Review of the [Beta] new Photos...

[jms969]

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.

Apple is a hardware company pure and simple, any software they create is to further the sales of hardware.

Adobe, on the other hand, is a software company pure and simple.

Abstract thinking, you might want to google it...

 

[v3rlon]

Apple is a hardware company pure and simple, any software they create is to further the sales of hardware.

Adobe, on the other hand, is a software company pure and simple.

Abstract thinking, you might want to google it...

Apple wants to make money. If you buy their hardware, great. If you buy their software. Also great. If you buy off iTunes giving them their cut, they won't hate you for that either.

http://www.adobe.com/products/ink-and-slide.html

Adobe Hardware.

So incorrect assumptions, you should probably google that.

 

[skaeight]

Apple wants to make money. If you buy their hardware, great. If you buy their software. Also great. If you buy off iTunes giving them their cut, they won't hate you for that either.

http://www.adobe.com/products/ink-and-slide.html

Adobe Hardware.

So incorrect assumptions, you should probably google that.

I think the point your missing is that if you look at Apple and Adobes balance sheets Apple is making the vast vast amount of money from selling hardware and Adobe is making the vast vast amount of money from software.

Yes Apples hardware contains software and yes they do sell some of it standalone (not much anymore though), but again they actually make money by selling people physical goods - they aren't even charging for their OS updates anymore, let alone things like iWork. From a business standpoint this software is just a feature of the hardware now, just something used to make he hardware being sold work. And iTunes has always basically been run at a break even point - they aren't making much money there.

To say that Adobe is a hardware company because they sell a couple of accessories is completely disingenuous. That is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[v3rlon]

But Apple hardware isn't what sells Apple.

I didn't get a Mac for its intel CPU, Nvidia Graphics, or Foxconn Motherboard. Those things I could easily get elsewhere.

I didn't get an iPhone for its bar design, Samsung display, or lack of a physical keyboard. In fact, when the original iPhone shipped, there was some very similar hardware running different software all over eBay being sold as "just like iPhone."

I got those things specifically because of the SOFTWARE that Apple runs on them. Apple creates an ecosystem, but that very, very much includes software. Without it, they have almost nothing. Certainly, they can't make margins they currently enjoy.

So Apple makes most of their money on a hardware/software combination and thus ARE a software company as well as a hardware company. When you consider iTunes store sales, and give credit to the software side of iOS and Mac sales, it seems like Apple makes MORE money from software than hardware, even though a bunch of that software comes pre-installed on specific hardware.

And saying Adobe is a PURE software company when they do, in fact, sell hardware, is incorrect. Pure means without contaminants. In this context, hardware would be the contaminant. That isn't even the only example, just the top of the search results.

 

[skaeight]

But Apple hardware isn't what sells Apple.

I didn't get a Mac for its intel CPU, Nvidia Graphics, or Foxconn Motherboard. Those things I could easily get elsewhere.

I didn't get an iPhone for its bar design, Samsung display, or lack of a physical keyboard. In fact, when the original iPhone shipped, there was some very similar hardware running different software all over eBay being sold as "just like iPhone."

I got those things specifically because of the SOFTWARE that Apple runs on them. Apple creates an ecosystem, but that very, very much includes software. Without it, they have almost nothing. Certainly, they can't make margins they currently enjoy.

So Apple makes most of their money on a hardware/software combination and thus ARE a software company as well as a hardware company. When you consider iTunes store sales, and give credit to the software side of iOS and Mac sales, it seems like Apple makes MORE money from software than hardware, even though a bunch of that software comes pre-installed on specific hardware.

And saying Adobe is a PURE software company when they do, in fact, sell hardware, is incorrect. Pure means without contaminants. In this context, hardware would be the contaminant. That isn't even the only example, just the top of the search results.

So by that logic Ford isn't a car (hardware) company because they didn't phsycially manufacturer every single component (even though they might have designed it or at least dictated its specs) that goes into one of their cars and their Sync system runs software especially if someone chooses the car because they like Sync?

 

[Merode]

No geotagging - wow, just wow. It's one of my most often used features in iPhoto. I have THOUSANDS of pictures taken before I bought camera with GPS and I slowly adjust their locations.

I might be strange, but It's very important to me. What a let down. It's first world issue, but Photos looks a lot worse for me now.

I'll try LR this evening..


EDIT: In video reviews it seems like geotagging is still available? Pins are there, are they unmovable? Or did they mean that location data is not written into EXIF?

 

[robgendreau]

No geotagging - wow, just wow. It's one of my most often used features in iPhoto. I have THOUSANDS of pictures taken before I bought camera with GPS and I slowly adjust their locations.

I might be strange, but It's very important to me. What a let down. It's first world issue, but Photos looks a lot worse for me now.

I'll try LR this evening..


EDIT: In video reviews it seems like geotagging is still available? Pins are there, are they unmovable? Or did they mean that location data is not written into EXIF?

From what I've seen in reviews you couldn't add geotags, which seemed unreal to me. You can view the map in the info window, but that's it. See http://www.macworld.com/article/2880207/your-photos-for-os-x-questions-answered.html

If you just need geotagging though, there are many solutions besides LR. HoudahGeo, gps4cam, etc. I use the former on the Mac and the latter on the iPhone (they actually work well together; like it better than using LR). One problem with LR you may experience is the crap choice of mapping. If, eg, you spend time on trails as opposed to roads it's nice to have maps that show the trails. HoudahGeo can use OpenStreetMap, which I find much more helpful in that regard.

