Slashdot Mirror


Apple Kills Aperture, Says New Photos App Will Replace It

mpicpp (3454017) writes Apple told news website The Loop that it has decided to abandon Aperture, its professional photo-editing software application. "With the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere, there will be no new development of Aperture," Apple said in a statement to The Loop. "When Photos for OS X ships next year, users will be able to migrate their existing Aperture libraries to Photos for OS." The new Photos app, which will debut with OS X Yosemite when it launches this fall, will also replace iPhoto. It promises to be more intuitive and user friendly, but as such, likely not as full featured as what Aperture currently offers.

35 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Aperture-specific plugins... by chrysalis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good news for people who spent money on plugins for Aperture.

    Having to buy Imagenomic's plugins again for Lightroom makes me super happy. Not.

    --
    {{.sig}}
    1. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by jovius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, Aperture doesn't stop functioning in an instant and plugins can still be developed for it. Plugin production will continue for some time because of the user base.

    2. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about RAW support for new cameras?
      Every Aperture user will have to change after X months.
      I'm lucky to be a Lightroom user, but I'd be really pissed if I had to change the software I use and love every day since 2007.
      It would be like having to learn and use Emacs after 10 years of vim.

    3. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      RAW support is independent from Aperture and is installed via mini-updates to the system.
      No change whatsoever. Aperture uses won't have to switch.

    4. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It might on newer versions of OS X. Microsoft is spending a lot of effort on backwards compatibility (to the point that Windows recognizes applications depending on bugs that have since been fixed and emulates the buggy behavior), whereas Apple indiscriminately fixes APIs, updates them, and removes legacy APIs. This is in particular the case for internal APIs (which is why they hit hard for that on the app stores). Aperture being a 1st party app makes use of internal APIs, and is very vulnerable to this. It'll probably work on Yosemite and then break. This of course just doesn't mean it won't continue to work on Yosemite, which will run emulated for many, many years in the future.

      TLDR: yes and no.

    5. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

      RAW support in Aperture is done via OS level filters, nothing Aperture specific. So there will be little effect on RAW support as RAW support is included in other apps which Apple is still supporting, like Preview a core application. You get RAW updates even without Aperture installed.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anyone who chose Aperture over Lightroom or any of the other competition (DxO, CaptureOne) deserves to learn a bit of a hard lesson for making a poor choice.

      Apple has a long and hallowed history of terminating products without warning in favor of inadequate replacements, or even no replacements at all — Hypercard, anyone? Anyone who chose Apple over any of the other competition (not for the OS itself, although they've certainly played fast and loose with backwards compatibility at times, at other times they've had it spot-on) deserves to learn a bit of a hard lesson for ignoring history.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rule of thumb: if you are using Apple products, be sure to budget extra for version changes and compatibility issues, because that is the Apple way. Also, it cn be dangerous to skip versions (for example, the latest version of Pages won't open documents from Pages '08. If you don't buy the intermediate version, you're screwed).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Aperture-specific plugins... by penguinstorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The notion that I should budget "extra" for using Apple products is actually almost comical, in a world where Adobe has moved to a cloud model and eliminated the concept of software ownership from its business.

      Cloud apps make sense in scenarios with shared workflows and collaborative users. A single user application like Aperture/Lightroom...no.

      --
      Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
    9. Re: Aperture-specific plugins... by Dahan · · Score: 2

      the "cloud" version of Photoshop is out of the question, because I sometimes work in the field where there is no internet.

      "Cloud" is just a marketing term that can mean a wide variety of things. In the case of Adobe Creative Cloud, it means you're licensed on a subscription basis, and need to connect to Adobe's servers periodically to verify that your subscription is still active. It doesn't mean you run Photoshop in a web browser--it's still installed on your hard drive like traditional programs. As the FAQ says, "No, the desktop applications in Creative Cloud, such as Photoshop and Illustrator, are installed directly on your computer, so you donâ(TM)t need an ongoing Internet connection to use them."

    10. Re: Aperture-specific plugins... by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      In all fairness, Adobe's "Creative Cloud" offering is actually more cost-effective than paying for Creative Suite was. At about $1000 for Photoshop Extended alone, plus $200 for Lightroom, total $1200. Assume you upgrade once every 3 years, that's $400 a year. Compare that to $10 a month for Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC - that's $120 a year. You can see the benefits.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  2. /. must allow moderating of TFA by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "to safely store all of your photos in iCloud" Rated +5, Funny. I don't mean any specific criticism of iCloud, but ...for God's sake...the idea that anything at all is "safe" in the cloud...is hilariously wrong.

