My company is mixed, providing both Macs (mostly for the scientists and communications department) and the business side is Windows.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Review of the [Beta] new Photos...
- Thread starter Username Here
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pixelmator is definitely good, but it sure ain't Photoshop
You're right but this may be another step closer:
Affinity Photo Beta
Yosemite was a disaster for me, wifi would crash every few minutes, time machine was unstable, plus many other issues... All those went away by rolling back to mavericks.
I am moving back to windows and am delighted. My iMac will be gone shortly...
Both OSX and Windows have their own set of strengths and weaknesses, Apple's weakness lately is rushing products out the door before they're ready. Bringing this back to the Photos app, I hope this isn't the case with Photos. Lack of features probably means they have less to worry about in terms of fixing bugs.
A historical perspective
When Final Cut Pro X came out, version 10.0 was roundly criticized for lacking features (e.g., multicam, XML, etc.). Well, we are now up to version 10.1.4, and it is extremely capable. Most of the quibbling is now regarding some pretty obscure features to be enhanced.
Hopefully, Photos will follow the same track from Apple.
When Final Cut Pro X came out, version 10.0 was roundly criticized for lacking features (e.g., multicam, XML, etc.). Well, we are now up to version 10.1.4, and it is extremely capable. Most of the quibbling is now regarding some pretty obscure features to be enhanced.
Hopefully, Photos will follow the same track from Apple.
Yes, but as you know, FCP X was the successor to another Pro product. What we have here, is a successor to the consumer iPhotos product. I don't think Apple has any ambitions of making it into a pro RAW conversion app... over any period of time. In fact, several reviewers who have access to Apple have said exactly that.
If Apple had replaced FCP X and iMovie with a new product called "Videos" then a past analogy might be relevant here. But that's not what they did.
I think that Photos is a free version. In analogy with Logic Pro and Garageband, Photos will be accompanied by a new paid Pro version. Same is for video, Final Cut and free iMovie.
The Pro version should be the real competitor to Lightroom. Given extensive Apple investment in digital imaging, iPhones as a leading camera worldwide (based on Flickr submissions), iPads (there just was a iPad video ad), there is no way Apple is going to cede the market of digital photo and video imaging to someone like Adobe.
There are also iOS versions of these apps.
Which means that Aperture 2 is coming but it won't be called Aperture and won't be based on Aperture but on Photos. Perhaps Apple found Aperture architechture too limited? Aperture was impossible to port to iOS? Don't know but Photos is already iOS compatible. I tried Aperture and found it unintuitive and cumbersome. I use now Pixelmator for photo editing.
----------
I forgot Windows long ago, when my Vaio notebook was gone, horribly slow even with SSD inside and Windows 7... Now with MBA and Yosemite on Asus mainboard (hackinotosh), couldn't be happier.
The Pro version should be the real competitor to Lightroom. Given extensive Apple investment in digital imaging, iPhones as a leading camera worldwide (based on Flickr submissions), iPads (there just was a iPad video ad), there is no way Apple is going to cede the market of digital photo and video imaging to someone like Adobe.
There are also iOS versions of these apps.
Which means that Aperture 2 is coming but it won't be called Aperture and won't be based on Aperture but on Photos. Perhaps Apple found Aperture architechture too limited? Aperture was impossible to port to iOS? Don't know but Photos is already iOS compatible. I tried Aperture and found it unintuitive and cumbersome. I use now Pixelmator for photo editing.
----------
I forgot Windows long ago, when my Vaio notebook was gone, horribly slow even with SSD inside and Windows 7... Now with MBA and Yosemite on Asus mainboard (hackinotosh), couldn't be happier.
I wish you were right, but at least a couple of reviewers with access to Apple have confirmed that this is NOT happening. This was covered at length in another thread.
There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that apple is going to have a "pro" version of Photos, nor do I expect to see pro type edits slowly be added into Photos. Apple's direction is clear and they've been quite consistent. Mobility first and everything to support and enhance that. I mean if apple cared about the professionals/hobbyists/prosumers/etc Why in the world did they let Aperture just whither on the vine in the first place? The only reason that makes sense is they felt that market segment is not worth pursuing. Its not like Aperture wasn't selling well for Apple, it was one of their best sellers in the app store.
I think its time for many Aperture adherents to face the music that apple is moving away and will not be supplying an updated or new version of aperture (or a pro version of photos). I'm not saying abandon Aperture if its working for you, but the writing is on the wall, apple has stopped supporting Aperture and Photos is taking apple in a different direction.
