You don't have to use iCloud. This has been discussed multiple times. You can keep you library locally or even move it somewhere else. Heck put in your Dropbox.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Confirms Aperture to Be Removed From Mac App Store After Launch of Photos for OS X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You don't have to use iCloud. This has been discussed multiple times. You can keep you library locally or even move it somewhere else. Heck put in your Dropbox.
iWork is fantastic. You have to remember, it's not directly competing with Word. It does most things very well. But can't do a lot of the things Word can... but most people just need simple text editing and drop and drop ability.
Using Word to write a letter is like using a shotgun to open a peanut shell.
I suspect iMovie will be the next app to get updated tech behind it.
You're funny, but the burden of proof currently rests on the first poster to make the opposite claim. As soon as he provides it, I'll be happy to oblige.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but Aperture is not a "physical good". It's software.
Rule of thumb: If you can kick it, it's hardware (e.g., a floppy disk is hardware, a hand-knitted cover for your iPad is hardware; a program, whether it resides on a floppy disk, your computer's SSD, or in the cloud, is not kickable.).
I love 'Aperture'! It's my favorite app on ANY device or computer. I'm very sad to see Apple abandon 'Aperture', but at least I've got it installed on two Macs and can continue to use it for many years to come.
Mark
Mark
Question: Will Photos be released in the App Store and updated regularly, like iPhoto/Aperture/FCP/etc., or will it be bundled in OS X 10.0.3 and then future updates of Yosemite/10.11, receiving updates along with OS X updates?
My understanding from Apple's previous statements is that Photos is fully backwards compatible, being able to open iPhoto and Aperture libraries even if it cannot edit some things, just as the later iPhoto with the unified library could open Aperture libraries just fine, just not be able to use or edit certain Aperture-only features. At least that is my deepest hope, as Photos offers the only clean path forward for Aperture users with a promise to keep all edits. The path to Lightroom or any other alternative is a path littered with jagged rocks with promises of a painful transition with all edits lost in the move. A path I'd rather not take unless I have no choice. Adobe's tool will transfer metadata, and transforming features it doesn't support like labels, faces etc into keywords, but it won't transfer edits even where equivalents exist, like curves and levels, or chromatic aberration adjustments, whether or not they work the same as in the latter examples; instead it will "bake" all photos to jpg. And frankly, having tried hard to like Lightroom when v4 came out, Much as I like certain of its editing capabilities, I don't like it's modular nature, and it's autoadjust, unlike Aperture, was useless.So what if most of my photos have chromatic aberration adjustments and RAW fine tuning adjustments? Does that information just get lost in the transfer? I wonder if Lightroom handles those edits and if I should just switch to Lightroom? However, I'm not sure Lightroom has a full cloud-syncing feature to sync all my photos across all devices... like iCloud does.
This whole thing seems to be quite overwhelming and confusing...
I look forward to playing with Photos, although it cannot replace Aperture at this stage, to see just how compatible it really is with existing libraries, but will not be using it on my main library until it has been out a while and tested and reviewed by experienced Aperture users.
This is just so blatantly incorrect, and I would imagine that it comes from someone that has not yet used Photos, and certainly has not used Aperture to its full capabilities. I have yet to use Photos as I am not part of the developer program, so I am only basing the following on the many reviews I've read along with the available details that are on the Apple site.
If you consider photography to be the mobile photos taken from your smartphone, which is perfectly fine if you do, then Photos/iPhoto are likely more than sufficient to catalog and (lightly) edit your photos. However, if you have are a photo professional and/or advanced hobbyist, then a tool such as Aperture (or Lightroom) cannot in any way shape or form be substituted with a lesser program as there are simply too many mandatory tools and capabilities missing. Hey, dentists use drills, but they don't use a DeWalt drill with a 1/2" drill bit!
And yes, I know that Apple did not say that Photos is replacing Aperture. They didn't have to. They are discontinuing development of Aperture, which will leave those that rely on it to find an alternative at some point (immediately, or once it no longer works properly with the OS, or once new cameras are released and RAW conversion is not supported, etc.).
Keep in mind that Aperture "files" are in to way like other application files (Excel, for instance). They cannot simply be opened in another "compatible" program like Excel files can be opened in Numbers with (most) everything still working properly. Aperture libraries cannot be completely migrated to any other program and maintain all facets of the data. It is a fact. Any migration of an Aperture library to another DAM will require compromises at least as every DAM works differently.
