Wow, this is pretty shocking. iPhoto I can definitely understand, keeping both would create too much confusion, redundancy, and complications. But Aperture? Seems that serves a completely different use. It does not even come with OSX, its an optional paid download, so I dont understand the need to eliminate it. There's probably alot we don't know, lately Apple has shown renewed focus on its pro apps, and I dont see them just dropping this with no alternative.
As a hobbyist who uses Aperture weekly, I'm disappointed. Aperture was fairly revolutionary when introduced. Before that, it was basically Photoshop for everything which is overkill in most cases. They let others advance while they stood still. I wonder if Aperture was sacrificed to appease Adobe for Apple effectively killing Flash?
Edit: On the one hand, this is disappointing. On the other hand, Wall Street seems to like it and Apple's stock price bumped on the announcement so I guess that it pays for my transition. Too bad though as I liked the interface.
Old Apple: What Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak imagined beyond imagination. New Apple: What Tim Cook thought HP turn into be before he left? To be fair to Tim though, this was a path began by Steve Jobs; he's just extending it.
The plot does rather remind me of that film, WALL-E, where everything is so dumbed down for people they forget how to even walk.
Seriously though, Adobe products are not intuitive in any way. Even Photoshop Elements, supposedly the simplest of their wares, has no logic behind it and files take up HUGE amounts of space, it's complicated, and the new pay model is scandalous. Why the competition authorities allowed them to buy up Macromedia I'll never know, but Fireworks was a very nice, easy to use graphics product.
The nice thing with Apple software has been that it is constructed by people who know how users think, everything is simple, but (in the past) not dumbed down - just really useful, productive and intuitive. Before iPhoto moved to Faces and Places it was even very quick to use as well - I don't use either and can remove neither either.
I don't actually have Aperture, but I was going to buy it eventually as my library is so big and Aperture allows separate control over Red, Blue and Green shading; I really hope the new Photos app allows this too - but judging from the name I am not hopeful of it containing anything worthwhile at all.
Old Apple: What Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak imagined beyond imagination.
New Apple: What Tim Cook thought HP turn into be before he left? To be fair to Tim though, this was a path began by Steve Jobs; he's just extending it.
If you are to believe Jobs' version of the story there would be no Mac if Woz had his way. We'd all be on Apple ~ 25XLC///8's. Understandably Woz didn't want to abandon the classic platform.
I’ll hold you to that. I hope beyond hope myself that Photos is a replacement to Aperture, but shipping freely with every Mac, I seriously doubt it. I doubt if it will even have RAW support.
4. I hear good things about Lightroom. Which is surreal to me, since everything I have personally experienced from Adobe in recent years has been negative! But it's nice to have options.
I agree with your point. A lot of Adobe software feels very 'old' to me, as though the code base for long-standing features has never been updated. They also take forever to install many files in many places. Lightroom is different: AIUI, it was developed as a new native Cocoa (ie Mac OS X) product; the Windows version has always been a port from the Mac product rather than the usual other way round.
I have been using LR since it was first released as a public beta and I love it. At the time, I evaluated LR against Aperture and concluded that Aperture looked better but was full of bugs (it had a terrible reputation at first, if you remember). Now, I'm a convinced LR person and can't really judge Aperture, though I do use it for photo book creation. LR is superb for a fast, efficient workflow from camera to library to finished picture, however you want to use it. Its print, book, web and slideshow capabilities are rudimentary compared to Aperture/iPhoto. I do hope that the apparent Apple/Adobe co-operation will bring photo stream to LR though.
It's also the case, though Adobe rather hide it, that you can still buy the product outright rather than pay monthly for CC (at least in the UK, I just checked and it's £102 for the current version).
Boo... Although, to be fair, I've thought about moving to Lightroom anyway especially with their new mobile iPad version.
Anyone know how easy it is to migrate one's Aperture library to Lightroom?
There is no migration tool. The easiest and simplest way is to STOP using Aperture at 17:00, and at 17:01 use Lightroom to process your photos. The time is irrelevant, as I was using it to make a point, but none the less, keep Aperture on your Mac for historical purposes but process from the future forward only in LR.
Aperture hasn't been "better" than Lightroom for ages.
Define better? LR has had a better feature set for years. The modular approach is a bit wonky but for the most part LR out performs Aperture in that it does not crash or hang nearly as much.
As somebody who has 30,000+ photos from years of iPhoto use organized into events and albums, I sure hope the organization function in Photos doesn't break this organization, or faces data and other meta data. That would destroy a large portion of my faith in Apple. The organization in the Photos app on iOS is awful and it looks like they are trying to bite off of that.
This is such bad news on so many levels. Apple is loosing it's way if it doesn't understand the flow on importance of keeping Pro's on the platform with class leading native applications. Apple's drip feed updates to Aperture and iWork over the last four years have been a huge mistake. Had those App's been funded properly they could have become mind blowing by now. The been counters seem to be running the show now. Which is a worrying sign because you can't put a price on all the intangible benefits you get from having the pro end of the market. What a shame that Apple throws the towel in to Adobe.
