I am not a photographer but I do some and I don't think any of them use Aperture. Aren't there better solutions out there? I'd think if they are abandoning it that the number of customers aren't high enough to warrant the expense cost of development.
True, most of the photographers I know use Lightroom. That in itself doesn't make it better. More people use PowerPoint than Keynote, and that certainly doesn't make PowerPoint better (on the contrary - without exception those who have used both say PowerPoint is a festering pile of crap).
I suspect most people use Lightroom because they are already familiar with Photoshop, just as most people use PowerPoint because they are familiar with Microsoft and simply are unaware of alternatives.
1. Apple should just come out and say is that they are abandoning the professional photo software market entirely.
2. I find this decision strange. With the introduction of the new Mac Pro, Apple seemed to have affirmed its commitment to the pro market. Abandoning one of their pro apps just doesn't make much sense.
1. We have no exact details about what will replace Aperture. So it wouldn't make much sense for them to declare that.
2. Apple introduced the Mac Pro in order to allow Pros to run resource-intensive software in an OS X environment. What they do with *their own* Pro apps has no connection to this.
First, none of this should be a surprise to anyone. The bigger surprise is that Apple waiting until weeks after WWDC to give details on this, especially since Craig Federigui spoke briefly about it during the Photos demo. Even though he didn't address it then, it was evident that Aperture's days as a separate app were numbered.
Why? First, the renaming of "iPhoto" which is the old OS X name to "Photos" which is the iOS name is no accident. Aperture was a great idea at the time, but Lightroom has pretty much commanded most of the market share for years now and Apple hasn't done a meaningful update in four years (an eternity). Also, it's clear that iPhoto needed a ground up rewrite as well. It began when cloud storage didn't exist and photos were a lot smaller in file size. When the latest cloud photo features for family were announced, iPhoto wasn't a part of it and the reason was that it's replacement wasn't ready.
I'm expecting that the new Photos app will have some Aperture features, but maybe not all of them, at least not at launch. Over time we'll probably see most of them again, but Photos will be solidly a consumer app and not marketed to the Pros. I'm sure some Pros will still use it anyway.
True, most of the photographers I know use Lightroom. That in itself doesn't make it better. More people use PowerPoint than Keynote, and that certainly doesn't make PowerPoint better (on the contrary - without exception those who have used both say PowerPoint is a festering pile of crap).
I suspect most people use Lightroom because they are already familiar with Photoshop, just as most people use PowerPoint because they are familiar with Microsoft and simply are unaware of alternatives.
Aperture hasn't been "better" than Lightroom for ages.
I find this decision strange. With the introduction of the new Mac Pro, Apple seemed to have affirmed its commitment to the pro market. Abandoning one of their pro apps just doesn't make much sense. I could see if they decided to discontinue the Mac Pro and all pro apps entirely to focus only on consumers. But, that's not what they did.
It's too early to know for sure, but the new Photos app, coming next year, may be simple enough for consumers and powerful enough for professionals. Why maintain two separate applications if a single well-designed application can serve both markets? It's a question worth waiting for.
Glad I moved to Lightroom, not that I trust Adobe....
You and me both, one of the reasons why I moved away from Logic, I fear with so much attention going to GarageBand it's only a matter of time till they stop development on that as well.
Me personally, I'm very pleased to see it.. because it shows that Apple is not equating making more money with pleasing more people. The only reason behind shuttering this is that they're honing their resources, because of a clear vision. I didn't use aperture, but my kind condolences to those who did.
I've been using Aperture since 2006. And I am often amused at my fellow longtime users' willingness to make excuses for Apple regarding Aperture. Let's face it. The application, though usable, has been languishing for some time. I am not surprised at all that it will be discontinued. I've spent the past few months trying to figure out how to handle the legacy library of 80,000 images I have in Aperture.