 

[v3rlon]

So by that logic Ford isn't a car (hardware) company because they didn't phsycially manufacturer every single component (even though they might have designed it or at least dictated its specs) that goes into one of their cars...

This is not a logical conclusion from what I have written. What I am saying would be like saying Porsche (just better example in this case) IS a sports car company just like Ferrari is in spite of the fact that they quite a bit of money selling things that aren't sports cars (Cayenne, Panamera). In point of fact, 911 sales dwarf Ferrari in numbers, dollars, and profit.

... their Sync system runs software especially if someone chooses the car because they like Sync?

And so Ford does, in fact, write software. Actually, they do all kinds of it when you consider ECU programming, Body Control modules, OBD, CAN bus, and all the other computers in a modern vehicle. This doesn't even get into custom in house software used in manufacturing.

The Sync system is a part of the Ford Ecosystem (much like OnStar was a GM exclusive until they spun off a bit). While it is unlikely you would buy a car JUST for the radio, it might be the thing that separates from "all other things being equal." For example, you are looking at Ford and Chevy pickups (F150 vs the 1500). They have comparable stats that matter to you and sell for similar prices, but you just like OnStar better than Sync, so you buy the Chevy. When you go looking for a sports car to salve your mid-life crisis, you go back to the Chevy dealer, but Camaros are out of production (its the mid 2000's).

Chevy hasn't abandoned the sports car market. They still make Corvettes, but you specifically need a back seat. So you buy a Mustang. This doesn't mean that Chevy has given up on sports cars or abandoned the pros (they still do racing at NASCAR after all). They even re-introduce the Camaro a couple of years down the road and continue to drive competition, which is all good for car buyers.

And thus all car analogies are pointless, but no argument is complete without one. Now all we need is a Nazi reference.

 

[Merode]

If you just need geotagging though, there are many solutions besides LR. HoudahGeo, gps4cam, etc.

All of them require me to geotag images before importing? Or exporting, geotagging and then importing back?

 

[VirtualRain]

Apparently if you've signed up for the OS X public beta program, you can now download a beta of 10.10.3 with the Photos app from the Mac App Store.

I'll probably check it out on my Mac Pro at home (I won't go beta on my work laptop).

 

[skaeight]

Apparently if you've signed up for the OS X public beta program, you can now download a beta of 10.10.3 with the Photos app from the Mac App Store.

I'll probably check it out on my Mac Pro at home (I won't go beta on my work laptop).

That's tempting. I am a little hesitant to install a beta OS, but I would assume at this point it should be stable enough to install.

If anyone else does this, please post here to let us know how it is - if you're seeing any other issues with the OS.

 

[OreoCookie]

I think the point your missing is that if you look at Apple and Adobes balance sheets Apple is making the vast vast amount of money from selling hardware and Adobe is making the vast vast amount of money from software.

You mistake the business model from the product, that's like claiming Adobe wants to become a services company or a newspaper is an ad company, because this is where most of revenue comes from. Apple's credo has been the infamous Alan Kay quote (»People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.«) for decades now, it's been repeated many times by Steve Jobs and other Apple employees. It's surprising that people still don't take it seriously: the reason why Samsung's smartphone business is suffering due to new Chinese entrants while Apple's is still blooming (profit-wise) is that you can't copy iOS. You can make a phone that looks like an iPhone, but you can't make an OS without going through all the trouble of making an OS. So Apple's adherence to Kay's mantra is the reason why they're harder to copy and why they are so resilient to competition.

Apple's decision to make money via hardware sales is just their business model to further support software development and integration between software, hardware and services. Just like serious newspapers don't see themselves as in the business of creating wall space for ads.

And iTunes has always basically been run at a break even point - they aren't making much money there.

In Q4 2014 alone, the iTunes store, software and services generated revenues of $4.6 billion, $18 billion for the whole year of 2014. Consensus among analysts is that iTMS is no longer run to break even, but generates a tidy profit, and estimate the margin is 15 %. While that is lower than the margin of Apple's other businesses, I think many companies would kill for a $18 billion/year business with a 15 % margin. The only reason people claim that this type of money is »not a lot« is because they are comparing it to something that is even larger. To put things into perspective: in terms of revenue Apple's iTunes + Software business is 1/4th the size of all of Google. Google's margins are twice as high as the estimated margin of the iTunes Music Store + Software »divisions« at Apple.

 

[skaeight]

Ouch, I got the following email from the developer of PTLens:

I recently downloaded a Beta version of Apple Photos. The application is intended more for sharing pictures and less for advanced editing. As a result, there are no facilities in Photos for supporting external editors or plug-ins. Since this is a Beta version this may change before final release. If it does then I will let you know. But, based on what I see, this will be highly unlikely. The standalone version, PTLens.app, may still be used but will not be as convenient.

Since iPhoto and Aperture are no longer supported, the best alternative in my view is Adobe Lightroom. It may be purchased with a perpetual license or as a subscription that includes Photoshop. PTLens may be used within Lightroom as an external editor.

Perpetual License: https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_photoshopcollection.html

Subscription: https://creative.adobe.com/plans

Thank you for your interest.