Pro photo workflow tool Aperture won't work after macOS Mojave, Apple says

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    For years I've seen people speak of Aperture replacements, many of which (including Lightroom) have superior editing tools to what Aperture offered. What none of them seem to do as well, however, is offer a comparable workflow. With Aperture's stacks, rating, and compare tools, I could quite literally blow through a 600 photo shoot and narrow it down to a few dozen best images to focus on in about 10-15 minutes. I could then produce an album of those photos in another 15-30 minutes.

    Lightroom has great editing tools, but its workflow is a joke, and that's not even taking into account the fact that you have separate modes for each. Aperture allowed you to stack, sort, edit, and catalog all in one place.
    tokyojimu
  • Reply 22 of 36
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,663member
    I don't understand the griefs that people put themselves through when their legacy apps no longer work on modern OS'es.

    If your apps don't work on the next OS update, DON'T UPGRADE YOUR OS!  Either yell at the developer that essentially has abandoned you, or keep your Mac on Mojave.  Done.  Move on.

    I have one app from Hikvision - maker of security cameras - that is my only concern with the next OS.  However, I'm not blaming Apple for it, and I will test the new OS one test Mac of mine and put it through the wringer before I update my main workstations.  I actually admire Apple for flushing out obsolete code.  It keeps the system streamlined, and removes the gobs of legacy code that can eventually become a security issue, or cause system performance issues.

    Apple is in no way under any kind of obligation to support your old software.  Either you adapt, or get left behind.

    That being said, I'm still heartbroken that Apple discontinued Aperture.  I bought my first dSLR in 2014 and was ready to by Aperture when I saw a blurb here on AI I think that it was to be discontinued.  I use Lightroom and hate it to the nTh degree but have no other options really.  Aperture should have been for photos what FCP is for video.
    macplusplus
  • Reply 23 of 36
    tokyojimutokyojimu Posts: 482member
    Photos.app wouldn’t be half bad if it were to move faster than molasses. 
    elijahg
  • Reply 24 of 36
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 922member
    I think the consensus is that it was and still is a shock that Apple killed off Aperture when it was for most people better than Lightroom and they kept iWork even after they messed it up and never really fixed it. Yet it still exists. 

    Maybe there was an ultimatum secretly given to Apple from Adobe to kill it, or CS would go PC only. 

    The fact that a lot of people still use Aperture shows that it was a decent application that Apple made and yet they decided to kill it instead of making it open source or selling it outright. 

    The second paragraph of you post is striking and makes a lot of sense. I could see Apple making a deal  to get Adobe to do Photoshop, etc on the iPad in exchange for ceding the photo management app. Who knows for sure. 
    If I was an Aperture user, I would use the same strategy I used to keep my 32-bit Adobe apps running. I made a small partition on my HD for Sierra, loaded my graphic apps there, and just dual boot my system from Mojave and back. Hardly ideal, but it works, and i can drop files back and forth with the Shared folder, so it works out. Until this machine won’t run MacOS 11 or whatever. 
  • Reply 25 of 36
    rcfarcfa Posts: 994member
    razorpit said:
    Add QuickTime Pro 7 to that list of useful apps no more...
    QuickTime was 32-bit. Besides, it became a standard, namely mp4. We don’t need it anymore. There are a lot of great apps that do a lot of great things with the actual AV Foundation.
    The point of QT7 was the plugin architecture, so apps could, without knowing about it, support additional, non-standard, formats, provided a corresponding plugin component was installed.

    With QTX, its whatever Apple supports, and that’s it. Anything else must be converted with separate tools, or requires custom support in each and every app.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 26 of 36
    rcfarcfa Posts: 994member
    Now that there's a plethora of photo editing and catalog apps (Lightroom, Luminar, DxO PhotoLab, Affinity Photo, Pixelmator, etc.) and a lot of what Aperture did is in the Photos app, Aperture isn't as needed as it once was, 


    None of the other apps have the same non-linear, non-destructive workflow.

    The few that try are slow and clumsy, even on the latest i9 MBP with 32GB RAM and a 4TB SSD.
    And a subscription app like anything Adobe is out of the question.
    Time to find an open source solution, and keep the option to migrate to Linux open, should Apple’s merged iOS/macOS on ARM be as closed as iOS is today, and completely tied to the limited AppStore subscription model.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,943member
    lkrupp said:
    maestro64 said:
    This whole transition is totally unclear. I did not update to Mojave due to statements made by Apple saying older apps will no long work due to the migration to 64 bit only. I get the warning on some apps in High Sierra saying it was not longer supported and need to contact the developer to get a version that support Mojave. I also ran the utility that Apple has which tells you all the apps you have installed and indicated whether is support 64 bits and there are Apps that I know work but the utility says they should not work. I also check app compatibility websites and people there claim most of these apps work on Mojave. 


    So does Mojave kill all apps which are not 64 bits or is there something else going on. I am just pissed I can no longer sync books between my computer and IOS device when I updated my IOS devices to iOS 12 which said you need Mojave on your computer to make it work. Apple had be kind stuck between a rock and a hard place at this point. Just unclear what will break with the next update. I have a number of older apps and utilities I use and do not wish to spend more money to get subscription based apps.

