PDA

View Full Version : Aperture's Iris Closing?


MacRumors
Apr 27, 2006, 12:20 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Think Secret is reporting (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0604aperture.html) that Apple has disbanded its Aperture development team, which leaves Apple's entry into the professional photography market in limbo.

In the run-up to Aperture's November release last year, for example, sources report that responsibility for the application's image processing pipeline was taken away from the Aperture team and given to the Shake and Motion team "to fix as best they can."

The article associates many of Aperture's problems with poor application design. Aperture has been met with mixed reviews (http://guides.macrumors.com/Aperture#Reviews), with frequent complaints about the software's performance even on high-end Macs and sub-par RAW image handling. Adobe's Lightroom (http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/) beta has also introduced competitive pressure and has received positive initial reviews (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/08/lightroomfirstlook/index.php), especially when compared to Aperture.

Phat_Pat
Apr 27, 2006, 12:23 AM
wow

sales must have been in the dumps

arn
Apr 27, 2006, 12:23 AM
this could negatively impact sales, so hopefully they double checked their sources on this story

arn

maveness
Apr 27, 2006, 12:27 AM
This story just "smells" wrong to me. I wonder whether this isn't a bogus leak from Apple, still attempting to shut down their Think Secret source.

muffinman
Apr 27, 2006, 12:28 AM
yeah sales must be down. i guess nobody wanted a great photo program. shucks.

Danksi
Apr 27, 2006, 12:32 AM
Since the Motion team's been involved, perhaps it'll become part of Final Cut Studio 6 :eek: :rolleyes:

Sounds like a re-org. The team was broken, needed fixing.

jared_kipe
Apr 27, 2006, 12:35 AM
Noo, please, I like aperture, and I like its output. I hope they contiue to support and develop it. I really like what they have already done.

bigandy
Apr 27, 2006, 12:41 AM
i've not met someone who's actually used it and said it's a bad interface.

everyone that seems to use it seems to actually genuinely like it.

oh well. but if the shake/motion teams can do better, all well and good.

skidooairman
Apr 27, 2006, 12:44 AM
Aperture is a piece of junk software. I hope that Apple made them all walk out with their pants around their ankles to humiliate them for making such a mess of this app. I did the correct thing by apple, and they screwed me on an app that was simple iPhoto with a bit of extra guts.
Good riddance Aperture folks.:mad:

Doctor Q
Apr 27, 2006, 12:46 AM
Weren't they just promoting it (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060412233425.shtml)? If true, this is a large turnabout. But perhaps it explains the price drop.

skidooairman
Apr 27, 2006, 12:46 AM
this could negatively impact sales, so hopefully they double checked their sources on this story

arn


You're the cheecky buggers who post this crap! :D

nagromme
Apr 27, 2006, 12:52 AM
I do hope TS is wrong, but if they're right... it may mean bad things for Aperture but GOOD things for certain nice features trickling into iPhoto.

(And if it really IS that bad--not just a few bugs, but bad design to the core--then letting some of those engineers go is probably called for. And letting them go might mean Aperture can become a great thing in NEW hands at Apple. It doesn't have to mean the end of the product.)

jaw04005
Apr 27, 2006, 12:56 AM
Yeah, I've heard from friends that Aperture is slow, but interesting and useful. I really hope this is not true.

joepunk
Apr 27, 2006, 01:03 AM
But, but...

I was all set to finally make a decision to buy it with my student discount before I graduate. Well, I still can but I just can't make the final decision to purchase it. I am such a window shopper.

mcarnes
Apr 27, 2006, 01:04 AM
Shucks. They did such a good job advertising it too. I mean, is there anything cooler than those Aperture QT movies on Apple's website? That football guy saying he's not shooting JPEGs anymore, and that bald wedding guy who drank too much coffee. And the fashion guy with the queen amadala chick. Hell, even the intro movies with the british guy saying "metadater" were cool. Raw images are "first class citizens"... Etc.

Oh well. :(

Abstract
Apr 27, 2006, 01:05 AM
Me neither. It's not like they're 4th best right now in the market. Lightroom is only in beta right now, and Aperture can be improved upon. It's not THAT big a mess.

But as has been mentioned already, some of the features in Aperture would trickle down to iPhoto since they have already been developed.

Peyton
Apr 27, 2006, 01:05 AM
Hmm, I've use it, seems like a nice app that does what its advertised for, (btw, its still be advertised on the 17 MBP on Apple.com's front page)

Anyway, I would say the $200 price drop and coupon are big hints, I would like this program to be redone tho, reinvented to be the 'FCP' of the photography world

c-Row
Apr 27, 2006, 01:11 AM
Yeah, I've heard from friends that Aperture is slow, but interesting and useful. I really hope this is not true.

Oh, I sure hope it is interesting and useful.


:p

longofest
Apr 27, 2006, 01:12 AM
Lets all hope that TS is wrong on this one.

I'm hearing a lot of people saying that they have positive experiences with Aperture... anyone use Lightroom? Macworld has seemed to prefer Lightroom to Aperture due to performance and some other things...

skippy64
Apr 27, 2006, 01:12 AM
I dont honestly believe that Aperture is going to be remembered as Apple's 'Ford Edsel' of computer software. I'm a hard working pro photographer and in conjunction with a fellow photographer we have been running Aperture and have become convinced that the Application has the potential to mature into an excellent pro photo image editing/previewing piece of kit. We have been more than aware of the poor RAW output at the beginning which to be fair has definetly improved. What I have found most with Aperture is that it has many features bubbling away in all the drop down menus and you really do have be shown at a demo or go out and pay for a training session to get the most out of Aperture.
I find on the whole that photographers tend to think that they can turn their hand to anything and at best can be too tight-fisted to go out and spend some money on proper training, I mean how many on here who use Photoshop have paid for training. I know I haven't but theres many a time I wish I had. Its just pure stubbornness most of the time to go and actually ask to be shown how something can really work.
I want Aperture to stay and I'm sure the story is just a load of bull. BTW I'd like to thank the guys in the Apple store at the Trafford Centre in Manchester for there continuing help/support/basic training that they offer there. I have been in a few times and they have been more than helpful in getting me started into Aperture and before anyone says it, yes I am going to go and attend a full training session so that I can really get into this application:)

EricNau
Apr 27, 2006, 01:29 AM
This explains perfectly the price drop.

portent
Apr 27, 2006, 01:46 AM
Even if some users consider Aperture to be a useful program, it may be that, from a software-design standpoint, the program is too difficult/expensive to continue developing. Sometimes the facade is pretty, but the foundation is unstable.

I suppose even Apple will yield a dud every once in a while. Apple's had great luck with its software products over the past five years or so; you can't expect everything to be a smash hit.

tmornini
Apr 27, 2006, 01:46 AM
This explains perfectly the price drop.

I completely disagree.

If Apple has decided to abandon the project, which will be a PR nightmare, they would want to be selling as few copies NOW as possible.

sjl
Apr 27, 2006, 01:47 AM
That has got to bite. Based upon what I read in the Think Secret report, though, I suspect that Apple will almost certainly be working on a re-write with a better internal design, and introduce it as version 2.0.

In any case, the report has caused my attitude towards Aperture to shift: I'm going to be sitting back and waiting to see what happens. If and when version 2.0 comes out, I'll probably snap it up (assuming it runs on my PowerBook; I can't afford a MacBook Pro right now), but until then ... well ... I'm still learning with my camera, so RAW workflow isn't a major concern for me as yet. I'll grant that Aperture doesn't touch the raw images, so it's not like I'd be completely locked in, but still, I'd rather not buy the app until I know for sure that it's going to be here for the long run. If I had to put money on the table, I'd be betting that it is, but there's just enough doubt for me to pause.

artpease
Apr 27, 2006, 01:47 AM
This may all be true, however, 1.1 was a pretty quick and welcome step to making it more useable...I just can't help but wonder if there aren't a lot of sour grapes in that article! :confused:

eXan
Apr 27, 2006, 01:49 AM
Lol funny, but I have just returned from Apple Aperture seminar :D

I reall like this app, even more than iPhoto. Hope Apple won't stop developing it. Would be very, very sad :(

devman
Apr 27, 2006, 02:08 AM
this could negatively impact sales,

beautifully understated.


so hopefully they double checked their sources on this story

arn

I note this is not a page 2 story... et tu arn?

:(

sord
Apr 27, 2006, 02:10 AM
Me neither. It's not like they're 4th best right now in the market. Lightroom is only in beta right now, and Aperture can be improved upon. It's not THAT big a mess.

But as has been mentioned already, some of the features in Aperture would trickle down to iPhoto since they have already been developed.
I played around with Lightroom - don't really care for it. It's missing a lot of features that that kind of software should have and also actually applies things to the photo so if you want to undo something you have to keep hitting undo and lose all of your changes. Example if I want to set it to sepia and make a few changes, if I decide I don't like the sepia but want to keep my current changes, oh well - have to undo all until I get the sepia removed.

...that or I'm just an idiot who didn't know how to use the app

Nemesis
Apr 27, 2006, 02:10 AM
Lol funny, but I have just returned from Apple Aperture seminar :D
I reall like this app, even more than iPhoto. Hope Apple won't stop developing it. Would be very, very sad :(


Me too. Aperture is a VERY GOOD piece of software, and can be better, of course, and it already has some creative edge and huge potential for growth.
Please don't abandon this project! -- we need some competition with Adobe, so they won't pump up the prices and leave us with only one choice in pro photo editing. We don't need one more Photoshop monopoly -- WE WANT CHOICE and MORE OPTIONS! Rewrite application if you need, but let it be.

wnurse
Apr 27, 2006, 02:16 AM
This story just "smells" wrong to me. I wonder whether this isn't a bogus leak from Apple, still attempting to shut down their Think Secret source.

Did anyone read the TS story??.. TS did not state that Aperture will be killed, only that it is in trouble. They state that it is possible a new team will completely rewrite aperture and get it right in version 2.0. You guys should sometimes click on the link the article references and read the original for yourselves

skippy64
Apr 27, 2006, 02:17 AM
The one thing that would shut up 99% of Aperture's critics would be if Apple would just include something that looks like a curves function and does that job. Hell, make it look the same as curves and call it curves and have done with it. This is one time when 'Think Different' doesn't matter and would move the application forward leaps and bounds.

abrooks
Apr 27, 2006, 02:33 AM
Did anyone read the TS story??.. TS did not state that Aperture will be killed, only that it is in trouble. They state that it is possible a new team will completely rewrite aperture and get it right in version 2.0. You guys should sometimes click on the link the article references and read the original for yourselves

I quote "Aperture future in doubt."

Taken from the Think Secret article, on simply reading this first part of the headline I immediately think of dying software, but then no where in the article do they mention that the program will ever be axed.

ErikGrim
Apr 27, 2006, 03:29 AM
Aperture has an awesome interface and feature set. It's only downfall is that it's slow, but already in 1.1. it's leagues better.

bousozoku
Apr 27, 2006, 03:29 AM
Had it worked on much lighter equipment from the start, it would be pretty well liked but the system requirements are extremely high.

The Lightroom interface isn't nearly as intuitive but it will work on my 1.33 GHz PowerBook reasonably well. So, style or functionality? Functionality. If Apple's other teams can get it under control, all the better but isn't Motion a pig, too?