I use Aperture in a mixed environment: photos reside in a managed lib on my SSD, videos are referenced and stored on HDD. I don't think Apple will have options like these carried over from Aperture to this new Photos application, but would love to be surprised. Then again, if they are working on a migration tool to LR I'm not going to hold my breath. Which is a long one anyway; "early next year". The should've handled this better, especially after their TaDa moment they gave to FCP users.
Transitioning to Photos might retain custom metadata, specific to Aperture, but I doubt it will work when moving to LR. RAW updates for new cameras? Doubt it.
I am one of those who has been using Aperture from version 1.0. I hate Lightroom because it imposes a workflow and interface on you that just doesn't make sense to me. I love Aperture and have been hoping upon hope that we would see lens corrections and real non destructive plugin support. I am seriously shocked at this unofficial way of announcing such an important decision. They could have just as well announced this years ago or say so clearly now that photos will be a worthy successor. The description above is just faff!
"crushed" - I too am in the same boat as so many are as of today. I am upset to hear this from a second source opposed to Apple directly. It's time that Apple step up to the plate and tell us who they intend their customers be from ...Pool #1: Consumers of iWhatevers Only or Pool # 2: Prosumers and professionals that require incredibly stable and solid software that their businesses can trust. I tried Lightroom so many times in the hopes i would get it. I never did but I tried. It's one thing to reveal in all its splendour a new MacBook or iPad that blows away the public and defies all established rumours prior to its launch. It's another things to break the chain of trust that is implied with $299 then $199 then $89 upgrades that stake you to a suite or specific application. In fact I like so many have developed a 'trusted' workflow of Importing>tweaking>external filters>exporting > backups that as of today is officially broken and broken hard. And to think I just took delivery of an all-out 27" iMac, 3 TB hardrive with Fusion tech and 16 gig's of ram just to push Aperture even harder than I had already been doing. I feel so let down.
It's also the case, though Adobe rather hide it, that you can still buy the product outright rather than pay monthly for CC (at least in the UK, I just checked and it's £102 for the current version).
[Edit:corrected price]
That's right and even the subscription for Lightroom + Photoshop isn't crazy at around £9 a month. Compared to the cost of most lenses, it's peanuts.
I am surprised but I am excited about the new Photos application for OSX Yosemite - it looks like a slimmed version of Lightroom/Aperture which may be the only thing I need and use photoshop for retouching.
Comments
Maybe room for Photos --> Photos Pro?
As a hobbyist who uses Aperture weekly, I'm disappointed. Aperture was fairly revolutionary when introduced. Before that, it was basically Photoshop for everything which is overkill in most cases. They let others advance while they stood still. I wonder if Aperture was sacrificed to appease Adobe for Apple effectively killing Flash?
Edit: On the one hand, this is disappointing. On the other hand, Wall Street seems to like it and Apple's stock price bumped on the announcement so I guess that it pays for my transition. Too bad though as I liked the interface.
New Apple: What Tim Cook thought HP turn into be before he left? To be fair to Tim though, this was a path began by Steve Jobs; he's just extending it.
The plot does rather remind me of that film, WALL-E, where everything is so dumbed down for people they forget how to even walk.
Seriously though, Adobe products are not intuitive in any way. Even Photoshop Elements, supposedly the simplest of their wares, has no logic behind it and files take up HUGE amounts of space, it's complicated, and the new pay model is scandalous. Why the competition authorities allowed them to buy up Macromedia I'll never know, but Fireworks was a very nice, easy to use graphics product.
The nice thing with Apple software has been that it is constructed by people who know how users think, everything is simple, but (in the past) not dumbed down - just really useful, productive and intuitive. Before iPhoto moved to Faces and Places it was even very quick to use as well - I don't use either and can remove neither either.
I don't actually have Aperture, but I was going to buy it eventually as my library is so big and Aperture allows separate control over Red, Blue and Green shading; I really hope the new Photos app allows this too - but judging from the name I am not hopeful of it containing anything worthwhile at all.
Old Apple: What Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak imagined beyond imagination.
New Apple: What Tim Cook thought HP turn into be before he left? To be fair to Tim though, this was a path began by Steve Jobs; he's just extending it.
If you are to believe Jobs' version of the story there would be no Mac if Woz had his way. We'd all be on Apple ~ 25XLC///8's. Understandably Woz didn't want to abandon the classic platform.
Don't trust Apple's history with migration for photos one bit.
I remember when Lion Server ($19.99) "replaced" Snow Leopard Server ($499 & up).
I was stunned at the level of bugginess in a released product.
That was the biggest waste of $20 in my life.
All the tech firms abandon platforms and infrastructure all the time, but Apple is notorious for burning its "partners".
Products from Synology do this at a fraction of the cost of an Apple-based server.
