iOS-Inspired iPhoto for Mac Update Coming This Summer?

[Sackvillenb]

hmmm, this might be tricky. Could be cool in some ways, but I don't want them to "break" iPhoto for Mac. I think one of the biggest things they need to do though is create integration and communication between iOS iPhoto and mac iPhoto for libraries, etc. They are 2 totally separate apps...

 

[beowulf70]

As a professional (software engineer), I find that I am still being catered to. MacBook pros are still wickedly sophisticated, nicely performing machines as are even the last round of Mac pros, old as they are. I don't find the iMac to be a toy either and it runs everything I throw at it - web servers, databases, IDEs,etc - very, very well. Interestingly, because like most of us, I'm also a consumer, I like a lot of the consistency of behavior across the apple ecosystem. I use the iPad and iphone for both work and pleasure - both are also very sophisticated machines. I have a broader ecosystem in which to work and play, something I really like.

I'm happy that you are happy.

Whilst consistency is generally helpful, I've personally never had any trouble quickly learning anything Apple has released.
When Apple finally announces and launches the new MacBook Pro, I too will be a consumer again and I too will be happy.

(I just hope you don't ever have to render any Cinema 4D projects on an iMac in a hurry) Thankfully, I've never had to. Have a nice day.

 

[chrono1081]

1.The first and most irritating issue to me is the lack of Rosetta. It was an optional download before so why change now. Other major losses that would effect me would be the deletion of iSync, Front Row, Spaces, and Expose, the inability to install XP via bootcamp, a far more unintuitive UI, and a loss of the ability to easily restore to a new HD. There are other issues, I am not going to search them out to post here. On the server issue, read this. Again, it seems less intuitive then before
http://www.amsys.co.uk/2012/blog/six-months-on-lion-server-my-opinion/
https://www.macworld.com/article/1162381/mac_os_x_lion_server.html
2.iMove 6 HD was vastly superior to later versions. Again, apple removed advanced features
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/08/14/apple_stirs_controversy_with_imovies_08_overhaul.html
3.The airport manager has been ruined the most. Here is one quote from another MR user for what has been removed.
"Can no longer configure printers, can no longer see wireless and DHCP clients, lost IPv6, lost logs and stats, lost multicast rate, lost transmit power, lost wide channels, lost interference robustness etc etc etc"
read this and associated comments
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/3...lity-6-0-and-an-airport-base-station-bug-fix/
4. Super drives are leaving. I can no longer get a mini with one, which is insane. Apple says get an external one, but now I need to pay even more money. They didn't lower the price of the computer to compensate.
5. Yes, I realize windows is ****, I have repaired plenty of FUBARed windows boxes. Apple has plenty of other problems of their own though. Really it is do I want hardware issues with an apple device, or software hell with windows. Both are unacceptable, but at least I personally can fix software issues. If my parts keep breaking, I am at the will of apple to replace stuff at a large premium.

You do realize at some point legacy support needs dropped to move forward right? Rosetta was around far long enough for developers to update their apps. Put the blame on app developers for this one, not Apple.

As for iMovie, yes its unfortunate but its free software. If users need something more powerful they should have been looking at Final Cut Express, or Final Cut Pro.

For airport, again there is a regular and simplified version. The regular version has not changed and is downloadable here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482

As for super drives leaving, its only on a mini. Most users benefit more from having the better internal hardware. Drives are rarely used by most people today. They simply do not have enough storage. I agree with Apple on this one.

Apple hardware having constant issues is a myth. Thats just stuff you see on Macrumors. In the real world you will rarely find anything wrong. Theres a huge difference between quality in real life, and perceived quality on online forums. If you say your "parts keep breaking" I simply can't believe you. My experience supporting Macs (hundreds of machines) as well as owning plenty of them has been nothing but stellar. There is not a single recorded hardware failure on a Mac at work. Again, this is out of 300+ machines.

 

[katt]

oh sweet! i want the journal~

 

[rhett7660]

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.

In this case none of the cloud storage is an option for you. It might be ridicules for you but there are those of us who get much better band width. Also, I have a feeling this is going to be aimed more at the iPhone crowd who's pictures are only say 2-3 megs a shot not the DSLR crowd.

So because it is not a viable option for you, does not mean it is not a viable option for others.

 

[nickn]

Apple hardware having constant issues is a myth.

Not in my experience. Every single Apple product I have owned has had a hardware failure.

