Reason for Aperture EOL (?)

[whiteonline]

1. Apple is not willing to invest resources into heavy photo manipulation, so they are essentially offloading labor that by providing the API for Photos - resulting in Plugins, of course.
2. New Photos Plugins will only be available only on the App Store, providing Apple with their cut of the sale.

Pure speculation for the Rumors site (I ran out of Independence Day photos to sort/retouch).

 

[r.harris1]

1. Apple is not willing to invest resources into heavy photo manipulation, so they are essentially offloading labor that by providing the API for Photos - resulting in Plugins, of course.
2. New Photos Plugins will only be available only on the App Store, providing Apple with their cut of the sale.

Pure speculation for the Rumors site (I ran out of Independence Day photos to sort/retouch).

There's probably something to what you say. I think too that they've had two applications with (to a degree) overlapping functionality that they need to consolidate and they've needed to get cloud interaction right, which to date has been somewhat lacking.

To me, there are some intriguing aspects of the new approach. Photography tools, in my opinion, tend to be more of a continuum of consumer->enthusiast->professional than, say, video tools. You ingest, you may or may not keyword/caption, you may want some basic changes to an image (add some pre-defined "pop"), you may want to upload to flickr/zenfolio/etc and you may or may nor want to print.

Within that, more serious folk may want more control over levels, exposure, noise, lens correction, sharpening, various filters and the like. With Apple having put a lot of work in Yosemite into better RAW processing, multi-GPU rendering/processing, noise, and lens correction and having opened up non-destructive processing potential, both Apple and third-parties can create sophisticated functionality. This could be very interesting.

I think too that having one application framework across all devices and better integration with Apple's concept of cloud solves certain problems that a company like Adobe will struggle to solve: ability to work with all of your images in a consistent manner across all devices wherever you are. Because Adobe is primarily a software company and because their strength is their ubiquity, they don't have the luxury of Apple's famous "yank and replace" philosophy. It will be a long time before Adobe decides that a photographer's workflow should be or could be different than what is put forth in Lightroom, for instance. Their solution to the "image editing everywhere problem" will appear to be a bunch of bolt-ons (to me, their current solution is somewhat that way) and interesting new subscriptions.

Anyway, could be an interesting ride.

 

[OreoCookie]

I think this post on apertureexpert.com sounds reasonable, it's that the landscape of photo storage is changing -- and Apple starts afresh with Photos. To me this argument makes the most sense, and while I don't think the sync services which back Photos will satisfy people with an extensive library, I reckon the technology just isn't there yet. (Just think about how long it takes to upload 10+ GB and what kind of services are out there which support photo storage.) Having persistent access to your data across devices is a problem that will take a decade or so to solve. Adobe is no farther than any of the other Lightroom competitors in this aspect.

I don't think it's Apple's lack of interest in advancing its RAW engine (just have a look at the Advances in Core Image WWDC session) or lack of interest in advancing its own software. Also Extensibility seems like it solves many of the issues you've had with third-party plugins, namely that they were destructive (you had to render a tiff file and then apply the plugin to that).

I would have preferred if Apple had continued Aperture for a while until it got Photos to the point where it is advanced enough to serve as a basis for »Aperture X«. But that wasn't how the cookie crumbled.

 

[BJMRamage]

with the Mac you have/had iPhoto and Aperture
with the iOS devices you had Photos and iPhoto.

The majority of Apple's customers use iOS devices.
When you shoot with Camera, then see in Photos (small edits there) then bigger edits in iPhoto App, but saving back in sometimes didn't work unless you exported back.

With everything from Viewing to Full Editing within Photos, there is less need for iPhoto...especially that iPhoto was Free with a new device.

Now, bringing iOS people to a Mac, by creating a "new Application" called Photos, they align with the iOS devices and those customers. Everything is "seamless"

iPhoto + Aperture = Photos on the Mac.
I think lots of things will be Magic-Wand, Single-Button corrections...BUT, with Drop Down Menus for people wanting more...Aperture users.

Now, with the API to use other Apps within Photos, you can have ONE app to "rule them all" And yes, Apple will make a cut on Plugin Sales. But having all your fancy photo apps available from within Apple's Photos be it on Mac or iOS device, everything is "easy"

I imagine Photos will be iPhoto and Aperture combined...with a few extra things. BUT if you want even MORE Power, buy some plugins from the App Store/MAS and you get even MORE control.

