Apple doesn't like photographers

[Fishrrman]

Sceptical wrote above:
"However, I do see a situation - which is approaching, if it hasn't already arrived - where Apple places a lot less emphasis on its computer division than on some of the other more remunerative areas of its commercial empire."

In Apple's most recent financial report, Mac (computer) sales had shrunk to about 9% of its revenue.

Not a negligible figure, but Apple's no longer a "computer company"...

 

[robgendreau]

Sceptical wrote above:
"However, I do see a situation - which is approaching, if it hasn't already arrived - where Apple places a lot less emphasis on its computer division than on some of the other more remunerative areas of its commercial empire."

In Apple's most recent financial report, Mac (computer) sales had shrunk to about 9% of its revenue.

Not a negligible figure, but Apple's no longer a "computer company"...

OTOH, Mac sales were about the only computer sales that have been doing better of late.

And with the iPhone market kinda saturated, and Apple increasingly competing with its own products, maybe it's time for the Apple Camera. I mean if they're gonna be iOS in a car, how 'bout iOS as in interface in a DSLR with editing, organization, sharing, etc. Even a SIM slot (some BMWs have 'em). Geez, they are practically most of the way there already; it wouldn't be that difficult.

 

[Apple fanboy]

OTOH, Mac sales were about the only computer sales that have been doing better of late.

And with the iPhone market kinda saturated, and Apple increasingly competing with its own products, maybe it's time for the Apple Camera. I mean if they're gonna be iOS in a car, how 'bout iOS as in interface in a DSLR with editing, organization, sharing, etc. Even a SIM slot (some BMWs have 'em). Geez, they are practically most of the way there already; it wouldn't be that difficult.

Never going to happen. That's like Apple saying the iPhone camera isn't the best thing out there and you still need a better camera in some situations.

 

[Boulder]

Never going to happen. That's like Apple saying the iPhone camera isn't the best thing out there and you still need a better camera in some situations.

It makes no sense for Apple to enter into the imaging market. They would have to build massive plants and hire dozens of engineers to even get started. Apple would get gutted in that market by the likes of Nikon, Canon, and Sony who all have decades of experience in the field. The only scenario where I see Apple ever getting into the business is teaming up with someone like Leica and making a heavily modified version of iOS (but even then it would be a compromised version of both). Besides a camera OS does not need to be complicated it needs to be quick to use and in depth.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

To those suggesting to get a third party app instead of aperture. It is not as easy. I have for instance about 70000 pictures sorted in aperture (which i use since version 1 btw) sorted into albums and some of those selected to be shared in iTunes with my Apple TV so that I can view them in slide shows.

So I have some obligation to continue using Apple solutions if not Aperture then photos at some point in order not to loose all my work.

For new pictures I could move to a new workflow. At the moment aperture still runs great on El Capitan. So I am fine but still very unhappy with Apples decision to abandon the pro photographer.

 

[Apple fanboy]

To those suggesting to get a third party app instead of aperture. It is not as easy. I have for instance about 70000 pictures sorted in aperture (which i use since version 1 btw) sorted into albums and some of those selected to be shared in iTunes with my Apple TV so that I can view them in slide shows.

So I have some obligation to continue using Apple solutions if not Aperture then photos at some point in order not to loose all my work.

For new pictures I could move to a new workflow. At the moment aperture still runs great on El Capitan. So I am fine but still very unhappy with Apples decision to abandon the pro photographer.

I'm pretty sure your current library would be intact if you migrated to Lightroom.

http://landing.adobe.com/en/na/products/creative-cloud/54511-aperture-switcher.html

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I'm pretty sure your current library would be intact if you migrated to Lightroom.

http://landing.adobe.com/en/na/products/creative-cloud/54511-aperture-switcher.html

Thanks a lot. I guess that would be in general an option. The problem is that I will never use SAAS (software as a service aka subscription model). I try to avoid subscriptions as much as possible. Therefore Lightroom is not for me.