Vinnie_vw
Apr 27, 2006, 03:37 AM
If this were true, it would be a reputation-loss for Apple... never start what you can't finish.

On the competitive threat of Lightroom... I always felt that Adobe's lack of universal support was a punishment for Apple trying to compete with it. Of course, I have no proof of this. I also don't use any of either photo-related products.

Lurch_Mojoff
Apr 27, 2006, 04:03 AM
This "news" made me sad but I'm still not freaking out. I believe it's just that the ThinkSecret guys are too stupid to get that there is a difference between disbanding the current product team (or part of it) and discontinuing the product itself.

My wild ass guess for what had happened would be:
Steve Jobs: [bursts into a conference room, amidst a discussion about the furture of Aperture] "YOU GUYS SUCK! This app is not teh snappy enough. You are a bunch of retards. Aperture's success would have enabled me to reach nirvana and you ruined it. I'm gonna' ****ing kill you. I'm gonna' replace you with very small applescripts..."[takes out cast aluminum machete from a stylish leather case designed by Ive himself]:eek:

Edit: BTW, has anyone tried Aperture on an Intel Mac? Version 1.1 was a noticeable improvement and now Aperture runs reasonably fast on a 1.67GHz Powerbook. Seeing that Macbook Pro is supposedly ~5 times faster, one should have no complains about sluggishness on one of those.

bugfaceuk
Apr 27, 2006, 04:04 AM
Wow. As some of said I think a lot of this is over-reaction to a poorly written story.

I'm a sofware product marketing manager (NOT apple) and sometimes you have to kill a team that's not done the job required of them. This does not mean you kill the product.

The "Future in Doubt" can mean so many things, including "we now have no idea what this does to the release cycle".

As someone else pointed out, if you are killing a product, you don't try and ship it to as many people as possible before you drop them in the lurch by killing the product. You quietly let it slip away. Apple is big on brand trust, at this stage in their evolution, they pretty much trade off it.

Often these things are like a shot-in-the-arm for the product, driving it off in new directions with new energy.

iGav
Apr 27, 2006, 04:30 AM
but isn't Motion a pig, too?

heheh, it gave me a bit of a giggle reading that it was being handed over to the folks responsible for Motion. :p

jonharris200
Apr 27, 2006, 05:00 AM
If Aperture as a whole so far has been a 'mess', then how cool will it be by the time they have remedied it? :)

Has anyone actually called Apple to check this story out though? If it's true, I suspect there would be 'no comment'. However, if it's all a red herring, you might expect Apple to firmly deny it.

eSnow
Apr 27, 2006, 05:10 AM
anyone use Lightroom?

Me. Although still in beta and a bit rough around the edges, this is an outstanding application. It runs quite smoothly on my lowly Mac Mini 1.25Ghz / 1GB even with it's Radeon 9200. Aperture would not even install on this machine, so I cannot compare the two.

Organization of images in Lightroom is so-so - better than iPhoto but not up to par with iView Media Pro. Where it reall shines is fine-tuning of colors, contrasts, noise and sharpening - simpl a pleasure to use.

mpw
Apr 27, 2006, 05:16 AM
Oh Christ! Nobody mention this to iGary, it'll be the last thing he reads before going postal at his nearest AppleStore.:eek:

mkwilson68
Apr 27, 2006, 05:22 AM
Aperture is a BIG app in Apple's plans - they just didn't get the core tech right yet. A new team will be assembled for 2.0 and it will get better with each release - there is no way Apple is going to leave the pro photo community having made such a positive step into it.

Remember people, FCP was horrible in its earliest incarnations, but is now awesome. The Aperture UI/workflow is way better than FCP's at an equivalent stage, and with some better tech under the hood it will be another killer app for them.

It's here to stay - this is a positive sign, not a negative one: simply a company prepared to make tough decisions to get their products right.

eSnow
Apr 27, 2006, 05:22 AM
If Apple's other teams can get it under control, all the better but isn't Motion a pig, too?

Unfortunately, almost any Cocoa-App coming from Apple lately is extremely slow in it's first incarnations - e.g. iPhoto. I don't reall understand why this is, since Cocoa is always touted as the more modern environment.

jacobj
Apr 27, 2006, 05:49 AM
Since when did Apple stop giving an application a second version? I find it hard to believe that Apple would abandon the application. They may not be impressed with the team that developed it and are therefore re-locating future development to another team, but abandon it altogether... I doubt it very much.

jacobj
Apr 27, 2006, 05:51 AM
Oh Christ! Nobody mention this to iGary, it'll be the last thing he reads before going postal at his nearest AppleStore.:eek:

You can't go chaning your Avatar like that... I didn't know who the hell you were for a minute.

iGary
Apr 27, 2006, 05:59 AM
I really hope they continue to develop it, although the $200.00 rebate is fishy, like the initial cushion for the fall.

*slaps Steve™*

liketom
Apr 27, 2006, 05:59 AM
You're the cheecky buggers who post this crap! :D
Macrumors only post storys from other sites who have there own sources - Arn never post's storys on a hunch or because his best mates brothers sister said she was dating a guy who worked with a Apple chappy who said he heard that Aperture team was closing down ?

Maybe the Aperture team will be joining a new team ? like Final Cut Studio is now one product maybe Aperture will be part of it's own box set - Apple Photo Studio maybe?

Mr Skills
Apr 27, 2006, 06:05 AM
Think Secret calls it "Apple's most heavily criticized and bug-ridden software release in recent years".

They obviously didn't try Logic 7.0 :eek:

Analog Kid
Apr 27, 2006, 06:08 AM
I'll add my voice to the chorus hoping this doesn't mean the end of the product... I like Aperture.

mpw
Apr 27, 2006, 06:14 AM
You can't go chaning your Avatar like that... I didn't know who the hell you were for a minute.
Is it the hair? It's the hair isn't it, I knew I'd gone too light.:(

h'biki
Apr 27, 2006, 06:29 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Think Secret is reporting (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0604aperture.html) that Apple has disbanded its Aperture development team, which leaves Apple's entry into the professional photography market in limbo.


The "Shake and Motion" team?

I know nothing about the internal structure of Apple... but are the Shake and Motion team REALLY the same Team?

If they were then it'd explain the fact that Shake has barely changed since Apple bought it from Nothing Real. ie no one is actually really doing anything with Shake.

But I'm not sure if are the same team as Shake and Motion are so fundmanetally technologically different...

Oh well.

jdurston
Apr 27, 2006, 06:48 AM
I for one love Aperture. The non-destructive image editing is awesome (although it takes a lot of horsepower to pull of smoothly.

The library organization is much more flexible than iPhoto. Where I had multiple libraries in iPhoto I simply made new projects in Aperture.

If Apple can work a few things with the UI to make it more intuitive then it'll be a homerun.

I think the reason that it has gotten such mixed review is that you can't just sit down with Aperture for an hour and expect to write a accurate review. This program is powerful but take time to learn its full functionality. A journalist just isn't going to get the full experience in their limited test.

manu chao
Apr 27, 2006, 06:54 AM
Maybe there are some technical problems on the development side but as a product Aperture simply rocks. Yes it might be slow at times, yes there might be some missing functions, yes there might be some minor quality issues but compared with PS, I actually do find the time and motivation to organise and improve my photos and do not give up after a working on a handful of photos thinking that I am never going to be able to keep track of all the changes and will never finish it.

Either my needs are those of too small a minority, or these are just technical problems that will be overcome. Apple has a truely revolutionary program with Aperture.

Or the whole article is just complete male cow excrement, which was my first reaction and still is.

EDIT: Concerning the male cow excrement: Can't one use any strong words here anymore? This word has no violent or sexual overtones, it is no insult to anybody here.

NickFalk
Apr 27, 2006, 07:01 AM
Remember people, FCP was horrible in its earliest incarnations, but is now awesome.
Really? earliest incarnations? Version 2.0 was way ahead of anything remotely close to the same price-point.

ctachme
Apr 27, 2006, 07:07 AM
Well I for one wouldn't mind this... if it meant that Apple discontinued Aperture as a separate and just included it with iLife for free ;)

peharri
Apr 27, 2006, 07:28 AM
My reading is that Apple is largely concerned that software that does "X" (insert values for "X" here) is available on the Mac platform. If it's cross platform, then the more the merrier, as that aids Apple's interoperability, which while they remain a minority platform, is very important.

If Adobe is coming out with a competitor, still more a, so far, well received competitor, then it most certainly is in Apple's best interests to "drop" Aperture. Dropping it aids Adobe and aids the third party product that has a chance of being cross platform.

By aiding Adobe, it also strengthens the confidence of third party developers who support Apple. They know that unless they screw up, Apple isn't always going to sweep in and steal their lunch money. This is probably the most serious problem with Windows at the moment, Microsoft has, time and time again, driven third parties into the dust.

There's no point in Apple competing with Adobe if it doesn't result in a significantly better product aimed at the same market. It's a waste of Apple's resources. It drives home the message that Apple doesn't care about third party support. It doesn't add anything to the Macintosh platform. It undermines cross platform compatibility.

Aperture has done the job it was intended to do. It has proven the credibility of CoreGraphics, and it's proven the value of a particular type of tool enough that other people want to create those tools. Let's not get disappointed by a decision from Apple that clearly doesn't harm the platform at all, and will give more confidence to developers to develop great things for the platform. There's more cause, in my view, to mourn the passing of AppleWorks than Aperture.

ipacmm
Apr 27, 2006, 07:32 AM
I hope Think Secret is wrong because with the 1.1 update, it has made Aperture run a lot better. I really enjoy using Aperture for all of my pictures. I hope that apple will continue developing it because that would be a real waste of money for apple if the dropped it.

deadturtle
Apr 27, 2006, 07:33 AM
I completely disagree.

If Apple has decided to abandon the project, which will be a PR nightmare, they would want to be selling as few copies NOW as possible.

Yeah the last thing apple would want is folks snapping up 'dead' software and then calling apple on it when they need support etc. Having to tell your customers uh no we dont support that software anymore would look even worse. If Apperture is an Edsel that apple's best course of action would be to trickle down the features and put a bullet in the main app. Stop selling it now etc.... so hopefully this is all just rumor mongering.

BenRoethig
Apr 27, 2006, 07:43 AM
If this were true, it would be a reputation-loss for Apple... never start what you can't finish.

On the competitive threat of Lightroom... I always felt that Adobe's lack of universal support was a punishment for Apple trying to compete with it. Of course, I have no proof of this. I also don't use any of either photo-related products.

Lightroom is a universal binary app. Since it's a new app, they were able to build it on xcode. Steve Jobs was only half truthful when he said the transition would be easy. Anything built on xcode is able to be converted pretty easy. aAnything built on code warrior is another story. All of their other programs are more or less carbon programs that have been built upon classic OS versions in codewarrior. They have to move them to xcode and basically almost do a complete rewrite which is why they're waiting for the next versions to do it.

adamfilip
Apr 27, 2006, 07:48 AM
i really like aperture and with the update its output is great better then adobes

i hope they continue to develop it and streamline it so it runs faster

avkills
Apr 27, 2006, 07:58 AM
I am not impressed with Aperture. I played around with it on a Quad G5 Quadro FX4500, 4GB of RAM and I was waiting for stuff to happen. I should not have to wait for stuff to happen dealing with single layer still pictures unless it is some insane filter or an astronomically large picture.