This reduces the clutter of (Apple's) Photo-Editing Apps on a Mac and iOS device.
Though why Apple didn't reference this at WWDC is silly. they could have built EXCITEMENT, rather than bitter side-stories.

 

[Razeus]

There's no money in pro software. Especially when 80% of your money comes from iOS related things. Simply as that.

 

[MCAsan]

Agreed. Pro photography seems to be dead at Apple. Their cash flow will be from millions of snapshot shooters with IOS devices streaming stuff to the cloud and social media.

 

[r.harris1]

Agreed. Pro photography seems to be dead at Apple. Their cash flow will be from millions of snapshot shooters with IOS devices streaming stuff to the cloud and social media.

I'm not sure I agree. I hear the tired old "Apple doesn't care about "pros"" argument a lot. Or perhaps a smidgen of the "iOS is for toys or is a toy" argument. But to me, it's not clear that "what pros want" and what "Photos.app becomes" will be radically different, other than it's not called Aperture X. Or iPhotos X.

If we want today to be just like yesterday and our businesses require this approach, Apple probably isn't the company to look to for that kind of support. I definitely get that. They've never been good at this, regardless of whether the subject is hardware of software. No shocking news here.

On the other hand, they are putting a lot of work into RAW processing improvements and re-thinking the experience of their current software solutions, which yes, does involve the millions of sweating, laboring masses and their iOS photos. And the cloud. No one has brought up the very real possibility that it might make sense to rethink that flow and that rethinking that flow might require seemingly drastic changes to existing software solutions.

I can't remember the last time Adobe had a re-think, to be honest, and I'm a very long time user of Photoshop and InDesign, and I've had my fair use of Lightroom over the years as well. New features yes, UI changes to accommodate modern design tastes, yes. The bolt-on approach to software products is great for "today just like yesterday" predictability and certainly running a business. Again, I get this, but...I also see Adobe struggling a bit in their own implementation of "cloud" and user experience across multiple device types. I have a CC subscription so I've tried out the tools and had a good whack at their approach, and it seems rather like a bolt-on. Will Apple get it right? Will Adobe? Will someone else?

Apple has been ripping/replacing all of their software over the last few years. I hear the same "dumbing down" arguments over and over, but I'm not sure I agree. Making things easier isn't necessarily dumbing down. Opening to a wider audience isn't dumbing down either.

I'm one to speak though - I'm neither a "creative professional" nor am I beholden to one piece of software in my "enthusiast level" approach to photography. Even in my professional life of software development, I shy away from one size fits all solutions in the tools I use. Ubiquity of a tool and being the best are not always the same thing. All this to say I may be completely wrong but I'm interested to see what Apple has coming up.

 

[maflynn]

Apple has been ripping/replacing all of their software over the last few years. I hear the same "dumbing down" arguments over and over, but I'm not sure I agree. Making things easier isn't necessarily dumbing down. Opening to a wider audience isn't dumbing down either.

I wouldn't say dumbing down, but I will say Apple has been replacing all of their software, and while not dumbing down the newer versions are less functional as the prior versions.

As for your supposition of apple being supportive of photographers - I'd have to disagree with you there. Just look at the time span between major upgrades to Aperture. They let what was once an industry leading application whither on the vine for some baffling reason.

I like aperture, its UI, library system, categorization abilities, etc, but the writing is on the wall - Apple wants to a unified user experience between their iOS and OS X products and it is going to be more consumer centric, because that's what apple is. They're focused on the consumer not the professional.

 

[Razeus]

Let's not forget the fact that Apple still leaves it's pro/semi-pro photogs hanging by STILL not detailing what the Photos.app will have. Sure, they said, search, but that's a given and a basic tool. They still haven't detailed how people get their Aperture/iPhoto library's to Photos, but simply state you can do it. But what about the people with all the tons of Projects and Folders and Albums and what not in Aperture.

But Apple refusing to let its users what's going on with their standard poor communication.

It'll be interesting transition for sure. I'm glad I switched to LR back in version 3.

