Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iChrist

macrumors 65816
Sep 7, 2011
1,479
432
3 countries for tax benefit
No, actually I don't. Nor do I subscribe to iCloud. But the comparison you're trying to make is invalid. MobileMe and iCloud are services, not tools. Without them I can still fully use my data. I don't need either to continue listening to my music, etc. On the other hand with Adobe's suckscriptions I must continue to pay their horefees to be able to use my own creations, my data, my images, my artwork. I won't subscribe to Adobe's business model. I just stick with CS4. I don't rent tools. I own them.

Oh, you can still access your MobileMe email if you stopped paying? Can you show me how? What about all your documents you store or backup to iCloud, if you stop paying for extra storage does Apple leave them up there? If you buy a computer without iWork, can you open a Keynote document you made?

I can still access and use all my RAWs and generated TIFFs if I don't subscribe to Adobe.
.
 

scottsjack

macrumors 68000
Aug 25, 2010
1,906
311
Arizona
I'm glad I've been using Photoshop all these years. I don't shoot professionally any more so CS6 on my Macs and PCs works just fine without the monthly-bill-for-the-rest-of-my-life scheme.

I do use Aperture as a metadata organizing tool. My originals are external to Aperture and their metadata was first applied in Bridge so I can scoop all that info up and import it into Lightroom if I need to.

I too am expecting Photos to be an excellent app for those fiddling with their Mac Book Airs over at Starbucks. Apple long ago gave up trying to be the creative's choice for both hardware and software. There is no use moaning about it any longer.
 

sanook997

macrumors regular
May 29, 2012
166
94
Bangkok
For me personally I won't move to Adobe because its so invasive and difficult to deal with as an application, I find everything about Adobe software annoying. I think I'll wait and see what Apple comes up with and I always have Aperture as my go to application if there is nothing better.
 

griz

macrumors 6502a
Dec 18, 2003
583
222
New London, NH
Why does anyone think paying $9.99 a month or $119.88 a year is something anyone would rush over and convert to? Aperture is $79.99 and is still for sale. Here's a simple comparison. In the three years I've owned Aperture it has cost me $79.99 for the entire time. If I do the same with Adobe I've now spent $359.64. That sucks anyway you dice it.

You can own Lightroom outright. Just buy v 5 outright.
You don't have to go creative cloud. At least not yet.
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65215211-Photoshop-Lightroom-5/dp/B00CH6ATMO/ref=sr_1_1
 

jclardy

macrumors 601
Oct 6, 2008
4,148
4,343
I switched to lightroom and I like it better overall than Aperture 3, but man is it an ugly app. All the other Adobe apps look really nice...but lightroom just looks terrible. It looks like a website from the early 2000's. But the features ultimately trump its appearance in this case - managing a library across multiple drives is just so much easier than in aperture.
 

Tumbleweed666

macrumors 68000
Mar 20, 2009
1,761
141
Near London, UK.
Oh god why is this happening. :( I really loved the Apple-y-ness that was Aperture, great and easy to use and had great iCloud integration. Also the end product looked stunning when done correctly. Why are they throwing this away? I tried Lightroom and it's not my cup of tea, it's just not as much of a delight to use as Aperture and rather frustrating and annoying (probably just me). And I also have powerful machines but Aperture just seems to run better than Lightroom.

Aperture didn't magically stop working when the announcement came out. :eek: Even SJ didn't have that sort of power.

So continue using it, wait, and see what Photos brings.
 

sdloeffler

macrumors newbie
Jul 30, 2011
7
5
Thoughts...

I know a lot of people are unhappy with the Aperture announcement, and I saw a comment that mentioned Apple would probably be ok conceding this market to Adobe. They already did that... years ago. When Apple stopped investing in Aperture 3 years ago, other than small updates, they started losing business. They now have like 4% of the photography market compared to Adobe's 85%. They had no choice from a business standpoint. The question isn't what was Apple thinking a month ago when they made the announcement, the real question is what were they thinking 2 years ago when they weren't doing anything with the product.

Lightroom - the transition isn't that difficult, and I think you might be surprised with the tool. I was. Actually, I find the adjustments to be way ahead of Aperture. It's also very fast and hey, watermarks actually work :).

I also hear a lot of noise about Adobe's "subscription" agreement. I guess I get the issue if you are afraid they're going to raise their price - valid point to an extent. I also get the issue if you buy your software and hold it without upgrading for 7 years. because that's what you would have to do...

For arguments sake, let's say I never owned photoshop and i wanted to buy a perpetual license. That would cost me roughly $700 for a new license. I also would like the latest Lightroom at a cost of $139 let's say. that's a total of $840 - out of pocket. now it's mine, but in two years they come out with a new photoshop and i want it...that's roughly $249 let's say for the upgrade. Now my out of pocket investment over two years is $1,088. another year later XYZ company has a cool new tool I want to use so I switch to that tool. after 3 years of using my perpetual licenses I've spent $1,088 out of pocket and now have gone to another tool. yes, i always have my old photoshop to go back to if i want - that's a pro for perpetual licenses.

However, if i went the subscription route after three years i've only spent $360 for both photoshop and lightroom. I've saved $728 and i've been using the latest versions. argument - i've decided to go to XYZ company and i stop paying for my subscription so i lose lightroom and photoshop... you are correct, you do. But I could always go back to the subscription if and when i want. I've still got the $728 bucks in my pocket and i could use XYZ and still have the subscription.

But i want to have it just in case... ok, how often do you replace your hardware? at some point, your 3, 4, or 7 year old software either won't run, or will run like a dog on your hardware.

Other than "the price may go up", and it would have to go up A LOT, if you buy your software and upgrade it, I'm not sure what the issue is.

I want Adobe to come up with a solution to bring over all my edits - understand your desire, but probably not likely to happen. The algorithms used in the sliders for Lightroom are totally different than the Aperture algorithms. going either way would be painful because the math wouldn't work correctly. They could try, but odds are you wouldn't be happy with the results. Secondly, there are sliders, or adjustments, in Aperture that don't exist in Lightroom and vice-versa. The transition software would not have any idea what you were trying to do, or what to do with that adjustment. Again, you wouldn't be happy with the results and would end up making more adjustments anyway.

I get some of you don't like subscriptions, or may just want the option to buy, and i can appreciate that. I'm just saying the subscription model isn't as bad as it's being made out to be... especially if you're going to keep upgrading your software.

Just my $.02
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.