Apple Cedes Pro Photography Market - another example of Cookie Monster's failed leadership. Cut prices, and incremental upgrades do NOT an Apple Make. Pathetic.
Apple is focus. Apple is also most likely introducing a new wearable device this year. They're moving to reassert their dominance in the music market. They're undertaking a massive expansion of their cloud strategy. They're pushing out yearly, significant updates to iOS and OS X. They're refreshing just about the entire product lineup as well.
In order for Apple to do all that, things have to give. My guess is that they looked at the Aperture user base and decided that was a place to prune. Now they can combine the iPhoto and Aperture dev teams, and take some of those people for other more important projects.
The "cookie monster" is a genius, and one of the best CEO's in the entire world. Apple's 2014 so far has revealed just how much they have things well under control, and how well they keep to a larger, master plan, instead of focusing on the short term like some other Silicon Valley companies.
So do we have an official AI reason this guy hasn’t been banned? We don’t want to become MacRumors here.
Why? Did he do something that offended you, blasphemed SJ, kicked your dog, or threatened your family? Just put him on ignore. You are no longer the reckless moderator you once were.
Clearly his statement was expressed as an opinion. Being disingenuous is not against the forum rules. Did he slander, threaten, or commit libel? Grow some thicker skin.
[...] From a privacy standpoint it's a problem, but from a convenience standpoint it's great. You don't have to worry about your hard drive failing and taking everything with it, nor worry about getting your computer stolen, etc.
My Broadband 50 internet package has a maximum upload speed of 3Mb/sec. Coming home with even just 100 photos means hours of uploading. That's inconvenient. It's also a nuisance if one's files are large. The handful of hi-res Photoshop files and video clips for a simple three-minute presentation add up to 5-10GB for each project. Cloud storage for that workflow is expensive and WAAAAY too slow.
Obviously no one is forcing anyone to use the cloud instead of conventional local storage so I'm not objecting or complaining. I'm just saying that it's not a good approach for people who work/play with big files. We would be better served by a system that lets us use our LAN to perform the kind of handy sync offered by iCloud, but Apple doesn't seem interested in providing that. A tool that would track updates to my iTunes library on one machine and replicate it across the other three would save me hours of boredom.
I'd love for Apple to take a similar tack with all Apple software... Downloadable plug-in options (available through each app, or through the App Store).
I'd especially love to see plug-ins for iWork, plug-ins and extensibility that would really make everyone happy.
Document on my Mac Pro. Document on my MacBook Pro. Document on my iPad.
It’s the same document. Three files, three locations. Not stored in the cloud.
When I make a change on one, the change is made on the other two.
New document created on my Mac Pro.
That new document is created automatically on my MacBook Pro and my iPad.
Identical folder trees on each, within my local account. Meaning that if I create a new folder in Documents, name it something, and drag existing files there from elsewhere, I want that all to happen on my other devices at the same time.
No storage. Screw keeping MY content in someone else’s hands. iCloud as a conduit for syncing local content across all my devices. But I am still in possession of the files.
Unfortunately, iCloud seems to be trending toward Steve’s reality (at NeXT)/dream (for everyone) of “dumb terminal/server stores account/login anywhere and see your things”.
This is the idea I am into as well but there others who want chrome OS idea of the idea you computer is simply a display that is showing a file remotely located, or to some that find out, wait the cloud is not literarily a cloud?
That last sentence really troubles me ... So Apple is telling us to migrate if we are pros ... or is this one persons opinion? If it is official then Apple is saying Photos won't cut it for those of us now using Aperture in a pro environment and that's horrible to learn. I would like to see this spelled out officially though. If true, so be it I guess, we will have no choice. Also if true, this is nothing like the FCPro 7 to X situation where in fact X turned out to be very professional after a few updates, OK a lot.
Think apples saying won't a pro experience now go to Adobe or if you won't it later wait till next year, figure it will simply be a toggle button labeled advanced settings that goes from simple to professional interface.
Why? Did he do something that offended you, blasphemed SJ, kicked your dog, or threatened your family? Just put him on ignore. You are no longer the reckless moderator you once were.