 

[ChrisA]

1. Apple is not willing to invest resources into heavy photo manipulation, so they are essentially offloading labor that by providing the API for Photos - resulting in Plugins, of course.
2. New Photos Plugins will only be available only on the App Store, providing Apple with their cut of the sale.

Pure speculation for the Rumors site (I ran out of Independence Day photos to sort/retouch).

The real reason is that Apple sees where the money is. There are a LOT more people shooting snapshots with iPhones than there are people involved in serious photography. The max market just is not there for Aperture and I bet it was loosing money for Apple.

Aperture was a one-time $79 sale so even if you sold a million copies it was not enough income to support the development staff. My guess is this is the real reason, it was loosing money. Remember whenAperture was new? The price was about $600. Apple has been lowering the price and going after a larger market but was not able to make it pay.

I'm waiting now for Adobe to create a migration tool that will read an Aperture library and keep all the non-destructive edits. Adobe would be dumb not to provide this.

 

[r.harris1]

I wouldn't say dumbing down, but I will say Apple has been replacing all of their software, and while not dumbing down the newer versions are less functional as the prior versions.

As for your supposition of apple being supportive of photographers - I'd have to disagree with you there. Just look at the time span between major upgrades to Aperture. They let what was once an industry leading application whither on the vine for some baffling reason.

I like aperture, its UI, library system, categorization abilities, etc, but the writing is on the wall - Apple wants to a unified user experience between their iOS and OS X products and it is going to be more consumer centric, because that's what apple is. They're focused on the consumer not the professional.

I actually have no idea if Apple is supportive of photographers or professionals. In fact, that may not enter into the equation. Like Adobe, I view them as a company which provides tools which may help me produce better images (or not). If not, there are plenty of options. No one truly needs LR or Aperture. They're just tools. People do need a way to manage their images, do edits, publish, print, etc. LR and Aperture are tools helping people do some of those things, but can certainly be done other ways and with other tools.

I stick by my "wait and see" approach to what Photos.app becomes. It may become a tool I use or it may not. I am always tweaking my flow, whether in professional life or in my hobby of photography. Keeps things interesting .

 

[Razeus]

I'm waiting now for Adobe to create a migration tool that will read an Aperture library and keep all the non-destructive edits. Adobe would be dumb not to provide this.

Why? What incentive would Adobe have to provide this?

 

[r.harris1]

Why? What incentive would Adobe have to provide this?

I actually agree with Razeus here. Adobe is now perceived as the only game in town (though they are not) so I would think all they have to do is sit back, relax and wait for the masses to flock to them.

 

[maflynn]

I actually agree with Razeus here. Adobe is now perceived as the only game in town (though they are not) so I would think all they have to do is sit back, relax and wait for the masses to flock to them.

It would be a nice thing to see, but I agree, there's absolutely no incentive for them

 

[robgendreau]

I actually agree with Razeus here. Adobe is now perceived as the only game in town (though they are not) so I would think all they have to do is sit back, relax and wait for the masses to flock to them.

Masses? The number of pros and amateurs into DSLR or any ILC photography is falling like a rock. So we're talking a subset of a subset. Adobe probably covets the iphone snap shooter more than Apple covets the pro photographer, for good reason.

I'd actually like to see Adobe continue a focus on pro/hobbyist needs, but recognize that these needs now include mobile devices. Noboby right now has good DAM integration between mobile devices and desktops.

Lemme give an example. I use investigators. They need to take photos, lots of 'em. They don't consider themselves pro photographers, of course, but in a way they are. We still need to get good documentation of scenes, people, etc. And we have tons of images that need a lot of sorting and cataloging. Many I know gave up using DSLRs and went to P&Ss; now many use phones. Why? they are FAR less obstrusive with reluctant subjects, can be used stealthily, produce perfectly adequate quality, can be sent super quickly, and don't require more crap to be carried around, etc etc. Sure, you might have the need for a telephoto at times, but that's rare. And they always have a phone on them. I'd bet there are other professions with similar needs: realtors, insurance adjusters, etc.

So if someone could come up with better photo organization for folks like this, they'll have a winner. And it would probably benefit the traditional (i.e. ILS) users as well.

 

[phrehdd]

Masses? The number of pros and amateurs into DSLR or any ILC photography is falling like a rock. So we're talking a subset of a subset. Adobe probably covets the iphone snap shooter more than Apple covets the pro photographer, for good reason.

