Reason for Aperture EOL (?)

[OreoCookie]

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

Why will Apple necessarily get their 30 % cut? I haven't heard that Apple necessarily forces plugin vendors to only sell their software through the Mac app store.

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.

I find that comment unnecessarily misogynistic.
If Adobe wants to make inroads into the consumer market, they need to offer free tiers of their service and software.

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.

I don't buy the argument that Apple focuses on consumers. Apple has abandoned both, iPhoto and Aperture, and to me, this is just a result of the switch from their Digital Hub to their iCloud strategy in 2011. Just like with iPhoto (which preceded Aperture), they will start with a consumer-grade application (which exposes many of the editing tools of Aperture). Maybe they will eventually offer a professional solution? Or a company like Pixelmator will offer a more full-fledged editing suite that works on top of the users photo library (by means of Extensions). Apple's Photo service (software + cloud component) handles RAW files correctly, for instance, so that there is also the possibility that they put a professional DAM cloud-supported solution on top of it.

From a big picture perspective, I think the problem to be solved is storage and access on all devices, and are not the editing tools (in any DAM software, you can roundtrip to Photoshop if you want). A filesystem-centric approach does not work in a time where you would like to share photos across devices and people. It's a hard problem to be solved (especially since RAW files are very big) that's for sure.

 

[maflynn]

I find that comment unnecessarily misogynistic.

How is stating that many soccer moms will be unwilling to pay 10 dollars a month for LR/PS considered hatred of woman

My opinion is many consumers are unwilling to take the plunge in adobe's suite because its viewed as something for professionals and over kill for what they typically want.

I meant no disrespect but rather pointing out the market sector. Are we now at a point in political correctness that I cannot make any comments regarding different genders?

 

[Designer Dale]

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.

Apple is the world's largest tech company currently worth $574,390,000,000.00 bucks. At this level of value, the cost of a software development team is around zero. Cost of development has little or nothing to do with any decision Apple makes. It's all about the money. Developing for IOS and the enterprise is where the company is going. As long as Adobe publishes Mac compatible applications we as photographers will continue to purchase Mac computers to run them on which keeps us in the Apple ecosystem. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about the OS.

In my opinion, Apple is seeking to streamline consumer transition from IOS devices to Mac computers. Get into digital photography with your iPhone as a P&S. Start to edit photos on your iPad. Get a stand alone digital camera and edit photos on your iMac with the same software (Photos) but with more power. That's three Apple devices moving across one software platform, the kind of simple learning curve that the company is working to perfect.

Dale

EDIT: My State Representative, Senator Patty Murray, is a self proclaimed Soccer Mom (in tennis shoes).
Just Say'n

 

[OreoCookie]

How is stating that many soccer moms will be unwilling to pay 10 dollars a month for LR/PS considered hatred of woman

Because the word that fits better and has no gender bias is »(average) consumer« -- as opposed to amateurs and professionals. There are plenty of female photographers out there who choose their tools carefully.

My opinion is many consumers are unwilling to take the plunge in adobe's suite because its viewed as something for professionals and over kill for what they typically want.

That I agree with completely. Even many graphics design professionals are unwilling to pay per month, my girlfriend is a graphics designer, and she's completely happy with CS1. She has no desire to pay $$ per month for a CS subscription.

I meant no disrespect but rather pointing out the market sector. Are we now at a point in political correctness that I cannot make any comments regarding different genders?

Yesterday I had a 2-hour discussion on the subject, so my senses are more attuned to that than usual. I know you didn't mean it in a demeaning way, and I didn't want to imply that, sorry.

 

[LV426]

Why will Apple necessarily get their 30 % cut? I haven't heard that Apple necessarily forces plugin vendors to only sell their software through the Mac app store.

Apple don't force any developers to sell their wares through the App Store. But most provide apps on the app store, for a variety of reasons. There's no reason to think it will be any different for plugin vendors.

I, for example, will typically always go for App Store purchases because of the convenience, the assurance that code has been baseline reviewed, and the automatic updates that you get. I'd do exactly the same when purchasing plugins given the option.

 

[glenthompson]

Most of the people clamoring for Pro features are not professionals. They don't earn their living from photography. They may be semi-pro or prosumers. The professionals I know have been using Adobe products for quite some time. Hard for Apple to make inroads into that market.

Reasons for the single new app? Consolidation is probably the number one reason. Makes more sense to have a single app if it can cover the majority of your user base. Sharing is another. Many people ask how to do it but we continually tell them that it can't be done. Using the cloud is an approach that work for sharing.

I'm in the camp that thinks Photos will have a basic interface for the masses but access to advanced editing capabilities for those that need them. Time will tell.

 

[Porsupah]

Why will Apple necessarily get their 30 % cut? I haven't heard that Apple necessarily forces plugin vendors to only sell their software through the Mac app store.