I respect Apple's right to discontinue the application if it is no longer successful enough to warrant development. I had to leave Aperture because once it was updated to 3.5, it began crashing regularly on my 2013 27" iMac with 32 GB RAM. It turns out the crashes on that machine and the MacBook Pro Retina were related to the NVIDIA card in those new machines. I've since moved to a Mac Pro for my image editing. With its high end AMD video cards, that issue was solved. But, I had already began moving to another digital asset manager.
The lesson for me is that Apple let so much time pass without communicating their intent about this application, I will never put all of my eggs in that basket again. For sure, I love Mac OS X and many Apple products. They just handled this issue with Aperture poorly in my opinion.
Exactly four days ago I had to make a choice between Aperture and Lightroom. It took me about five minutes to make the decision after I reviewed all the negative feedback about Aperture and Apple's lack of keeping it current. I saw the writing on the wall.
I would have preferred Apple's solution, and I'm certainly not a fan of Adobe's subscription model. Nonetheless, I decided to go Adobe's route for the time being.
I wonder if that means Final Cut Pro will eventually meet the same fate.
Long-term, Apple needs software partners. They will probably benefit more from having 3rd party pro apps on OS X than they would if they sold pro apps themselves. For example, as much as Adobe's bloatware sucks, it's become the de facto standard. Adobe is the Microsoft of creatives.
Apple needs their own pro suite, because Adobe is a lowest common denominator company not pushing the envelope in any way, focused on a non-standard GUI and cross-platform software.
iOS reminds me daily more of MS-DOS with task switcher multitasking: each App has its own UI, the OS X UI consistency is also a thing of the past. We might as well be using Java apps at this point.
Apple needs to reinvigorate the platform by having a key product in each core software category that raises the bar and sets minimal standards for the platform, creating heat on sloths like Adobe.
alternatively, instead of wasting money on a brand that makes shitty headphones, buy Adobe, retool their Software, make it Mac-only, and re-establish the Mac as the premier content creation platform.
I don't know for a fact, but I've got the feeling Aperture adoption was pretty modest. Whenever I tried it (I did a few times) it felt like a big dinosaur, where as Lightroom felt more like a straight app that just get the work done. I remember picking Lightroom over Aperture for the superior chroma noise reduction. For any serious Aperture user though, this is obviously a serious blow. It'd be like if they quit developing FCPX for me.
What will be the difference between Photos for OS X and iPhoto on the Mac?
There is no more iPhoto on the Mac. That’s the difference.
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
2. Apple introduced the Mac Pro in order to allow Pros to run resource-intensive software in an OS X environment. What they do with *their own* Pro apps has no connection to this.
BS. Does it seem at all like Apple to say, “Yes, we’re known for building both hardware and software that works together seamlessly and in a way that absolutely no other company can do because we control both and can build one to compliment the other, SO NOW GO USE SOFTWARE FROM THIS THIRD PARTY WHO IS EXPLICITLY KNOWN FOR BUILDING THE WORST, LEAST OPTIMIZED SOFTWARE ON OUR PLATFORM”?!
Originally Posted by sflocal
I wonder if that means Final Cut Pro will eventually meet the same fate.
Total nonsense. Apple has to be planning something here.
I am not, NOT happy about this at all. I use Aperture, and I use Capture NX2. Both are being discontinued simultaneously. Is there another DAM application with face recognition? How many of the Aperture features will show up in Photos? Will it get the full treatment on DAM but leave the nitty gritty of specialized raw conversion to others, a solution I could live with? Or do we can a bunch of dumbed down, canned half features, a solution that leaves the market without a single effective all in one DAM solution?
What now? Photo Mechanic? Photo Ninja on the back end?
Oh no. The 3 people still running Aperture will be heartbroken. The rest have "already moved to Lightroom" to be closer to Adobe, or are just stopping by to post the expected "Apple doesn't care about pros" meme.