I'd actually like to see Adobe continue a focus on pro/hobbyist needs, but recognize that these needs now include mobile devices. Noboby right now has good DAM integration between mobile devices and desktops.

Lemme give an example. I use investigators. They need to take photos, lots of 'em. They don't consider themselves pro photographers, of course, but in a way they are. We still need to get good documentation of scenes, people, etc. And we have tons of images that need a lot of sorting and cataloging. Many I know gave up using DSLRs and went to P&Ss; now many use phones. Why? they are FAR less obstrusive with reluctant subjects, can be used stealthily, produce perfectly adequate quality, can be sent super quickly, and don't require more crap to be carried around, etc etc. Sure, you might have the need for a telephoto at times, but that's rare. And they always have a phone on them. I'd bet there are other professions with similar needs: realtors, insurance adjusters, etc.

So if someone could come up with better photo organization for folks like this, they'll have a winner. And it would probably benefit the traditional (i.e. ILS) users as well.

I'll first say that I really appreciated your comment here. Well thought out and great example.

Adobe's products work on both Apple and Windows. This gives it a much larger market to contend with. Apple opted to make iTunes work for both and yet insisted on having Aperture a Mac only product. It appears that the new product Apple will be investing in for photography will work with both Mac and Windows which I believe is a smart move. Sadly, I would have hoped Apple would still consider the "best of" in Aperture and port it over - namely, the DAM facet. I'll be curious to see what Apple does with the new software.

As for DSLRs, they are going through some fits and struggles as you suggest in total sales and relative to other photo taking devices. We also see a surge of mirrorless cameras coming about and thus the market is changing. I am not an Aperture user, I have a "retired" copy of Lightroom but continue to use Capture One Pro and CS6 Photoshop along with some plug ins. This serves me well enough and the former does a superior job on RAW files than either Lightroom or Aperture. The DAM facet could use improvement as well as the option for 3rd party plug ins (that doesn't exist presently).

If Apple's new software for photo work remains flexible for 3rd party plug ins, maybe someone will have the smarts to create a "plug in" that is a good DAM. While this might seem unlikely, if Apple provides a good SDK it is doable. Then again, they may already include an "advanced mode" that is akin to Aperture's DAM. We shall see.

 

[steve123]

I've been pondering this. I think it may be possible that Apple learned a lesson with FCP X. Their intention at the outset of the FCP debacle was to have a product that exceeded FCP 7 but there was going to be a period of time where it did not. There was widespread criticism despite their assurances the product would get better and exceed the capabilities of its predecessor. Today, in my opinion, FCP X far exceeds FCP 7 but it took a while to get here.

I am thinking Apple doesn't want to watch that horror movie again. Thus, Apple is likely specifically avoiding comparisons of Photos to Aperture so as to not set expectations that cannot be met when the new Photos launches. I predict when Photos launches, it will lack some features of Aperture. It will need 1 or 2 years of users feedback and use before we see Photos out distance Aperture. But in that time, I believe the product will be leaps and bounds beyond Aperture.

Cloud integration will be a big deal as well I think for both professionals and consumers because I think there will be a significant increase in productivity.

 

[BJMRamage]

I've been pondering this. I think it may be possible that Apple learned a lesson with FCP X. Their intention at the outset of the FCP debacle was to have a product that exceeded FCP 7 but there was going to be a period of time where it did not. There was widespread criticism despite their assurances the product would get better and exceed the capabilities of its predecessor. Today, in my opinion, FCP X far exceeds FCP 7 but it took a while to get here.

I am thinking Apple doesn't want to watch that horror movie again. Thus, Apple is likely specifically avoiding comparisons of Photos to Aperture so as to not set expectations that cannot be met when the new Photos launches. I predict when Photos launches, it will lack some features of Aperture. It will need 1 or 2 years of users feedback and use before we see Photos out distance Aperture. But in that time, I believe the product will be leaps and bounds beyond Aperture.

Cloud integration will be a big deal as well I think for both professionals and consumers because I think there will be a significant increase in productivity.

I've had that thought too. knowing what happened with FCP-X and rather than work on Aperture, iPhoto and the new Photos, merely made small updates to the former two while working on the latter.

but, maybe that is more an optimistic viewpoint...or hopeful view.