 

[MCAsan]

You can still get LR as standalone purchase as LR 6. But you don't get the incremental new features like Dehaze or the latest one, Boundary Warp. With the CC subscription you get the incremental features plus Photoshop.

Phase One sells CiP as a standalone and as a $15 a month subscription.

 

[throAU]

At least that's what it feels like since Aperture was left to rot and then abandoned. Movie makers have Final Cut Pro X, Motion and Compressor, music people just got Music Memos in addition to Logic Pro X, Garage Band and the Logic Remote App, and we have ... Photos, just enough to manage some snapshots but not even enough for an ambitious amateur 'tog. Why?

There are photography apps by third parties, Apple are probably more concerned with getting their developers working on APIs and cloud stuff than desktop apps.

Try Affinity Photo...

 

[Apple fanboy]

Thanks a lot. I guess that would be in general an option. The problem is that I will never use SAAS (software as a service aka subscription model). I try to avoid subscriptions as much as possible. Therefore Lightroom is not for me.

Same here. That's why I bought an upgrade to LR 5 for about £70.

 

[dyn]

Actually, I think the thread title doesn't quite convey what is really happening.

The reality is not that "Apple doesn't like photographers", rather, the regrettable reality is that "Apple doesn't give two hoots about photographers".

Neither of them would be correct. Apple is just doing its normal Apple thing: behave like a company. They have a certain amount of resources which they have to divide among all their projects. There is a limit to that, even for Apple. There is no unicorn, magic fairy dust thing going on with Apple.

Back in the day you had Lightroom and you had Aperture so it made sense to work on Aperture. Nowadays there is a plethora of applications and a lot of people are still using Photoshop and the like for their edits. Lots of competition and fierce competition. Why waste all those resources on something you are not likely to win? Just a standard/basic business decision. And there is another way of doing things. They already had a piece of software that could manage photos (iPhoto) but it was crap, especially when it comes to large libraries and there is no integration with other software (meaning: everything has to be done within the app). Their solution is Photos plus extensions and if that doesn't do it then simply use one of the many other software that we have now. It's nice that they allow for a transition period so you can migrate to another solution over time. Rarely are you being offered this "luxury".

Apparently the movie business is still one where they still see business. Most likely due to their link with Pixar and Disney.

It's the same reason why we don't have a very extensive hypervisor API. That API only supports very basic stuff. If it were feasible (from a business point of view) then OS X already comes with Fusion/Parallels built in (or as separate application). They have a chance now, they can hire the Fusion/Workstation team VMware fired but I don't see them do that. What benefits would that bring to their organisation, to their vision?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Neither of them would be correct. Apple is just doing its normal Apple thing: behave like a company. They have a certain amount of resources which they have to divide among all their projects. There is a limit to that, even for Apple. There is no unicorn, magic fairy dust thing going on with Apple.

Back in the day you had Lightroom and you had Aperture so it made sense to work on Aperture. Nowadays there is a plethora of applications and a lot of people are still using Photoshop and the like for their edits. Lots of competition and fierce competition. Why waste all those resources on something you are not likely to win? Just a standard/basic business decision. And there is another way of doing things. They already had a piece of software that could manage photos (iPhoto) but it was crap, especially when it comes to large libraries and there is no integration with other software (meaning: everything has to be done within the app). Their solution is Photos plus extensions and if that doesn't do it then simply use one of the many other software that we have now. It's nice that they allow for a transition period so you can migrate to another solution over time. Rarely are you being offered this "luxury".

Apparently the movie business is still one where they still see business. Most likely due to their link with Pixar and Disney.

It's the same reason why we don't have a very extensive hypervisor API. That API only supports very basic stuff. If it were feasible (from a business point of view) then OS X already comes with Fusion/Parallels built in (or as separate application). They have a chance now, they can hire the Fusion/Workstation team VMware fired but I don't see them do that. What benefits would that bring to their organisation, to their vision?

I think it's just a case of diminishing returns. If 8% of Apple's revenue comes from Macs, and 5%(?) of those are photographers, then maybe 10%(?) won't be using LR or Capture One (two biggest players). Hardly worth their effort.