While no one can say anything with 100%, I'd be willing to bet that other companies will add extensions to Photos once that gets opened up. Pixelmator already does it to a limited extent on iOS Photos and it would be an ideal fit. This is very powerful. Yeah, Apple themselves probably aren't going to add new stuff beyond a certain point, but they've left it open for others to do so and probably people who would ultimately do a better job. It also opens up the market for these vendors too because you would need to purchase their application (or particular version of it) to get that functionality. If I were a vendor, I'd love a slice of that market if I could get it.
You are absolutely right, Apple is going for the broadest market it can get and Photos is a part of that push. But Photos is also moving towards being an open platform which allows refined functionality to the smaller subset of the market that needs/wants it.
Moving mobile is a great thing and a right direction. Its still doesn't mean that one has to abandon the pro market. Apple still makes Mac Pros, don't they. While there is no evidence of Photos Pro or a more advanced platform based on Photos, there is also no evidence that can't happen. Moreover, there is evidence that there are actively developed Pro apps for video (Mac Pro is a video machine); audio (Logic Pro); that leaves open gap for photos.
Perhaps and I'll not doubt that, but Photo's DAM capability is less then that of Aperture, at least from what I've played with. So while there may very well be extensions in version 1.x or 2 (I think apple said no extensions in version 1) editing the images represents only one piece for me. Its the management of those images. I care less about it pushing them onto the cloud and more about flagging, creating star ratings, and other ways to manage them.
----------
I'll not argue that Apple does cater to some pros but I will use Apple's own track record. You mention the Mac Pro, it sat there for years not seeing any updates, yes there's now an update that has largely been panned by many people because it fails to address the needs of the pros (at least some of them). Aperture sat for several years without any major improvements.
You have every right to use Aperture or hold out to see if there's a Photos pro being released. I see a completely opposite outcome based on Apple's track record. I'm not down on apple, but I am saying that its highly unlikely that apple will roll out a pro version. Even their verbiage about dropping support on Aperture and telling us that Photos will be the app. Not Photos pro but photos. If they were serious about the pro market they'd not risk losing more people and communicate that a pro version will be released in the near future instead of saying development on Aperture is be stopped in place of Photos.
Spot on
I find it a bit disheartening that people continue to cling to the hope that
will come to the rescue with a pro photo DAM. Ain't gonna happen has already said as much. In a few years after Photos has matured some and the API has been opened up there may be some 3rd party added features. In the mean time LR, C1, etc. continue to move forward and get better.I cannot imagine trying to store 1TB+ of photos in the cloud
Apple is for the most part a mobile hardware company, everything they do is calculated to enhance mobile sales and lock you into the ecosystem...
If you are serious about photography and proper post processing then move on, for me it is Adobe Photography subscription...
Keep repeating APPLE is NOT a software company
Spot on
...
Keep repeating APPLE is NOT a software company
But SOFTWARE is the only thing that Apple actually makes!
So yeah, Apple IS a software company.
OS X
iOS
FCP
Logic
iWork stuff
Aperture (retired).
Just because they quit making one product doesn't mean that has changed. Just because they start offering services doesn't mean that has changed. Is anyone saying Microsoft isn't a software company? They stripped photo editing out of Vista when they went to 7. The bought and killed Caligari Truespace. They now offer cloud space and office by subscription and they 'make' the Surface and the XBOX.
If by "makes" you mean manufacturers, Apple manufactures the Mac Pro in Texas. However I would consider them as making all of their hardware. They design everything in them top from to bottom and how they fit together. They even design the machines that build them on the assembly line.
--------------
This conversation about Aperture and the future of Apple's Photography software just keeps repeating. It's well covered in other threads. Just a few key things I'll repeat:
- People with inside access to people at Apple have been told Photos is not meant to replace Aperture, but rather iPhoto.
- They've specifically said to look elsewhere if you rely on the advanced features of Aperture.
- The same people have said extensions are not coming in 1.0 of Photos (my guess is they'll come with the next version of OS X in the fall)
- The same people at Apple are also concerned with the loss of Aperture because they used it for their photos as well.
- This may be reading the tea leaves too tightly, but the Retina iMac into video showed Lightroom running on on the RiMac. My thoughts are this is indication from Apple that if you want serious photography management software, you need to look to Adobe.