But the post above about Apple undermining 3rd parties and their applications makes some sense, even though Apple is trying to stomp on Adobe's weenie with FCP and Motion.

The reason Shake has not changed all that much is the fact that it is a very solid product, Apple at least has the smarts not to break something that isn't broken.

-mark

Warbrain
Apr 27, 2006, 08:11 AM
I played around with Lightroom - don't really care for it. It's missing a lot of features that that kind of software should have and also actually applies things to the photo so if you want to undo something you have to keep hitting undo and lose all of your changes. Example if I want to set it to sepia and make a few changes, if I decide I don't like the sepia but want to keep my current changes, oh well - have to undo all until I get the sepia removed.

...that or I'm just an idiot who didn't know how to use the app

That's how Photoshop has always been for me. And it's quite dumb to force a person to do that.

p0intblank
Apr 27, 2006, 08:16 AM
Wow, this is not good. :( I have yet to use Aperture, but I really want to see Apple do well in this market. I don't think I quite understood the article, though... is Aperture development altogether coming to a close or are they switching up the teams?

SalsaShark
Apr 27, 2006, 08:29 AM
I'm not sure what all you people who are touting Aperture's interface are seeing. It's a bunch of nondescript buttons and there's nothing at all intuitive about it. Plus, it's slow. Plus, it continues to live by this Apple philosophy of making a second copy of everything you work with. When I'm shooting thousands of RAW images a day, the last thing I want is to have two copies of every image on my laptop.

I've been extremely impressed with Lightroom. Sure, it's still missing a few features that would be nice to have, but it is a beta, and Adobe does seem to be listening. Even in its current state, I find it infinitely more usable than Aperture. If this report is true, it's the best thing that could happen, in either scenario. Either put the thing out of its misery for good or get some people working on it who know what they're doing.

joebells
Apr 27, 2006, 08:32 AM
I personally can't imagine they are going to abandon it. If they were they would probably have stopped selling it and maybe even given all the money back to the people that already bought it.

70355
Apr 27, 2006, 08:37 AM
this could negatively impact sales, so hopefully they double checked their sources on this story

arn

If you are so concerned, maybe you should have held off "reporting" this news until you were able to confirm.

But of course, that would entail you doing some legwork of your own, and not simply regurgitating what other sites report.

:rolleyes:

bretm
Apr 27, 2006, 08:37 AM
This explains perfectly the price drop.

Well then explain why DVD Studio Pro went from $1000 to $500 a few years ago?

Let's see, I think it was called Adobe Encore. Which wasn't out, but had been announced.

The first 2 versions of DVD SP were barely functional unless you were a programmer. It was a new product breaking ground in a fairly new field. Aperture will survive.

jelloshotsrule
Apr 27, 2006, 08:40 AM
If you are so concerned, maybe you should have held off "reporting" this news until you were able to confirm.

But of course, that would entail you doing some legwork of your own, and not simply regurgitating what other sites report.

:rolleyes:

but macrumors is a compilation of other rumor sites, as well as having a few of its own sources, who when they turn up (admittedly it's not frequent), turn out to be quite accurate.

this is an important story, whether it is true or not because either way it will have an impact on sales.

well done taking the time to sign up for a site just to trash it, fudgepacker...

bretm
Apr 27, 2006, 08:41 AM
Really? earliest incarnations? Version 2.0 was way ahead of anything remotely close to the same price-point.

I was using 1.2 and making good money with it. At the time, it was more akin to a media composer costing tens of thousands more. Avid was still only a turnkey company and their cheapest offering was aroudn 20 grand, and was limited to 5 layers of video or some crap like that.

Truth is, except for some audio control tools and media management, FCP hasn't really changed much since version 2. They keep layering on additional stuff, but the guts are the same.

I'm not sure what all you people who are touting Aperture's interface are seeing. It's a bunch of nondescript buttons and there's nothing at all intuitive about it. Plus, it's slow. Plus, it continues to live by this Apple philosophy of making a second copy of everything you work with. When I'm shooting thousands of RAW images a day, the last thing I want is to have two copies of every image on my laptop.

That's really odd, because that's exactly what they tout they're NOT doing. All changes are undoable. Meaning they just record all your actions to an image as metadata. No changes are made to a file until you output to a certain format.

bretm
Apr 27, 2006, 08:48 AM
I'm not sure what all you people who are touting Aperture's interface are seeing. It's a bunch of nondescript buttons and there's nothing at all intuitive about it. Plus, it's slow. Plus, it continues to live by this Apple philosophy of making a second copy of everything you work with. When I'm shooting thousands of RAW images a day, the last thing I want is to have two copies of every image on my laptop.


Thought I'd quote apple ...

"Unlike the duplicate files you need to create in other applications, image “versions” take up virtually no storage space, so you don’t pay an overhead penalty. And Aperture automatically keeps track of all your image versions for you, sequentially numbering them on the fly and connecting them to the “master” image as part of a Stack. How helpful is that?"

bretm
Apr 27, 2006, 08:48 AM
I'm pretty sure that was uncalled for.

Well that's his screen name, jholzner.

SiliconAddict
Apr 27, 2006, 08:49 AM
Yeah, I've heard from friends that Aperture is slow, but interesting and useful. I really hope this is not true.

Highlighted for relevancy. I haven't played with Aperture on a Macintel yet so who knows what performance on these DC systems is like. Like cops like to say speed kills. In this case it kills the app. However I don’t think speed is the biggest stickler for many professional photographers. Its how Aperture handles RAW support through the OS. This is BAD IMHO. An image's characteristics should never be tied to the OS. Just as a browser should never be integrated into an OS *coughs*IE*coughs*. Core Image is a very cool thing for your everyday average app but I think there are a number of people out there who are skitterish about using it in pro applications. *shrugs* Or maybe not. I haven’t had my caffeine for the day so who knows.. . . ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzz

Peace
Apr 27, 2006, 08:51 AM
Anybody consider the possibility Apple is changing Aperture into Apple's version of Photoshop ?..Given PS won't be a UB until 2007 I'd say the better engineers are going after Adobe for not releasing PS earlier..THAT"S what's truly hurting sales..

JoshH
Apr 27, 2006, 08:51 AM
Remember when DVD Studio Pro went from version 1 to 2? Wasn't it pretty much completely reworked? This sounds similar to me...

themacman
Apr 27, 2006, 09:00 AM
maybe they have disbannded the aperature team to get new ones for a whole new reworked product

jmeyoung
Apr 27, 2006, 09:16 AM
yeah sales must be down. i guess nobody wanted a great photo program. shucks.


Typically sales being down is a sign that the program is not great.

jelloshotsrule
Apr 27, 2006, 09:25 AM
yes, bretm.

i expect that aperture will remain, and hopefully get some much needed changes. to me, it'd seem to be smarter to get the core of an app right from the start, and then work on its flow/appearance... instead, apple seems to be doing the opposite. guess we'll all wait and see how it works out in the end.

kingtj
Apr 27, 2006, 09:26 AM
First of all, Microsoft very *rarely* comes out with a new software product on their own that "drives competitors into the dust". Rather, they look around at what's available and they buy out the "best of breed" they can get ahold of at the time, rebranding it as "Microsoft". I'd even argue that when they *do* sell their own product rather than buying one out, they usually lose! (EG. Microsoft Money vs. Quicken - which, incidentially, they ended up trying to buy out a few years ago, but got blocked by the fed. govt.)

Even inside Windows itself, Microsoft bundled up a bunch of 3rd. party products and incorporated them. (EG. The Pinball game that came with Windows was made by Maxis. Their Hyperterminal is originally from Hilgraeve Software. The disk defragmenter in Win '98 was licensed from Symantec.) Sometimes, you even find this inside their own applications. (EG. Outlook's fax support is licensed from Symantec... basically a component of "WinFax Pro".)

The interesting thing with Apple is that they *do* regularly develop their own software products from scratch. This puts them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to getting other commercial software developers to agree to write software for their machines -- but it also means they're pretty limited in how many projects they can tackle at a given time. It's pretty clear to me that Apple's focus has been on "rich media publication". If it has to do with editing video, photos, or sound - there's a good chance Apple wants a part of it. Adobe has always been in this same general market-space, except doing it cross-platform. When Final Cut Express and Pro proved themselves superior, Adobe dropped support of Premiere for the Mac. That didn't mean they soured on writing anything for the Mac, though. I think they're well aware that they're in "Apple's waters" when it comes to software product focus. They're simply going to keep taking stabs at offering their products to Mac users until/unless sales drop off because Apple beats them at one of them. They still make plenty of sales off the Windows users, either way.



If Adobe is coming out with a competitor, still more a, so far, well received competitor, then it most certainly is in Apple's best interests to "drop" Aperture. Dropping it aids Adobe and aids the third party product that has a chance of being cross platform.

By aiding Adobe, it also strengthens the confidence of third party developers who support Apple. They know that unless they screw up, Apple isn't always going to sweep in and steal their lunch money. This is probably the most serious problem with Windows at the moment, Microsoft has, time and time again, driven third parties into the dust.

There's no point in Apple competing with Adobe if it doesn't result in a significantly better product aimed at the same market. It's a waste of Apple's resources. It drives home the message that Apple doesn't care about third party support. It doesn't add anything to the Macintosh platform. It undermines cross platform compatibility.

Aperture has done the job it was intended to do. It has proven the credibility of CoreGraphics, and it's proven the value of a particular type of tool enough that other people want to create those tools. Let's not get disappointed by a decision from Apple that clearly doesn't harm the platform at all, and will give more confidence to developers to develop great things for the platform. There's more cause, in my view, to mourn the passing of AppleWorks than Aperture.

Gasu E.
Apr 27, 2006, 09:28 AM
I completely disagree.

If Apple has decided to abandon the project, which will be a PR nightmare, they would want to be selling as few copies NOW as possible.

Correct. I work in the software division of a large computing company and you ALWAYS want to minimize total unit sales of a dud. Because the cost of supporting a large customer base will KILL you if you have no product revenues coming in.

JGowan
Apr 27, 2006, 09:32 AM
This is not like Jobs at all. Steve Jobs just does not accept defeat that easily.

With the lawsuit in play, I think Think Secret wants to hurt Apple with bogus stuff, but I just don't know...

weitzner
Apr 27, 2006, 09:38 AM
I was under the impression that most everyone liked aperture, but agreed that it was still a developing product. I thought it was great, hopefully the shake and motion teams just needed to borrow some of the aperture guys.

suntzu
Apr 27, 2006, 09:46 AM
I read an article in Outdoor Photography that talked about how a lot of photographers (both pro and amateur) are so photoshop-centric that it becomes something of a crutch. Instead of trying to obtain quality photos, they thought "No problem. I can fix that up in photoshop." Thus photography becomes less about using a camera correctly and more about experience & skill in Photoshop. I'm starting to see this in my own work and it's worrying me.

I think Aperture tries to take a different approach to digital photography. I've talked with a few friends who are film-centric and they're really interested in getting into digital photography because of Aperture. They said it's more "organic" and that programs like Photoshop confuse the hell out of them.

