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 Says Aperture Won't Run in Future macOS Versions After Mojave
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Some people are still using Quicken 2007 and it will also stop working after Mojave. Quicken 2019 is just fine but people make up reasons they can’t or won’t upgrade. The transition to 64 bit only life after Mojave will be very painful for those clinging to old software. Face up to the reality that software you like and paid good money for will not be supported forever by ANY company. Most of the worthwhile software out there has already or is in the process of moving to a subscription based model. Lightroom is now subscription, web based only. You can no longer purchase and download a standalone app.
Yeah, abandoning Aperture was a mistake. Photos doesn't do as much, as nicely, and it's never caught up. This is one of the times Apple truly disappointed me.
I can't recall how much of my Aperture data Capture One migrated over, but it was most of it. I was quite pleased at how much got ported over.
I'm certain that it kept all of my star ratings because that's what I used the most. I don't recall how well it worked on my keywords though, but I believe it did that rather well too as keyword tagging works pretty similarly in C1P.
What doesn't get moved are your adjustments. This was a huge pain, but C1P's adjustments and RAW processing utterly obliterates anything Aperture did. You will not want to keep your old adjustments anyway.
Rewriting significant portions of 32-bit code to make it 64-bit clean for a product discontinued in 2014 is not a wise use of developer resources. Even less so when you consider what older technologies/frameworks/APIs Aperture may be using that have no clear 64-bit analog.
I’m very disappointed. I have been using Aperture since 2006. I actually started using Mac for Aperture, and have bought multiple Mac computers from iMac to MacPro since. This is a sad day.
I guess it’s one less reason to buy a Mac next time I get a new computer. Yes, I know there’s Capture One, and other options but I don’t need a Mac for those...
I guess it’s one less reason to buy a Mac next time I get a new computer. Yes, I know there’s Capture One, and other options but I don’t need a Mac for those...
In 2006 I tried out Aperture and Lightroom and chose to buy Lightroom. It integrated better with Photoshop, seemed a bit more robust. I probably have a list of problems, annoyances and a wish list from that year. It's 13 years later, I'm still bumping into the same issues with Lightroom 6, (I'm still resisting Adobe's monthly shakedown).
So yes bring back Aperture, I can't be the only person to have the idea: Apple is huge, wealthy, lots of brilliant people. Just keep working it with the goal being to make a significantly better product. (Apple could've just packed it in in the late 90s when PC/Windows seemed to have won.) Two things. Big Tech (Alpha, MS, Apple etc) is rife with 'corner the market, then stop making major improvements' (instead just add some 'features' and pile on the PR). And secondly, whatever happened to Killer App? How much fun would it be to crank out a new Aperture that eliminated all the frustrations?
For instance: 1. When correcting a series of files, keywords, titles, descriptions, locations, etc: these are complex and multifaceted sets of information. Any better organization and functioning of this would be a major improvement.
2. File sorting, collection, back-up drives, etc... any improvement can be a major improvement. What do Lightroom experts tell us? There's a whole get a drive array, backups to backups.... The result for a less than savvy guy like me is I remember that image, where it is? (The 90s was brutal. Hard drives cost a lot, were not nearly as reliable. And I admit to being stupid enough to have thought two Jaz Disks was two back-ups. Is there a Jaz Disk anywhere on the planet that could still be booted? If there is it'll be labeled 'Lazarus'.) Apple has already addressed this problem: Time Machine.
3. Image variation. Light does have a comparison feature, and in Photoshop there's the feature where you can see your image at different levels of compression. There are variations on this tool that beg to be made. About 6 months into owning a Nikon 850D I learned what it's incredible light range actually meant. You can underexpose a shot by many many stops and then just slider it back to correct exposure. As a film shooter I learned that 5 stops was black (transparencies), get the exposure' right' and there will be some dark areas but also a very nice color saturated higher contrast than the real slide. (Think Kodachrome). So on my last big trip I was downloading into Lightroom, my shots just looked meh; I started thinking that I'd lost my chops, I had a very expensive and heavy camera that was basically taking snapshots. I would often hit Auto in LR just to see if maybe there was something simple that I was missing. Almost always: nope. Right there is an opportunity for Adobe LR or Apple Aperture. There are more HDR possibilities then now available.