    I think this is the dirty little secret Apple had with the developer world. They will eventually kill any old apps from work in OSX and if users want to keep up to date they will be force to go to a software subscription model. Quicken did it to me since they disable online access to any financial institutions for the standalone app. You had to go to a subscription base app to maintain online access. They also said the standalone app would no longer work in Mojave so they tied to the two things together.
    “Does Mojave kill all apps which are not 64 bits...” NO it does not. 32 bit apps work just fine with Mojave. Mojave notifies you of 32 bit apps that need updating because the next version of macOS, namely 10.15.x WILL kill all 32 bit apps. It’s simply a warning about the future. If you are unwilling to update your older apps and utilities then DON’T install macOS 10.15.x when it is released. Stay locked in the past if you so desire. If/when your current Mac craps out DON'T buy a new one because it will run only the latest macOS. Buy a used Mac somewhere that will still run macOS prior to 10.15.x. Trying to dual-boot or using a VM will be a kludge and totally annoying, especially with olde utilities. As for subscription based software it is the future like it or not. All of the worthwhile software is already or is in the process of going to the subscription model, including Adobe, 1Password, Quicken, etc. I’ve been using personal computers since 1982 and have been online since then too. I have chosen to remain up to date and current with my hardware and software and have not regretted it one iota.
    Actually High Sierra and Mojave both kills some apps so it not clear why they stopped working and they are not apps that supported Rosatta which I removed or update all those Apps. As I said, it is not clear which Apps will also die moving to Mojave since Apple never made it clear why some Apps stop work. Quicken even said Quicken 2015 will not work on Mojave and online access was turned off at the beginning of 2019. There are some aspect of how apps were written which will not allow them to work on Mojave.

    I been on a Mac since 1984, still have my original 1984 Mac and you were not online since 82, unless you talking about using a modem to call into another computer system like a mainframe. 

    I have always updated as needed not when software companies want me to. I had issue where updated broke things, and since I always maintain an archive of previous released versions, I can always revert back. With new online subscription you can not always revert back, they no longer allow you to down load the actual version, they do it all within the app, so if they break something your screw until they figure it. Quicken as broken things lately and things stopped work and why do I have to pay $49 per year just to use the App especially when I see no value in upgrading when the current app works fine. Part of the reason Quicken 2015 no longer works online is due the fact online connection went direct form your computer to the financial institution, today all the data passes through Quicken servers, thus the reason you need to keep paying them otherwise they shut your online access off. I understand having subscription base software, use them at work for along time, because when you need help to get something done at work you want the immediate support. At home not this critical and they do not provide immediate support they want you to use all their other online help before they will get on the phone with you.
  • Reply 28 of 36
    stukestuke Posts: 109member
    Long live Aperture in Mojave!

    Quite simply, there is NO single replacement for it. Yes, I could get a superior DAM (e.g., Photo Shelter) with mediocre editing, or a phenomenal editor (RAW, etc) (e.g., Affinity Photo) with zero DAM. Capture One Pro is OK but again, it lacks very basic things like a simple History palette. (OK, I know, “make variants for each edit step.”  Ah, no thanks!). Skylum’s Luminar 3 is also trying but it’s first DAM (4 years after Aperture’s announced demise) is nowhere ready. Finally Photos from Apple is great for 14 year old selfie-taking teens with their second gen iPhone and second gen MacBook or Air. Basically not a prosumer or greater product and never will be. 

    The DAM of Aperture is unsurpassable!  Period. 

    So you see Apple, if you ever cared about your customers, just release the current 32 bit code and let the capitalistic world take over. 
  • Reply 29 of 36
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,551member
    Makes me sad to hear this. I like Aperture a lot. 
  • Reply 30 of 36
    It's still a basic flaw. Computers are tools meant (in this case) to serve creative individuals - writers, photographers, filmmakers, artists, etc...  You can still read a letter that Ernest Hemingway typed in 1930 or a photograph that Ansel Adams made in 1940, but you can't watch a film created in Final Cut in 2009 or a story written in Word in 1989.  There will be more lost works of art in the digital era - either because the file can't be opened or the work remains lost on some hard drive without the dead owner's password.
    I wholeheartedly agree with the concern, having had high hopes in Acrobat for one, and that if anyone could resolve such a company like Adobe or Apple could.

    I understood this is one area where windows may be more compatible than macos, in that legacy software often runs well beyond a much longer official end of support cycle.
    edited April 2019 bennettvista
  • Reply 31 of 36
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,032member
    rcfa said:
    razorpit said:
    Add QuickTime Pro 7 to that list of useful apps no more...
    QuickTime was 32-bit. Besides, it became a standard, namely mp4. We don’t need it anymore. There are a lot of great apps that do a lot of great things with the actual AV Foundation.
    The point of QT7 was the plugin architecture, so apps could, without knowing about it, support additional, non-standard, formats, provided a corresponding plugin component was installed.

