Apple Ending Development on Aperture as Upcoming Photos App for OS X Will Replace iPhoto

[FrozenDarkness]

Well we know the photos app will feature extensibility so in theory existing plugin makers will be able to update their plugins to be compatible with the new Photos application.

But will Apple offer a "pro" type plugin that gives us the features of Aperture? Seems unlikely.

I don't use aperture, I only use iPhotos. I'm also not a professional photographer.

I think what's likely is Apple making photos a free to use, pay for advance app. Maybe even allow other people to build those "apps" for them. I doubt Apple will ever abandon professional photography as that's one of the bigger segments in the professional community. I also doubt that Aperture became so unprofitable that Apple decided to can it. What's most likely is that Apple shifted resources to maximize the value and decided Photos is more worth it as it can address both pros and non-pros with one sweep.

i also think that Apple DID learn the lesson from iworks and FCPX, which is to not overpromise and underdeliver.

 

[yrsued]

Wow. Enough chest pounding. We get it, you're a pro. Great.
2M images? You don't take the trash out much. Guess I could do that too, but that many pics is unmanageable. Period.

Go to www.gunstockphotos.com

We are the top Photographers in the Shooting/Hunting/Fishing/Outdoor Industy with over 60 years of Combined Experience!!

So, YES!! We are Pros that have NEVER effectively made Aperture work for us!!

We have over 8 Macs between the two of us and we have been using Apple since the Apple II.

So yes, we are Apple Fans, but Apple should stick to what they do well, Hardware!!

Let the Pros at other companies like Adobe take care of the Software side!!

----------

Sorry, but what a load of tosh! We all know, what Photoshop is, but it seems you don't. Good luck organizing and structuring your 2M pic library with the 'industry standard' Photoshop

And good luck with the non destructive saves in TIFFs or JPG if you decide later down the road to change a few edits.

Sorry, but you have no clue what your are talking about.

I let my business Partner Archive the files, I just shoot!!

There are OTHER more effective Solutions for archiving, Aperture is NOT one of them!!

----------

If you want to know about professional workflow, then knowing about DAM is essential. This conversation if you boil it down is not at all about PS, it is about DAM. The reason why many of us do not want to move to LR is because how the files are organized.

In 1985 I was hot swapping floppies on the top end Tandy 1000. Digital photography didn't exist then, I was shooting film.

----------



Pros certainly do use Aperture.



----------



Yes, but backblaze is just $5.00/month for unlimited back-ups; let me repeat that - unlimited backups. If you are taking the back-up HDD to the safety deposit box or grandmothers house, how often are you doing that? Even once a day is not often enough if you are a professional.

I don't know what DAM is!!

----------

It's amazing the level of ignorance of these forums. Aperture and Photoshop NEVER did compete with one another. In fact Apertures has a preference field where you can specify your "default image editor" and I would guess that a great many people have Photoshop in that field.

I aperture you can double click an image and then it comes of inside your "default editor" which might Photoshop.

On the other hand Photoshop is completely lacks any ability to organize photos into a library, that is Aperture's job.

As for "standard" file formats. Apertures keeps the photos in the SAME files they came off the camera. For me that would be Nikon's raw "NEF" files. Aperture does not have a file format for storing images if uses TIFF, JPG, NEF and I thing even Adobe PSD files.

Anyway it hardly matters any more. People will be switching to maybe Capture One Pro 7. Or if you can stand the subscription pricing Light Room.


Who was that guy who claims to be in the business for decades and did not know what "DAM" was? That's fair, no one used that term in the film days. "DAM" is a digital assets Magager. Adobe has one that call "bridge" Apple has one called "Aperture" and there are MANY of them. It the film era I used to use"print file" pages in three ring binder boxes. I've been using Aperture AND as I said Aperture seamlessly integrates with Photoshop.

I have run Nikon Capture since I went Digital in 2000, That is how I converted Files to JPG from RAW, I was a Beta Tester for Bibble,

I don't deal with the File Management in the business, my partner does!!

