that to loupes & light tables.
Comments
Originally posted by a_greer
I have said it before, I will say it again, if you are a PRO, or an orginization who relies on your software to do what it is that makes you money, NEVER select a tool that is version 1.0 to be the core of your workflow because 99% of the time it is too inmature, apature is a great example of this. so was Final cut Pro, just wait till 2.0 and you will see a world of differance, and by 3, you may not recognise it.
Can we, and Apple afford to wait another two years until it reaches ver. 3?
I found FCP to be much better at ver. 1.0.1 than Aperture seems to be. Apple also updated that sucker on a constant basis. It seemed to have poured over each and every review, and fixed all the problems they found, and added many of the featurers by ver. 1.5 six or so months later.
I've said that if apple does that, they'll be fine. But if they don't, they may not get another chance. If the rep sx months down the line is still as bad as it is, people will just avoid it, and not give it another chance.
Apple also has far more on their plate now, with the switchover, than they had then. They may not have the resources to do it until later, if at all.
Originally posted by melgross
Can we, and Apple afford to wait another two years until it reaches ver. 3?
Can we, and Adobe, afford to wait another two years until PS/ACR/Bridge have a decent user interface?
Will Adobe apps *ever* have a decent user interface?
Originally posted by bikertwin
Can we, and Adobe, afford to wait another two years until PS/ACR/Bridge have a decent user interface?
Will Adobe apps *ever* have a decent user interface?
If PS was new, and no one used it, like Aperture, your comments might be meaningful. But, as you know very well, millions of people use it every day.
I also know that you are being your usual self here about this.
Adobe's interface is liked very much by the vast majority of its users, even if you don't seem to like it.
a) not releasing
b) releasing too late
c) releasing too buggy
because they just have got their hands full with milking their cash cow... And I don't blame them, I would too. Damn, why did they come up with the ipod and itunes store... it's not good for the weird people !
Originally posted by melgross
If PS was new, and no one used it, like Aperture, your comments might be meaningful. But, as you know very well, millions of people use it every day.
I also know that you are being your usual self here about this.
Adobe's interface is liked very much by the vast majority of its users, even if you don't seem to like it.
Surely it works both ways. If someone doesn't place a lot of importance on user-interface, they'll buy Photoshop. If someone doesn't care about some of the Aperture bugs, they'll buy Aperture.
Aperture offers something that's never been done before...a full workflow for photographers. Bugs won't stop it from being popular.
Heck Windows is popular and has tons of bugs.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Surely it works both ways. If someone doesn't place a lot of importance on user-interface, they'll buy Photoshop. If someone doesn't care about some of the Aperture bugs, they'll buy Aperture.
Aperture offers something that's never been done before...a full workflow for photographers. Bugs won't stop it from being popular.
Heck Windows is popular and has tons of bugs.
That's true to a certain extent. But remember this; people get used to the way something works.
Back in the "old days" when XYWrite was the biggest WP, people studied it, took courses on how to use it, and loved it because of its power.
It was a tough program to use. There were at least a couple of hundred two key combo's that you needed to learn in order to really use the program.
But the expression in those days was that the first WP that you learned was always the one you liked best. Gee, I wonder why?
PS is far better than that of course. But consider that PS also has hundreds of elements in it, and you can understand why it is complex. There simply isn't any way to make a program as versatile as PS is, simple.
I think that I can guarantee that if Aperture ever gets as many elements in it as PS has, it will be far more complex to use than it is now. If Apple keeps it as simple as it is now, and doesn't put more capability into it, then it can remain simple.
Please let's not start our argument about what Aperture can do vs. PS because I'm saying this, but Apple has stated quite clearly that Aperture is NOT a replacement for PS.
If it ever does become one, however, it will gain a great deal of complexity in its interface as well. There is simply no way to add those vast numbers of controls without also adding complexity to the interface.
I use CAD programs as well. There are programs for the home user that have fairly simple interfaces, and are easy to use. But the professional programs are vastly more complex, because they have to be. Several of these programs literally have thousands of commands, and dozens of menu's. Menu's within menu's. You just have to learn the program.
The same thing is true of 3D programs. The easy ones are too simple for professional use, and the professional ones are too complex for casual users. These programs can take many months to learn well enough to actually be productive.
But that's not the fault of the programs. It's the nature of the beast.