Actually, photoshop59 violates Rule #0 of the Guidelines (penned by JeffDM, not Tallest Skil).
Quote:
0. If you're here to crap on Apple, its fans or its customers, you're not long for this forum.
While I agree that that Tallest Skil does not seemingly have a personality suited for forum moderation, he is correct in this regard.
Let's remember that this is a privately operated website; "freedom of speech" (as defined by the Constitution of the United States) is not a factor. The site operators have every right to set their own guidelines for acceptable forum behavior.
If one doesn't like a given forum's code of conduct or enforcement policies, one is free to leave. Without any hesitation, I am happy to say that I no longer participate in forum discussions at MacRumors.
Frankly, I think AI could benefit from some tighter forum moderation and better posts. This place reminds me of MacRumors (and many other tech sites) more frequently, and not in a good way.
Yet another article parroting TechCrunch's erroneous reporting that Apple is working with Adobe to transition people to Lightroom. TechCrunch already corrected this LAST FRIDAY!
Document on my Mac Pro. Document on my MacBook Pro. Document on my iPad.
It’s the same document. Three files, three locations. Not stored in the cloud.
When I make a change on one, the change is made on the other two.
New document created on my Mac Pro.
That new document is created automatically on my MacBook Pro and my iPad.
Identical folder trees on each, within my local account. Meaning that if I create a new folder in Documents, name it something, and drag existing files there from elsewhere, I want that all to happen on my other devices at the same time.
No storage. Screw keeping MY content in someone else’s hands. iCloud as a conduit for syncing local content across all my devices. But I am still in possession of the files.
Unfortunately, iCloud seems to be trending toward Steve’s reality (at NeXT)/dream (for everyone) of “dumb terminal/server stores account/login anywhere and see your things”.
This sounds great, though I wouldn't mind an appropriately encrypted backup in the cloud. I currently use S3 for that, but I would switch to iCloud if it did what you describe (though Apple's unlikely ever to make it work with my non-Apple devices -- phone and work computer).
The only advantage of direct cloud storage, I think, is for documents that are edited by a group of contributors. Google Apps' implementation of simultaneous editing of documents is really nice.
I'd love for Apple to take a similar tack with all Apple software... Downloadable plug-in options (available through each app, or through the App Store).
I'd especially love to see plug-ins for iWork, plug-ins and extensibility that would really make everyone happy.
Plug-ins for iWorks would be god-damned Genius!!! It keeps the programs simple for those who don't need all the bells and whistles and allows users to bedeck the apps with all the ribbons and bows anyone could want!
Although the file syncing between devices via iCloud is great I would like the option of having part of my content/ photos stored in the cloud only and have a greyed out reference for it locally (that takes up tiny space) For those who fear privacy issues with this I think that if apple wanted to get a hold of your content it could do so during the syncing process as well.
Creeps who want to 'ban' free speech, when it is rational and reasonable are reminiscent of history's worst dictators. Check out the 1st amendment you liberal censor, and try to understand what America is all aout.
cookie monster is doing a good job of keeping existing ideas moving forward.
apple lost the photo market to adobe because adobe is FOCUSED plus, my guess is that revenues from photo are topped out. all of the wanna be photographers that came in with digital are now broke, and moving on into real jobs. prosumer is where the money is, unless you're a pro who needs the fine points that adobe offers - which few do.
as to innovation, i don't think that 'wearables' are all that interesting but will take a wait and see.
Document on my Mac Pro. Document on my MacBook Pro. Document on my iPad.
It’s the same document. Three files, three locations. Not stored in the cloud.
When I make a change on one, the change is made on the other two.
New document created on my Mac Pro.
That new document is created automatically on my MacBook Pro and my iPad.
Identical folder trees on each, within my local account. Meaning that if I create a new folder in Documents, name it something, and drag existing files there from elsewhere, I want that all to happen on my other devices at the same time.
Can't one basically do that already with a folder synced to Dropbox?
Photos app looks awesome - can't wait to get it, and it's free on my Mac! This looks like what Lightroom should have been. Lightroom has nice features, but it's so clunky, especially compared to this..
If Apple adds iCloud APIs for one to have their own in-house NAS be a point of presence in iCloud I imagine it would open the door for Apple to expand their hardware ecosystem.