I shoot, and I process Large quantities of Files when we shoot Events.

He Works on the Post Processing of the Studio Files before they go to the Publishers.

It works for us!!

 

[driftless]

yrsued: Wow!

 

[Truffy]

Holy crap, they better know the doing. The professional development market has been a core of their business forever... Just look at the backlash they got when they watered down Final Cut...

Apple didn't give a damn then, they don't give a damn now. The only way they'll give a dan is if it significantly hits the bottom line, and it won't.

But this is bad news. I like Aperture. Adobe's general ethos means that (as a non-professional photographer) I could not countenance Lightroom. I've been moving away from Adobe over the last years.

 

[MSlaw]

Huh??? "If they can figure out"??? The don't HAVE to figure it out—the ALREADY DID... The wrote Aperture, for **** sake. This is the biggest bitch-fest I've seen since FCPX. Personally, I think it would make a lot of sense for Apple to try to unify their software line for still photos. A really great design should be able to accommodate both consumer and professional needs, depending on how the software's used. With their pro software becoming cheaper all the time, and so many aspects of its most powerful technology being implemented at the framework level, it should be possible for Apple to do a lot of high-end stuff without necessarily spending a ton of money on R&D, or trying to support multiple software platforms in the same sector (e.g., photo editing and management). What people don't seem to realize is that Apple has published an insane number of very sophisticated frameworks, for both OS X and iOS, over the past few years. This means that the most sophisticated functions that programs like Aperture can do are actually supported at system level now, not by application-specific code. So to imagine Apple turning Photos into a highly-sophisticated photo app is not a big stretch at all.

I've noticed a lot of people complaining about Apple no longer "thinking differently", but that's exactly what they're doing, and it's precisely why people are getting so pissy. People want the old pro/consumer division to remain. Apple's trying to get rid of it. By coding all the real power into system level frameworks, they've made this very possible to do, and to do very inexpensively. Things are definitely changing at Apple, and generally for the better, imho. By empowering developers—including themselves—they're going to open up a huge number of options in the next few years. I'm looking forward to seeing how things develop.

^This.

Imagine if you took the versioning UI out of aperture and made it system-wide. With this, if you are in ANY APP, if you see a photo, you activate the extension and get all your version info, edits, adjustments etc. whether it be finder, pixelmator or any application dealing with photos.

This is the spirit of OS X btw.

This should be trivial to implement for apple (or anyone else as an extension) because if i'm not mistaken, Aperture doesn't create copies of photos when edited, it just saves the adjustment data and apply's them on viewing or export. This exactly what the new photos framework does: https://developer.apple.com/library...ork/index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014408

And this is actually nothing new, it's how using messages, social accounts, mail, maps etc work. They all pass off UI to other apps with little effort to implement from the developer.

This is just one example, but in all, I agree with buckwheat. Doing this removes the need to buy an app and spreads the UI across the system to all places which are relevant. In other words, I see a photo on my screen, I can get access to versions of it if available. I see text on the screen? I can send it to someone in a text message or email. Need to make an adjustment to an image? Quick look it and do it right there.

As a side note, they said that they would stop development of Aperture, not support.

 

[MacMan988]

I guess its better to adopt apps from 3rd parties whenever its possible and avoid Apple's stuff.

 

[dilbert99]

I don't know what DAM is!!
...
I don't deal with the File Management in the business, my partner does!!

You do, you just don't know what the 3 letter acronym is - Digital Asset Management, DAM i.e. managing your digital photo files.

It would help everyone when using a three letter acronym to write it out in full the first time they use it (unless it really is a common one)

----------

Imagine if you took the versioning UI out of aperture and made it system-wide. With this, if you are in ANY APP, if you see a photo, you activate the extension and get all your version info, edits, adjustments etc. whether it be finder, pixelmator or any application dealing with photos.

This is the spirit of OS X btw.

We can only hope, just a pity that Apple's comms on this has been lacking.