 

[BrettApple]

Taking a photo with an iPad is just sad. Especially if it's an event and you are the person behind them.

Saw that in person at Oshkosh last year. It looks hilarious.

Meanwhile I was using my T3i and importing into Aperture like I have done for nearly 6 years since 3.0 was released, before the MAS version even. I've got somewhere in the realm of 60,000 photos stored in my library on an external HDD and I've been considering moving to LR6 standalone, no subscription. But Aperture still working for now so I keep putting it off. One thing I like about Aperture is that it automatically imports photos from my iOS devices via Photo Stream without me even thinking about it or needing to plug in. Handy when out and about or if you somehow damage your phone and can't access the data on it everything is already in the Photo Stream and imported. Similar to Google Photos or even Dropbox on Android but those can use 3G/LTE as well.

You can still get LR as standalone purchase as LR 6. But you don't get the incremental new features like Dehaze or the latest one, Boundary Warp. With the CC subscription you get the incremental features plus Photoshop.

Phase One sells CiP as a standalone and as a $15 a month subscription.

And this is really disappointing. I used the trial and the Dehaze feature in LR CC and it was amazing, especially for night photography with long exposures where the city light leaks in. I went outside and took a shot just for fun and it made the stars come right out and got rid of a lot of light leak from the city. Excuse the low res screen cap from a compressed image on Instagram, but it worked quite well. I almost dropped the cash for LR6 but held off once I found out that it didn't get all the updates the CC version gets. Off-putting. Looking at Capture One now but for $300 I could put it towards much better stuff since I'm not a pro and it's just a hobby. I'd rather get a wide angle fast lens first, haha.

I think it's just a case of diminishing returns. If 8% of Apple's revenue comes from Macs, and 5%(?) of those are photographers, then maybe 10%(?) won't be using LR or Capture One (two biggest players). Hardly worth their effort.

I'm thinking that's their reason for killing off Aperture. Obviously a lot of people use it, but not enough. Too many are just using their iPhones and the built in Photos app and couldn't care less about pro features. I know that's how 4/5 of my roommates are. I'm literally the only one with a dedicated camera.

Aperture was nice because it wasn't a subscription, and it wasn't priced all that high for what it did.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Of course Apple behaves like a a company - despite its attractive and seductive advertising from the days its computing arm was very much a beautifully designed niche product - it was never an esoteric priesthood of the technological elite - but a sophisticated business seeking to make profit from its products.

I have never subscribed to the idea that ownership of Apple products made someone somehow a member of some sort of insider society like the masons, or that Apple owed its customers anything more than good service.

The company has never been sentimental about jettisoning stuff that it considered about to become obsolete, or about to become unprofitable - or insufficiently profitable.

Besides, these days, I get the strong sense that their R&D interests lie elsewhere, and no longer in iPods, photography, but in much more remunerative areas.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Same here. That's why I bought an upgrade to LR 5 for about £70.

You can still buy version 6 standalone but for how many versions into the future Adobe will offer this?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Sceptical wrote above:
"However, I do see a situation - which is approaching, if it hasn't already arrived - where Apple places a lot less emphasis on its computer division than on some of the other more remunerative areas of its commercial empire."

In Apple's most recent financial report, Mac (computer) sales had shrunk to about 9% of its revenue.

Not a negligible figure, but Apple's no longer a "computer company"...

I hadn't read this report - must track it down, but it bears out my suspicions and thoughts.

Actually, I have suspected that apple hasn't been a 'computer' company for some time - the profits lie elsewhere, and that means that the R&D resources will follow that.

 

[Apple fanboy]

You can still buy version 6 standalone but for how many versions into the future Adobe will offer this?