My iBook G4 had 1x logic board failure, 1x broken mic, 1x defective wifi card, and has had 2 defective batteries.
My Mac Mini had 1x super drive failure, and was purchased refurbished.
My iPod nano 1G frequently froze, causing a replacement to be given. The battery then had to be replaced due to a fire hazard.
My iPad 1 has significant image persistence on the screen, but I am out of warranty so that wont be fixed.
One of my family members has a iPhone 3G, the screen is broken, as it displays garbage on it.
His iPhone 3GS he then got shortly after stopped responding to touch input on the right side of the screen.
My cousins iPod touch 2G refuses to boot.
His previous iPod Classics click wheel stopped responding rendering the device inoperable.
The Apple track record in my experience has been 0%. Then there is the problem of getting all this **** fixed. IMO that is also extremely difficult as Apple is a real pain. If you really want, read my "novel" about their horrendous support here.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=14745311#post14745311

My two ancient windows machines, and my Linux box, which were made by Compaq, E-Machines, and HP, and my Android devices have never have had any major problems. There is simply no way I can recommend Apple after all this.

 

[cav23j]

1.The first and most irritating issue to me is the lack of Rosetta. It was an optional download before so why change now. Other major losses that would effect me would be the deletion of iSync, Front Row, Spaces, and Expose, the inability to install XP via bootcamp, a far more unintuitive UI, and a loss of the ability to easily restore to a new HD. There are other issues, I am not going to search them out to post here. On the server issue, read this. Again, it seems less intuitive then before
http://www.amsys.co.uk/2012/blog/six-months-on-lion-server-my-opinion/
https://www.macworld.com/article/1162381/mac_os_x_lion_server.html
2.iMove 6 HD was vastly superior to later versions. Again, apple removed advanced features
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/08/14/apple_stirs_controversy_with_imovies_08_overhaul.html
3.The airport manager has been ruined the most. Here is one quote from another MR user for what has been removed.
"Can no longer configure printers, can no longer see wireless and DHCP clients, lost IPv6, lost logs and stats, lost multicast rate, lost transmit power, lost wide channels, lost interference robustness etc etc etc"
read this and associated comments
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/3...lity-6-0-and-an-airport-base-station-bug-fix/
4. Super drives are leaving. I can no longer get a mini with one, which is insane. Apple says get an external one, but now I need to pay even more money. They didn't lower the price of the computer to compensate.
5. Yes, I realize windows is ****, I have repaired plenty of FUBARed windows boxes. Apple has plenty of other problems of their own though. Really it is do I want hardware issues with an apple device, or software hell with windows. Both are unacceptable, but at least I personally can fix software issues. If my parts keep breaking, I am at the will of apple to replace stuff at a large premium.

pretty sure the inability to install XP via bootcamp was introduced in 10.6.6

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/17/mac-os-x-10-6-6-introduces-subtle-changes-to-boot-camp/

 

[satkin2]

But at least with Windows I have a choice for what I want to do. For example, Windows Vista was a drag, but I could choose to dual boot both the far better XP and Vista at the same time. Can I choose to boot both 10.6 with Rosetta support, which I need, and 10.7 at the same time? No, because Apple refuses to allow choice, and locks users in.

But how long should Apple maintain support for Rosetta, they supported it for 5 years, that should be plenty of time for the software makers to update their apps for Intel machines.

Its a trade off that Apple is trying to make here, they helped people who needed to run Power PC apps with Rosetta but how long is reasonable to carry on that support.

PS: I don't know because I don't use a VM, but can you not install Snow Leopard on on to get Rosetta usage, I assume not?

 

[0098386]

Not sure where I'm going to go if Apple continue down this "desktop iOS" path.

Windows doesn't have iPhoto (as it currently is), Garageband or Logic, it doesn't have the grace of OSX or such system-wide integration with my portable devices. Linux is a definite no-go for me.

 

[nickn]

But how long should Apple maintain support for Rosetta, they supported it for 5 years, that should be plenty of time for the software makers to update their apps for Intel machines.

Its a trade off that Apple is trying to make here, they helped people who needed to run Power PC apps with Rosetta but how long is reasonable to carry on that support.

PS: I don't know because I don't use a VM, but can you not install Snow Leopard on on to get Rosetta usage, I assume not?

But why does there need to be a trade off? Why not just leave Rosetta as an optional download like in 10.6? Heck, they could even charge a nominal amount to cover the dev costs and I certainly would buy it. It would be a lot cheaper to pay $5-10 dollars for emulation then to have to re-buy many of my old items. I am still running office 2004 for example, which is PPC only. Repurchasing that alone for Intel would cost $90. Other stuff I cant even get updated versions of, like my bundled scanner software that is PPC only. What do they want me to do, buy a whole new flat bed scanner now too? That is stupid, everything I have works fine for me as it is. Are you really saying it is acceptable for me to have to pay around $150 for new software, $200 for a new flat bed scanner, and $50 for VmWare fusion just to do what 10.6 already does for free? The **** I will. I'd take that $400 and buy a new windows machine that doesn't have these costly issues. Look at how long Microsoft kept MS-DOS support for example... And in respect to VM, that would work, but again, why make everything complicated. Then I have to partition drives, reinstall apps and drivers on the 10.6 side, and at the same time take useability hits, as VM is apparently slower, and wont run at a res above 1024x768. Can no one see my frustrations here? My Mac Mini came with 10.5. It was then soon upgraded to 10.6 where I am stuck today. My computer was essentially supported for just a few years. I previously had a Mac Server g4 that I upgraded from OS 8.6 to OS 9 to 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3. I could have even kept going to 10.4. Throughout all of the upgrades I never had any performance or compatibility problems, and I was current for years. Why cant apple be like how they were before????????