AND this is the reason Apple didn't come out with an iPad version of Aperture...that wasn't on the roadmap.

 

[Razeus]

I wouldn't expect anything more than a soccer mom app.

 

[HantaYo]

I wouldn't expect anything more than a soccer mom app.

One button fixes everything app.

 

[MCAsan]

I wouldn't expect anything more than a soccer mom app.

One button fixes everything app.

No surprise there. Photos will be by default for the great unwashed masses with IOS devices. People who yesterday who could not yesterday spell photographer and with Yosemite, IOS 8, and Phtos......become photographers.

But there is a possibility that the Photos platform could still useful for more than snapshot takers. What we need to see is how the plugin makes like Nik, Topaz, and OnOneSoftware play into this. Do they create new plugins something like their current ones to fit this platform.....or do they do some dumbed down plugins for the masses who want a shot to be "purdy"? Much remains to be seen.

In the meantime I proceed with LR. If Photos and plugs turns out to be very good, it is a migration candidate. If it turns out to be only for the snapshot takes, I continue on with LR.......at least until Adobe stops selling LR as standalone and demands I get only via their koolaid cloud.

 

[r.harris1]

Masses? The number of pros and amateurs into DSLR or any ILC photography is falling like a rock. So we're talking a subset of a subset. Adobe probably covets the iphone snap shooter more than Apple covets the pro photographer, for good reason.

I'd actually like to see Adobe continue a focus on pro/hobbyist needs, but recognize that these needs now include mobile devices. Noboby right now has good DAM integration between mobile devices and desktops.

Lemme give an example. I use investigators. They need to take photos, lots of 'em. They don't consider themselves pro photographers, of course, but in a way they are. We still need to get good documentation of scenes, people, etc. And we have tons of images that need a lot of sorting and cataloging. Many I know gave up using DSLRs and went to P&Ss; now many use phones. Why? they are FAR less obstrusive with reluctant subjects, can be used stealthily, produce perfectly adequate quality, can be sent super quickly, and don't require more crap to be carried around, etc etc. Sure, you might have the need for a telephoto at times, but that's rare. And they always have a phone on them. I'd bet there are other professions with similar needs: realtors, insurance adjusters, etc.

So if someone could come up with better photo organization for folks like this, they'll have a winner. And it would probably benefit the traditional (i.e. ILS) users as well.

Agreed with phrehdd that this is a great example. Extending it a bit, I'd expect that Adobe would kill to have the "unwashed masses" and "soccer moms" everyone seems so needlessly disdainful of as part of their customer base.

 

[maflynn]

Agreed with phrehdd that this is a great example. Extending it a bit, I'd expect that Adobe would kill to have the "unwashed masses" and "soccer moms" everyone seems so needlessly disdainful of as part of their customer base.

Adobe may, but the pricing model is no where near configured to let that happen. Not too many soccer moms are willing to pay 10 dollars a month for the right to use a DAM and image editing application.

Thats the thing, apple is content to market their wares to the consumer though they are a fickle bunch. Where as Adobe continues to be very successful in marketing their stuff to professionals - of course in many areas they have a near monopoly which of course doesn't hurt matters.

 

[LV426]

...Do they create new plugins something like their current ones to fit this platform...?

Yes, they will. Re-worked plugins will be needed to take advantage of the new RAW processing pipeline. They will be better plugins to boot: Faster (Yosemite compiles multiple filters in the chain to work as a single operation) and more efficient (working in a linear space and no intermediate TIFF files required).

It will be a nice little earner for the plugin vendors and *ahem* Apple will get their 30% cut.

Things move on.

 

[Razeus]

They only hope is that Apple is taking it's sweet time with the desktop version of Photos, launching in the Spring of 2015. But something tells me Apple doesn't want to make it too confusing for their average iOS/Mac user.

If I'm processing a RAW file via Photos on the desktop Yosemite, it would be nice to see those changes so up on my iDevice, without ever having to export a jpeg. But there's the issue of cloud storage and upload times. In which Apple has clear incentive for people to use as much cloud storage as possible (i.e. Dropbox, Picturelife, etc. would rather you "hide" your photo than delete it since that "hidden" photo still fills the space your allotted/paying for, eventually forcing you to upgrade to even more storage).