This will first require clarification in the MAS T&Cs, though - as is, it's at best problematic getting a plugin to pass App Store review. Certainly, if someone installs a plugin outside of the App Store, there's no cut involved - that only kicks in if the application has some means of taking you to such a download.

 

[maflynn]

Most of the people clamoring for Pro features are not professionals.

Never said I was and I am a bit resistant to use the term pro features but alas there's not a better way to communicate that the features I have in aperture are ones that I need. True I don't make money on my images, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't care about categorization, organization, non destructive edits, lens profiles, healing and clone tools etc.

So with Aperture coming EOL, and apple's prior history of gutting their pro apps, you can understand my angst. FCPx was a shell of its prior version, feature wise. Sure apple did (and continues I assume) improve it, but I'd rather not wait out the time apple will take to improve a version 1.0 photo app.

Some features that I want may never make the cut either so that means my waiting will be in vain. There are other competitors out there, so for my perspective why wait on what apple may or may not do, when other tools will satisfy my requirements.

 

[BJMRamage]

Never said I was and I am a bit resistant to use the term pro features but alas there's not a better way to communicate that the features I have in aperture are ones that I need. True I don't make money on my images, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't care about categorization, organization, non destructive edits, lens profiles, healing and clone tools etc.

So with Aperture coming EOL, and apple's prior history of gutting their pro apps, you can understand my angst. FCPx was a shell of its prior version, feature wise. Sure apple did (and continues I assume) improve it, but I'd rather not wait out the time apple will take to improve a version 1.0 photo app.

Some features that I want may never make the cut either so that means my waiting will be in vain. There are other competitors out there, so for my perspective why wait on what apple may or may not do, when other tools will satisfy my requirements.

I too am just an "average consumer" (to use an OK phrase) but I like what Aperture offers/offered. A decent step up from the basic iPhoto approach and the non-destructive and easily stamp-able adjustments. (Yes, actions in PS can help "stamp" and adjustment layers can provide some level of non-destructive editing)

I think the long length of time between major updates to iPhoto/Aperture and the release of Photos is Apple's way of not doing a FCP-X on consumers. Also renaming it makes some sense in case some features are "missing" they can just say it is a new application and new way of thinking/editing

 

[OreoCookie]

Never said I was and I am a bit resistant to use the term pro features but alas there's not a better way to communicate that the features I have in aperture are ones that I need. True I don't make money on my images, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't care about categorization, organization, non destructive edits, lens profiles, healing and clone tools etc.

I don't think it's important whether you are a pro (as in you're making a living off pictures) or you are an amateur (as in you're just doing this for yourself), you should write software aimed at people of a certain skill level with certain needs. Apart from that, there are things which are a matter of taste (Do you prefer Aperture's or Lightroom's interface? Do you prefer managed or referenced files?).

I think there is a segment of the market for which simplified storage with Aperture-level editing features is an appealing proposition, not least because of the integration with all of their other devices.

 

[maflynn]

(Do you prefer Aperture's or Lightroom's interface? Do you prefer managed or referenced files?).

That was one aspect as to why I liked Aperture - its UI. I don't hate Lightrooms and I've been adjusting.

I think there is a segment of the market for which simplified storage with Aperture-level editing features is an appealing proposition, not least because of the integration with all of their other devices.

There is a segment, and I see apple looking to address that segment but as its doing it, they've alienated the sector that aperture was appealing too. So they're dismissing one group of customers in the hopes that they can cater to another.

Focusing on consumers is Apple's goal, but yet they are a more fickle bunch. More prone to switch to the next hot thing, where as the more serious hobbyist wants a longer term stable product - at least that's the way I see it.

 

[OreoCookie]

That was one aspect as to why I liked Aperture - its UI. I don't hate Lightrooms and I've been adjusting.

I also preferred Aperture for those two reasons, and I don't like that I'm forced to look elsewhere now.

There is a segment, and I see apple looking to address that segment but as its doing it, they've alienated the sector that aperture was appealing too. So they're dismissing one group of customers in the hopes that they can cater to another.

I'm also left out in the cold by their decision, but that's the downside of something that can be a strength, and that's focus. Apparently Apple believes that it can solve the photo sync/availability problem for some user, and instead of focusing on two solutions they have to develop in concert, they concentrate on the one that they see is the future. And it is easier to solve these difficult problems for less demanding customers first.

Focusing on consumers is Apple's goal, but yet they are a more fickle bunch.

I don't think Apple necessarily focuses on consumers, I think that's a big misunderstanding of Apple's strategy. You can see that with the design of the last two versions of OS X, instead of making OS X more like iOS (as in 10.7, 10.8) they flesh our the difference in character between the two OSes.

 

[LV426]

...as its doing it, they've alienated the sector that aperture was appealing to...