So the people that are complaining about the new Photos app are most concerned with the need to (eventually) move countless hours of work, tens and even hundreds of thousands of photos, to a new platform, and even still lose the non-destructive edits that were applied to those photos. It is a big deal, and has nothing to do with the $80 that was spent on Aperture (in my case several years ago, I more than got my money out of the program). It is about losing (eventually, sooner than later) an important tool that is integral to photography work.
Why is that excellent?
Replacing iPhoto with Photos is indeed most excellent, good riddance. But Photos is no Aperture replacement, nor does it intend to be.
Removing Aperture is just a huge loss for those of us who still prefer Aperture as the best application for caring about photos. For those of us who appreciate the workflow and organizational feature that are some of Aperture greatest strengths. For those of us who invested a lot of time and energy over the years using the adjustments and tools of Aperture that can't be transfered else fully functional.
I just don't understand why people who themselves do not use or understand Aperture seem to be cheering the departure of an app that a lot of users are sad about loosing… is it just to troll us?
----------
You obviously have no clue whatsoever of how Aperture works and is used.
It's surprising that everyone that seems so upset seems to be ignoring the information about extensions/plug-ins and how that should please the "pro" crown a little more.
Pixelmator said back in the summer that they will fully support "Photos" and extensions in the future. To have the ability to round-trip edit without leaving one app that would be huge!
With enough developers involved it could make photos more powerful than Aperture ever was. Let's hope we see more information about this soon.
Yeah, you'd hate to see a for-profit corporation concentrating on products that make money...
That's just silly. You can still call a decision stupid without implying the tiresome doomed argument attached. Apple could quit the Mac business altogether and still not be doomed.
Never had 1 problem with iTunes, I'm using it for music obviously but also for syncing and the app store. Can you elaborate on the problems? I find it odd you als have 40 ''likes'', so other people have problems with iTunes too. I guess I'm lucky.
I know a few professional Photographers that switched back when Lightroom hit V2, because they felt it was a better app. Apple hadn't given up at that point. They only did when they started losing to Lightroom a lot. Adobe are dicks, but CS is good and hard to compete with. It's better to walk away from a fight you know you can't win.
Just because the company as a whole is doing well, does not mean any area that is having a negative impact should get a pass. You obviously do not understand business. Why waste time, resources and money on Aperture when there's not the demand for it that there used to be. The people working on Aperture can be put elsewhere for more pertinent and worthwhile things.
Apart from Emojis are decided by Unicode, not Apple. All they did was add support for what's coming in Unicode 8.
Bundled it seems, but don't see why they won't do separate updates.
imagination is a far cry from experience...
Makes zero sense. I am a professional who has used Aperture since the 1.0 version, and will keep using it until the wheels fall off, or until Photos adds extensibility (and the entire architecture is built around that, so it is just a matter of time).
Makes zero sense. I am a professional who has used Aperture since the 1.0 version, and will keep using it until the wheels fall off, or until Photos adds extensibility (and the entire architecture is built around that, so it is just a matter of time).
Yes, good idea! And Lamborghini should give the Countach away for free too since this car is not in production anymore....I am sure they have still some in storage....
iTunes "works" to a point but it feels like a collection of disparate parts inexpertly bolted together; it does not provide the smooth, seamless Apple experience we get from other applications. Considering how old it is, Apple has no excuse for not correcting it's shortcomings long ago.
What's next? Merge iMovie and Final Cut Pro into an all new Movies app for iOS & OSX?
----------
----------
The sensible answer would be to break it up into separate apps like they've done on iOS and rebuild each app from scratch.
Just so long as Aperture continues to work in future versions of OSX until Photos is at least on a par functionally.
Switching to an alternative like Lightroom is not as simple as all that, not just because one needs to learn a new program, any edits to RAW files that have been made will be lost unless you're prepared to make TIFF copies of your whole edited library and import that into the new software's library. Even then one cannot go back and alter those RAW edits in the baked in TIFF files.
Photos must also be able to import these RAW edits, otherwise the whole paradigm of nondestructive adjustments is eradicated. I foresee a class action suit...
Switching to an alternative like Lightroom is not as simple as all that, not just because one needs to learn a new program, any edits to RAW files that have been made will be lost unless you're prepared to make TIFF copies of your whole edited library and import that into the new software's library. Even then one cannot go back and alter those RAW edits in the baked in TIFF files.
Photos must also be able to import these RAW edits, otherwise the whole paradigm of nondestructive adjustments is eradicated. I foresee a class action suit...
Last edited: