Best day ever for Adobe: Apple to stop the development of Aperture

Apple-Aperture-software reports that Apple will stop the development of Aperture, their image processing software:

“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,” said Apple in a statement provided 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.”

Adobe must be really happy with that development.

This entry was posted in Adobe, Apple. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Antonio

    Sad news just after Nikon also announced their new free product that means the death of Capture NX2 and news came out forecasting Apple may ceasse supporting it within their new OSX version, and doubts about the same can happen to Photoshop CS5.
    So Adobe must be really Happy!!!

  • Thom Hogan

    I have a very different opinion about what’s happening (see the article on my site). Jim’s also very careful about wording, as are his Apple sources. Note the word “migrate.”

    • I agree completely. There is no way Apple is going to just let Adobe have this market all to themselves. I use DxO but I really like Aperture. It just clicks with me.

      • Sorin

        Sorry, Thom, I have to disagree. The word “migrate” does not mean “similar or better features”. It means, at best, “different workflow and functionality”, if you are willing to put up with it. We have to face the truth: Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs. Tim Cook’s Apple is DEFINITELY not Steve Jobs’ Apple. Sad, but true. The writing was on the wall day one.

        • Thom Hogan

          Take a look at that Aperture screen shot the admin posted. Now take a close look at the Photos screen shot that Jim posted on loopinsights, which started this whole Aperture is Dead frenzy. Tell me what you see. Anything missing? ;~)

          • MarkJH

            Yes: brushes, gradients, or any other selective editing tools. Selective color modification tools (hue, saturation, luminance). A healing brush that isn’t just a clone-stamper. A book-layout module. A print-layout and output control module. Obvious compatibility with all of my current aperture plug-ins.

          • Thom Hogan

            And you see those in the Aperture shot Admin posted? ;~) Products can and do have features above and beyond what presents in the basic, first UI. And by the way, yes, I see hue, saturation, and luminance controls.

            As for book layout, my suspicion is that Apple will do that elsewhere (Pages, for example, with templates that load directly from Photos).

            What I will say is that your current Aperture plug-ins will likely have to be redone. And they’re likely to be redone by most companies (not sure about Google and Nik, as they think they’re competitive to Apple these days, but I suspect even them). Apple, like Adobe, has changed the architecture of the plug-ins. The interesting thing is that we’re going to see a LOT more plug-ins in the upcoming architecture. Those at WWDC will know what I’m talking about here, but since a lot of those sessions were under NDA, I won’t say more.

          • MarkJH

            Thom, you optimism is encouraging! However, I have a hard time forgetting the transition from Final Cut Pro to X, in which Apple sacrificed considerable functionality in the interest of redefining the product’s target audience and the moviemaking workflow, in general. Meanwhile, many of the professionals Apple had cultivated were left in a big lurch. One day, Apple serves generous multi-camera workflows; the next, they’ve decided that’s all passé.

            When I watched the recent WWDC presentations, I couldn’t help but think I was seeing much the same thing over again: Apple trying to redefine a photography workflow to suit casual users, aspirants, and enthusiasts–and demonstrating their characteristic willingness to dump advanced features in doing so.

            In the case of Aperture: it wouldn’t surprise me if Apple’s engineers have decided that selective tools like brushes and gradients are simply passé. Same with print and book layout tools. After all, the aspirants and enthusiasts buying into iOS want social media and real-time sharing–print layout (or time spent with selective editing) is growing niche by the day.

            Now, it could be that this grand photo-handling redefinition will eventually serve professionals, too. Final Cut features started to come back year(s) after the “X” transition, finally leveraging the new workflow. But I think the key word there is “eventually.”

            Meanwhile, Adobe won’t be standing still.

          • Thom Hogan

            Thing about FCPX is this: Apple slowly re-delivered. The patient professionals were rewarded. While I don’t necessarily like some of the changes, virtually everything I relied on was restored in the new architecture, and the way the timeline works now is arguably better in some situations, though I still miss being able to see the sources separated. Doing multicam work is much easier now.