I could go on. In the 90s if I had any idea on an improvement, the 'what if....' and someone would be working on it or something like it. Now it's so corporate it's like walking into a department store, it sure looks like a lot of everything, but it isn't. I know Apple in the past has gotten into trouble with too many products competing with each other. But something like Aperture, a better Illustrator, an improved word processor, spreadsheets? (I'd like to see a history of the spreadsheet, Visacalc and then endless copies.... no preference for using degrees instead of radians, absolutely no consistency in graphs, linear regressions? I've done them but a very smart forensic accountant I met once... He was the husband of the artist, and I was the photographer; at the opening we ended up chatting. If offered the choice between a blister and talking with me... I asked about the software he used. Bingo. That was about 10 years ago, nothing has changed. I do think that someone figured out that horrendous scrolling twitch. You know where you can suddenly scroll down to line 2600 but then getting back up to line 89 is like walking up a steep slope. But maybe that was just in Excel, I've been using OpenOffice. Just thinking out loud.....
So yes bring back Aperture, I can't be the only person to have the idea: Apple is huge, wealthy, lots of brilliant people. Just keep working it with the goal being to make a significantly better product. (Apple could've just packed it in in the late 90s when PC/Windows seemed to have won.) Two things. Big Tech (Alpha, MS, Apple etc) is rife with 'corner the market, then stop making major improvements' (instead just add some 'features' and pile on the PR). And secondly, whatever happened to Killer App? How much fun would it be to crank out a new Aperture that eliminated all the frustrations?
For instance: 1. When correcting a series of files, keywords, titles, descriptions, locations, etc: these are complex and multifaceted sets of information. Any better organization and functioning of this would be a major improvement.
2. File sorting, collection, back-up drives, etc... any improvement can be a major improvement. What do Lightroom experts tell us? There's a whole get a drive array, backups to backups.... The result for a less than savvy guy like me is I remember that image, where it is? (The 90s was brutal. Hard drives cost a lot, were not nearly as reliable. And I admit to being stupid enough to have thought two Jaz Disks was two back-ups. Is there a Jaz Disk anywhere on the planet that could still be booted? If there is it'll be labeled 'Lazarus'.) Apple has already addressed this problem: Time Machine.
3. Image variation. Light does have a comparison feature, and in Photoshop there's the feature where you can see your image at different levels of compression. There are variations on this tool that beg to be made. About 6 months into owning a Nikon 850D I learned what it's incredible light range actually meant. You can underexpose a shot by many many stops and then just slider it back to correct exposure. As a film shooter I learned that 5 stops was black (transparencies), get the exposure' right' and there will be some dark areas but also a very nice color saturated higher contrast than the real slide. (Think Kodachrome). So on my last big trip I was downloading into Lightroom, my shots just looked meh; I started thinking that I'd lost my chops, I had a very expensive and heavy camera that was basically taking snapshots. I would often hit Auto in LR just to see if maybe there was something simple that I was missing. Almost always: nope. Right there is an opportunity for Adobe LR or Apple Aperture. There are more HDR possibilities then now available.
I could go on. In the 90s if I had any idea on an improvement, the 'what if....' and someone would be working on it or something like it. Now it's so corporate it's like walking into a department store, it sure looks like a lot of everything, but it isn't. I know Apple in the past has gotten into trouble with too many products competing with each other. But something like Aperture, a better Illustrator, an improved word processor, spreadsheets? (I'd like to see a history of the spreadsheet, Visacalc and then endless copies.... no preference for using degrees instead of radians, absolutely no consistency in graphs, linear regressions? I've done them but a very smart forensic accountant I met once... He was the husband of the artist, and I was the photographer; at the opening we ended up chatting. If offered the choice between a blister and talking with me... I asked about the software he used. Bingo. That was about 10 years ago, nothing has changed. I do think that someone figured out that horrendous scrolling twitch. You know where you can suddenly scroll down to line 2600 but then getting back up to line 89 is like walking up a steep slope. But maybe that was just in Excel, I've been using OpenOffice. Just thinking out loud.....
I hope you are being facetious as a company only has as much power as you give it. Find some new software and buy a Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic/something other than Nikon camera and start taking pictures. It isn’t Apple or Nikon’s job to make you dream, it’s yours...tools do not make or break the artist.
Remind me again what extension is used for application bundles on macOS
"Pro" means "productive" not, as I think you like to tell yourself, "Professional”
I would congratulate you on your excellent burn, but I don't think it made any sense. Nice try though.