I expect that I, like an awful lot of people, belong to the sector that uses Aperture: serious hobbyists with pro-level equipment.

I'm not alienated, because I know from what Apple have said that they have big plans for photos. They're building something new from the ground up, because it will potentially work much better than existing solutions. Maybe not at first, but certainly in the long run. Aperture likely doesn't fit in well with that vision, which is probably the main reason it won't be developed further.

In the meantime, Aperture will carry on working as before. It may even work a little snappier after its Yosemite compatibility update.

 

[r.harris1]

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.

Maybe, but on the other hand, the number of professionals is limited and there's only so much growth Adobe can expect year-over-year. Who's to say that the number of LR users isn't already close to saturation? "Professionals" can be fickle too, in their way. Adobe wants as many people as they can get to be part of their ecosystem. Remember, they'd love all of their customers to use their cloud storage services too, in the same way as MS or Apple or Google or....

They want to maintain their near monopoly, which is driven in large part by selling expensive software to businesses large and small with a larger but not unlimited group picking up the much cheaper LR or PSE. But my guess is that longer term sustainable growth is going to come from catering to different audiences. I know plenty of soccer parents who are very serious about their images, so it would behoove Adobe to begin building that sort of relationship going forward and if 10/mth for LR/PS doesn't work, find something (a product and/or price point) that will.

 

[OreoCookie]

Maybe, but on the other hand, the number of professionals is limited and there's only so much growth Adobe can expect year-over-year.

I reckon the pro market segment is pretty much tapped out in terms of installed user base -- sort of like Microsoft with its Office suite. For most of Adobe's products, there is virtually no competition, and this is a bad thing for the users and the market as a whole (just imagine where Android and iOS would be today without the other).

If Adobe wants to expand its reach, like you say, it needs to attract non-professional users. I have my doubts that they will be very successful in this segment.

 

[Porsupah]

For those wondering whether it's a matter of Aperture earning adequate revenue: bear in mind that it's consistently been around the number 4 mark in "Top Grossing" in the Mac App Store. Indeed, today, it's up to number 3.

(Of course, we have no idea what that means in absolute terms - but, it's likely not terrible =

 

[robgendreau]

(Of course, we have no idea what that means in absolute terms - but, it's likely not terrible =

A truism that, sadly, may describe their future plans for photographers

 

[maflynn]

If Adobe wants to expand its reach, like you say, it needs to attract non-professional users. I have my doubts that they will be very successful in this segment.

Unless they move to a subscription model, which they already have (for the most part). By going to the subscription model, they get their customers to keep sending adobe money every month. There's little pressure to find or exploit new markets when you can get your current customer base to keep sending you money.

Just look at how they buried the purchase of LR5 on their website, everything, including the demo is set up for the person to go on the subscription model. I fully expect adobe to go subscription only for LR6.

This is why I've been so hesitant to go all in with Lightroom - why spend money on buying Lightroom 5, when I'll not go to LR6 because of the subscription pricing.

 

[OreoCookie]

Unless they move to a subscription model, which they already have (for the most part). By going to the subscription model, they get their customers to keep sending adobe money every month.

But is that really more expensive than paying for every upgrade? It seems to me that it is roughly cost neutral for the user and that it got more expensive for people who did not always upgrade to the latest CS release. But maybe I'm wrong. (I was checking into upgrade pricing, and this was the best I could find. Quite confusing to say the least.)

 

[jc1350]

But is that really more expensive than paying for every upgrade? It seems to me that it is roughly cost neutral for the user and that it got more expensive for people who did not always upgrade to the latest CS release. But maybe I'm wrong. (I was checking into upgrade pricing, and this was the best I could find. Quite confusing to say the least.)

I was against the sub model, but now that they have the photographer bundle for $10/month - it's not bad. For $120/year you get both Lr and Photoshop plus upgrades to the new versions. Lightroom alone is about $136 for full license and $75 for the upgrade (at B&H Photo).

If Lightroom 6 is release within a year and you want to upgrade, you've already spent more than the sub price just for Lr. Sure the following year the upgrade may still be around $75 for Lr 7 (which may have more features), but what about Photoshop if you need/want it?

Then again, "a fool and his money...."

I just don't know which is the better option in the long run. This is assuming Lr will always have a one-time-fee option. I don't think that will hold beyond Lr 6.

From what I have read, upgrading is not just for new camera RAW support. The noise reduction from either v to v4 or v4 to v5 (I forget which) was dramatically improved.

If you haven't seen it yet, the free Aperture to Lightroom web cast from Kelby One is very information not just in how to migrate, but some of the benefits of the Lr upgrades like the noise reduction. The link to the web cast is either in an earlier post here or in the other major Aperture news thread, but I can look for it if anyone wants it here.