 

[NY Guitarist]

It's amazing the level of ignorance of these forums. Aperture and Photoshop NEVER did compete with one another. In fact Apertures has a preference field where you can specify your "default image editor" and I would guess that a great many people have Photoshop in that field.

I aperture you can double click an image and then it comes of inside your "default editor" which might Photoshop.

On the other hand Photoshop is completely lacks any ability to organize photos into a library, that is Aperture's job.

This is exactly my workflow, using Aperture as the glue that holds it all together. I'll use Aperture for basic edits for proofing and PS for deeper and more advanced editing.

 

[robgendreau]

I see a photo on my screen, I can get access to versions of it if available. I see text on the screen? I can send it to someone in a text message or email. Need to make an adjustment to an image? Quick look it and do it right there.

Boy, would that this were true. Maybe the Finder could actually find photos; yee hah!

Aperture and it's ilk are really databases that reference photos; the need arose for those that need a lot of structure over photos, which were a bit of an organizing headache in the regular filesystem. Most demanding users needed more organizational tools, and over time more metadata and image editing was incorporated.

Some have the same issues with text documents. If you are normal, you put 'em in file folders. But some need something like Devonthink Pro Office to effectively organize thousands of them; it's a similar database that can referenced files and manipulate them. There are others like Leap or Paperless. Even email clients and iTunes do similar things: you'll see a database combined with a file structure.

I'd like to get beyond all these content specifics and just get a new Finder that could do all the organization itself. I have to work with images a lot outside Lightroom and Aperture anyway; once you close them you can't even find the edited images they create unless you've exported them. Feh.

So I hope something improved gets created. And Apple knew that all these fine DAM applications existing; it's not like they are leaving an empty hole. Their primary job is the hardware and system; the rest is gravy.

 

[MSlaw]

Boy, would that this were true. Maybe the Finder could actually find photos; yee hah!

I don't understand this my self, but spotlight should be able to search the metadata in the photos. Beyond faces times or places though, not sure how you would search an image except for maybe keywords. ???

Aperture and it's ilk are really databases that reference photos; the need arose for those that need a lot of structure over photos, which were a bit of an organizing headache in the regular filesystem. Most demanding users needed more organizational tools, and over time more metadata and image editing was incorporated.

Some have the same issues with text documents. If you are normal, you put 'em in file folders. But some need something like Devonthink Pro Office to effectively organize thousands of them; it's a similar database that can referenced files and manipulate them. There are others like Leap or Paperless. Even email clients and iTunes do similar things: you'll see a database combined with a file structure.

Absolutely agree. But this would be solved by a combination of the new photos app (or a third party app) and the finder. That along with what I said in the previous post.

As for text files, I tend to create them and forget them, then spotlight them for retrieval.

 

[MSlaw]

We can only hope, just a pity that Apple's comms on this has been lacking.

This is the biggest issue with Apple when it comes to pro apps. For example with final cut, they could have said "Hey this is where we are going, we are releasing it now because for a lot of people this is all they need. We'll be adding the rest of the features later". Instead they just released the app without disclosing their plans and then (the real stupid move), stopped selling FCP7.

At least this time they haven't said they wouldn't support aperture. They just announced that they won't be adding new features (development).

 

[captain kaos]

WTF Apple. Brilliant. If you needed more example of the direction Apple is taking, here it is. They're sticking to making ipads, phones and playing with over priced headphones. *slow clap.........*



As a pro photographer with 20k odd photos, theres no way the new "cloud" is going to manage that, or have the non destructive adjustments of aperture. And on the other side how exactly will i move all the photos to a completely new programme and database?!

 

[captain kaos]

I wonder if they're just ceding to Lightroom for pro photo software. It's hard to compete with the Lightroom -> Photoshop integration. As much as I love Apple everything, I still use Lightroom.

What? You can send a photo in aperture to PS, edit and save back, what more integration do you want?

 

[captain kaos]

Per Jim Darymple:

Yes, because there aren't any "professionals" taking photos, only audio mixing and vision editing........ *crickets*

 

[Burger Thing]

I let my business Partner Archive the files, I just shoot!!