Apple giving the finger to its pro users once again....
It was posted on TechCrunch.
As for RAW support, Mac OS X supports RAW, so for example, it works in iPhoto.
4. I hear good things about Lightroom. Which is surreal to me, since everything I have personally experienced from Adobe in recent years has been negative! But it's nice to have options.
I agree with your point. A lot of Adobe software feels very 'old' to me, as though the code base for long-standing features has never been updated. They also take forever to install many files in many places. Lightroom is different: AIUI, it was developed as a new native Cocoa (ie Mac OS X) product; the Windows version has always been a port from the Mac product rather than the usual other way round.
I have been using LR since it was first released as a public beta and I love it. At the time, I evaluated LR against Aperture and concluded that Aperture looked better but was full of bugs (it had a terrible reputation at first, if you remember). Now, I'm a convinced LR person and can't really judge Aperture, though I do use it for photo book creation. LR is superb for a fast, efficient workflow from camera to library to finished picture, however you want to use it. Its print, book, web and slideshow capabilities are rudimentary compared to Aperture/iPhoto. I do hope that the apparent Apple/Adobe co-operation will bring photo stream to LR though.
It's also the case, though Adobe rather hide it, that you can still buy the product outright rather than pay monthly for CC (at least in the UK, I just checked and it's £102 for the current version).
[Edit:corrected price]
Boo... Although, to be fair, I've thought about moving to Lightroom anyway especially with their new mobile iPad version.
Anyone know how easy it is to migrate one's Aperture library to Lightroom?
There is no migration tool. The easiest and simplest way is to STOP using Aperture at 17:00, and at 17:01 use Lightroom to process your photos. The time is irrelevant, as I was using it to make a point, but none the less, keep Aperture on your Mac for historical purposes but process from the future forward only in LR.
Aperture hasn't been "better" than Lightroom for ages.
Define better? LR has had a better feature set for years. The modular approach is a bit wonky but for the most part LR out performs Aperture in that it does not crash or hang nearly as much.
Apple is loosing it's way if it doesn't understand the flow on importance of keeping Pro's on the platform with class leading native applications.
Apple's drip feed updates to Aperture and iWork over the last four years have been a huge mistake. Had those App's been funded properly they could have become mind blowing by now.
The been counters seem to be running the show now. Which is a worrying sign because you can't put a price on all the intangible benefits you get from having the pro end of the market.
What a shame that Apple throws the towel in to Adobe.
Transitioning to Photos might retain custom metadata, specific to Aperture, but I doubt it will work when moving to LR. RAW updates for new cameras? Doubt it.
Many disappointed people, obviously:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6421815
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6421728
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6421756
http://petapixel.com/2014/06/27/breaking-apple-officially-kills-aperture/
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/45092/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Image credits: Screenshot provided by PS3zocker
https://mobile.twitter.com/ps3zocker/status/482570841302249472
Edit: a pretty good write up from one of Apertures software devs, Joseph at his site apertureexpert.com
http://www.apertureexpert.com/tips/2014/6/27/aperture-dead-long-live-photos#.U63mZNoaySM
I am one of those who has been using Aperture from version 1.0. I hate Lightroom because it imposes a workflow and interface on you that just doesn't make sense to me. I love Aperture and have been hoping upon hope that we would see lens corrections and real non destructive plugin support. I am seriously shocked at this unofficial way of announcing such an important decision. They could have just as well announced this years ago or say so clearly now that photos will be a worthy successor. The description above is just faff!
"crushed" - I too am in the same boat as so many are as of today. I am upset to hear this from a second source opposed to Apple directly. It's time that Apple step up to the plate and tell us who they intend their customers be from ...Pool #1: Consumers of iWhatevers Only or Pool # 2: Prosumers and professionals that require incredibly stable and solid software that their businesses can trust. I tried Lightroom so many times in the hopes i would get it. I never did but I tried. It's one thing to reveal in all its splendour a new MacBook or iPad that blows away the public and defies all established rumours prior to its launch. It's another things to break the chain of trust that is implied with $299 then $199 then $89 upgrades that stake you to a suite or specific application. In fact I like so many have developed a 'trusted' workflow of Importing>tweaking>external filters>exporting > backups that as of today is officially broken and broken hard. And to think I just took delivery of an all-out 27" iMac, 3 TB hardrive with Fusion tech and 16 gig's of ram just to push Aperture even harder than I had already been doing. I feel so let down.
It's also the case, though Adobe rather hide it, that you can still buy the product outright rather than pay monthly for CC (at least in the UK, I just checked and it's £102 for the current version).
[Edit:corrected price]
That's right and even the subscription for Lightroom + Photoshop isn't crazy at around £9 a month. Compared to the cost of most lenses, it's peanuts.
I am surprised but I am excited about the new Photos application for OSX Yosemite - it looks like a slimmed version of Lightroom/Aperture which may be the only thing I need and use photoshop for retouching.