I'm curious as to how many people here "grew up" with the digital medium and how many people were dedicated film users until recently.

scottlinux
Apr 27, 2006, 09:46 AM
sometimes you have to kill a team that's not done the job required of them. This does not mean you kill the product.

Right. Aperture is NOT going anywhere. The programming team is being let go. The ONLY big bug with the program is the way it handled RAW from cameras.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars/5

Which was fixed in 1.1 (?)

Also the other problem is that Aperture runs through Core Image and requires a heafty video card to run, therefore won't run on mac minis, iBooks, early iMac G5s, etc.

Lightroom will run fine on a minimal G4, b/c it doesn't utilize Core Image. It flies on my iBook G4 1Ghz.

This all smells like a total rewrite of Aperture for v.2.

halse
Apr 27, 2006, 09:47 AM
Aperture pegs both processors on an MBP but then so does Lightroom.... as to bugs there are about 13,000 posts on the Apple discussion site http://discussions.apple.com/index.jspa [apple.com] and there are probably about the same number in the Lightroom forums.... while I like most Apple apps I've been using Lightroom (so far) but it has its own "features".... both apps still seem like betas to me, both Apple and Adobe are going with interfaces unlike those in their other apps and each approach has some pluses and minuses.......... with millions of dslrs out there and more being bought every day there is a real market for this type of app and $299 is a lot less than the price of a lens (at least I get edu prices on apps if not lenses)

mi5moav
Apr 27, 2006, 09:52 AM
If true this is good news. A reawakening for Jobs. Hopefully, he'll realize that he isn't GOD and even the almighty screws up royally once or twice. But the point being sometimes you need to go outside of the chicken coupe to pick some better eggs. Maybe they won't be so tight with there money I understand that we have an oil crisis going on but just start riding your bicycles over there and start spendind your money on some good stuff... There are some great things out there to be had. You waited a bit to long, you thought you were gonna get some bargains in the market and now the market has caught up and your cash is getting a little stale... Come on lets start spending already. We got some great little companies that are starting to catch back on fire that might be fit into a certain segment... like Kodak or Adobe and others who have some great name recognition and some great great patents and products to be had. Spend wisely my son but spend and spend soon.

SalsaShark
Apr 27, 2006, 09:54 AM
Thought I'd quote apple ...

"Unlike the duplicate files you need to create in other applications, image “versions” take up virtually no storage space, so you don’t pay an overhead penalty. And Aperture automatically keeps track of all your image versions for you, sequentially numbering them on the fly and connecting them to the “master” image as part of a Stack. How helpful is that?"

Have you even used the thing? Maybe instead of quoting stuff you find on the web, you actually endeavor to understand what you're talking about. What a novel concept.

I copy files off my card onto my laptop. That's one copy. I import those into Aperture. It makes a copy in its library file. That's two copies. Any changes you make from there are incremental, but it makes a full copy of the file in its library. And if you have ever tried pulling the original RAW file out of that library mess, you'll understand why I'd prefer to keep my original RAW files completely separate from Aperture. I have no intention of keeping every photo I'll ever shoot in my laptop's Aperture library.

jholzner
Apr 27, 2006, 10:02 AM
Well that's his screen name, jholzner.

LOL...I stand corrected!! I didn't even realize that! I thought you were just being a jerk :p

iGary
Apr 27, 2006, 10:05 AM
I've had time to digest this, and I really hope it isn't true.

I just blasted through a 600-image shoot I did on the water last night and got it all paired down to selects in about an hour - in full screen. Photoshop doesn't even come close, and Portfolio is a joke in this regard.

The image editing portion of Aperture is pretty unimpressive, unfortunately. There are better plugins for noise and sharpness in Photoshop, so for the images I plan on selling for print or display, I do find myself exporting to Photoshop quite a bit.

If Apple can get the image editing part of the program they'll do gangbusters because the organizational and database aspect of the program is really kick ass.

suntzu
Apr 27, 2006, 10:13 AM
Have you even used the thing? Maybe instead of quoting stuff you find on the web, you actually endeavor to understand what you're talking about. What a novel concept.

I copy files off my card onto my laptop. That's one copy. I import those into Aperture. It makes a copy in its library file. That's two copies. Any changes you make from there are incremental, but it makes a full copy of the file in its library. And if you have ever tried pulling the original RAW file out of that library mess, you'll understand why I'd prefer to keep my original RAW files completely separate from Aperture. I have no intention of keeping every photo I'll ever shoot in my laptop's Aperture library.

You need to calm down. There's nothing from your previous post that would indicate you do this. Not everyone has the same workflow as you so you can't assume the poster knew exactly what you're talking about.

My workflow is similar to yours and I have no problems. I copy the RAW files to CD/DVD and then I get my RAW's into Aperture. So I only have 1 copy on my MBP.

~Shard~
Apr 27, 2006, 10:15 AM
Perhaps they are disbanding the Aperture team to instead focus on Aperture Pro. :p ;) The CS3 Photoshop won't be out for another year, maybe Aperture's sales are hurting because of that, who knows... And maybe Apple is going to try and release a more heavy duty version of Aperture as a result.

Nah, I'd say not, but hey, it's fun to throw random ideas out there... ;) :D

devman
Apr 27, 2006, 10:16 AM
I know two of the engineers who wrote Aperture. They have both moved to other groups, one to Application Frameworks, and one to CoreImage. In each case, their new job is a higher-profile position. If there had been a round of firings of the Aperture developers, I would have heard about it.

-jcr


Taken from a slashdot post here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=184241&cid=15212201

Oh and jcr certainly is connected and would know. Anyone who's into Cocoa and been to WWDC or on the mailing lists would know him... http://slashdot.org/~jcr/journal/109763

shawnce
Apr 27, 2006, 10:23 AM
Taken from a slashdot post here http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=184241&cid=15212201

Oh and jcr certainly is connected and would know. Anyone who's into Cocoa and been to WWDC or on the mailing lists would know him... http://slashdot.org/~jcr/journal/109763

I agree with jcr as well... some folks got moved around among teams but not close to what ThinkSecret is suggesting. ...and so far 1.1 release looks good.

70355
Apr 27, 2006, 10:32 AM
MacRumors is being hypocritical by expressing concern that they hoped Think Secret had confirmed the rumor, since the rumor could hurt Apple financially -- and then they go ahead and run the rumor anyway, without confirmation.

wildmac
Apr 27, 2006, 10:37 AM
Let me explain the problems Aperture has...

It's a resource pig. Many photographers travel light, and they need this to work on a laptop well. Right now it's only suited for a power tower in the studio.

It's RAW processing sucks. This is a killer for proffesional use. This, above all, needs fixing. The home user might not mind, but the pro can't have the strange artifacts that Aperture introduces.

Lightroom WILL be bundled with the next Adobe suite. It's totally logical that Adobe will do this. This means that any graphics pro who upgrades their suite will also have Lightroom. Why would they then buy Aperture, unless Aperture is a far superior program?.. (And Aperture certainly is NOT that right now).

Aperture may be fine for those of you who what IPhoto on steroids, but for a working pro, Aperture is not their yet, and has some major competition now.

fixyourthinking
Apr 27, 2006, 10:37 AM
this could negatively impact sales, so hopefully they double checked their sources on this story

arn

Rumors sites couldn't possibly hurt Apple's sales ... wow there's an admission I thought i would never see!

True too!

manu chao
Apr 27, 2006, 10:39 AM
I copy files off my card onto my laptop. That's one copy. I import those into Aperture. It makes a copy in its library file. That's two copies. Any changes you make from there are incremental, but it makes a full copy of the file in its library. And if you have ever tried pulling the original RAW file out of that library mess, you'll understand why I'd prefer to keep my original RAW files completely separate from Aperture. I have no intention of keeping every photo I'll ever shoot in my laptop's Aperture library.

I can very easily access every photo in Aperture, from there it just one command to export the original raw, e.g. to open it in PS.

If you do not trust Aperture, you can keep a back-up of the all raw files you imported. You need this back-up only in case Aperture corrupts its library, which to all we know will not happen every day. Therefore there is no need to keep the back-up on your computer.

If you want to organise your raw files within in Aperture and within your own folder structure then you need two copies. But then you also need to maintain two folder structures. I would not have thought anybody would be willing to do this.

ChrisA
Apr 27, 2006, 10:50 AM
The fact that they cut the price drastically and offered the 1.1 upgrade free and gave refunds to the people who bought 1.0 says to me that Aperture was not selling well.

The biggest problem I had with Aperture, that kept me from buying it was the raw conversion process. There are so many other raw converters on the market. For $500 Apterure would have to be far better then any of them. It wasn't and still is not. In the Nikon world "Nikon capture" still doees the best job, folowed maybe by Photoshop. Nikon is comming out soon with "NX" which will sell for $100. Apple will have to compete with that

Another problem for Apple is that the raw conversion is actually done by a component of Mac OSX. So iPhoto shares the converter with Aperture so at the low end Aperture was to compete with iPhoto. Lots of competitors and it didn't stand out above them where it really matters

But it was really not bad either. It just failed to be the best.

But Adobe got it right. They put Lightroom out as a free Beta version. It looks like their plan is to spend about a year listening to users. They will have a much better version 1.0 release. I think Apple knows this and may be in a bit of a panic to salvage Aperture.

mazola
Apr 27, 2006, 10:51 AM
But how will this effect iPod sales?

ITR 81
Apr 27, 2006, 10:53 AM
This story just "smells" wrong to me. I wonder whether this isn't a bogus leak from Apple, still attempting to shut down their Think Secret source.


Exactly what I was thinking.

Sounds abit like FUD.

Apple sent FUD and TS bit.

jelloshotsrule
Apr 27, 2006, 11:02 AM
MacRumors is being hypocritical by expressing concern that they hoped Think Secret had confirmed the rumor, since the rumor could hurt Apple financially -- and then they go ahead and run the rumor anyway, without confirmation.

that's fair enough, and i may join you in asking arn why he chose to post it if he considered its possible negative impact (whether or not true).

jelloshotsrule
Apr 27, 2006, 11:03 AM
Exactly what I was thinking.

Sounds abit like FUD.

Apple sent FUD and TS bit.

but how exactly does the story benefit apple? what would their motivation be?

devman
Apr 27, 2006, 11:05 AM
This story just "smells" wrong to me. I wonder whether this isn't a bogus leak from Apple, still attempting to shut down their Think Secret source.


Exactly what I was thinking.

Sounds abit like FUD.

Apple sent FUD and TS bit.

This dubious story is a PR and sales nightmare for Arperture. And you think Apple planted it?