 

[maflynn]

But is that really more expensive than paying for every upgrade? It seems to me that it is roughly cost neutral for the user and that it got more expensive for people who did not always upgrade to the latest CS release. But maybe I'm wrong. (I was checking into upgrade pricing, and this was the best I could find. Quite confusing to say the least.)

I don't upgrade every version, only when the features suit me. Plus once you get beyond one year between upgrades, the subscription model starts getting more expensive then the boxed set. The longer the time span, the more money adobe would be getting over the stand alone version.

 

[OreoCookie]

I was against the sub model, but now that they have the photographer bundle for $10/month - it's not bad. For $120/year you get both Lr and Photoshop plus upgrades to the new versions. Lightroom alone is about $136 for full license and $75 for the upgrade (at B&H Photo).

So if you include the costs for the Photoshop license and subsequent upgrades, I reckon you break even. My perception as someone from the outside is that many of Adobe's customers oppose the subscription model for reasons that are similar to music lovers who prefer buying music than paying each month for a subscription.

Does anyone know whether Adobe makes more money with its subscription model?

 

[Razeus]

So if you include the costs for the Photoshop license and subsequent upgrades, I reckon you break even. My perception as someone from the outside is that many of Adobe's customers oppose the subscription model for reasons that are similar to music lovers who prefer buying music than paying each month for a subscription.

Does anyone know whether Adobe makes more money with its subscription model?

Adobe has been reporting record profits since the introduction of the subscription model. Hence, why they still offer it. It was recently announced the LR/PS bundle price was permanent (for the being).

http://online.wsj.com/articles/adobe-profit-rises-16-1403038631

For the period ended May 30, Adobe reported a profit of $88.5 million, or 17 cents a share, up from $76.5 million, or 15 cents a share, a year earlier. Excluding stock-based compensation and other items, adjusted per-share earnings rose to 37 cents from 36 cents. Revenue increased 5.7% to $1.07 billion.

Product sales, still the bulk of Adobe's revenue, dropped 26% to $479.2 million. However the decline was more than offset by growth in subscription revenue, which soared 88% to $476.7 million.

The company ended the quarter with 2.3 million paid Creative Cloud subscribers, an increase of 25% from the end of the fiscal first quarter. Adobe also said its marketing cloud business revenue totaled $283 million in the latest period, up 23% from a year earlier.

The company said more than half of its revenue was from recurring sources such as Creative Cloud and Adobe Marketing Cloud.

 

[BJMRamage]

Does anyone know whether Adobe makes more money with its subscription model?

no factual data on this but just like they wouldn't build the multitude of casinos and resorts and attractions in the middle of the desert if Vegas was losing money.


a former co-worker asked my thoughts on buying the last CS software box or switching to the subscription model. I said it might be best to get the box.

Sure, with the subscription you always get the latest and "greatest" versions of the software, but you also always pay for it. you can go month-to-month, but that costs more. if you were on the buy a new version every year idea, then the subscription model is great. But, at the companies I worked for, they do the every-other-year/release schedule.

Consumers started the every-other-release buying method when the additions to each release didn't warrant the need to upgrade as often. Sure a few features were nice to have but overall the applications didn't change enough to buy each release. Adobe wasn't getting the money they wanted from their customer base. Instead of coming up with Better/Greater Release Versions, they simply opted for the Subscription model. This helps their accounting, and planning by knowing a set amount of $$ will come in every month...every year. The old way, there might be some consumers who have bought each year but then decide against it for a release or two...this isn't good for accounting and financials. having a subscription model is good for financial consistency.

and if you stop paying, you cannot use it (well, perhaps a few days/weeks before the next Adobe Connection to check on Subscription). if you have CS4, you can still use it (until the computer/OS you have stops supporting something in CS4.

SHORT STORY: if Adobe was LOSING money, they wouldn't Offer the Subscription model. If they were breaking even, they'd keep around the Legacy/License model. Instead they are only offering limited applications on that old model. Therefore, they are making more money.

A lot of people complain about things, but not enough people stand by their voice with an action. Though many balk at Adobe, many also know they "need" it for their living.


UPDATE: looks like I was beat...and with actual info from Razeus. oh well, I'll leave my post here

 

[Razeus]

I bought into the subscription model because it was plain cheaper for me to do so.

When I bought into Lightroom 2 and Adobe Photoshop CS4, I paid about $1,000.

Even if I would have just used those 2 for the next 6 years and never upgraded to LR 3, 4 or 5 with Photoshop CS5 and 6, my cost STILL comes out to $13.89 a month. For outdated 6 year old software in 2014!!!

But I did all the upgrades for Lightroom and Photoshop CS, so my monthly costs came out much higher at about $24 a month.

I simply couldn't argue with $10 a month for the LR/Photoshop combo. Over the next 6 years, it's WAYYYYY cheaper, plus I get extras like cloud storage and portfolio sites (which I haven't put to much use). It's really a good deal.