    With QTX, its whatever Apple supports, and that’s it. Anything else must be converted with separate tools, or requires custom support in each and every app.
    Not a big deal. Those who dare to deal with non-standard pop-culture formats already possess those separate tools. They don’t need QT plug-in architecture at all. There are a lot of movie players in iOS App Store that play all common formats.
  • Reply 32 of 36
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,703member
    From a software development organization perspective, having to support legacy apps that are well beyond their freshness date and not playing well with newer operating systems is like trying to swim with a bowling ball chained to your ankle. It’s a drag on new initiatives, consumes resources, and to put it bluntly, how many developers really want to be working on legacy projects that are in permanent maintenance mode? At some point you just have to put an end to it. One fully reasonable strategy for supporting customers who cannot move to newer app versions or newer operating systems is to use OS virtualization like VMWare to run the last supported version of the deprecated app on a modern operating system.
  • Reply 33 of 36
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,398member
    maestro64 said:
    I am just pissed I can no longer sync books between my computer and IOS device when I updated my IOS devices to iOS 12 which said you need Mojave on your computer to make it work.
    I use iOS 12, and I don’t need Mojave (which I don’t have) to sync or back up my iOS devices. I’m still on Sierra (and Snow Leopard) on my two Macs.

    As for your conspiracy theory about pushing people to subscription software... I actually think that’s an actual thing. The computer industry is all about the planned obsolescence...
  • Reply 34 of 36
    barthrhbarthrh Posts: 109member
    bennettvista said:
    It's still a basic flaw. Computers are tools meant (in this case) to serve creative individuals - writers, photographers, filmmakers, artists, etc...  You can still read a letter that Ernest Hemingway typed in 1930 or a photograph that Ansel Adams made in 1940, but you can't watch a film created in Final Cut in 2009 or a story written in Word in 1989.  There will be more lost works of art in the digital era - either because the file can't be opened or the work remains lost on some hard drive without the dead owner's password.
    Not so. There are plenty of ways to ensure digital works survive. You're comparing the final product (book, photograph) to the original production tooling (Word, FCP). I'm pretty sure that the printing plates for Hemingway's books are either gone or don't work with modern presses. If ensuring that a digital work survives the test of time is important, it's pretty clear that you shouldn't keep it in a proprietary format. If I have a treasured Word doc, I should export to PDF or RTF or markdown. Similarly, if my editable 2009 FCP project was so important, I would have bumped it as every release of FCP happens to ensure that it's never more than one or two releases behind. The same goes for anything proprietary; if I have Quicken data I can try to run Quicken 2003 until the end of time, but when that time ends Intuit's latest version will not be able to convert data from 2003. Penny wise and pound foolish.

    This is no different from antique car restorers who either hunt for parts in junkyards / aftermarket or have a machine shop to build some of the bits & pieces they need. 
  • Reply 35 of 36
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,229member
    sflocal said:
    I don't understand the griefs that people put themselves through when their legacy apps no longer work on modern OS'es.

    If your apps don't work on the next OS update, DON'T UPGRADE YOUR OS!  Either yell at the developer that essentially has abandoned you, or keep your Mac on Mojave.  Done.  Move on.

    I have one app from Hikvision - maker of security cameras - that is my only concern with the next OS.  However, I'm not blaming Apple for it, and I will test the new OS one test Mac of mine and put it through the wringer before I update my main workstations.  I actually admire Apple for flushing out obsolete code.  It keeps the system streamlined, and removes the gobs of legacy code that can eventually become a security issue, or cause system performance issues.

    Apple is in no way under any kind of obligation to support your old software.  Either you adapt, or get left behind.

    That being said, I'm still heartbroken that Apple discontinued Aperture.  I bought my first dSLR in 2014 and was ready to by Aperture when I saw a blurb here on AI I think that it was to be discontinued.  I use Lightroom and hate it to the nTh degree but have no other options really.  Aperture should have been for photos what FCP is for video.
    You realise that Aperture is an Apple product? Who should they yell at, Adobe? How do people "move on" exactly by staying on Mojave?
  • Reply 36 of 36
    samrodsamrod Posts: 40unconfirmed, member
    lkrupp said:
    samrod said:
    It's still a basic flaw. Computers are tools meant (in this case) to serve creative individuals - writers, photographers, filmmakers, artists, etc...  You can still read a letter that Ernest Hemingway typed in 1930 or a photograph that Ansel Adams made in 1940, but you can't watch a film created in Final Cut in 2009 or a story written in Word in 1989.  There will be more lost works of art in the digital era - either because the file can't be opened or the work remains lost on some hard drive without the dead owner's password.
    Of course you can watch movies cut on FCP 2009. You just can't open the project file and edit them. Also, I think modern versions of Word can open all older versions' documents.
    With invalid premises come invalid examples. 
    Are you suggesting that one can't watch movies cut on a version of FCP from 2009 on modern computers or that FCP X can open a projects from said version?
Sign In or Register to comment.