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

iOS-Inspired iPhoto for Mac Update Coming This Summer?

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,570
39,422



iphotologo-150x150.jpg


The next version of iPhoto will be redesigned to be more like the iOS version of iPhoto, according to Belgian website Apple Weetjes [Google Translate].

The report includes a couple of details about potential new features. The new Mac version of iPhoto is said to gain the excellent iPhoto Journals feature and a redesigned photo retouching system, both inspired by the iOS version of iPhoto. The site also claims that the new iPhoto will require OS X Lion or Mountain Lion -- Snow Leopard won't be supported.

Apple Weetjes doesn't have much of a track record on rumors, but the features they mention do seem likely to make their way to the Mac version of iPhoto at some point.

via AppleInsider

Article Link: iOS-Inspired iPhoto for Mac Update Coming This Summer?
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/24/ios-inspired-iphoto-for-mac-update-coming-this-summer/
Last edited by a moderator:
This I would be interested in this. I like the ios iPhoto but dont have an iPad and see it useless on the iPhone
 
I hope that Apple integrates iPhoto into the Photos app on iOS, it makes no sense to have two apps considering they have the exact same function bar a few photo editing features on iPhoto.
 
yay ... more limitations :rolleyes:

the iPad version is horrible, you cant even delete and reorganize your pictures as far as i know
 
Jamie0003 said:
I hope that Apple integrates iPhoto into the Photos app on iOS, it makes no sense to have two apps considering they have the exact same function bar a few photo editing features on iPhoto.
Click to expand...

With iCloud, this could be sweet.
 
A lot of the features revealed in iOS iPhoto looked interesting, but given I lack an iPad I wasn't willing to buy it and try them out. On my iMac, it could be pretty nice.
 
'Appleweetjes' is just guessing. Never heard from this site (im belgian), they probably just need viewers :eek:
 
Yay! Let's dumb everything down even more! WTF has happened to apple... They used to have excellent products.



2bikes said:
With iCloud, this could be sweet.
Click to expand...

iCloud as a whole is somewhat useless, but especially with photos and videos. I posted this before, but I will repost it.

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.
 
For an average user this would be a nice change. The rest of us photography snobs can keep using what we use.
 
Does this mean we'll no longer be able to organize photos on our Mac using iPhoto!? And that the UI will become completely unintuitive and my mom will no longer be able to use it and I will be at a loss as to explain it to her!?

Oh goodie! YAY! :rolleyes:

OK, admitedly I may be being harsh, but i just yesterday purchased iPhoto for iPad and was terribly frustrated and disappointed with it within 90 seconds. Normally I do my homework before dropping change on an app, but I tend to just trust Apple... And I (apparently?) falsely assumed iPhoto for iOS would allow me to *organize* photos ala the Mac version, thus replacing the Photos app??? Either I'm a moron... or whooooops.... $5 in the trash. So disappointed. *Sigh*.
 
afin said:
For an average user this would be a nice change. The rest of us photography snobs can keep using what we use.
Click to expand...

Sure, for now, but eventually we will want an upgrade. Then what? I guess I will defect over to ps.
 
i can see it happening. However, i sure hope that it includes a complete overhaul of iPhoto for OS X because it needs work and i think it might be best for them to start from scratch with it.
 
[/QUOTE]Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.[/QUOTE]

If you can afford to own a DSLR and trips to Europe, then just spring for the faster internet connection. Or you can use ipad's 4g connection and that is much faster than 1.5Mbps.
 
If you can afford to own a DSLR and trips to Europe, then just spring for the faster internet connection. Or you can use ipad's 4g connection and that is much faster than 1.5Mbps.[/QUOTE]


First and foremost I can't get a faster connection. Remember, we are talking about upload bandwidth here, not downloads. Also, I would go way over any caps imposed on a 4G iPad. Remember, one shoot will net me 3.7-6 GB of data...
 
nickn said:
Yay! Let's dumb everything down even more! WTF has happened to apple... They used to have excellent products.





iCloud as a whole is somewhat useless, but especially with photos and videos. I posted this before, but I will repost it.

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.
Click to expand...

I some what agree with you. Compared to music, cloud for pictures, assuming each file around 15MB isn't too different from music. But I think, most would agree that your example of 250-400 shots per shoot is way above an average user. It wont work for you. Nothing will work for you.
 
I hope they bring the "find similar pictures" to Mac iPhoto and Aperture soon. That's a very crucial feature in modern photo management apps and it's basically missing from Mac offerings of Apple right now. Hard to believe they brought such a powerful feature to iOS iPhoto first.
 
nickn said:
Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.
Click to expand...

Photostream is a consumer product. It is designed to push iDevice photos to other devices, getting rid of the need to transfer your photos to your computer. Doing so, it backs up your photos to your PC, without the need to do any work.

For $100, you can get 55GB of yearly storage. That will satisfy 99.9% of the population. The fact that you may be in the 0.1 percent, is tough luck :p.

Lucky Apple and Canon didn't forget about you :
http://www.apple.com/thunderbolt/
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/canon-to-use-intels-thunderbolt-in-future-cameras-11-03-2011/
 
Last edited:
2bikes said:
I some what agree with you. Compared to music, cloud for pictures, assuming each file around 15MB isn't too different from music. But I think, most would agree that your example of 250-400 shots per shoot is way above an average user. It wont work for you. Nothing will work for you.
Click to expand...
What would work for me is to keep everything how it currently is. Apple is the problem, as they are removing any advanced features from everything they are "updating". Now everything is tailered to the extreme idiot clients, and powerusers are thrown under the bus. Seriously, take a look at everything.

10.6 - 10.7, massive loss of features.
Server edition even more so
iMovie HD 06 to 08, large loss of features
Final cut 7 to X, extreme criticism.
Airport utility, loss of many controls.
Removal of super drives from even desktop machines.
Etc and on and on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back