Most pro's who use PS on a regular basis, as I used to, which is to say, four or more hours five or six days a week, don't find the program difficult at all.
Originally posted by melgross
That's true to a certain extent. But remember this; people get used to the way something works.
Ha ha ha ha ha!! This is the exact same argument the MS-DOS users made when the Mac (and Windows) came out. "Real men" take it on the chin and learn the hard way to do it because it's more powerful.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Photographers don't need 80% of what's in Photoshop. They just don't. Take a look at the Photoshop page at Adobe:
Find out how Photoshop meets the special requirements of professionals in the following industries.
Photography
Graphic design
Engineers and architects
Scientists and healthcare professionals
Film and video
Photography is just one small facet of what Photoshop does. Why does a photographer need all that complexity?
Easy: They don't.
On top of that, Photoshop has evolved over many years. It's never been revamped. There's no cohesion: ACR and Bridge are add-ons, and they feel like it.
People "like" Photoshop they way they "liked" DOS: They put in all that blood, sweat, and tears, and are afraid of losing that investment in time. (Been there, done that myself.)
Put a photographer who's moving over to digital in front of Photoshop and put him/her in front of Aperture, and where do you think he/she will get more done?
Originally posted by bikertwin
[B]Ha ha ha ha ha!! This is the exact same argument the MS-DOS users made when the Mac (and Windows) came out. "Real men" take it on the chin and learn the hard way to do it because it's more powerful.
That's not the point, there are plenty of women using it as well, such as my 14 year old daughter. She's used it for 3 years. If she can do it, so can you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Photographers don't need 80% of what's in Photoshop. They just don't. Take a look at the Photoshop page at Adobe:
Photography is just one small facet of what Photoshop does. Why does a photographer need all that complexity?
Easy: They don't.
That page seems to have disappeared. I understand that. You're right. Not everyone needs all of the features. I'm not saying that for someone who only needs what Aperture has now, PS is a requirement. I've never said that. I've never said that PS is focussed on the exact same area as Aperture is aiming at either.
What I'm saying is that Aperture is a simple program. Simple programs can have simple interfaces. Complex ones need complex interfaces. People who need a complex program to do their work learn how to use it. That' all. If someone finds that Aperture does all that they need, fine. But, id they start to use it and find that it doesn't, then they will go to PS. That's not hard to understand.
Actually, for the same functions that PS and Aperture share, PS isn't harder to use at all.
But, right now, Aperture lacks features that many photographers use for the highest quality work. It's funny, but MacWorld came in today. One of the articles is about PS's HDR feature. This is something that many of us have been asking Adobe for quite a while. Now that it's in the program, more and more people are using it.
I like some of the features that Aperture has. If Apple fixes the many problems it also has, it should do well. But it isn't unique in its parts. Apple has taken ideas and features from a number of programs. The unique part of it is that no other program right now, has ALL of these features in one place.
On top of that, Photoshop has evolved over many years. It's never been revamped. There's no cohesion: ACR and Bridge are add-ons, and they feel like it.
That's not true. PS was rewritten almost from the ground up, starting with 4.5, and finishing with 5. ACR and Bridge are new. You think Adobe has no more plans for them? Do you think that they will remain static?
Just as Apple took ideas from PS, such as Hilight/Shadows, Adobe will take from Aperture. And then Apple will take from PS again, and 'round we go. Other programs will partake in the banquet as well, and everything will get better.
People "like" Photoshop they way they "liked" DOS: They put in all that blood, sweat, and tears, and are afraid of losing that investment in time. (Been there, done that myself.)
That's not fair at all. It also isn't correct. Anything that you do with Aperture that involves image correction can be done in PS as easily as in Aperture. And right now, those features in PS outclass Aperture in quality of results.
Put a photographer who's moving over to digital in front of Photoshop and put him/her in front of Aperture, and where do you think he/she will get more done?
That's just your opinion. You don't know that to be true. If I show that person what they can do with their images in PS vs. Aperture, they may very well rush to buy a copy of PS instead.
The fact is that photographers can buy much simpler and cheaper programs than PS to do their work. Many of my customers did just (photographers are ever a cheap lot!) that! But after a while most would graduate to PS because it gives far more control over their images. And over time they find that they want to do more with them.
So, sure, for the guys who do basic straightfoward work, Aperture is fine. But for anyone else, it might not be.