I think not.

tjwett
Apr 27, 2006, 11:10 AM
wow

sales must have been in the dumps

i wouldn't be surprised, considering they recently dropped the price by $200, nearly cutting it in half.

mpw
Apr 27, 2006, 11:13 AM
MacRumors is being hypocritical by expressing concern that they hoped Think Secret had confirmed the rumor, since the rumor could hurt Apple financially -- and then they go ahead and run the rumor anyway, without confirmation.
As I read it it's Arn who is expressing concern not MacRumors who are simple relaying the report.
TS are reporting from sources which they obviously have faith in as they do not qualify their reported information as rumour, whereas MacRumors makes no claim as to the reliability of the relayed report and go so far as to put a large blue question mark to the right of the posting indicating it's rumour status.

crees!
Apr 27, 2006, 11:31 AM
If true this is good news. A reawakening for Jobs. Hopefully, he'll realize that he isn't GOD and even the almighty screws up royally once or twice.
He did play God. He fired them all! He didn't create the program, the now unemployed programmers did :D

phonic pol
Apr 27, 2006, 11:32 AM
I hope Apple sticks with Apeture. I've been using it since release and it does have performance issues but it's a great product. I also use lightroom and much prefer the way Aperture works. The latest release is a big improvement and I just hope Apple keep improving it; I was banking on using this product for years to come!

For reference, I use a G5 dual 2ghz with 2.5 GB ram and the all important Radeon 9800 Pro. Only have 756mb on my G4 PB 1.33 so don't run aperture on this which requires a minimum of 1gb just to install. I use lightroom on the G4 which works fine.

phonic pol
Apr 27, 2006, 11:39 AM
PS. something smells of bulls**t round here! :eek:

bousozoku
Apr 27, 2006, 11:49 AM
Unfortunately, almost any Cocoa-App coming from Apple lately is extremely slow in it's first incarnations - e.g. iPhoto. I don't reall understand why this is, since Cocoa is always touted as the more modern environment.

Cocoa is a better development environment, and therefore, development can be faster but execution is rarely faster, except in minds already thinking that different is better and faster.

skippy64
Apr 27, 2006, 11:54 AM
PS. something smells of bulls**t round here! :eek:
I smelt it very strongly this morning when I first read the article & the link to ThinkSecret's report about it. ;)

phonic pol
Apr 27, 2006, 11:57 AM
I smelt it very strongly this morning when I first read the article & the link to ThinkSecret's report about it. ;)

The revenge of Think Secret perhaps? :D

peharri
Apr 27, 2006, 12:29 PM
First of all, Microsoft very *rarely* comes out with a new software product on their own that "drives competitors into the dust". Rather, they look around at what's available and they buy out the "best of breed" they can get ahold of at the time, rebranding it as "Microsoft"...

...ok, now tell me the bit that refutes what I said.

Like it or not, Microsoft has pretty much destroyed third party development in most major mass-market application areas. Whether it did so by developing the competitive software in house, or by buying *one* of the software houses that produced such software is immaterial. In the end, it competes with, and destroys, any third party developer that dares to produce anything with a product whose shelf life is measured in years, and whose market is measured in tens of thousands or better.

Apple, for the most part, doesn't do this for the pro-apps, unless it sees a serious deficit in what third party developers are producing.

gkarris
Apr 27, 2006, 12:33 PM
Aperture is a piece of junk software. I hope that Apple made them all walk out with their pants around their ankles to humiliate them for making such a mess of this app. I did the correct thing by apple, and they screwed me on an app that was simple iPhoto with a bit of extra guts.
Good riddance Aperture folks.:mad:

I think Apple should stick to computers and the OS. It's hard to beat Microsoft as far as business software, and Adobe and Macromedia as far as creative.

I remember (I'm dating myself) trying to use MacDraw or MacWrite for certain things, but ended up having to use Aldus Pagemaker... All great programs, but Pagemaker did what I really needed to do.

Still waiting for my 13" Macbook (tried the Macbook Pro running Windows XP with bootcamp at the store yesterday - really freaky...)

greenstork
Apr 27, 2006, 12:45 PM
Hmm, I've use it, seems like a nice app that does what its advertised for, (btw, its still be advertised on the 17 MBP on Apple.com's front page)

Anyway, I would say the $200 price drop and coupon are big hints, I would like this program to be redone tho, reinvented to be the 'FCP' of the photography world

The FCP of the photography world is available today, it's called Photoshop.

MacVault
Apr 27, 2006, 12:51 PM
...the Quicken for OS X developer team!

QPlot
Apr 27, 2006, 01:00 PM
How's this possible?
Just fire bunch of people and get it started again :eek:

MovieCutter
Apr 27, 2006, 01:17 PM
I think Apple should stick to computers and the OS. It's hard to beat Microsoft as far as business software, and Adobe and Macromedia as far as creative.

Thank god they didn't have that mentality when they created Final Cut Pro...

mcarnes
Apr 27, 2006, 01:31 PM
I think Apple should stick to computers and the OS. It's hard to beat Microsoft as far as business software, and Adobe and Macromedia as far as creative.

It might be hard to beat MS dominance, but certainly not it's quality.

memo06dic
Apr 27, 2006, 01:32 PM
I though apple had an exelent chance to win marketshare with the anoucement of the universal version and the lower price of aperture, after adobe anounced it's CS3 for the spring of 2007, one year from now!

notjustjay
Apr 27, 2006, 01:34 PM
Thank god they didn't have that mentality when they created Final Cut Pro...

Except that... didn't they buy out Final Cut Pro?

Edit: Yep, Apple bought the nascent product (originally named Key Grip) from Macromedia. They even tried to sell it back off, and when nobody bought, decided to develop it in-house. They dropped the Windows version, too. :)

Still, the original point stands.

puckhead193
Apr 27, 2006, 01:35 PM
haha, i like the title of the thread :o :cool:
I never really used apterture only fooling around with it in the store for a few mins. I see it more like an iPhoto on steroids. It does basic editing, organization, and the books

bretm
Apr 27, 2006, 01:38 PM
I think Apple should stick to computers and the OS. It's hard to beat Microsoft as far as business software, and Adobe and Macromedia as far as creative.

I remember (I'm dating myself) trying to use MacDraw or MacWrite for certain things, but ended up having to use Aldus Pagemaker... All great programs, but Pagemaker did what I really needed to do.

Still waiting for my 13" Macbook (tried the Macbook Pro running Windows XP with bootcamp at the store yesterday - really freaky...)

You're joking, right? Final Cut Pro, Motion, DVD Studio Pro, iPhoto, iMovie, Keynote, Pages, GarageBand, Soundtrack, iTunes, iChat, even Mail Safari and iCal. And let's not forget the produts they've bought and now continue to update... Shake and Logic and I'm sure I'm forgetting others.... iWeb looks pretty cool for a beginner web program. What does Microsoft offer? Frontpage. Frontpage is crap. People debate Pages, but it's usually about how it integrates with MS products. If that's the debate you might as well go buy a PC. And I think most people argue Keynote is superior to the laughable powerpoint. Don't worry, I'm sure a spreadsheet app is coming. AND, let's not forget half this stuff is free on every mac! Adobe bowed out of DVD and Video editing on the mac because Apple out did them. Flat out. So Aperture was a little early out of the gate. Most argue it has some technical and performance issues. So yes, Apple should be scolded for early release. They gave money back and fired the staff. Good enough. I'm sure just like DVDSP the next full version will be amazing.

bretm
Apr 27, 2006, 01:47 PM
Except that... didn't they buy out Final Cut Pro?

Edit: Yep, Apple bought the nascent product (originally named Key Grip) from Macromedia. They even tried to sell it back off, and when nobody bought, decided to develop it in-house. They dropped the Windows version, too. :)

Still, the original point stands.

And how many products did Adobe buy from others? Framemaker, Pagemaker and AFTER EFFECTS come to mind. Yes, After Effects was called CoSA After Effects for version 1 and 2 I believe.

arn
Apr 27, 2006, 03:06 PM
we're not ThinkSecret's gatekeeper. ThinkSecret tends to get the benefit of the doubt when they publish their stories. They've had a relatively good record over the years, so their significant stories get published.

If this same story had come from an unknown site, then it would have been pushed to Page 2 if posted at all.

arn

macnews
Apr 27, 2006, 03:08 PM
that's fair enough, and i may join you in asking arn why he chose to post it if he considered its possible negative impact (whether or not true). but why not be mature about it and ask rather than making your first post on the board, with a somewhat offensive (to some, not me really) screen name, inflammatory and accusative? also, you went on to rant about how macrumors doesn't do its own work, etc. which is really what i was defending moreso than this particular story.


I also questioned why this is page one, when other stories (the garage band update) have been page 2. If you read the FAQs about page 2, it says something to the effect of page 2 being used for uncertain rumors and those items of lesser (my word) news importance. I see any Apple software update being more important and page 1 worthy. However, Think Secret has been off the mark a bit on their rumors. With something as potentially damaging as this, and only one site reporting, why not put it on page 2?

Just my 2 cents.

iGary
Apr 27, 2006, 03:08 PM
The FCP of the photography world is available today, it's called Photoshop.

*falls down laughing*

steve_hill4
Apr 27, 2006, 03:13 PM
I think Apple should stick to computers and the OS. It's hard to beat Microsoft as far as business software, and Adobe and Macromedia as far as creative.
Well, since Adobe took over Macromedia, that effectively means you should leave the market to one company. Without competition, products rarely move forward fast enough.

As for Aperture, I hope this isn't the end. I wouldn't plump down that kind of money for an app I would rarely use, so have never used it properly. I have however seen a full demo of it, (Mac Expo London last year, shortly after announcement), and could see the benefits to those in the industry. Didn't seem sluggish to me though.

swingerofbirch
Apr 27, 2006, 03:25 PM
I dont know much about running a huge bidness..but why does Apple have a separate team for Aperture and iPhoto? They both do photos, both can handle RAW photos (whatever the heck that is).

MovieCutter
Apr 27, 2006, 03:28 PM
Except that... didn't they buy out Final Cut Pro?

Edit: Yep, Apple bought the nascent product (originally named Key Grip) from Macromedia. They even tried to sell it back off, and when nobody bought, decided to develop it in-house. They dropped the Windows version, too. :)

Still, the original point stands.

No it doesn't. Final Cut is one of Apple's most successful and breakthrough software products, regardless of where they got it from. I and thousands of other editors make a living at using an NLE that makes our lives much easier than it would be if we were using Premiere, and we don't have to shell out $30,000 for an Avid. The point of "Apple should focus on the OS and hardware" is incomplete if not idiotic. If that were the case, we wouldn't have iTunes and iLife, we wouldn't have Final Cut Pro, Shake wouldn't be where it is today, and neither would Logic...

steve_hill4
Apr 27, 2006, 03:47 PM
we're not ThinkSecret's gatekeeper. ThinkSecret tends to get the benefit of the doubt when they publish their stories. They've had a relatively good record over the years, so their significant stories get published.

If this same story had come from an unknown site, then it would have been pushed to Page 2 if posted at all.

arn
Well said. We come here primarily to discuss rumours and when another site publishes a rumour that is relayed here and possibly could harm Apple, people kick off. If we weren't so fascinated by rumours, no sites would print them and/or make some up so the company in question would never feel any knock on effect from false rumours like this one. However, some false and real rumours help to boost stock value of said company, so it works both ways.

In short, I'm sure if we decided not to post TS rumours anymore and other sites did likewise, some would then complain we weren't reporting all rumours. After all, that's all they are.

jettredmont
Apr 27, 2006, 03:57 PM
Have you even used the thing? Maybe instead of quoting stuff you find on the web, you actually endeavor to understand what you're talking about. What a novel concept.