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
    1. Re:/. must allow moderating of TFA by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      But are you happy with the way that iPhoto pulls all your images into one gigantic database, which (a) gradually swallows up your entire computer and (b) a corrupt library means you have lost ALL your images.

      Actually, the original photos are still fine even if the database is corrupted. The iPhoto database is just a folder, and inside are the main iPhoto database where it's indexed everything. Also inside it are your original photos, untouched, and I believe the modified ones.

      So no, your photos are always safe, you may lose the index and I believe option-clicking iPhoto will let you rebuild a corrupted database.

      Apple is a lot of things, but being completely idiotic isn't one of them.

  3. My plan is to wait and see by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    I've been using Aperture since it first came out.I never liked how Lightroom worked - it certainly has powerful capabilities, but you have to do things exactly the way it wants you to do them. Aperture seemed better at getting out of my way.

    If the new Photos app doesn't have all of Aperture's tools, though, I may not have a choice. And, with Aperture gone, I imagine Lightroom will quickly switch to the subscription model Adobe is trying to force down our throats with all their other titles. But I'm going to wait and see what the new app is like before committing, one way or the other. Adobe's "double down on Lightroom" statement can be seen two ways - and one of them is they may be worried about what's coming.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:My plan is to wait and see by Drishmung · · Score: 3, Funny

      "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

      Woody Allen

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    2. Re:My plan is to wait and see by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      "and are afraid it will disappear forever, well, again, relax, that is impossible"

      You are wrong. You see you cant buy a disc with aperture on it, only via the app store... and if they remove it from the app store you cant reinstall it when your hard drive crashes. Therefore they CAN make it disappear. All they have to do is wait a short few years for that hard drive to fail.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re: My plan is to wait and see by Henriok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple is not responsible for data you own. They have zero obligation to keep your version in the App Store after you purchased it. You have to keep backup of your own data. The version you bought will keep working on contemporary hardware and operating system indefinitely and Apple can't and won't change that. That's in stark contrast to the subscription models that Adobe and Microsoft are pushing at the moment. When you stop paying, the software will stop to work.

      --

      - Henrik

      - when the Shadows descend -
    4. Re:My plan is to wait and see by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      The point was that Adobe has no plans currently to change because of Aperture's availability as a competitor.

      According to this, Adobe is "doubling down" on LR in response to Apple's decision.

      Of course, their VP of Products/Digital Imaging could be lying...but then his post on the Photoshop Blog would be pretty foolish, wouldn't it?

  4. Re:In addition... by itsdapead · · Score: 4, Informative

    Aperture won't run in Yosemite because Apple wants you to use the new app.

    Not according to this which claims "an Apple spokesman told them" (distinct lack of "horse's mouth" links, unfortunately) that it would be updated to run on Yosemite.

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  5. Re:... I need to filter out the apple posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  6. Re:In addition... by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 3, Informative

    Aperture won't currently run in Yosemite. Aperture will be updated to run under Yosemite but that's the last update it's going to get.
    http://arstechnica.com/apple/2...

  7. It is a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a trend in Apple about going mass market and streamlining software, and in their minds this means removing features for the sake of being 'family friendly'. This is happening at all levels from the OS itself (remember spaces?) to any Apple-brand apps (Final Cut, Aperture, iWorks). In some cases Apple will simply discontinue their software overnight and leave their users in the dust, but in other cases it is actually worse. The Pages desktop word processor was discontinued and substituted with a port of the iPhone version, which doesn't support any of the advanced features, with the whole operation was masqueraded as an 'upgrade'. The new app actively destroyed user documents it didn't understand (most of them), overwriting them by default (no 'save' operation required, simply opening a document would destroy it, keep in mind 'save' is regarded as an advanced operation now).

    You would expect a big corporation to be slow, clumsy but conservative and safe, with extremely long lines of support for their products. As you may remember, 'nobody gets fired for choosing IBM'. Well, Apple is slow and clumsy, but unpredictable and extremely unsafe. Betting your business in any kind of Apple hardware or software is an extremely stupid move. You should, and will be fired for choosing Apple.