Who knows? There was a lot of talk that version 6 would be subscription only but it wasn't.
But whilst I can resist it I will.
My and my daughters mobile phone bills (sim only), my internet and my council tax are the only three payments that go out every month.
I like to pay everything else up front.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Apple loves photographers (well, they love that photography is one of the cornerstones of iPhone's success, and what company doesn't love success). The iPhone is one of the most successful cameras ever, and they do plenty to cater to amateur photographers. They love it when their cameras are used to take great photos - they've built entire advertising initiatives behind that. But does loving (the business provided by) the most-practiced kind of photography and most typical kind of photographer mean they have to love and support every aspect of photography and every photographer? (If you believe serious amateurs and professionals are the only real photographers, or the only deserving photographers, you have an ego problem.)

Aperture had a 10-year life. That's all, in the roughly 40-year history of Apple. You can assume that 10-year period was an expression of love, but it wasn't. They tried something, and it didn't pan out. In terms of Mac sales to photographers, the fact that Adobe runs on Mac has been far, far more important than the existence of Aperture. If you look back on the history of Mac's appeal to creatives, it almost never had a thing to do with Apple-developed pro apps - it had to do with Apple providing the right hardware and OS - a platform conducive to creative pros. Often, the launching point was the equivalent of a toy - a simple, proof-of-concept app bundled with the OS that inspired the imagination. If pros needed more, third-party developers typically addressed those needs.

I remember all the threads here, long pre-dating Aperture's announced demise, from professionals and serious amateurs who had absolute dislike and distrust for Aperture. A pretty hard group to love, if you ask me. Aperture's editing or RAW-processing functions could never measure-up to Adobe's. People couldn't understand the very concept of a database, or trust their precious photos to a database they hadn't designed on their own.... No, Aperture was never the kind of success that Final Cut and Logic Pro have been.

Seems a simple decision to me. Focus on the kind of photographers who are most meaningful to Apple's business. Leave professional photography apps to other developers. That's neither love nor hate, that's a pragmatic business decision. Apple produces only a handful of professional applications; one may as well ask why Apple doesn't love accountants, apiarists, architects... all the way to zoologists.

 

[r.harris1]

A very nice write up. I try and avoid the "Apple hates me" threads because they're usually pretty silly. But this post is a good and balanced look.

Apple loves photographers (well, they love that photography is one of the cornerstones of iPhone's success, and what company doesn't love success). The iPhone is one of the most successful cameras ever, and they do plenty to cater to amateur photographers. They love it when their cameras are used to take great photos - they've built entire advertising initiatives behind that. But does loving (the business provided by) the most-practiced kind of photography and most typical kind of photographer mean they have to love and support every aspect of photography and every photographer? (If you believe serious amateurs and professionals are the only real photographers, or the only deserving photographers, you have an ego problem.)

Aperture had a 10-year life. That's all, in the roughly 40-year history of Apple. You can assume that 10-year period was an expression of love, but it wasn't. They tried something, and it didn't pan out. In terms of Mac sales to photographers, the fact that Adobe runs on Mac has been far, far more important than the existence of Aperture. If you look back on the history of Mac's appeal to creatives, it almost never had a thing to do with Apple-developed pro apps - it had to do with Apple providing the right hardware and OS - a platform conducive to creative pros. Often, the launching point was the equivalent of a toy - a simple, proof-of-concept app bundled with the OS that inspired the imagination. If pros needed more, third-party developers typically addressed those needs.

I remember all the threads here, long pre-dating Aperture's announced demise, from professionals and serious amateurs who had absolute dislike and distrust for Aperture. A pretty hard group to love, if you ask me. Aperture's editing or RAW-processing functions could never measure-up to Adobe's. People couldn't understand the very concept of a database, or trust their precious photos to a database they hadn't designed on their own.... No, Aperture was never the kind of success that Final Cut and Logic Pro have been.

Seems a simple decision to me. Focus on the kind of photographers who are most meaningful to Apple's business. Leave professional photography apps to other developers. That's neither love nor hate, that's a pragmatic business decision. Apple produces only a handful of professional applications; one may as well ask why Apple doesn't love accountants, apiarists, architects... all the way to zoologists.

 

[robgendreau]

You can still buy version 6 standalone but for how many versions into the future Adobe will offer this?