There are OTHER more effective Solutions for archiving, Aperture is NOT one of them!!
----------

Really? It certainly works for me. But then again I am doing the archiving of pics myself and like the fact that I have a one stop solution for importing, editing and storing non destructive edits and masters, plus exporting to any format which is desired.

WTF Apple. Brilliant. If you needed more example of the direction Apple is taking, here it is. They're sticking to making ipads, phones and playing with over priced headphones. *slow clap.........*



As a pro photographer with 20k odd photos, theres no way the new "cloud" is going to manage that, or have the non destructive adjustments of aperture. And on the other side how exactly will i move all the photos to a completely new programme and database?!

I feel the same way. Apple is becoming a consumer electronics company only. Might as well buying Wendy's next. Should go well along the Beats acquisition. What baffles me, is the defenders of this new direction in the forums here. If it's profitable to the max, so therefor it is great for Apple and the fanboys it seems.

Looking at the FCP X Launch debacle, I would not hold my breath that the new Photos App will offer even 5% of the functionality Aperture has. At least during the first 2-3 years. I just hope, Aperture still works then on the latest OS and hardware. If not, then one could imagine the how much time one has to spend to move library, edits, etc to a new software or database.

But it is annoying as heck. When you invest into a software/hardware, you not only pay for existing functionality. You expect future developments and upgrades along the line to a certain extend. But I learned my lesson. I will not spend a single dollar on software anymore apart from OS upgrades. Which most likely doesn't matter, as other pro-software will probably have the same faith as Aperture, so all software engineers in the space ship can concentrate on the next bling version of iOS

 

[MattInOz]

So the new Photos app will replace iPhoto. That is cool. Why scrap Aperture?

The extensions architecture in Photo will allow any developer to extend access the store of photo's and make non-destructive edits. I can't see the advantages of Aperture over iPhoto lasting too long when 3rd Party app makers can cover any general or niche editing situation they like.

 

[-AG-]

My only real question is what will happen with Apps such as Final Cut Pro X and Pages etc that pull in media from Aperture and iPhoto etc, will they allow for these apps to import directly from 3rd party apps such as Lightroom or will you need to have said media put into an iCloud account and have to pull the data in that way?

 

[captain kaos]

Get f&^#$ Apple.

 

[driftless]

Get f&^#$ Apple.

On that clever and civilized note I think that it is time for me to put this thread aside until the Photos app is out.

 

[captain kaos]

Really? It certainly works for me. But then again I am doing the archiving of pics myself and like the fact that I have a one stop solution for importing, editing and storing non destructive edits and masters, plus exporting to any format which is desired.



I feel the same way. Apple is becoming a consumer electronics company only. Might as well buying Wendy's next. Should go well along the Beats acquisition. What baffles me, is the defenders of this new direction in the forums here. If it's profitable to the max, so therefor it is great for Apple and the fanboys it seems.

Looking at the FCP X Launch debacle, I would not hold my breath that the new Photos App will offer even 5% of the functionality Aperture has. At least during the first 2-3 years. I just hope, Aperture still works then on the latest OS and hardware. If not, then one could imagine the how much time one has to spend to move library, edits, etc to a new software or database.

But it is annoying as heck. When you invest into a software/hardware, you not only pay for existing functionality. You expect future developments and upgrades along the line to a certain extend. But I learned my lesson. I will not spend a single dollar on software anymore apart from OS upgrades. Which most likely doesn't matter, as other pro-software will probably have the same faith as Aperture, so all software engineers in the space ship can concentrate on the next bling version of iOS

Oh lord. That would really take the biscuit if they did that. I was looking at Bibble Pro (now owned and called Corel Pro 2), which looks ok, i don't really want to move to LR, especially if there isn't an easy way to switch, (plus the stupid new payment schemes), so i thought, "my 3 cameras are all supported in aperture, so when i buy a new camera that isn't, then i'll decide what to do", but i hadn't even thought about the fact apple will force my hand if it decides to not let it run on yosemite.