I copy files off my card onto my laptop. That's one copy. I import those into Aperture. It makes a copy in its library file. That's two copies. Any changes you make from there are incremental, but it makes a full copy of the file in its library. And if you have ever tried pulling the original RAW file out of that library mess, you'll understand why I'd prefer to keep my original RAW files completely separate from Aperture. I have no intention of keeping every photo I'll ever shoot in my laptop's Aperture library.

Hmm. Well, that seems more like it is your problem than Aperture's.

If you really want to have your own external-to-Aperture organization of image files, maybe five minutes researching symbolic links in the file system would solve your problem? I've only dabbled in Aperture (iPhoto is rich enough for me, for now), but so far as I recall, the Aperture library is just a package folder and all your images are stored directly inside it as files organized by date of import. Is there a reason you can't use symbolic links to organize this in whatever more "logical" structure you have in mind? Heck, if your structure is truly logical, you might even be able to do it via a set of Spotlight folders!

Besides which, it seems that the "original file just in case I drop Aperture completely" would go on a (or a group of) backup disk filed away somewhere outside the vagaries of notebook haard drive failures, right alongside the backup of Aperture's library itself. Personally, I have to say that filling half a laptop drive with pictures is a recipe for disaster. Pro photographers I know always back up their card directly first onto one drive, then import it onto their computer; seems to make sense, as it preserves the "this is what I photographed" data perfectly. 'Course, those that do a lot of post-processing aren't as pedantic about forever preserving the straight-from-the-camera raw file and clear out the "original raws" disk once they've backed up from their hard drive ...

Anyway, just wanted to point out that there is more than one way to do most things on these little computers. Maybe you would be a lot happier using a different method.

bousozoku
Apr 27, 2006, 04:07 PM
The FCP of the photography world is available today, it's called Photoshop.

Photoshop is one of the most painful applications to use. It's the opposite of what Aperture is trying to be. It's definitely not anything like FCP, except in the most general terms.

greenstork
Apr 27, 2006, 04:45 PM
Photoshop is one of the most painful applications to use. It's the opposite of what Aperture is trying to be. It's definitely not anything like FCP, except in the most general terms.

I just disagree, Photoshop is one of the most powerful and well respected software tools available on the market today, period.

iTron5
Apr 27, 2006, 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bousozoku
Photoshop is one of the most painful applications to use. It's the opposite of what Aperture is trying to be. It's definitely not anything like FCP, except in the most general terms.

I just disagree, Photoshop is one of the most powerful and well respected software tools available on the market today, period.


To bousozoku
Photoshop is very painfull to use if you don't understand the 1 billion different features it offers ( that's definitely me ). I would say though that so is final cut pro. I am a perfect example of this. Last weekend i was pulling video from old vhs tapes, final cut pro can't seem to see the video source, but i open imovie and it automatically sees the vcr as a camera and starts showing the video. Now this obviously is completely my lack of understanding regarding final cut pro and it's billion features, but for someone with my lack of experience with final cut, i could make the same assertion that it's painfull to use as well. So i think the original assertion is fairly valid.

To greenstork
It is indeed one of the most powerfull tools on the market but for the people not familiar with it's billion features it can be very difficult to use and understand. Difficult to use and powerfull often go hand in hand atleast until you are very fluent with the application.

longofest
Apr 27, 2006, 05:10 PM
I also questioned why this is page one, when other stories (the garage band update) have been page 2. If you read the FAQs about page 2, it says something to the effect of page 2 being used for uncertain rumors and those items of lesser (my word) news importance. I see any Apple software update being more important and page 1 worthy. However, Think Secret has been off the mark a bit on their rumors. With something as potentially damaging as this, and only one site reporting, why not put it on page 2?

Just my 2 cents.

Opinions are of course always appreciated. However, the garageband update was simply a minor update, so it did not qualify as front page material. If you notice, many stories by TS and AppleInsider end up on Page2 or not relayed at all. This one was reported on page one due to its impact and credebility of source combined. There's no set formula of course, but a judgement call.

jdurston
Apr 27, 2006, 05:22 PM
Aperture is here to stay. I disappointed with FUD from thinksecret.com

reyesmac
Apr 27, 2006, 05:22 PM
Maybe the application would run faster if they made it work with more than a handful of Macs. They need to stop making applications for computers that are not even out yet and instead make them sing on the computers their customers would run it on.

twoodcc
Apr 27, 2006, 06:02 PM
Aperture is here to stay. I disappointed with FUD from thinksecret.com

i sure hope so. that would make Apple look bad

swingerofbirch
Apr 27, 2006, 06:02 PM
Maybe the application would run faster if they made it work with more than a handful of Macs. They need to stop making applications for computers that are not even out yet and instead make them sing on the computers their customers would run it on.

I second that, and furthermore add that the applications should run like butter, baby!

Thomas S
Apr 27, 2006, 06:03 PM
I read an article in Outdoor Photography that talked about how a lot of photographers (both pro and amateur) are so photoshop-centric that it becomes something of a crutch. Instead of trying to obtain quality photos, they thought "No problem. I can fix that up in photoshop." Thus photography becomes less about using a camera correctly and more about experience & skill in Photoshop. I'm starting to see this in my own work and it's worrying me.

I think Aperture tries to take a different approach to digital photography. I've talked with a few friends who are film-centric and they're really interested in getting into digital photography because of Aperture. They said it's more "organic" and that programs like Photoshop confuse the hell out of them.

I'm curious as to how many people here "grew up" with the digital medium and how many people were dedicated film users until recently.

I grew up developing downstairs in a darkroom. While I knew the powers of things such as dodging/burning, I knew that they were just to fix "God's mistakes" as Ansel Adam's once said :D.

All joking aside, a photograph should be nailed in the camera if at all possible. When I attended a seminar by Eddie Tapp at Filmet a while ago, he showed us all of these "neat things." One thing they all had in common was time.

No one has time to "fix" everything in the computer. Instead, that time should be spent in the field to grab photographs such as this:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3793/reach2gz.th.png (http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=reach2gz.png)

It is a thumbnail from my website redesign project.

I just disagree, Photoshop is one of the most powerful and well respected software tools available on the market today, period.

No one doubts the power Photoshop grants us. However, it is SEVERELY lacking when it comes to photographic tools (archiving, organizing etc.)

Right now I could walk over to our safe, and find a shot I need within 5 minutes (out of thousands of slides) if I know what I'm looking for. Photoshop, or Bridge for that matter, doesn't offer me anything like that.

Aperture is the closest thing to that yet.

rt_brained
Apr 27, 2006, 06:10 PM
I dont know much about running a huge bidness..but why does Apple have a separate team for Aperture and iPhoto? They both do photos, both can handle RAW photos (whatever the heck that is).
You hit on a good point. They don't have separate teams; and that's just why Aperture is in trouble. The next generation video iPod, which also handles photos, is now delayed—so you have to figure that Jobs is cutting his losses. They also need to get Boot Camp finished in time for the new OS release and...hellooo...how are they doing with getting the Intel chip in the Power Mac?!

You got 3, maybe 4 guys working on that many projects at the same time...folks start taking extra-long breaks, showing up late for work...delays, delays, delays.

Di9it8
Apr 27, 2006, 06:25 PM
Me. Although still in beta and a bit rough around the edges, this is an outstanding application. It runs quite smoothly on my lowly Mac Mini 1.25Ghz / 1GB even with it's Radeon 9200. Aperture would not even install on this machine, so I cannot compare the two.



I was sent a copy of Aperture from Apple, but it would not even install on my 17" PB!!!
I have yet to see it running well, although I like the interface design:(

ChrisA
Apr 27, 2006, 06:33 PM
I dont know much about running a huge bidness..but why does Apple have a separate team for Aperture and iPhoto? They both do photos, both can handle RAW photos (whatever the heck that is).

They have several teams. One team maintains Apple's "core image", another the basic building blocks of all user interfaces, another team on the files system and so on.

The Aperture team uses the products of serveral other teams as does the iPhoto team. If you design things right there is little overlap. I doubt theve designed it so perfectly that there is no overlap but that is the basic idea.

JGowan
Apr 27, 2006, 07:39 PM
I think it would very un-Apple like to on the one hand, deciding to kill off Aperture and then showcasing it on the front of their website...

Pro on the Go
RAW performance for the Universal version of Aperture.

There's two versions,... one showcasing Final Cut Pro and one showcasing Aperture. I really believe if the software was getting the ax, they would remove it from such a prominent place.

Also... they need a very pro program like this to help sell two 30" displays at a time! When I first saw the Aperture Quicktime movies, I was blown away by the beauty of the photography on such an impressive setup. I think there are are tons of professionals who would easily love to work with great software on such an amazing computer luxury. I believe a $250 piece of software could sell thousands of dollars in hardware. I don't believe Apple would let this go. It helps push their hardware.

mcarnes
Apr 27, 2006, 08:03 PM
Hey Thomas, no offense, but maybe you should use PS to fix the distracting blown highlights in the bottom left of that flower shot. Guess you couldn't nail the exposure in camera, or it was out of your camera's DR, so PS to the rescue...

ClimbingTheLog
Apr 27, 2006, 09:37 PM
What's this I hear about Aperture being dog slow?
Some users have complained about..
What are we doing about it?
We've had the engineers take a look at it and they say it's as fast as they can make...
What are they ********* crazy? It's a go**amn photo sorter. We have apps that run 30 HD frames a second over in Video Apps on the same hardware.
Maybe the engineers over in Video could take a look...
D**n right they can - have them tell the Aperture guys how to do their jobs.
=== days later ===
The Video guys say the image processing code is done all wrong. They say it doesn't fit the Core Image model at all and is unnecessarily complex. They made a set of suggestions for the Aperture guys.
So when's it going to be fixed?
Well, actually the Aperture guys say that the Video guys' suggestions don't really fit their model all that well.
What other solution are they offering?
They don't have one right...
The whole team agrees?
The senior engineers are pretty adament - the junior programmers aren't part of this process.
So I have one team that can make decent software saying one thing and another team that can't saying something else. Get rid of the idiots and move the junior guys to other teams. Tell the Video guys they have until we ship the Mac Pros in August to get it fixed.
And what about the Video schedule?
It doesn't matter - NAB is over - hire some more programmers for the Video team and get it done.

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 28, 2006, 02:34 AM
Did anyone read the TS story??.. TS did not state that Aperture will be killed, only that it is in trouble. They state that it is possible a new team will completely rewrite aperture and get it right in version 2.0. You guys should sometimes click on the link the article references and read the original for yourselves

That is my hope. Or as a message on the AI site mentioned, maybe Apple is poised to buy Adobe? Stranger things have happened.

It makes sense that Apple buy Adobe, thus sealing up the photo end of the business by forcing users to go with the MacIntels for photo work and using Boot Camp for the rest.

Just hopeful thinking maybe. :)

ChrisBrightwell
Apr 28, 2006, 03:30 AM
That is my hope. Or as a message on the AI site mentioned, maybe Apple is poised to buy Adobe? Stranger things have happened. Yeah, like Adobe buying Macromedia.

If Apple could take the Adobe/Macromedia product lines and integrate them as well as Final Cut Studio or iLife are integrated, they would destroy the competition. Will that happen? I somehow doubt it.

notjustjay
Apr 28, 2006, 08:05 AM
No it doesn't.