One good reason not to buy "perpetual" software? You can buy perpetual v6 now, so why worry about 7?

Whether one admits it or not, committing to complicated software like Aperture or Lr only makes sense if you are in it for a relatively longer time, and shelling out for upgrading a perpetual is not different in effect than subscribing. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me, but if you wanna avoid a fee over a time period, just use something else. I prefer to get a guaranteed year out of it, but that's me.

And ApfelKuchen, you're absolutely right. And remembering back, I'm kinda suprised anyone found themselves marooned in Aperture with all that work tied up in it. Any software could reach EOF, subscription or not. One should always account for that. Those with experience with Apple's software probably already know that, so again I'm surprised anyone would end up stuck in Aperture.

But we are fortunate in that it isn't like photos are in a proprietary format. The worst case scenario when Aperture breathes its last on your computer is that you lose your parametric adjustments; all your metadata, organization, previews, and exports are just fine. And if you export all those adjustments as TIFFs, you might lose some work, but not much. With the post Aperture RAW processors out there you might even be able to produce BETTER adjusted images with new software. But yeah, you will have to pay some money and learn some new stuff. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things I'd submit.

 

[OreoCookie]

@ApfelKuchen
Nice post :thumbsup:

One good reason not to buy "perpetual" software? You can buy perpetual v6 now, so why worry about 7?

Because it's clear that Adobe will phase out the stand alone version of Lightroom, and if someone is strictly opposed to paying for software in the form of a subscription, then phasing out the stand alone version of Lightroom is equivalent to discontinuing it. Even now new features of Lightroom will not be available on the standalone version. This strongly indicates to me that LR6 is the last version available as a standalone piece of software. If you are adamant in your opposition to a subscription model, then Lightroom is a no go.

Whether one admits it or not, committing to complicated software like Aperture or Lr only makes sense if you are in it for a relatively longer time, and shelling out for upgrading a perpetual is not different in effect than subscribing.

Completely agreed. For the record, I have no problem at all with software as a service, I think what you would want the piece of software you rely on to be a viable business for the company that makes it (a big problem these days). And Adobe has pivoted its business model from selling (very expensive) shrink-wrapped boxes to a subscription. Plus, it gives Adobe freedom to try out new pieces of software which are free to existing subscribers.

And ApfelKuchen, you're absolutely right. And remembering back, I'm kinda suprised anyone found themselves marooned in Aperture with all that work tied up in it. Any software could reach EOF, subscription or not.

Exactly. Any dream you have of not having to change software once you bet on the right horse is a pipe dream. And any transition will bring pain: when I transitioned from iView Media Pro to Aperture, it was a huge pain in the rear end and I lost all of the metadata in the process. That's just a fact of life.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

One good reason not to buy "perpetual" software? You can buy perpetual v6 now, so why worry about 7?

Well first of all I am still happy with Aperture, second as I explained earlier I have 70000 pictures sorted in Aperture into albums that I would like to keep that way. It seems there is a transition path to Lr but after that I assume I am stuck.

I use computers for too long and learned that it is very important to think about your legacy work.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Sceptical wrote above:
"However, I do see a situation - which is approaching, if it hasn't already arrived - where Apple places a lot less emphasis on its computer division than on some of the other more remunerative areas of its commercial empire."

In Apple's most recent financial report, Mac (computer) sales had shrunk to about 9% of its revenue.

Not a negligible figure, but Apple's no longer a "computer company"...

You can slice and dice numbers any way you wish. Take them entirely out of context if need be...

Do iPhone sales dramatically overshadow Mac? Most definitely. But Apple is selling more Macs, both in units and in dollars, than when Apple was "just" a computer company. Roughly four times as many Macs are sold today than were sold on the day iPhone first went on sale. Apple's share of the worldwide computer market keeps growing, and they estimate that Apple walks away with 90% of the profits.... But none of that is good news, I guess. None of those are reasons for Apple to stay in the computer business. Cause, well... $25.47 Billion hardly seems worth the bother, does it?