I'll tell you this. Many of those on the Mac who use PS will also use Aperture.
And most of those on the Mac using Aperture will also use PS.
There's no way around it.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
Originally posted by melgross
Todays xlr8yourmac.com has Apple's latest Knowledge Base docs on Aperture linked. Scroll down the page slightly to see them.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
Yeah, they were on macsurfer.com a few days ago.
Hopefully there'll be another update at MWSF06, or perhaps 10.4.4 will fix some things, since some of the docs have this comment, which often means an update is coming:
> This document will be updated as more information becomes available.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Yeah, they were on macsurfer.com a few days ago.
Hopefully there'll be another update at MWSF06, or perhaps 10.4.4 will fix some things, since some of the docs have this comment, which often means an update is coming:
> This document will be updated as more information becomes available.
Apple is at least doing a good job of documenting problems, and providing some workarounds.
I'm hoping that it is indicative of them working on fixes for most of them shortly.
It's really too bad that my feelings about performance seem to be coming true. Even worse than I thought.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/1/2/2286
Originally posted by melgross
Unfortunately, we still have to cope with this.
It's really too bad that my feelings about performance seem to be coming true. Even worse than I thought.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/1/2/2286
And what did Mr. Syracusa say? Namely:
Now let me tell you my view on Aperture's future. I predict that Aperture will go on to become an extremely successful product, perhaps even the dominant application for professional photographers in the coming years. No, this is not just the Kool-Aid talking. I'd be a lot more pessimistic about Aperture's prospects if we hadn't just seen the very same scenario play out over the past few years with Final Cut Pro.
and he concludes with:
In short, I'm bullish on Aperture. Consider all of your feelings about Final Cut Pro 5 today. I predict Aperture will have a similar reputation when it hits version 5. In the meantime, there will be pain and missteps and many more mixed-to-negative reviews. But I believe Apple will stay the course, and mold Aperture into the extraordinary application that version 1.0 only hints at.
I feel similarly, although I don't think it'll take 5 versions to be a dramatic product.
Originally posted by bikertwin
And what did Mr. Syracusa say? Namely:
and he concludes with:
I feel similarly, although I don't think it'll take 5 versions to be a dramatic product.
That is what we are ALL hoping for, in the future, for this product, is it not?
However, we can only discuss what is here NOW. We can only discuss the rather lame 1.0.1 update, which didn't even fix some of the problems it was put out to fix.
Let's look at the possibility of Thinksecret's announcement, and wonder if Apple has been piling major resources into it (if it really does exist (TWO Quatro 4500 boards?)).
Originally posted by melgross
That is what we are ALL hoping for, in the future, for this product, is it not?
However, we can only discuss what is here NOW. We can only discuss the rather lame 1.0.1 update, which didn't even fix some of the problems it was put out to fix.
Let's look at the possibility of Thinksecret's announcement, and wonder if Apple has been piling major resources into it (if it really does exist (TWO Quatro 4500 boards?)).
The app is less than 1 month old. Sure...the 1.0.1 update is lame but an update in less than a month is better than what most companies offer. Give it time. If you're expecting all problems to be resolved a month after release, you're asking for too much (even if you think you're think you're entitled to a flawless app at a 500 dollar price tag.)
The ThinkSecret announcement is about FCP (unless I'm not understanding the connection you're making with FCP.)
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The app is less than 1 month old. Sure...the 1.0.1 update is lame but an update in less than a month is better than what most companies offer. Give it time. If you're expecting all problems to be resolved a month after release, you're asking for too much (even if you think you're think you're entitled to a flawless app at a 500 dollar price tag.)
The ThinkSecret announcement is about FCP (unless I'm not understanding the connection you're making with FCP.)
I know it's a month or so old. I'm always comparing it to FCP, because everyone in the industry is comparing it to FCP.
What we are comparing is the ver. 1.0 products, and where Apple took them. In the first update to FCP, Apple made several major fixes, and added several features that had been asked for. The Aperture 1.0.1 update didn't come close to that.
So, we are following this to see if Apple can, or will, follow that very aggressive schedule they followed for FCP.
The article from TS indicated that Apple has a MAJOR product(s) coming out in a short time. If so, it could affect the number of people on the Aperture project. Apple might, rightfully so, consider that such an important hi-end product requires more resources than they can give to the Aperture team. Some might even be pulled off the project, for a while.