Based upon recent history with Apple apps, the first version of Photos probably won't even have all of the features of iPhoto, let alone Aperture. Apple has a long history of abandoning apps or replacing them with seriously feature lacking versions. Just one example: I was a long time MacWrite Pro user, an app that was superior to Word and WordPerfect in it's day. Apple abandoned it, pushed users to Apple Works (that was the point that I moved to Word, say what you will about MS, they don't generally abandon users), abandoned Works, introduced Pages, improved it for a few versions, then re-wrote it with less features, now attempting to improve it again... I'm hoping that they don't mess up the Photos app too badly, as I do rely on it for personal use. Bottom line, never rely on Apple apps for business...
But if this is the case, Apple needs NOW to identify the general features that are earmarked for Photos or at least indicate the areas in which nothing will be lost from Aperture's feature set. No-one will trust them otherwise. They don't deserve it. I'm not going to sit around for a year with Aperture only to find that Photos drops two-thirds of the sorting and IPTC features.
So, if I've gone through my 'faces' part of the iPhoto program & labeled each photo with the person's (family member's) correct name, & the photos are currently stored on my computer, the new system will migrate all of my identified photos to the cloud? Seems like in would have already done the facial recognition work. Will my photos be rejected because I failed to include or stripped off geotags as well?
I don't think we'll lose functionality from Aperture. It'll just be in a new package.
There is no way at all that Apple will put Aperture's functionality into the Photos app. Aperture does shedloads of stuff that iPhoto doesn't do and Photos is going to be much more of a replacement for iPhoto. There will be some Aperture features but never all of them and they will never restore them. They wouldn't be working with Adobe to allow Lightroom to import Aperture/iPhoto libraries otherwise.
Comments
I am not a photographer but I do some and I don't think any of them use Aperture. Aren't there better solutions out there? I'd think if they are abandoning it that the number of customers aren't high enough to warrant the expense cost of development.
True, most of the photographers I know use Lightroom. That in itself doesn't make it better. More people use PowerPoint than Keynote, and that certainly doesn't make PowerPoint better (on the contrary - without exception those who have used both say PowerPoint is a festering pile of crap).
I suspect most people use Lightroom because they are already familiar with Photoshop, just as most people use PowerPoint because they are familiar with Microsoft and simply are unaware of alternatives.
1. Apple should just come out and say is that they are abandoning the professional photo software market entirely.
2. I find this decision strange. With the introduction of the new Mac Pro, Apple seemed to have affirmed its commitment to the pro market. Abandoning one of their pro apps just doesn't make much sense.
1. We have no exact details about what will replace Aperture. So it wouldn't make much sense for them to declare that.
2. Apple introduced the Mac Pro in order to allow Pros to run resource-intensive software in an OS X environment. What they do with *their own* Pro apps has no connection to this.
Apple will have a single photo app.
Pros will move to Adobe.
The remaining 99% of people will be happy with Photos.
First, none of this should be a surprise to anyone. The bigger surprise is that Apple waiting until weeks after WWDC to give details on this, especially since Craig Federigui spoke briefly about it during the Photos demo. Even though he didn't address it then, it was evident that Aperture's days as a separate app were numbered.
Why? First, the renaming of "iPhoto" which is the old OS X name to "Photos" which is the iOS name is no accident. Aperture was a great idea at the time, but Lightroom has pretty much commanded most of the market share for years now and Apple hasn't done a meaningful update in four years (an eternity). Also, it's clear that iPhoto needed a ground up rewrite as well. It began when cloud storage didn't exist and photos were a lot smaller in file size. When the latest cloud photo features for family were announced, iPhoto wasn't a part of it and the reason was that it's replacement wasn't ready.
I'm expecting that the new Photos app will have some Aperture features, but maybe not all of them, at least not at launch. Over time we'll probably see most of them again, but Photos will be solidly a consumer app and not marketed to the Pros. I'm sure some Pros will still use it anyway.
True, most of the photographers I know use Lightroom. That in itself doesn't make it better. More people use PowerPoint than Keynote, and that certainly doesn't make PowerPoint better (on the contrary - without exception those who have used both say PowerPoint is a festering pile of crap).
I suspect most people use Lightroom because they are already familiar with Photoshop, just as most people use PowerPoint because they are familiar with Microsoft and simply are unaware of alternatives.