  8. Re:Microsoft did exactly the same thing by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    Yes, one of the two major professional tools in the market place being discontinued for a yet-to-be-detailed replacement intended to cover both the prior professional market and the consumer market is indeed the same as Microsoft killing a product hardly anyone had heard of.

  9. Killing Aperture? by Chas · · Score: 2

    My buddy GLaDOS would have some words with you.

    *Pulls out a portal gun*

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  10. They are following the app store model.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    How do you get to charge your customers for the same program again? You kill the app and re-release it as a "new product". Apple is just now realizing that the app store model doesn't keep the customer paying for upgrades.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. Check some Facts by molnarcs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a photographer - not really affected by the change, been using Lightroom for 3 years now. But before Aperture users panic, take a look at what Thom Hogan writes about the change (he's more or less an Apple insider when it comes to photography): http://www.dslrbodies.com/acce...

    1. Re:Check some Facts by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Well, it's mostly opinion, but while this user thinks there are MANY reasons to be dismissive of Adobe and Lightroom, the fact that Lightroom is monolithic isn't one of them--that's a pro, not a con. If I shoot a 5 shot HDR that's 90GB of RAW files before the working TIFF is generated. I'm going to store and manipulate them by pulling and pushing every byte to the cloud? Who's the winner there? Apple with more people paying for iCloud storage? Comcast and the cell phone carriers with data overages?
      This might be geared to a casual snapshotting, but the numbers don't add up to make it a substitute for a pro-level package. The serious/professional photographer is the loser here.

    2. Re:Check some Facts by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

      Sorry, brain fart. 18MB images. And you apparently don't know what serious/professional photographers do. There's more to HDR than creating garish colors...

  12. Re:... I need to filter out the apple posts... by pauljlucas · · Score: 3, Informative

    Then why don't you just set your /. preferences so you don't get Apple stories and be done with it? Why are you telling us? Learn how to use your account preferences.

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  13. Sheer insanity by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "With the introduction of the new Photos app and iCloud Photo Library, enabling you to safely store all of your photos in iCloud and access them from anywhere"

    I'm going to have my 70GB Aperture library in the cloud? I'm going to replicate a RAW workflow in the cloud? I've NEVER had a desire to access that on my iPhone, nor can I imagine anyone did. If one had the desire to export to iCloud they could; no one was forced to. There's got to be something else going on here that we're not privy to, but based on what I've heard they'd be better off selling the product to Nik/Google than letting it die (and trust me, that was hard to type).

    1. Re:Sheer insanity by quetwo · · Score: 2

      You only have a 70GB library? Hell, I usually shoot 30 - 90GB each and every shoot I do. And I'm probably on the low end in my studio...

    2. Re:Sheer insanity by quetwo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It all depends on what you are shooting. I'm paid to cover an event (concert, wedding, conference, etc), and don't second chances -- let alone much time to setup the shot -- so I take two or three exposures per "shot". It's easier to discard later than it is to miss the shot. When I shoot a concert, I'm shooting the entire 3 or 4 hours. A wedding, I'm shooting for usually a 12 hour period, at least. A conference may be over 4 days, and a runner's race might be over the course of a full day. Each event usually produces just as many shots.

      If I only was shooting a potted plant I might only need three exposures because I can carefully plan the shot, adjust the lighting, and edit the shot thoughtfully for an extended period of time. A senior photo shoot might only need 20 exposures. But when you are working events with moving lights, moving people, and instantly changing emotions, the difference between 1/3 of second between exposures can make the photo while the next one is too dark, missing the person, or doesn't show what I want it to show.

      I don't deal with film anymore. Space is cheap. Exposures only cost power. In this day and age there is no reason to not take too many photos and throw out or ignore the ones you don't want.

  14. Re:App and Cloud by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2

    If you are working with raw images you are no longer in the market Apple is interested in.

    Apparently.

  15. Re:Final Cut? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    Well obese is one thing but society's idea of thin is what I consider anorexic. Most of the supposed "beautiful" women on TV and Movies need to gain about 10 pounds or so, they look sickly. I don't want to be able to count every rib.

  16. In Other News by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Cave Johnson burns down Steve Jobs' house with lemons.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?