If this article is true, these products will change the editing landscape. There is no doubt about that. But hi-end product releases like this MUST be ready to go from the beginning. Avid is a tough competitor. THEY are the standard. They have also put several other competitors out of business over the past few years. Apple can't tread falsely when going head to head here. If these products are real, they can result in a vast increase in sales to the video production indusrty. This is in an area where the average turn-key product is between $20,000 and $100,000.
That's why I was making references to these products.
Originally posted by melgross
I know it's a month or so old. I'm always comparing it to FCP, because everyone in the industry is comparing it to FCP.
What we are comparing is the ver. 1.0 products, and where Apple took them. In the first update to FCP, Apple made several major fixes, and added several features that had been asked for. The Aperture 1.0.1 update didn't come close to that.
So, we are following this to see if Apple can, or will, follow that very aggressive schedule they followed for FCP.
Hmm...ok I see what you mean. But did FCP receive major fixes and several feature in a 0.0.x update within the month it was released? I think we'll have to wait a few months before we see any serious bug fixes and changes to Aperture. Apple devs can code fast I'm sure...but not *that* fast.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Hmm...ok I see what you mean. But did FCP receive major fixes and several feature in a 0.0.x update within the month it was released? I think we'll have to wait a few months before we see any serious bug fixes and changes to Aperture. Apple devs can code fast I'm sure...but not *that* fast.
Yes, it did.
In fact, everyone was surprised at how aggressive Apple was. They kept fixing problems and adding the features that reviewers lamented about, one after the other. When it got to ver. 1.5, people were saying that it looked better than most ver. 3 products. Actually, several reviews of the 1.0 product stated that it didn't look like a ver. one product. Apple added MAJOR features to the ver.1 product for free, that most people were saying that they expected to pay for in ver. 2!
This is why I'm concerned about this. I want to see those same aggressive moves on Apple's part.
The problem here is that it's stuck in a VERY bad area of timing.
Look what's happening. Mactels are coming out soon. Whether that's January or June, it still an area of intense work and concentration for Apple. If TS is correct about FCP Extreme, this is a product intro that FAR eclipses Aperture in importance, though I'm sure that there will be some here who disagree with that. Then we will see Leopard later this year as well.
Where does that leave this on their list of priorities?
Remember that the same thing happened to 10.4. It got squeezed out before Apple would have released it under any other circumstances. But the announcement of the Mactels had to have exclusive stage time at the dev. conf. last June. So they had to get it out earlier. Enough so, so that by the time of the conf. it would be old news. That led to a buggier release that was most likely planned.
We all fought about that release date, but in hindsight it seemed obvious to me.
Apple wanted this out for the Pro Photo Expo here in NYC. But did they have the manpower to really do it justice? I don't think so. I could see some problems with the program at the show, but it was under Apple's control, so we were limited to what we could see, or do.
The problems I saw, and some odd properties of the program I couldn't quite put my finger on, have proved to be real.
That's fine. But, now Apple has to get it together. They can't forget it just because they have bigger fish on the line.
Originally posted by melgross
The problem here is that it's stuck in a VERY bad area of timing.
...
Where does that leave this on their list of priorities?
Out of the left side of your mouth you say, "I want Aperture to succeed" but out of the right side of your mouth you spread this FUD crap.
Pure, 100%, unadulterated FUD.
The best way to spread FUD is to pose unanswerable questions. It's uncertain, so people can't fight the question.
FUD. FUD, FUD, FUD. Pure FUD.
Now, if we get back to reality, there are some interesting things here. It's clearly true that Aperture was rushed. I mean, where's the beautiful manual that products like FCP and DVD SP have?
But rather than FUD, maybe this is good news. Maybe Apple has a Universal Binary waiting in the wings, and they can't foist the manual and universal binary on unsuspecting consumers until they actually *announce* the Macintels in a few days.
Maybe Aperture 1.5 will be announced at MWSF? (OK, now I'm doing positive FUD, also known as "spin"!
But clearly Apple is putting a *lot* of effort into Aperture. They have to be, because this will turn into war with Adobe & Microsoft. Apple has to make it work.
If Apple weren't putting a *lot* of effort into Aperture, they would have just come out with a me-too product, like a Photoshop Elements clone or something like the lame new Microsoft graphics tools. Nothing innovative there. Compare that to loupes & light tables.