 

[driftless]

What? You can send a photo in aperture to PS, edit and save back, what more integration do you want?

Absolutely. I have Adobe CC but I have always used Aperture.

I am waiting, and hoping, to see if the photos app is closer to Aperture than it is to iPhoto.

 

[arkmannj]

Really if it can:
* properly migrate, combine and dedup photo's, and versions in my iPhoto & Aperture libraries

* Support RAW

* provide a better interface

* support plugins, extensions

Then I'm not sure I care, this might be good for Apple and customers if Apple unifies their work efforts. but Lightroom and others will likely be needed for the pro(sumers)

 

[FrozenDarkness]

I feel the same way. Apple is becoming a consumer electronics company only. Might as well buying Wendy's next. Should go well along the Beats acquisition. What baffles me, is the defenders of this new direction in the forums here. If it's profitable to the max, so therefor it is great for Apple and the fanboys it seems.

Looking at the FCP X Launch debacle, I would not hold my breath that the new Photos App will offer even 5% of the functionality Aperture has. At least during the first 2-3 years. I just hope, Aperture still works then on the latest OS and hardware. If not, then one could imagine the how much time one has to spend to move library, edits, etc to a new software or database.

But it is annoying as heck. When you invest into a software/hardware, you not only pay for existing functionality. You expect future developments and upgrades along the line to a certain extend. But I learned my lesson. I will not spend a single dollar on software anymore apart from OS upgrades. Which most likely doesn't matter, as other pro-software will probably have the same faith as Aperture, so all software engineers in the space ship can concentrate on the next bling version of iOS

Comments like this baffle me. First of all, no question, Apple is all about the $$$. It's a company, not your best friend. I'm sorry if people feel disappointed by this. Now the way business usually works though is that Apple doesn't make money if enough people are disappointed so I wholeheartedly agree you should tell them with your wallet.

FCPX was also a massive failure on Apple's part and honestly I have no idea what they were smoking at that time.

However, I don't agree that when you buy a piece of software, you buy future developments and upgrades. That's insane. What if a company goes bankrupt? What if that department is no longer profitable? Companies aren't banking their future because you paid money for their past work. Aperture isn't suddenly going to break tomorrow, you got your monies worth.

Now, if you said you spent time to buy into the system and Apple let you down. I, once again, agree with your sentiment. I think you should wait for Apple to release Photos before you pass judgement. Everything I've seen says that it looks more like aperture than iPhoto. Apple has also been furiously calling photographers that have a web presence so Apple obviously cares about this group of professionals. Passing judgement at this time is pre-mature.

I actually think, if the assumptions are true and Photos is a free App, that Apple is forgoing profits completely, which would go against your theory that they're all about the money. They can easily just release another version with minimal updates and try to milk your money. That'd be much easier and more profitable, I presume, than completely rewriting their photo apps from the ground up.

 

[LV426]

Really if it can:
* properly migrate, combine and dedup photo's, and versions in my iPhoto & Aperture libraries

* Support RAW

* provide a better interface

* support plugins, extensions

Then I'm not sure I care, this might be good for Apple and customers if Apple unifies their work efforts. but Lightroom and others will likely be needed for the pro(sumers)

If it can do this, as well as preserving/catering for existing non-destructive edits, RAW edits, and bumping up iCloud's free quota from today's measly 5GB, Photos might actually be a better solution. Non-destructive plugins would definitely be better than Aperture's current architecture.

 

[simonmet]

Fat chance. This move is nothing to do with software features, it's about getting your files into their datacenter so they can lock you out when your hardware gets too 'old'.

No way I'll use a cloud-only solution. If there's no local library option I simply won't use it.

I already disable Photo-stream on all my devices because it's a stupid solution that creates needless duplication. Sure, let me see what's on my phone on my Mac but don't create a separate bunch of photos in the cloud in addition to what's stored locally on my phone. That's just dumb.

But of course all the signs are Apple are trying to make us Cloud dependent and "locked in" just like Adobe and Microsoft. To this end they will fail if it's not in the consumer's best interest.