Whoops, I am an idiot :rolleyes:

I was misreading a few quote levels of the thread up to and including the post you made that I replied to. (See what happens when you skim MacRumors instead of working...)

I agree with you. Apple does a heck of a lot as a software company -- though not everything they do, either, is original. Like Microsoft, Apple is also prone to occasionally buying out a good technology and reselling it as their own.

SalsaShark
Apr 28, 2006, 09:02 AM
If you really want to have your own external-to-Aperture organization of image files, maybe five minutes researching symbolic links in the file system would solve your problem? I've only dabbled in Aperture (iPhoto is rich enough for me, for now), but so far as I recall, the Aperture library is just a package folder and all your images are stored directly inside it as files organized by date of import. Is there a reason you can't use symbolic links to organize this in whatever more "logical" structure you have in mind? Heck, if your structure is truly logical, you might even be able to do it via a set of Spotlight folders!

I love how almost everyone defending Aperture has never actually used it or only "dabbled" in it. I think that's pretty telling right there. Aperture takes each image and buries it 4 or 5 folders deep inside its library, and renames it. Symbolic linking is not practical here.

Besides which, it seems that the "original file just in case I drop Aperture completely" would go on a (or a group of) backup disk filed away somewhere outside the vagaries of notebook haard drive failures, right alongside the backup of Aperture's library itself.

When I return from location, I archive all my photos to two external drives and occasionally DVD-R, but I don't trust optical media enough for serious storage. What's at issue here for me is the ability to work with my files in the field and still be able to archive them for easy retrieval later, which should be what any working photojournalist needs.

Maybe you would be a lot happier using a different method.

Yeah, like I said, Lightroom.

Someone nailed it earlier when they said Aperture is only really useful on a beefy setup in a studio. Even on my MBP, when I've got thousands of photos a day to wade through and up against a deadline, Aperture simply doesn't cut it. Don't get me wrong. I was thrilled when I originally heard about Aperture. I don't want it to fail, but that's all it's done so far. I hope as a result of this shakeup they turn out a wonderful product down the line. Adobe needs the competition. Right now, they're not getting much, even up against a free beta.

Play Ultimate
Apr 28, 2006, 09:03 AM
I remember (I'm dating myself) trying to use MacDraw or MacWrite for certain things, but ended up having to use Aldus Pagemaker... All great programs, but Pagemaker did what I really needed to do.


I miss Pagemaker and have yet to find a replacement as good. I especially liked the "Make Booklet" function.

Back on Topic...
Something is definitely going on. However, I doubt that Apple will throw in the towel yet on this software. Apple traditionally has been quite stubborn about abandoning products. It may just linger though without further update.

jelloshotsrule
Apr 28, 2006, 09:30 AM
I believe a $250 piece of software could sell thousands of dollars in hardware. I don't believe Apple would let this go. It helps push their hardware.

this is a great point. i still don't think aperture is going away. and while i like it and think it has amazing potential, i see the flaws and certainly hope for a much improved 2.0 version.

manu chao
Apr 28, 2006, 10:26 AM
I love how almost everyone defending Aperture has never actually used it or only "dabbled" in it.

I use Aperture as my main and almost exclusive photo processing app. Every couple of weeks I try to improve a photo additionally in Photoshop, where it takes much longer to do the same things, and I do not have the time nor the motivation to do this but for exceptional cases.

Someone nailed it earlier when they said Aperture is only really useful on a beefy setup in a studio. Even on my MBP, when I've got thousands of photos a day to wade through and up against a deadline, Aperture simply doesn't cut it.
Sure a bigger screen helps enormously. Is Aperture to slow for you (when handling thousands of pictures) or are its organisational features not able to handle thousands of pictures well enough.

Maybe the 200 pictures per event I usually produce do not stress Aperture enough for me to appreciate its shortcomings.

ChrisBrightwell
Apr 28, 2006, 10:32 AM
Maybe the 200 pictures per event I usually produce do not stress Aperture enough for me to appreciate its shortcomings.What hardware do you use for this?

SPG
Apr 28, 2006, 11:12 AM
I've got a 1.83 MacBook in the back of a UPS truck rolling slowly toward my house right now. I didn't buy Aperture yet, but I was about to.
I used to be a pro sports photographer in the days before digital. I'm shooting part time pro again and I'm trying to figure out which way to go, Lightroom or Aperture. I'm a little bit hesitant to start working fully with Lightroom because it's a beta and Adobe hasn't said what the final program will cost. Anyone know what the price will be? Just because it's free right now doesn't mean it won't be $1000 when the beta expires.
Aperture creating it's own library file can get big quick when you have thousands of shots and an 80gig laptop that has other stuff on it. Anyone have a good solution for that?

SalsaShark
Apr 28, 2006, 11:20 AM
Sure a bigger screen helps enormously. Is Aperture to slow for you (when handling thousands of pictures) or are its organisational features not able to handle thousands of pictures well enough.

Maybe the 200 pictures per event I usually produce do not stress Aperture enough for me to appreciate its shortcomings.

It's not the screen size so much (though I think Lightroom makes better use of its space as well), but rather the speed of importing and working with photos. I use a MBP (2.0) in the field and dual 1.0 G4 desktop. It's really painful on the latter. One thing I really like about Lightroom is while it does its full import and preview creation in the background, you can start working with an import almost immediately. I can at least do basic categorizing or look for a specific shot I need right away while the rest of the information is building. It felt like all I did with Aperture was sit and wait.

turtlebud
Apr 28, 2006, 11:38 AM
I've got a 1.83 MacBook in the back of a UPS truck rolling slowly toward my house right now. I didn't buy Aperture yet, but I was about to.
I used to be a pro sports photographer in the days before digital. I'm shooting part time pro again and I'm trying to figure out which way to go, Lightroom or Aperture. I'm a little bit hesitant to start working fully with Lightroom because it's a beta and Adobe hasn't said what the final program will cost. Anyone know what the price will be? Just because it's free right now doesn't mean it won't be $1000 when the beta expires.
Aperture creating it's own library file can get big quick when you have thousands of shots and an 80gig laptop that has other stuff on it. Anyone have a good solution for that?

can't find the exact quote at the moment, but I remember adobe saying that lightroom would be priced somewhere between photoshop elements and photoshop.

manu chao
Apr 28, 2006, 12:15 PM
What hardware do you use for this?

Just a measly 1.67 Ghz, HiRes screen Powerbook with a 7200 rpm drive and 2 GB of RAM. Occasionally I have to wait for Aperture but opening big files with PS is not exactly fast either.

gkarris
Apr 28, 2006, 12:23 PM
You're joking, right? Final Cut Pro, Motion, DVD Studio Pro, iPhoto, iMovie, Keynote, Pages, GarageBand, Soundtrack, iTunes, iChat, even Mail Safari and iCal. And let's not forget the produts they've bought and now continue to update... Shake and Logic and I'm sure I'm forgetting others.... iWeb looks pretty cool for a beginner web program. What does Microsoft offer? Frontpage. Frontpage is crap. People debate Pages, but it's usually about how it integrates with MS products. If that's the debate you might as well go buy a PC. And I think most people argue Keynote is superior to the laughable powerpoint. Don't worry, I'm sure a spreadsheet app is coming. AND, let's not forget half this stuff is free on every mac! Adobe bowed out of DVD and Video editing on the mac because Apple out did them. Flat out. So Aperture was a little early out of the gate. Most argue it has some technical and performance issues. So yes, Apple should be scolded for early release. They gave money back and fired the staff. Good enough. I'm sure just like DVDSP the next full version will be amazing.

I'm talking "PRO" programs... the ones you mention, of course, are awesome, MacDraw and MacWrite were great compared to the Windows counterparts at the time...

Yeah, Apple has Final Cut Pro, but aren't there some really high end pro stuff that the studios use instead?

manu chao
Apr 28, 2006, 12:24 PM
It's not the screen size so much (though I think Lightroom makes better use of its space as well), but rather the speed of importing and working with photos. I use a MBP (2.0) in the field and dual 1.0 G4 desktop. It's really painful on the latter. One thing I really like about Lightroom is while it does its full import and preview creation in the background, you can start working with an import almost immediately. I can at least do basic categorizing or look for a specific shot I need right away while the rest of the information is building. It felt like all I did with Aperture was sit and wait.

Importing (and exporting) takes time, that is true. I guess, I am just patient and do something else in the meantime.
(I assume your dual 1.0 G4 desktop is quite slow because the graphic card does not support Aperture, which is the equivalent of saying that Aperture is only useful for those who are able to afford to update their computers quite often.)

Eniregnat
Apr 28, 2006, 01:07 PM
Actually, I can see this is a benefit. I like Shakes process flow. I like noodles and nodes, and while I don't expect the interface to be like Shake, I’ll bet that it's process path will be similar. If the Aperture teem wasn't working, give it to the teams that have already proven themselves.Perhaps a diffrent perspective will improve the product.

ChrisBrightwell
Apr 28, 2006, 01:26 PM
Just a measly 1.67 Ghz, HiRes screen Powerbook with a 7200 rpm drive and 2 GB of RAM. Occasionally I have to wait for Aperture but opening big files with PS is not exactly fast either.Man, that's the news I've been waiting to hear.

I have a 1.5GHz PB w/ 1.5GB RAM. Now I can buy Aperture and be a little less nervous about its performance. :)

picaman
Apr 28, 2006, 02:43 PM
So if all this is true, then why are they hiring programmers for the Aperture team?

http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change/

Think Secret's credibility just keeps sinking lower for me, even when I think that's not possible.

longofest
Apr 28, 2006, 04:08 PM
So if all this is true, then why are they hiring programmers for the Aperture team?

http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change/

Think Secret's credibility just keeps sinking lower for me, even when I think that's not possible.

Good post, but doesn't necessarily completely counter TS's claim. TS claimed that the OLD aperature team was getting the boot, but did mention that at least the Shake and Motion team were being brought in to do patchwork on some stuff. They don't discount the possibility that a new development team is taking shape...

foxone
Apr 28, 2006, 06:02 PM
anyone notice that the new MBP has Aperture on the screen on the front page of apple.com...why would they put Aperture up if they're just gonna shut it down? makes no sense to me

jettredmont
Apr 28, 2006, 08:29 PM
I love how almost everyone defending Aperture has never actually used it or only "dabbled" in it. I think that's pretty telling right there. Aperture takes each image and buries it 4 or 5 folders deep inside its library, and renames it. Symbolic linking is not practical here.


I don't think I'm "defending Aperture". I'm just pointing out that there are other solutions to self-organizing files "owned" by a particular application. The same applies to iPhoto, iTunes, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by symbolic linking not being practical because the image files are buried 4 or 5 folders deep and with a different name than the original file. From a pure Unix perspective, thats exactly what symbolic links are useful for!


Yeah, like I said, Lightroom.


I guess so.

If that's your foregone conclusion, then why are you even here?

<sigh>

Anyway, point stands: if you want to organize your files outside of Aperture (which, btw, I still don't understand the 'why' of aside from control issues; can't you do the same organization inside Aperture?), there are ways to do it. Without creating a second copy of the file in its original "raw raw" state (ie, without an XMP sidecar including keywords et al). Without changing to a different tool with its own set of "issues".

But, hey, to each his own. Enjoy Lightroom.

Detlev
Apr 28, 2006, 08:50 PM
Thats interesting seeing I just completed a marketing survey for Apple that was focused on digital image management and the forms had Aperture Survey all over them. I hope I didn't cause anyone to lose their job :rolleyes:

Chip NoVaMac
Apr 28, 2006, 09:12 PM
anyone notice that the new MBP has Aperture on the screen on the front page of apple.com...why would they put Aperture up if they're just gonna shut it down? makes no sense to me


Yes, it does seem odd. But that Apple can't seem to keep up with the RAW formats the way Adobe has spells issues trouble for Aperture being taken seriously by some.

To my knowledge the Panasonic LX-1/Leica D-Lux 2 are not supported by Aperture. I know that Aperture is aimed at the pro, but pros do sometimes shoot "lower end" cameras. And Aperture is meant to be an organizational workspace too. Why force users to use different programs? I liked the fact that for my Reykjavik/London trip that I was able to import both into Lightroom.

Add to that Adobe does not seem poised to release a Universal Binary of PS anytime soon according to some comments that I have heard. Have not kept up on these rumors, so my facts may be wrong on that I admit.

But without Universal Binary support soon from Adobe, Apple is in trouble in getting the Macintels in to the hands of many photographers. This is based on some comments from customers at my store that have used or want to use Macs.

Kilchzimmer
Apr 29, 2006, 04:17 AM
anyone notice that the new MBP has Aperture on the screen on the front page of apple.com...why would they put Aperture up if they're just gonna shut it down? makes no sense to me

I noticed this as well. Not only on Apple's homepage photo of the MBP but the majority of MBP photos throughout the website use Aperture screen shots to demonstrate the new features and power of the MBP. Why? if they were planning to dump it. They are showing MBP and Aperture as an ideal marriage (not an up-and-coming divorce ;) )

I'm a photographer and illustrator who uses Photoshop (and other Adobe creative suite programs) all day and prefer Adobe "Lightroom" by a slight margin. Apple keeping Aperture would greatly benefit both Aperture and Lightroom users as healthy competition between the two keeps the pressure on for improvement! :)

AppleCareWorker
Apr 29, 2006, 07:58 AM
So if all this is true, then why are they hiring programmers for the Aperture team?

http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change/

Think Secret's credibility just keeps sinking lower for me, even when I think that's not possible.

OKay im am tired of this BS. It's time to Stick up for Nick and Rayn(http://www.thinksecret.com). First off you Say there Credibility is Sinking lower for you. Well I can Say that on the Last couple of apple role outs they have hit it right on the Head. Do you want Proof Well here it is MacBook Pro 17-inch days away
April 19, 2006 - Apple is expected to roll-out the 17-inch MacBook Pro in the next week, sources report, but a MacBook announcement is no longer slated to arrive in tandem, as previously reported.
advertisement

The top-of-the-line MacBook Pro will make its debut at the National Association of Broadcasters, an industry tradeshow that kicks off Saturday with exhibits opening Monday. Apple has traditionally made product announcements the Sunday evening before the exhibits open.

The 17-inch MacBook Pro will sport a brighter display than its PowerBook G4 predecessor and is expected to remain on par with the 15.4-inch MacBook Pro in terms of features, Think Secret reported earlier this month. Sources have also speculated that the 17-inch MacBook Pro will ship with a 2.16GHz Core Duo processor and an option to upgrade to the yet-unannounced 2.33GHz Core Duo processor. Several reports in the last week have indicated that Intel will be cutting the price of current Core Duo processors and introducing faster models in the near future. The Core Duo currently tops out at 2.16GHz and is available as a build-to-order upgrade in the 15.4-inch MacBook Pro.


Wait did u see the date on it April 19th Befor anyone else said it. They did. You still want more proof well here

iPod "Hi-Fi" boombox arriving next week

By Ryan Katz, Senior Editor
February 24, 2006 - Among the products Apple will debut at next Tuesday's media event will be the iPod "Hi-Fi" boombox, reliable sources have informed Think Secret. Details are scarce but sources have indicated the product will deliver unique capabilities beyond what today's third-party docking speaker systems offer.
advertisement

Word of such a product first emerged late last year on AppleInsider. The iPod Hi-Fi boombox will mark Apple's first foray into significant iPod companion products, as the company seeks to capitalize on the iPod economy it has created, valued today at several hundred million dollars. To date, Apple has released only minor accessories for the iPod with its logo, including remotes, cases, earphones, and docks.

Apple's media event will begin at 9:00 a.m. PT on February 28 and take place in the Apple Town Hall on the company's campus. Further product announcement details remain shrouded in secrecy.



Did we see the date on the the 24th 4 day befor the event and they hit it right on the head.

Rayn is calling this MacBook to land at last by May

By Ryan Katz, Senior Editor
April 7, 2006 - Apple has begun manufacturing its new MacBook and should have the laptop in consumer hands in the next 30-60 days, sources report. The MacBook—and it will indeed be called the MacBook, sources have confirmed, as Apple will be dropping the iBook moniker—is being built exclusively around a 13.3-inch widescreen display with a 1280x720 WXGA resolution, as previously reported.
advertisement

The MacBook will likely share internals with Apple's recently revamped Mac mini, meaning a Core Solo processor can be expected in the low-end and a Core Duo in the higher-end MacBook. In doing so, Apple will position the 13.3-inch MacBook as both an entry-level laptop and as a replacement for Apple's 12-inch PowerBook G4.

Apple will discontinue the 14-inch iBook G4 immediately upon release of the MacBook but sources expect the company to continue to offer the 12-inch iBook G4 in limited quantities for a period of time.

Sources have added that a 17-inch MacBook Pro, being built by Quanta, could also arrive in tandem with the release of the MacBooks. The 17-inch model will pack a brighter display than its predecessor but specifics are not expected to diverge significantly from the high-end 15.4-inch MacBook pro.

Apple's iBook replacement is long overdue and has seen unknown delays push its release back a number of months. Some sources have cited component shortages as partly to blame. For consumers, the MacBook can't arrive sooner—the current iBook has been in the rotation for more than eight months without an upgrade.

so lets see if this month the Mac Books comes out. if it does that will make 3 for 3 on apple roll outs.
sorry the post was so long i am just sick on people ripping on Nick and Rayn. when it comes to what will and will not roll out there are pretty good on nailing it on the head

JGowan
Apr 29, 2006, 11:42 AM
John Grubers's excellent blog, Daring Fireball, brings a lot of insight to this topic. A definite read...

http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/aperture_dirt

bilbot
Apr 29, 2006, 05:41 PM
Having read most of the posts, I think that there is a lot of disinformation about Aperture. As Steve said, it is not a replacement for Photoshop. (There is definitely a possibility that he was trying to pull Adobe's chain , however)

As to workflow, Aperture is quite good. Most important feature is that the "negative" - your original RAW file is never mucked with. Anything you do, from correcting the exposure, to tweeking the temperature of your photo is recorded only as an incremental change, so you do not get several different "full" versions of your work. The key is to "get it right" in the camera vs "I can fix it in Photoshop."

If you need to do cutouts and montages, sure you still have to use Photoshop. It is, in fact, an extremely powerful tool for manipulating images. Anything this powerful is not going to be totally intuitive to operate, so RTFM, go to the PS seminars and learn how to harness the power.

Where I see the strength of Aperture is in organizing, ranking and "touching up" your RAW photos and then being able to quickly output a web gallery, for proofs to a client, or printing with most of the settings handled by Aperture.

It is really easy to "recover" a RAW file from the Aperture Library .. just Export the Master file. Backups are handled to your designated "Vault".

Missing: Teathered shooting. At present, I still have to use Nikon Capture to have my G5 and D2X "talk" to each other. Maybe version 1.2 will get this feature added.

This is my first post here, so take it for what it is worth.

ChrisBrightwell
Apr 30, 2006, 08:26 AM
Apple is apparently hiring new blood for the Aperture team:
http://blakeseely.com/blog/archives/2006/04/27/change

jcrowe
May 2, 2006, 11:59 AM
I'm talking "PRO" programs... the ones you mention, of course, are awesome, MacDraw and MacWrite were great compared to the Windows counterparts at the time...

Yeah, Apple has Final Cut Pro, but aren't there some really high end pro stuff that the studios use instead?

That's a pretty wide open question. Lots of places use AVID which is VERY expensive and very quirky and very proprietary. Aperture at $300 sounds like it has a lot of potential in the pro market. Final Cut Studio seems to be maturing rather well so perhaps Aperture will do the same. I hope so, because it's the direction I intended to take rather than Adobe's offerings. (not that there's anything wrong with Adobe but the approach is not my favorite in terms of HI guidelines)
Back to you folks
JC

JCT
May 2, 2006, 02:00 PM
Having read most of the posts, I think that there is a lot of disinformation about Aperture. As Steve said, it is not a replacement for Photoshop. (There is definitely a possibility that he was trying to pull Adobe's chain , however)

As to workflow, Aperture is quite good. Most important feature is that the "negative" - your original RAW file is never mucked with. Anything you do, from correcting the exposure, to tweeking the temperature of your photo is recorded only as an incremental change, so you do not get several different "full" versions of your work. The key is to "get it right" in the camera vs "I can fix it in Photoshop."

If you need to do cutouts and montages, sure you still have to use Photoshop. It is, in fact, an extremely powerful tool for manipulating images. Anything this powerful is not going to be totally intuitive to operate, so RTFM, go to the PS seminars and learn how to harness the power.

Where I see the strength of Aperture is in organizing, ranking and "touching up" your RAW photos and then being able to quickly output a web gallery, for proofs to a client, or printing with most of the settings handled by Aperture.

It is really easy to "recover" a RAW file from the Aperture Library .. just Export the Master file. Backups are handled to your designated "Vault".

Missing: Teathered shooting. At present, I still have to use Nikon Capture to have my G5 and D2X "talk" to each other. Maybe version 1.2 will get this feature added.

This is my first post here, so take it for what it is worth.

Bullseye-- I couldn't agree more. This is the purpose for which this app was always meant. It is not supposed to *replace* Photoshop. I was at the PhotoExpo in NYC the week it was announced and the Apple folks were very straightforward about the goals for Aperture.

And I couldn't agree more, my goal is to try to avoid Photoshop by getting it right when I'm shooting (also a D2x, btw) --- just like I used to do when I shot film. Photoshop is a real time sink when it comes to working on photos from a large shoot and Bridge is still not optimal. Aperture fufills a real need for review, organization and culling -- not as a primary image manipulation app.

Nice first post! :)

JT

JCT
May 2, 2006, 02:04 PM
can't find the exact quote at the moment, but I remember adobe saying that lightroom would be priced somewhere between photoshop elements and photoshop.

Ack! Plenty of room between those two! :)

My guess would be $100-200. The question is whether they really expect folks who use Elements to go with Lightroom -- if so, the pricing will probably be lower.

JT

Doctor Q
May 4, 2006, 06:18 PM
May 4: A reversal to this story.

See Apple Releases Aperture Update, Responds To Rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060504180416.shtml)