Aperture hasn't been "better" than Lightroom for ages.
I find this decision strange. With the introduction of the new Mac Pro, Apple seemed to have affirmed its commitment to the pro market. Abandoning one of their pro apps just doesn't make much sense. I could see if they decided to discontinue the Mac Pro and all pro apps entirely to focus only on consumers. But, that's not what they did.
It's too early to know for sure, but the new Photos app, coming next year, may be simple enough for consumers and powerful enough for professionals. Why maintain two separate applications if a single well-designed application can serve both markets? It's a question worth waiting for.
You and me both, one of the reasons why I moved away from Logic, I fear with so much attention going to GarageBand it's only a matter of time till they stop development on that as well.
Me personally, I'm very pleased to see it.. because it shows that Apple is not equating making more money with pleasing more people. The only reason behind shuttering this is that they're honing their resources, because of a clear vision. I didn't use aperture, but my kind condolences to those who did.
I respect Apple's right to discontinue the application if it is no longer successful enough to warrant development. I had to leave Aperture because once it was updated to 3.5, it began crashing regularly on my 2013 27" iMac with 32 GB RAM. It turns out the crashes on that machine and the MacBook Pro Retina were related to the NVIDIA card in those new machines. I've since moved to a Mac Pro for my image editing. With its high end AMD video cards, that issue was solved. But, I had already began moving to another digital asset manager.
The lesson for me is that Apple let so much time pass without communicating their intent about this application, I will never put all of my eggs in that basket again. For sure, I love Mac OS X and many Apple products. They just handled this issue with Aperture poorly in my opinion.
I would have preferred Apple's solution, and I'm certainly not a fan of Adobe's subscription model. Nonetheless, I decided to go Adobe's route for the time being.
I wonder if that means Final Cut Pro will eventually meet the same fate.
Apple needs their own pro suite, because Adobe is a lowest common denominator company not pushing the envelope in any way, focused on a non-standard GUI and cross-platform software.
iOS reminds me daily more of MS-DOS with task switcher multitasking: each App has its own UI, the OS X UI consistency is also a thing of the past. We might as well be using Java apps at this point.
Apple needs to reinvigorate the platform by having a key product in each core software category that raises the bar and sets minimal standards for the platform, creating heat on sloths like Adobe.
alternatively, instead of wasting money on a brand that makes shitty headphones, buy Adobe, retool their Software, make it Mac-only, and re-establish the Mac as the premier content creation platform.
sudo rm -rf/ ADOBE.
There is no more iPhoto on the Mac. That’s the difference.
2. Apple introduced the Mac Pro in order to allow Pros to run resource-intensive software in an OS X environment. What they do with *their own* Pro apps has no connection to this.
BS. Does it seem at all like Apple to say, “Yes, we’re known for building both hardware and software that works together seamlessly and in a way that absolutely no other company can do because we control both and can build one to compliment the other, SO NOW GO USE SOFTWARE FROM THIS THIRD PARTY WHO IS EXPLICITLY KNOWN FOR BUILDING THE WORST, LEAST OPTIMIZED SOFTWARE ON OUR PLATFORM”?!
Total nonsense. Apple has to be planning something here.
What now? Photo Mechanic? Photo Ninja on the back end?
Quite likely THIS ^^^
But if this is the case, Apple needs NOW to identify the general features that are earmarked for Photos or at least indicate the areas in which nothing will be lost from Aperture's feature set. No-one will trust them otherwise. They don't deserve it. I'm not going to sit around for a year with Aperture only to find that Photos drops two-thirds of the sorting and IPTC features.
There is no way at all that Apple will put Aperture's functionality into the Photos app. Aperture does shedloads of stuff that iPhoto doesn't do and Photos is going to be much more of a replacement for iPhoto. There will be some Aperture features but never all of them and they will never restore them. They wouldn't be working with Adobe to allow Lightroom to import Aperture/iPhoto libraries otherwise.