All those analysts moaning that Apple is a one product company? Just what would they be saying if one of the world's top five computer makers just walked away from that business?

And, well... wtf is an iPhone or iPad but a computer???? There's only one reason Apple removed the word "computer" from the company name - most of the people buying smart phones and tablets today would drop them and run in the other direction if manufacturers insisted that they were selling computers. Most people do not love computers. They fear them. They dislike them. Some even hate them. Simple enough - don't call them computers! Don't call them "programs" - call them "apps." Don't call them "programmers," call them "developers." But there's no reason for people who like (or love) computers to be fooled by the marketing spin. Yet clearly, they are.

So, why is Mac so big today? Would it have grown like this without all the new Apple fans gained via iPhone? Would it have grown like this without the ever-tightening integration between iPhone and Mac? Would it have grown like this without all the additional attention Apple gained in the public eye because of iPhone? Not very likely.

 

[Padaung]

Apple loves photographers (well, they love that photography is one of the cornerstones of iPhone's success, and what company doesn't love success). The iPhone is one of the most successful cameras ever, and they do plenty to cater to amateur photographers. They love it when their cameras are used to take great photos - they've built entire advertising initiatives behind that. But does loving (the business provided by) the most-practiced kind of photography and most typical kind of photographer mean they have to love and support every aspect of photography and every photographer? (If you believe serious amateurs and professionals are the only real photographers, or the only deserving photographers, you have an ego problem.)

Aperture had a 10-year life. That's all, in the roughly 40-year history of Apple. You can assume that 10-year period was an expression of love, but it wasn't. They tried something, and it didn't pan out. In terms of Mac sales to photographers, the fact that Adobe runs on Mac has been far, far more important than the existence of Aperture. If you look back on the history of Mac's appeal to creatives, it almost never had a thing to do with Apple-developed pro apps - it had to do with Apple providing the right hardware and OS - a platform conducive to creative pros. Often, the launching point was the equivalent of a toy - a simple, proof-of-concept app bundled with the OS that inspired the imagination. If pros needed more, third-party developers typically addressed those needs.

I remember all the threads here, long pre-dating Aperture's announced demise, from professionals and serious amateurs who had absolute dislike and distrust for Aperture. A pretty hard group to love, if you ask me. Aperture's editing or RAW-processing functions could never measure-up to Adobe's. People couldn't understand the very concept of a database, or trust their precious photos to a database they hadn't designed on their own.... No, Aperture was never the kind of success that Final Cut and Logic Pro have been.

Seems a simple decision to me. Focus on the kind of photographers who are most meaningful to Apple's business. Leave professional photography apps to other developers. That's neither love nor hate, that's a pragmatic business decision. Apple produces only a handful of professional applications; one may as well ask why Apple doesn't love accountants, apiarists, architects... all the way to zoologists.

You know what, this is the best reasoning on this topic I've read. It could be that Apple saw a shortcoming in the software available for their computers and so instead of waiting for 3rd party software developers (Adobe et al), they decided to go ahead themselves, create a benchmark application and then let the competition catch up (and supersede them). One could argue Microsoft is pursuing a similar strategy now with their Surface line of computers. The PC makers they work with were not producing the range of hardware which best demonstrates their OS so they created something themselves.

Apple wanted pro apps on OSX so created them, once viable alternatives to Aperture appeared then the project had served its purpose. I loved Aperture so have lamented its demise

Apple dropped the 'Computer' part of its company name many years ago (pretty soon after the arrival of the iPhone as far as I remember).

 

[OreoCookie]

Not a negligible figure, but Apple's no longer a "computer company"...

Wow, sometimes I wonder how people can so deeply misunderstand Apple's position: everything is powered by computers, phones, tablets, PCs, fridges, thermostats, even lightbulbs. So Apple is not going out of the computer business, it's just that Apple can exploit the fact that more and more things are powered by computers because this is where its core competency lies.

Ditto for all the whaling that Apple is becoming a consumer company: there have never been more Macs in businesses, not to speak of iPhones and iPads.