My sources are here:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2880207/your-photos-for-os-x-questions-answered.html
http://thedigitalstory.com/2015/02/tds-podcast-photos-for-os-x.html
http://thisweekinphoto.com/twip-399-apples-photos-app-revealed/
Again, if you like what you see in the preview of Photos and it meets your needs, great, enjoy! But if not, don't peg your hopes on what might be. It (or other Pro Photo apps) likely won't ever come to pass. Apple's track record on Aperture has done nothing but indicate they're moving away from this market (remember the current Aperture 3 came out in 2010).
Assembled in Texas very similar to how many gamers build PCs out of parts from other places: Find the motherboard, processer, video card, hdd, case, power supply, and cables I want and assemble. Apple DESIGNS some of that, but has someone else build it to their Specs, or make do with off the shelf parts (CPU, for example).
Still, software accounts for more of what they do than the entire Mac Pro line.
I do not think Photos will do to replace Aperture (though I had hoped it would), at least at first. I still believe that it has a lot more potential than it is getting credit for, but the initial offering would seem to be weaker than I had hoped.
FCP X has become something very powerful and quite useful.
Logic is doing just fine.
OS X is still good software.
iOS is still good software.
So I still say Apple is a software company. Their whole effort to pull you into their ecosystem is proof of that.
I cannot imagine trying to store 1TB+ of photos in the cloud
I already do with CrashPlan, though that's significantly cheaper than iCloud storage. Honestly, the cloud library is one of the more believable parts of the Photos story, though obviously it won't fly for "save everything" types and I wouldn't think it would be suitable for professional work for liability reasons if nothing else.
Apple is an experience company. They sell hardware they design (and do a ton of custom work on - completely custom System on a Chip for their iOS devices and they have pushed intel to build what they want on their Macs and have pushed the design of the entire industry forward with things like the iMac and macbook air, and the Mac Pro - you try putting parts you buy off new egg in a trashcan, it probably won't work) and they sell software that works seamlessly (or supposed to) with software they write.
Arguing anything else is just arguing for the sake of being a contrarian. People don't buy Apple products only because of the software, that's absurd. It absolutely plays into it, but honestly a large part of why they buy them is the Apple logo and the way they look.
I think I've said all I have to say about these topics now. My last post summarizes Photos, which has largely been my intent with posting about this stuff - just to help others make a decision.
They only create software that supports hardware sales and locks users into the ecosystem, they are a hardware company pure and simple...
Pure and simple? There is no such thing in computers. If you believe there is, then you do not know how they work. Intel isn't a 'pure and simple' hardware company. They make an excellent C compiler, drivers for their hardware and microcode to correct errors in their processors, for example. Additionally, they created the x86 instruction set (as well as SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and the failed IA-64 instruction set to name a few). This is the language that the CPU uses convert to 0's and 1's.
For AMD, the same story, except they can add X86-64 and 3DNOW to their list of creations. Anything done in software could also be done with hardware. You could put all of OS X into the CPU given the resources, but it would be really complicated. For an easier example, see Core Rope technology. This was what we used in the Apollo rockets to put men on the moon.
Arduino, for example, has a generic instruction set that you can program to specialized tasks, but the final product you manufacture will probably not be programmable by the end user.
So, no, Apple isn't "a pure and simple hardware maker."
If what you argue is true, why make iTunes for Windows? That seems like it offers and easy way out? Why offer Quicktime for Windows? That has no point. Why offer Quicktime Pro for Windows? That is absolutely useless if you only want people on your own hardware.
Do they PREFER it? Well sure. Are their advantages? Absolutely. Drawbacks? Yep, those too. But, Apple makes plenty of software. They make it for their hardware they sell primarily, but not exclusively. Microsoft favors their ecosystems as well. Ever notice how Office for Mac kinda lags a bit, and didn't even get updated a few years? Ever see Halo for the Playstation?
Microsoft would prefer you use their products also. That is just business.Consumers want cross compatibility because it gives us more choices and competition.
And YES, you can build a computer parts from Newegg and stuff the thing in a trashcan. http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/0...ntosh-mac-pro-replica-inside-a-real-trashcan/
I am not saying Apple doesn't make hardware. I am not saying they do not prefer you to buy their hardware. But, Apple makes software. They make quite a bit of it. To say they aren't a software company is willful ignorance.
Well at least you got that part right. If it is cloudy tomorrow, with that be because God is abandoning the "pro" tanners in favor of "snow boarder moms" or some trick by Apple to trick you into buying their new white balance software?