 

[manu chao]

[QUOTEnickn;14770571]But at least with Windows I have a choice for what I want to do. For example, Windows Vista was a drag, but I could choose to dual boot both the far better XP and Vista at the same time. Can I choose to boot both 10.6 with Rosetta support, which I need, and 10.7 at the same time? No, because Apple refuses to allow choice, and locks users in. [/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? Of course you can dual-boot between 10.6 and 10.7 on hardware that supports both OS versions. On my current MBP I can triple-boot between 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7.

 

[r.harris1]

But why does there need to be a trade off? Why not just leave Rosetta as an optional download like in 10.6? Heck, they could even charge a nominal amount to cover the dev costs and I certainly would buy it. It would be a lot cheaper to pay $5-10 dollars for emulation then to have to re-buy many of my old items. I am still running office 2004 for example, which is PPC only. Repurchasing that alone for Intel would cost $90. Other stuff I cant even get updated versions of, like my bundled scanner software that is PPC only. What do they want me to do, buy a whole new flat bed scanner now too? That is stupid, everything I have works fine for me as it is. Are you really saying it is acceptable for me to have to pay around $150 for new software, $200 for a new flat bed scanner, and $50 for VmWare fusion just to do what 10.6 already does for free? The **** I will. I'd take that $400 and buy a new windows machine that doesn't have these costly issues. Look at how long Microsoft kept MS-DOS support for example... And in respect to VM, that would work, but again, why make everything complicated. Then I have to partition drives, reinstall apps and drivers on the 10.6 side, and at the same time take useability hits, as VM is apparently slower, and wont run at a res above 1024x768. Can no one see my frustrations here? My Mac Mini came with 10.5. It was then soon upgraded to 10.6 where I am stuck today. My computer was essentially supported for just a few years. I previously had a Mac Server g4 that I upgraded from OS 8.6 to OS 9 to 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3. I could have even kept going to 10.4. Throughout all of the upgrades I never had any performance or compatibility problems, and I was current for years. Why cant apple be like how they were before????????

Every ecosystem has costly issues, believe me, most certainly including Microsoft's. While it may be unacceptable to you to have to spend money to upgrade your system to take advantage of improvements in software and hardware over the last 8-10 years, having to maintain a lowest common denominator approach to the OS and associated windowing functionality reaches a point where it just isn't feasible from a cost perspective for the company if there is any hope at all in moving on. And backwards compatibility is not free (nor modular - i.e. just keep Rosetta as a separate download). It's complex, costly and produces a lot of baggage that can degrade the user experience or limit advances. Like I said in an earlier post, Apple tends to be more disruptive in their transitions than other companies and that doesn't always work well with people. Abrupt halts can be painful Apple (or Microsoft or...) can't be like they were before - different world, new technologies, new advances, new customers.

 

[ChrisA]

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*.

What do you means "can't organize". Does that mean you can't add keywords and tags? Maybe because the iPad has not keyboard? Just asking. I don't have an iPad.

 

[pika2000]

I don't understand why people are so negative. Where does it say that it will be "dumbed down"? The photo journal feature is awesome, and I'm surprised Apple didn't patch current iPhoto right away to add that.

A lot of the improvements I want to see is actually from the iCloud side. Right now, there's no direct replacement for .Mac/MobileME gallery. If you want to share your photos online, you have to use other means like Facebook/Flickr. Also, I want iCloud to keep the EXIF info intact during resizing on photo stream. Eg. currently, if I took a photo from my iPhone, the picture pushed from iCloud via photo stream to, let say, my iPad will be voided of its EXIF info and geotag. Not cool.

 

[organerito]

Sure?

iPhoto for iOS is even more dumbed down and is cumbersome too. I really hope the Mac version doesn't resemble it.



Drama!

You know what's more frustrating?

Windows.

What's frustrating about Windows 7? Have you used it? I am just guessing you don't even how to use a computer properly.

 

[Drunken Master]

What's frustrating about Windows 7? Have you used it? I am just guessing you don't even how to use a computer properly.