Plug-ins for iWorks would be god-damned Genius!!! It keeps the programs simple for those who don't need all the bells and whistles and allows users to bedeck the apps with all the ribbons and bows anyone could want!
Wouldn't that be a bit like CyberDog? A general container that had extended functionality through plug-ins. The obvious problem with this idea is that you would have to have all the plug-ins installed to see the contents of the document. Which is fine as long as you are the only one to use the document, and you only use it on one machine. What happens if you send that document to somebody that don't have the proper plug-ins installed? You could of course embed a read-only version of the plug-in in the document (this is what CyberDog did), but what if you want to edit the document on another machine? Or the document would detect the necessary plug-ins and automatically download them from the net, but then who pays for the plug-in? This idea is harder to implement than it appears.
That last sentence really troubles me ... So Apple is telling us to migrate if we are pros ... or is this one persons opinion? If it is official then Apple is saying Photos won't cut it for those of us now using Aperture in a pro environment and that's horrible to learn. I would like to see this spelled out officially though. If true, so be it I guess, we will have no choice. Also if true, this is nothing like the FCPro 7 to X situation where in fact X turned out to be very professional after a few updates, OK a lot.
Comments
Apple Cedes Pro Photography Market - another example of Cookie Monster's failed leadership. Cut prices, and incremental upgrades do NOT an Apple Make. Pathetic.
Apple is focus. Apple is also most likely introducing a new wearable device this year. They're moving to reassert their dominance in the music market. They're undertaking a massive expansion of their cloud strategy. They're pushing out yearly, significant updates to iOS and OS X. They're refreshing just about the entire product lineup as well.
In order for Apple to do all that, things have to give. My guess is that they looked at the Aperture user base and decided that was a place to prune. Now they can combine the iPhoto and Aperture dev teams, and take some of those people for other more important projects.
The "cookie monster" is a genius, and one of the best CEO's in the entire world. Apple's 2014 so far has revealed just how much they have things well under control, and how well they keep to a larger, master plan, instead of focusing on the short term like some other Silicon Valley companies.
Why? Did he do something that offended you, blasphemed SJ, kicked your dog, or threatened your family? Just put him on ignore. You are no longer the reckless moderator you once were.
The fact that every word there is a lie, probably. Did you read the post? You didn’t.
...probably?
Clearly his statement was expressed as an opinion. Being disingenuous is not against the forum rules. Did he slander, threaten, or commit libel? Grow some thicker skin.
[...] From a privacy standpoint it's a problem, but from a convenience standpoint it's great. You don't have to worry about your hard drive failing and taking everything with it, nor worry about getting your computer stolen, etc.
My Broadband 50 internet package has a maximum upload speed of 3Mb/sec. Coming home with even just 100 photos means hours of uploading. That's inconvenient. It's also a nuisance if one's files are large. The handful of hi-res Photoshop files and video clips for a simple three-minute presentation add up to 5-10GB for each project. Cloud storage for that workflow is expensive and WAAAAY too slow.
Obviously no one is forcing anyone to use the cloud instead of conventional local storage so I'm not objecting or complaining. I'm just saying that it's not a good approach for people who work/play with big files. We would be better served by a system that lets us use our LAN to perform the kind of handy sync offered by iCloud, but Apple doesn't seem interested in providing that. A tool that would track updates to my iTunes library on one machine and replicate it across the other three would save me hours of boredom.
I'd love for Apple to take a similar tack with all Apple software... Downloadable plug-in options (available through each app, or through the App Store).
I'd especially love to see plug-ins for iWork, plug-ins and extensibility that would really make everyone happy.
Think apples saying won't a pro experience now go to Adobe or if you won't it later wait till next year, figure it will simply be a toggle button labeled advanced settings that goes from simple to professional interface.
Why? Did he do something that offended you, blasphemed SJ, kicked your dog, or threatened your family? Just put him on ignore. You are no longer the reckless moderator you once were.
Actually, photoshop59 violates Rule #0 of the Guidelines (penned by JeffDM, not Tallest Skil).
While I agree that that Tallest Skil does not seemingly have a personality suited for forum moderation, he is correct in this regard.
