I wouldn't expect Apple to do that, but I wonder if they even looked into selling it. Seems like someone would be willing to make a go of it. Heck, if they sold it for $1 they wouldn't be any worse off themselves and at least some of their current users might be better off in the future.
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 Ending Development on Aperture as Upcoming Photos App for OS X Will Replace iPhoto
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn't expect Apple to do that, but I wonder if they even looked into selling it. Seems like someone would be willing to make a go of it. Heck, if they sold it for $1 they wouldn't be any worse off themselves and at least some of their current users might be better off in the future.
tbh, i think this area could actually get better! it's what iPhoto is terrible at and needs to be improved!
what do consumers do with cameras? take a ton of marginally different photos, don't delete any of them and share them with people. this means huge libraries that are much harder to sort than a "pro" project because we have projects and themes and all that!
better sorting and cataloging methods will benefit pros as well.
consumers also have photos from a wide variety of sources they want integrated in one place, like photos from old smart phones, scanned photos, maybe they borrowed a friend's phone to take a picture and so on. again this kind of functionality will be useful to pros too.
or set up private sharing networks on a professional level, not with your friends and family and you have something that's great for many pro uses. i can think of a lot of cases where quickly being able to share photos with clients and colleagues would be a benefit.
personally, i find RAW is mostly a waste of time and computer power. i pretty much only know prosumers that use it regularly... if i'm going to be heavy manipulation to distort the reality of the photo i'm going to load it into photoshop anyway. otherwise, i think a photo should be good when you take it.
i think this is going to be the main focus of the new photos app and why they're "dumping" Aperture. at this point it doesn't just offer "pro" features it offers features that everyone needs. my non profession photographer friends have terabytes of photos!...more than i have because i get rid of what i can't use.
despite all the hate it gets, imo one of the fantastic features of FCPX is managing assets and video is way more resource intensive than pictures.
Aperture was released in 2005 - you've been waiting nearly 10 years to say 'I told you so', and Aperture still isn't dead by a long way.
Most people don't keep their computers for 10 years, and certainly not their smartphones.
Give that crystal ball of yours a rub and see if it's got any other top tips to help me avoid catastrophic software purchases for the next 10 years.
Have to say I'm really disappointed with this announcement. Aperture was pretty much the reason I switched to mac as it just works well with the way I shoot. However the writing has been on the wall for a bit as Apple is just another consumer electronics company these days.
Unfortuntatley, for me at least, Lightroom isn't an option. I've tried on more than one occasion but just doesn't suit my workflow. Oh well, off now to give Capture One a spin as really don't want to commit any more photos to Aperture now that it will soon die.
Unfortuntatley, for me at least, Lightroom isn't an option. I've tried on more than one occasion but just doesn't suit my workflow. Oh well, off now to give Capture One a spin as really don't want to commit any more photos to Aperture now that it will soon die.
What's wrong with Kia? Once Kia gets their steering and suspension tuning down a little bit more, they could easily be selling the best vehicles in many of the classes in which they operate.
As for Aperture, I'm sad to hear this news, but it's not really surprising. No major updates in some time, and it's not a piece of software that seems to fit in Apple's overall strategy. Aperture has served me well for a few years, but it's not the best program if you're trying to wring every last bit of quality out of an image, although it does seem to be better at sorting images than Lightroom (I've not ever used Lightroom, but I may need to check out a trial now).
While it may have been "professionals" who contributed to Apple hanging on in the late 90's, I wouldn't say it was photo as much as video that kept things going. If professional photo editing software had been truly important to Apple, I think they would have released something new sometime around the time FCPX/LPX were released.
Instead, Apple is focusing on their vertical integration, all-Apple ecosystem approach. Most photos their software is dealing with is taken on iPhones. Focusing their photo-editing efforts toward that area of the market makes sense. Somewhat disappointing, but it makes sense.
What's out there besides Lightroom? DXO?
Love Photomechanic, used it for years. But really aimed a photojournalists, not really the same market as LR/Aperture etc. Great for quickly getting an edit (as in selection and sequencing) together, tagging etc.
Also, photojournalists don't shoot RAW? Bit of a generalisation don't you think? I've met loads of photojournalists, and know a couple of big time, household name ones personally, and they each have their preferences. I can only think of one that I know that openly says he uses jpeg.
Not sure what all the outrage is about. If anyone is honestly surprised by this they haven't really been paying attention.