I'm guessing you don't even know how to speak English properly.

I have an HP desktop at home with Windows 7, by the way.

Wait, why the heck am I proving myself to some stranger on the Internet?

 

[MonkeySee....]

I don't understand why people are so negative. Where does it say that it will be "dumbed down"? The photo journal feature is awesome, and I'm surprised Apple didn't patch current iPhoto right away to add that.

A lot of the improvements I want to see is actually from the iCloud side. Right now, there's no direct replacement for .Mac/MobileME gallery. If you want to share your photos online, you have to use other means like Facebook/Flickr. Also, I want iCloud to keep the EXIF info intact during resizing on photo stream. Eg. currently, if I took a photo from my iPhone, the picture pushed from iCloud via photo stream to, let say, my iPad will be voided of its EXIF info and geotag. Not cool.

Thats where "Journal" comes in. Its bloody great!

What's frustrating about Windows 7? Have you used it? I am just guessing you don't even how to use a computer properly.

Not that its relevant to the thread but to me Windows 7 is dull and lifeless. Doesn't excite or entertain. Its many different variations are a pain.

I had to format a brand new machine that had 64bit Home Premium on it with a copy of 32bit Professional just to get it on a domain. Ridiculous.

 

[SBlue1]

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.

I don't think iCloud is designed with artists, professional photographers or photo-studios as the targeted user group. It's ment for the casual photographer who shoots a photo or two of his kid at the softball field or the bike tour with his friends and wants to have the photos at his home computer or iPad without the need to get the cables and sd-cardreaders out of the drawer.

I think iCloud is a neat product and I like it, like most of the regular users. Sure it can be better and I can't wait to see what it will look like in 5 years.

I for instance would like to have a personal "home" iCloud, so I could outsource all of my photos, videos and music to a HD attached to my router so I don't need to boot my Mac at home and wait for iPhoto or iTunes to fire up if I want to see some old photos on my Apple TV or listen to some music that could not fit within my iPads limited storage.

 

[organerito]

I'm guessing you don't even know how to speak English properly.

I have an HP desktop at home with Windows 7, by the way.

Wait, why the heck am I proving myself to some stranger on the Internet?

I am guessing English is the only language you speak. English is my fourth language. I did my Bachelor's in the USA, Master's in France and Doctorate in Canada.

Wait, why the heck am I proving myself to some stranger on the Internet?

Let me guess. Are you from Arizona or Alabama?

 

[MonkeySee....]

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.

My DSLR takes great photos at about 4MB a piece. If I crank it up to RAW then i'd probably see it hitting 15MB.

Also you're not "uploading" those photos to iCloud. They hit your photostream at 1.5MB so they are easily shared across devices and meant for "normal people" to print and make photobooks and not big **** off posters.

As mentioned above, iCloud isn't suitable for you "awesomeness".

 

[Drunken Master]

I am guessing English is the only language you speak. English is my fourth language. I did my Bachelor's in the USA, Master's in France and Doctorate in Canada.

Wait, why the heck am I proving myself to some stranger on the Internet?

Let me guess. Are you from Arizona or Alabama?

What is your problem?

English is my second language after Spanish and I also speak German and Portuguese. And I grew up in several continents (Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and now North America) and attended international schools. Why do you care though? And what the **** does that have to do with Windows 7?

Pull your head out of your ass.

I apologize if this is hijacking the thread as well, I'm not responding to this short bus window-licker anymore.

 

[Soura2112]

May be cool

As long as they don't "dumb down" the new iPhoto then it would be cool for all pics to be in the cloud, or certain albums. IPhoto for the ipad and phone is nice but I want a more powerful iPhoto on my Macs. Guess we will see the reviews. iPhoto is prett good already, missing some simple things like find duplicates. When I want more power for photos I just jump to photoshop. Have only used aperture 1. Wish iPhoto was more like photoshop, just add and a advanced option, letting us have a powerful iPhoto. But I can't complain about free software that's pretty good.
So yeah don't "dumb down" iPhoto, already do simpe.

 

[Naaaaak]

We can have a catch-all headline for this:

"iOS-Inspired ____ for Mac Update Coming"

No matter what "____" is on iOS, it will influence the Mac.

 

[Kid A]

What do you means "can't organize". Does that mean you can't add keywords and tags? Maybe because the iPad has not keyboard? Just asking. I don't have an iPad.

i mean you can't create Events and folders and whatnot. Gotta use the Photos app. Unless I'm missing something.

 

[rdlink]

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.

OMG, How useless is a Toyota Camry? I like to drive 150 MPH, and it won't do that very well...

Get real! Very, very few people have 15MB images, my friend. And my Comcast (read mainstream) internet connection gives me 5Mbps upload speeds. The only thing ridiculous here is your logic.