Let's remember that this is a privately operated website; "freedom of speech" (as defined by the Constitution of the United States) is not a factor. The site operators have every right to set their own guidelines for acceptable forum behavior.
If one doesn't like a given forum's code of conduct or enforcement policies, one is free to leave. Without any hesitation, I am happy to say that I no longer participate in forum discussions at MacRumors.
Frankly, I think AI could benefit from some tighter forum moderation and better posts. This place reminds me of MacRumors (and many other tech sites) more frequently, and not in a good way.
But that's just me...
Yet another article parroting TechCrunch's erroneous reporting that Apple is working with Adobe to transition people to Lightroom. TechCrunch already corrected this LAST FRIDAY!
Here’s what I want from iCloud:
Document on my Mac Pro. Document on my MacBook Pro. Document on my iPad.
It’s the same document. Three files, three locations. Not stored in the cloud.
When I make a change on one, the change is made on the other two.
New document created on my Mac Pro.
That new document is created automatically on my MacBook Pro and my iPad.
Identical folder trees on each, within my local account. Meaning that if I create a new folder in Documents, name it something, and drag existing files there from elsewhere, I want that all to happen on my other devices at the same time.
No storage. Screw keeping MY content in someone else’s hands. iCloud as a conduit for syncing local content across all my devices. But I am still in possession of the files.
Unfortunately, iCloud seems to be trending toward Steve’s reality (at NeXT)/dream (for everyone) of “dumb terminal/server stores account/login anywhere and see your things”.
This sounds great, though I wouldn't mind an appropriately encrypted backup in the cloud. I currently use S3 for that, but I would switch to iCloud if it did what you describe (though Apple's unlikely ever to make it work with my non-Apple devices -- phone and work computer).
The only advantage of direct cloud storage, I think, is for documents that are edited by a group of contributors. Google Apps' implementation of simultaneous editing of documents is really nice.
Plug-ins for iWorks would be god-damned Genius!!! It keeps the programs simple for those who don't need all the bells and whistles and allows users to bedeck the apps with all the ribbons and bows anyone could want!
For those who fear privacy issues with this I think that if apple wanted to get a hold of your content it could do so during the syncing process as well.
Creeps who want to 'ban' free speech, when it is rational and reasonable are reminiscent of history's worst dictators. Check out the 1st amendment you liberal censor, and try to understand what America is all aout.
cookie monster is doing a good job of keeping existing ideas moving forward.
apple lost the photo market to adobe because adobe is FOCUSED plus, my guess is that revenues from photo are topped out. all of the wanna be photographers that came in with digital are now broke, and moving on into real jobs. prosumer is where the money is, unless you're a pro who needs the fine points that adobe offers - which few do.
as to innovation, i don't think that 'wearables' are all that interesting but will take a wait and see.
Here’s what I want from iCloud:
Document on my Mac Pro. Document on my MacBook Pro. Document on my iPad.
It’s the same document. Three files, three locations. Not stored in the cloud.
When I make a change on one, the change is made on the other two.
New document created on my Mac Pro.
That new document is created automatically on my MacBook Pro and my iPad.
Identical folder trees on each, within my local account. Meaning that if I create a new folder in Documents, name it something, and drag existing files there from elsewhere, I want that all to happen on my other devices at the same time.
Can't one basically do that already with a folder synced to Dropbox?
Maybe the mods have the week off?
Plug-ins for iWorks would be god-damned Genius!!! It keeps the programs simple for those who don't need all the bells and whistles and allows users to bedeck the apps with all the ribbons and bows anyone could want!
Wouldn't that be a bit like CyberDog? A general container that had extended functionality through plug-ins. The obvious problem with this idea is that you would have to have all the plug-ins installed to see the contents of the document. Which is fine as long as you are the only one to use the document, and you only use it on one machine. What happens if you send that document to somebody that don't have the proper plug-ins installed? You could of course embed a read-only version of the plug-in in the document (this is what CyberDog did), but what if you want to edit the document on another machine? Or the document would detect the necessary plug-ins and automatically download them from the net, but then who pays for the plug-in? This idea is harder to implement than it appears.
So switch back later.