            I think you’re right except for one thing: the reliance of the term “suit casual users.” Here’s the thing that Adobe just gets very wrong: you want to hook users when they’re not pro. The casual user set is bigger than the pro user set. If you hook them on product A you can transition them to product B if it uses the same logic/metaphor/ui/etc. Thus, when iMovie changed to make it simpler to understand, it was probably inevitable that FCP changed. You want a seamless transition from your low end package to your high. Photoshop Elements does not have that relationship to Photoshop CC.

            I can’t post a photo here, but look around and you’ll find a bigger version of that screen shot loopinsight posted. Note the icons at the top and the right of the controls area. You’re looking at only one of eight panels, I believe. Note also what Apple said about third-party additions. In essence, Photos is much more like Aperture than iPhotos.

            Apple’s modus operandi with software (other than the still only slightly connected Filemaker) is very apparent now: re-engineer to new architectures that the hardware is driving into the future, even if that means temporary loss of features.

            To some degree, that’s a bit opposite of Adobe. Remember how long we waited for 64-bit and Cocoa compatibility? Adobe is trailing edge, Apple is leading edge. That makes some sense as Adobe has to live on ecosystems they don’t control, while Apple controls the ecosystem. That last bit is the biggest threat now, as Apple made it very clear what they’re doing to make people who stay in their ecosystem benefit as opposed to those that just sample a piece of it.

          • Seems like Adobe lives on hardware upgrade cycles of end users, trying to ensure compatibility. However, Creative Cloud subscriptions could change that with future upgrades.

            Apple (lately) appears to use their software to push the hardware upgrades. Those who upgrade at every change probably enjoy this aspect.

            At some point our RAW files risk being left behind, one way or another. The other thing is that once we are locked into cloud storage, our images become subject to subscription charges to access them. Obviously we can keep a copy on an external drive somewhere, though I think non-pro users may not consider this. All this may be the new reality, but that doesn’t mean all of us are completely happy with the changes.

          • Thom Hogan

            Older raw files are already showing signs of stress. See if your converter of choice supports the S3 Pro or SLR/n, for example, or supports the line-doubling conversion for a D1x.

            Changes to converters have at least temporarily broken older DSLR support several times now. And DNG isn’t the answer given that it’s never become a standard. Adobe still spends money trying to keep it current, but that will give some day when Adobe needs to cut expenses.

          • It’s definitely happened too often with RAW files. Sometimes seems that even the camera engineers don’t understand we want some stability with that. So two work-arounds are converting archives to TIFF, and maintaining older gear. Even older PSD files have been left behind, so I don’t expect Adobe to keep DNG stable. Wonderful world of software. 😉

        • Nexus

          As an Apple user for some 20 odd years, I can say with confidence that Tim Cook is faithfully continuing with Steve Jobs vision of Apple

        • Global

          I just pulled comments from some photography sites where this news is being announced in a NEUTRAL to Apple-friendly way. Comments from APPLE users are like this:

          “Not amused, bad Apple!”

          “Apple has never been reliable as a software company – except for the system software that runs their devices. They ALWAYS screw-up or discontinue non-system software. And, yes, it angers me no end if I let it. Apple is just stunningly unreliable.”

          • Thom Hogan

            Right. Welcome to “pre-judgement.” It’s the way of the Internet world these days, especially since you can vent anonymously if you’d like.

            It’s one thing to complain about NX2’s demise, where we know exactly what we’re losing and when, another to complain about something you don’t know the details of or when it breaks (Aperture will be updated for Yosemite).

        • Dave

          There will be an iPhoto and Aperture fusion. Did not find a word that Aperture users will lose anything. Don’t worry.

    • Global

      I’m not so sure. Every website I’ve read has truly pissed off Aperture users — who have been basically stone walled by Apple for a few years — declaring, “That’s it! I’m moving to Lightroom!”