Honestly, I think the only reason Apple did Aperture in the first place was because Adobe was being slow as hell in upgrading Photoshop. Remember when they released 64-bit support for PC only? Or when they refused to update even after Apple dropped support for Carbon? And it wasn't all that long ago that they would only update Photoshop Elements for Mac every other release. Aperture was the shot across Adobe's bow, showing that Apple would move into Photoshop's space if Adobe kept jerking around.
I think the fact that Adobe responded by developing LR and being more consistent in their Mac support for PS was exactly what Apple wanted out of them. So, now that Apple has gotten what they wanted out of Adobe they've refocused on the stuff that they really want to focus on.
Things are going back to the way they should be. Apple provides the hardware and OS. They also provide consumer software with enough pro-sumer appeal that entices wannabe photogs (like myself) to buy into the Mac ecosystem. Then when those features aren't enough, Apple hands them over to Adobe. Apple never cared if anyone bought Aperture., they just wanted to make sure photographers continued to buy Macs.
From the other end of the picture, look at it this way. A Mac with the Photos app is still going to be better for organizing and storing photos than anything that comes included with a new PC.
Honestly, I think the only reason Apple did Aperture in the first place was because Adobe was being slow as hell in upgrading Photoshop. Remember when they released 64-bit support for PC only? Or when they refused to update even after Apple dropped support for Carbon? And it wasn't all that long ago that they would only update Photoshop Elements for Mac every other release. Aperture was the shot across Adobe's bow, showing that Apple would move into Photoshop's space if Adobe kept jerking around.
I think the fact that Adobe responded by developing LR and being more consistent in their Mac support for PS was exactly what Apple wanted out of them. So, now that Apple has gotten what they wanted out of Adobe they've refocused on the stuff that they really want to focus on.
Things are going back to the way they should be. Apple provides the hardware and OS. They also provide consumer software with enough pro-sumer appeal that entices wannabe photogs (like myself) to buy into the Mac ecosystem. Then when those features aren't enough, Apple hands them over to Adobe. Apple never cared if anyone bought Aperture., they just wanted to make sure photographers continued to buy Macs.
From the other end of the picture, look at it this way. A Mac with the Photos app is still going to be better for organizing and storing photos than anything that comes included with a new PC.
Last edited:
Lightroom isn't the only alternative...
I think CaptureOne is the more legitimate comparator for Aperture. Lightroom is certainly an option, but you loved the workflow of Aperture, CaptureOne seems like a better bet - http://www.phaseone.com/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7.aspx
I think CaptureOne is the more legitimate comparator for Aperture. Lightroom is certainly an option, but you loved the workflow of Aperture, CaptureOne seems like a better bet - http://www.phaseone.com/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7.aspx
None of the AP/Getty/wire services photographers use Raw.
These days they're competing against photographers on Instagram and seconds count.
Last edited:
I don't like it any more than you, but you're wrong about pro customers being the backbone of Apple. They may have been before, but not anymore. Look at revenue broken down by category.
iPhone is a consumer device.
I'd say don't use it. Why commit to a software which is officially end of life.
Will the new Photos allow you to store your photo library locally?
Here lies the rub; if it's mandatory that all your photos be on the cloud, I can't really replace Aperture with it. One, privacy issues. Two, data integrity. Who's to say Apple won't lose a random photo here and there? Why should I trust their backup strategy? What if my account gets compromised and random photos get deleted or private ones downloaded?
Apple hasn't given me much reason to look forward to their new way of doing things. I'm going to miss Aperture. I've never liked Adobe software, or their new subscription model.
I think this is a bad move. One the things that made OSX/macs cool was that as an amateur you could be using the same program/computer that real pros used to make amazing content. Its the reason many amateurs spend way to much money on pro-level camera etc that they in reality they don't need for their family and vacation shots. Using the gear gives people some kudos that 'hey I am serious (and maybe good) at this' -using the same app as your grandma doesn't have the same effect. So maybe the new photos app will in reality be a perfectly fine replacement for most aperture users but I think most of them probably won't care.
Also, I feel bad for those users with $$$ in plug-ins -I don't imagine apple is going to use their cash reserves to help transition them over to new plug-ins in lightroom.
Also, I feel bad for those users with $$$ in plug-ins -I don't imagine apple is going to use their cash reserves to help transition them over to new plug-ins in lightroom.
I love this article because it pretty much states EXACTLY what's important in photography - that it's not about some stupid "picture quality" metric, but rather a photo's relevance.
