RAW Update 4.01 Available - Oct. 24

[Cheese&Apple]

In case anyone needs it and missed it, RAW Compatibility Update 4.01 was made available today from the MAS for iPhoto and Aperture.

[MagicWok]

Yay D600 support

I've been getting along fine with Lightroom support for the D600 raw files thankfully.

[Padaung]

Not for users running Snow Leopard though

For the first time ever, I may have to use the supplied Nikon software to develop the RAW files.

The last couple of updates to Aperture have been available for OS 10.7 or above, but with holding RAW support to older OSes is incredibly frustrating.

[daktar1]

I've been forced to use the ViewNX software supplied with my Nikon to process RAW files since my D600 arrived. Despite the compatibility update I'm going to continue to use ViewNX as part of my workflow; I've found its White Balance settings far, far more effective/acceptable than Aperture's.

[Joseph Farrugia]

Originally Posted by Padaung

Not for users running Snow Leopard though

For the first time ever, I may have to use the supplied Nikon software to develop the RAW files.

The last couple of updates to Aperture have been available for OS 10.7 or above, but with holding RAW support to older OSes is incredibly frustrating.

Holding raw (small caps: it is not an acronym) support for older OSes is completely unnecessary. Shame on apple if they don't rectify this.

PS: raw photo processor works fine, & for quick non-color managed browsing Xee works OK

[AxisOfBeagles]

Originally Posted by Joseph Farrugia

Holding raw (small caps: it is not an acronym) support for older OSes is completely unnecessary. Shame on apple if they don't rectify this.

PS: raw photo processor works fine, & for quick non-color managed browsing Xee works OK

as a software person myself I have to disagree. Why should we expect Apple to support new functionality in older OS's? They're making this update available to the current 10.8 OS, and the immediate earlier generation 10.7. Which seems more than adequate for platform support. Anything more is costly with no return, and distracts resources that are better applied to moving their platforms forward.

[Cheese&Apple]

Have to agree with AxisOfBeagles. One group wants and expects a newer, quicker and more efficient OS on a regular basis. Another group likes things just the way they are. Eventually the gap gets wider and more difficult and costly to bridge.

As frustrating as it can be, not even Apple can please everyone.

[Joseph Farrugia]

Originally Posted by AxisOfBeagles

as a software person myself I have to disagree. Why should we expect Apple to support new functionality in older OS's? They're making this update available to the current 10.8 OS, and the immediate earlier generation 10.7. Which seems more than adequate for platform support. Anything more is costly with no return, and distracts resources that are better applied to moving their platforms forward.

No it is not (more costly) to include raw support for an OS that is 64-bit & very similar (not just "compatible") with 10.8. You're completely incorrect on that one; shame on apple for trying to force an OS upgrade just for raw support.

Thank goodness for 3rd party apps that fill apple's hole………wait, that seems like a corny Halloween statement

[AxisOfBeagles]

Originally Posted by Joseph Farrugia

No it is not (more costly) to include raw support for an OS that is 64-bit & very similar (not just "compatible") with 10.8. You're completely incorrect on that one; shame on apple for trying to force an OS upgrade just for raw support.

Thank goodness for 3rd party apps that fill apple's hole………wait, that seems like a corny Halloween statement

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As a software business-person, I would maintain that it is always costly to support multiple software platforms as a result of backwards compatibility. It may not be a development cost - but there are release and support costs for them to consider. And has been pointed out often before, Apple, like ALL other public companies, is in business to be in business; profits may not define them, but they allow them to do what they do. I have no problem with a RAW format release that is available to the current plus one-previous OS release. To expect ad-infinitum backwards compatibility is, imho, irrational.

[Joseph Farrugia]

Originally Posted by AxisOfBeagles

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As a software business-person, I would maintain that it is always costly to support multiple software platforms as a result of backwards compatibility. It may not be a development cost - but there are release and support costs for them to consider. And has been pointed out often before, Apple, like ALL other public companies, is in business to be in business; profits may not define them, but they allow them to do what they do. I have no problem with a RAW format release that is available to the current plus one-previous OS release. To expect ad-infinitum backwards compatibility is, imho, irrational.

Nobody is quoting ad-infinitum backwards compatibility except you; using unjustified hyperbole will not make your argument less flawed.

There is zero cost to making raw compatibility across SL & ML (& Lion in between); it is simply a marketing exercise by apple. It's raw update compatibility with the latest cameras we're discussing, not a whole new conversion engine.

With Lightroom & other raw conversion software almost killing off aperture entirely, it is indeed a moot point by now; so much for your advocation of profit for apple by artificially limiting raw compatibility.

[AxisOfBeagles]

Originally Posted by Joseph Farrugia

Nobody is quoting ad-infinitum backwards compatibility except you; using unjustified hyperbole will not make your argument less flawed.

There is zero cost to making raw compatibility across SL & ML (& Lion in between); it is simply a marketing exercise by apple. It's raw update compatibility with the latest cameras we're discussing, not a whole new conversion engine.

With Lightroom & other raw conversion software almost killing off aperture entirely, it is indeed a moot point by now; so much for your advocation of profit for apple by artificially limiting raw compatibility.

Hyperbole aside, I stated quite clearly that "current plus one backwards" is rational - more is not necessarily so. As for citing Adobe's profits as being superior to Apple's, that is a self-evidently self-defeating argument. Sure, I'm not happy that making a pro-level photo editor is not in Apple's best market interests. But LR and other similar are not "killing off Aperture" - Apple is; because it is not in their financial self interest to try and provide the best high-end photo editing tools.

I stand by my point; it is rational for Apple to not support compatibility more than a generation or two backwards. For a company to tell the consumer market "if you want all the latest feature support, you need to be on the latest OS" is entirely rational. Selling that OS is not what generates Apple's profits or market cap. But streamlining their support costs to just the latest couple gens of OS does help keep their costs in line.

[Joseph Farrugia]

Originally Posted by AxisOfBeagles

Hyperbole aside, I stated quite clearly that "current plus one backwards" is rational - more is not necessarily so. As for citing Adobe's profits as being superior to Apple's, that is a self-evidently self-defeating argument. Sure, I'm not happy that making a pro-level photo editor is not in Apple's best market interests. But LR and other similar are not "killing off Aperture" - Apple is; because it is not in their financial self interest to try and provide the best high-end photo editing tools.

I stand by my point; it is rational for Apple to not support compatibility more than a generation or two backwards. For a company to tell the consumer market "if you want all the latest feature support, you need to be on the latest OS" is entirely rational. Selling that OS is not what generates Apple's profits or market cap. But streamlining their support costs to just the latest couple gens of OS does help keep their costs in line.

There are some flaws in your reasoning but this one cuts the cake: "streamlining their support costs to just the latest couple gens of OS".
The fact that SL is indeed just 2 gens away from ML aside; that has nothing to with raw compatibility.
Apple chose to limit raw compatibility arbitrarily, their choice; & it is crass behaviour, nothing to do with "rational" or what have you.