      I’m not sure that Photos is going to make up for the alienation. In this case, its very similar to Nikon snubbing their D300 users and failing to provide a D400 upgrade — they are migrating alright… migrating to Sony and Fuji. All Adobe has to say is: “Aperture users — welcome to Lightroom!” Right now would be an excellent time to have a major Lightroom discount specifically targeted around an Aperture campaign. I’m sure Nikon will keep a whole host of D300 users even if it never releases a D400. But Sony and Fuji are still trying harder for their customers business.

      Even if Photos introduces anything new, Lightroom will just mirror any new features in the next version and is always on sale at least 2 times a year for $80. If Apple wants to have its users back — it should earn them by including revolutionary and incredible features beyond Lightroom, at a better price. This is what motivates competition, not mindless loyalty.

      For a flip-side perspective, it vaguely reminds me of annoyed CS (Creative Suite) users who are looking at wonderful ALTERNATIVES to Photoship, like GIMP and other programs much, much more closely ever since the “CC” (Constrictive Cloud) fiasco. Once the conversation begins, it can’t be turned off, prompting unlimited numbers of grassroots websites that convert users, like the one below (Adobe has its own issues):

      • Global

        On this I’m talking about the Marketing & Perception — not actual features migration, by the way. By way of features, you are absolutely correct, its likely a true migration.

        Which makes one wonder, just for the sake of the market (and the Apeture users who for a while back were frustrated for years), why Apple didn’t just name it “Aperture Photos” and cut out the Aperture in the next version.

        It could be that this is a “simplify the message” step (Aperture is an obscure term to many). Perhaps they even want to shake off the baggage of Apertures odd updates history. But if it is, its a very reckless way to do it.

      • D300 users migrating to Sony and Fuji because there’s no D400? Seriously. .. only the a77 is a contender and that’s because there’s nothing else from those two camps. I seriously doubt a self respecting Nikon user would ditch the Nikon lens lineup and goes for Sony. And Fuji having an alternative? That’s a joke… unless it’s still the mid-2000s when they had the S3/S5 Pro.

        • Thom Hogan

          Actually, they’re migrating to Fujifilm and Olympus (X-T1 and E-M1) for the most part, with a few going to the Sony A7 models. And it’s a real, measurable trend. I estimate that Nikon is losing about 10% of its potential sales at the moment because of bad decision making they’ve made on DX products alone.

          • Well then it’s not a fault of Nikon or the D300 or the D400 not being there. They are just realising the benefits of mirrorless vs. dslr. This is different to someone needing the features of a d300 migrating to mirrorless as it’s a direct alternative.

          • Thom Hogan

            Actually, it is partially the fault of the D300 not getting a followup, and if Nikon is doing surveys like I am, they would know it.

            People save for updates to their key equipment. When those updates don’t arrive, they look to see what else is available. What’s now available is something that matches their D300 in pretty much all aspects except continuous focus performance (and even then may match it for some), but is smaller, lighter, and less expensive than a D300 was. Given Nikon’s reluctance to put out DX lenses besides 18-xx zooms, these folk also immediately see that lenses they would have liked are readily available in these other systems too.

            Simply put, Nikon established a territory with the D100/D200/D300, and then failed to defend it.

          • That’s a stretch. What makes a d300 a d300 is also the lens line up.

            Like I said, Sony has no direct alternative. Fuji is out of the question. The Canon 7D is more of an alternative than either of those. But if d300 users went to Sony or Fuji instead, the camera that they really needed wasn’t something that’s just better than their d300.

          • Thom Hogan

            Be careful of applying your lens choices to other users. Frankly, the main Nikon lens choice for a D300 user is FX telephotos. So, yes, sports and wildlife photographers don’t switch to an X-T1 or E-M1. But event shooters are. As are others.

            The number that I have direct contact/statistics with measures well into the thousands. But let’s just pretend only a thousand that switched. That’s still US$1.5 million in sales Nikon lost to competitors. At a time when Nikon is looking for every sale they can make due to declining market.