I can always tell which photographer are idiots when they think Lightroom's "lens correction" has any significance at all. These clueless n00bs have absolutely no idea that no one cares about "lens correction", and that most people don't even NOTICE unimportant garbage like that.
These are the same clueless photographers that think Lightroom is better than Aperture because "it has lens correction!" So green.
Most of these idiot photographers are too self-absorbed to have any clue about what it means to be relevant.
These idiots also think insanely awful sites like 500px represents good photography.
Sorry kiddos, but Aperture is much more advanced and feature complete than Lightroom, as stated exactly in that blog post.
Go read it to find out why your photography sucks.
I'm annoyed at iPhoto myself too, but Apple already started making the app harder to use for people who have been long time users in the latest iPhoto ( getting rid of alot of right click and keyboard shortcuts )
I curse out loud every freaking time I edit a picture and try to go back to the main window by hitting escape ( which no longer works )
So I was ready to jump ship on iphoto already... ironically I was looking to buy Aperture.
I knew something felt wrong when I upgraded. I use keyboard shortcuts so automatically that I often forget I'm not clicking the mouse sometimes...that explains a lot.
I see apple is doing what they think YOU need. Drop the ball on professionals AGAIN. How can anyone trust apple apps to know if they will be around years down the road. Adobe will have a ball getting all the switchers. Glad I ditched apple software when I sold my last mac pro and moved over to windows for video editing and photoshop. I feel for those get stung from this. Good luck.
oh and people talk about apple killing pro apps, but i find that kind of short sighted, as much of what they're doing is leveling up consumer level apps in order to integrate them. which is a good thing.
consumer apps are a great way to test out new ideas for user interaction and workflows. it's not like they magically came across the best way of doing it with the pro app. if they come across something that works well, it gets integrated into the pro app.
a consumer app could be thought of as a recipe book and basic cooking tools, with a few spices you can add, while a pro app gives you access to individual ingredients, lets you make your own recipes and gives you more specialized cooking tools. it doesn't throw out the basic cooking tools, recipes or techniques, it builds upon them.
the future of software is something that scales to what you want to do with it.
look at logic/garage band. (garageband as a free part of the OS is amazing. compare that to 15-20 years ago.) LPX is as much a move towards getting rid of garageband as anything. it starts with defaults that make it like garageband, that you can turn off. if you know you want to use lpx eventually there's not much point to starting with garageband, just start with logic and enable features as you are ready for them.
the interface improvements in logic are nothing to scoff at. i still use logic 6 from time to time because of MIDI and sound diver, which i don't really blame apple not supporting because if that was easy to support someone would have filled that gap! but logic 6 compared to 9 or X is a humbling experience in having to figure out how to do things that are much more intuitive now.
consumer apps are a great way to test out new ideas for user interaction and workflows. it's not like they magically came across the best way of doing it with the pro app. if they come across something that works well, it gets integrated into the pro app.
a consumer app could be thought of as a recipe book and basic cooking tools, with a few spices you can add, while a pro app gives you access to individual ingredients, lets you make your own recipes and gives you more specialized cooking tools. it doesn't throw out the basic cooking tools, recipes or techniques, it builds upon them.
the future of software is something that scales to what you want to do with it.
look at logic/garage band. (garageband as a free part of the OS is amazing. compare that to 15-20 years ago.) LPX is as much a move towards getting rid of garageband as anything. it starts with defaults that make it like garageband, that you can turn off. if you know you want to use lpx eventually there's not much point to starting with garageband, just start with logic and enable features as you are ready for them.
the interface improvements in logic are nothing to scoff at. i still use logic 6 from time to time because of MIDI and sound diver, which i don't really blame apple not supporting because if that was easy to support someone would have filled that gap! but logic 6 compared to 9 or X is a humbling experience in having to figure out how to do things that are much more intuitive now.
I hope you have never used iTunes match before making that statement.
I've been an iTunes Match subscriber since day one actually
Yea it had a rough beginning but it works well enough for me today.
Fairly faulty reasoning re why Apple did Aperture when Aperture and PS do completely different things. And it certainly wasn't moving into Adobe's space at the time, since Adobe didn't have anything like it.
I think Adobe got more serious about supporting the Mac when they realized, uh wait, it's not going away after all, but actually growing.
Of course Apple cared if people bought Aperture or not, especially at the pre-Mac App Store pricing. Anyway, by your logic Apple shouldn't be doing Safari, but instead should leave that to Mozilla and Google.
Agreed with your last statement though. But that doesn't help Aperture users.