I wish when companies decide to no longer support software that they would release the source code for someone to pick up were they decided to leave off.
Agreed. I would add exiting the router business too.
What's the deal with MagSafe on this forum? Try pulling your Macbook across the desk on a USB C cord. Does not work? Well, here's your answer why no one needs MagSafe anymore.
They kill off Aperture, but give us £179 leather MacBook sleeves to make up for it...
Just imagine if the time spent writing this document had been used to make Photos any less of a humiliating dumpster fire.
Wrong. If you have a Creative Cloud subscription then you can download what is called Lightroom Classic, which is the desktop app version. I switched from Aperture to Lightroom pretty much right after Apple ceased development of it.
Most professional photographers I know edit their photos in Photoshop.
I'm not an Aperture user, I still use iPhoto, but am facing the same dilemma as many of you. Photos just does not allow me to organize my massive library in any way that makes sense to me. I tried importing it into Photos... what a mess. I'd like to like Photos, but it just isn't designed for managing photos in any way other than those taken with your iPhone on holiday.
I'm now in the process of slowly moving my Photos, one event at a time, into... folders, lol. One of the biggest problems I have with ALL of these photo managers is their insistence on putting all of your original assets into a convoluted, or completely inaccessible, package/archive/database.
I'm still holding out for that holy grail of all photo managers. In the mean time, going forward, it looks like my solution (and backup) will be the Finder and Preview/Quick Look. Gah.
I'm now in the process of slowly moving my Photos, one event at a time, into... folders, lol. One of the biggest problems I have with ALL of these photo managers is their insistence on putting all of your original assets into a convoluted, or completely inaccessible, package/archive/database.
I'm still holding out for that holy grail of all photo managers. In the mean time, going forward, it looks like my solution (and backup) will be the Finder and Preview/Quick Look. Gah.
For a lot of photographers, Aperture was primarily a tool for editing photos en masse -- so if a thousand images of a sunrise were washed out, you could adjust one and then apply your adjustments instantaneously to the entire roll.
Raw editors work by saving your post processing adjustments as metadata, separate from your originals. This makes it easy to perform mass operations on very large files, but it also means your final image is dependent not just on a single file, but on the original file, a stack of metadata changes, and the exact algorithms that apply those changes.
Photos loses that roll-based workflow and it changes the algorithms; neither can be "expanded" by third parties as easily as you claim because they are features of the core image database, iCloud and/or CoreImage itself. Aperture images don't look the same if they're re-edited in Photos. Losing access to Aperture is to a photographer akin to losing Edit privileges on all your old documents. Sure, you can still view the old ones and you can always just retype the ones you really need. But you're not going to re-type ALL of them, especially if you're talking hundreds of thousands of documents across far more hard drives than would fit in iCloud.
Look, I only put around $500 into the Aperture ecosystem. I admit that is not nearly enough to guarantee me a lifetime of updates and upgrades. But the degree to which Apple has crippled the program through OS upgrades, especially given the incompleteness of the "replacement," is nearly hostile. The only right answer for photographers is to move to a friendlier ecosystem, e.g. Adobe, and lose a decade's work in the process.
It would be nice if the Aperture to Photos migration / conversion didn't fail without explanation in a significant number of migrations.
As an old Apple Certified Pro in Aperture, I had to help far too many users manually export photos and then reimport them into Photos. No matter the pattern of database repairs, and rebuilds, some libraries just won't export.
As an old Apple Certified Pro in Aperture, I had to help far too many users manually export photos and then reimport them into Photos. No matter the pattern of database repairs, and rebuilds, some libraries just won't export.
I have tried every photo management app available on mac, nothing comes close to Aperture for managing well over 100,000 photos which is why I still use Aperture. If they could finally bring the Photos app up to par I would move away from Aperture. Until I find a replacement with batch name/file editing, exif gps editing, no subscription, and a good layout I will be sticking with Aperture/Mojave for a while.
Microsoft supports their software for a long time. They released a patch for XP 8 years after they ended mainstream support!
But I wasn't that clear in my original post. I was really referring to Apple abandoning this software to begin with. I've long since moved on from Aperture and some other products they've abandoned in the past as well. My thoughts are if they come up with anything in the future, it is best to seek alternatives first.
I’m still not sure why Aperture went away, but I wonder if part of the reason was pressure from Adobe. Apple might lose some customers by dropping Aperture, but they’d lose more if Adobe’s support for the Mac platform softened.