            I’ll bet that not updating the D300 and D700 were hundreds of millions of dollar mistakes. Certainly throw in the Nikon 1 V series and the D600 fiasco, and Nikon has left one whopping amount of money on the table in the product lines we all though Nikon knew how to do best.

          • Yeah sure… how can anyone say that Nikon wouldn’t have benefitted by making better cameras? Still it doesn’t mean people who bought a D300 over a D80/D90 for the extra features of the former are going to get a Fuji because what they really want is a d400.

            To clarify, we are not including those who went from dslrs to mirrorless because of the mirrorless benefits. In that case we can also say (before the a7 series came about) FF (e.g. 5D series) users switched to APS-C (mirrorless) because the latter is a true alternative FF. In reality it’s the form factor that was the game changer.

          • Thom Hogan

            The lack of the D300 update has at its roots one very simple problem: sensor. Nothing else about the D300 can really be construed to be “out of date.”

            What happened is this: sensors got a lot better since 2006, when the D300/D300s sensor was designed. Thus, people who had a D300 perceive their cameras in 2014 (and probably as far back as 2010) as being significant under performers in low light, and to a lesser degree, under performers in dynamic range. They look around for a replacement and their choices are three: (1) a lesser specified DX camera (D7000, then D7100); (2) a much more expensive FX body (D600, D800, D4, eventually Df and D610); or (3) a crop sensor body from another maker, especially considering that the fast lenses they want already exist for those and don’t really exist for choice #1 (and are more expensive for choice #2).

            So I’ll stick by what I wrote. It’s been a constant question in my InBox for four+ years now, and as I track these people, quite a few have gone from D300 to XT-1/E-M1 type cameras now.

          • I’m not sure what your inbox has anything to do with this discussion but if a d300 user can settle for a Fuji mirrorless, a d400 is probably not the camera they needed in the first place.

            The problem with your logic is how it’s not exclusive to d300 users. I used to travel with a 5d2+24/1.4L II and fully replaced it as soon as I got a Nex-5 and a 16/2.8 pancake… a combo that is far inferior in every way but it fit in my jeans pocket. So by your logic people also think even low end mirrorless are feature-wise alternatives to FF DSLRs and high end lenses.

            There is no feature-wise and support-wise alternative to a d300 in the mirrorless world. Just because people get a mirrorless it doesn’t mean that the camera does everything their former camera did. That has been my point all this time.

          • Thom Hogan

            I’ve spent over 20 years on the Internet supporting Nikon users now, and have a loyal audience of over 3m of them and survey information on hundreds of thousands of them. My InBox fills every day with questions/comments about products, and no product has generated more discussion in that regard than the non-existent D300 replacement and what the user does about it.

            Thing is, most users buy more camera than they need. The D300 in 2007 was more camera than they needed. It lasted them 3 to 7 years. But Nikon gave them no clear and interesting upgrade path in the time frame Nikon usually gives an upgrade path for higher end stuff (no more than 4 years). Essentially, if we get something late this year, we’ll have completely skipped a full product cycle.

            When you skip a cycle like that, you send incredibly bad messages to your customers. They can and do go elsewhere, and one of the things that may happen is that re-evaluate what they really need. It might not be a D400, it might be an X-T1 or E-M1. In other words, you give the user the chance to challenge their original assumptions about what they needed/wanted, and the answer is often surprising when you do that.

            I’ll stick with what I wrote. Nikon blew it. Big time. Probably to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars long term. They’ll point to other successes (D800) to cover up their mistake. But it was a mistake, and one that shouldn’t have been made.

            The questions that need to be asked are: (1) is Nikon correctly understanding what their successes and mistakes are? and (2) are those that make that kind of mistakes getting ejected from the decision chain (or at least put on notice and being monitored more closely)?

            We’ve had successes in the past 10 years: D3, D3s, D300, D700, D800, maybe even the consumer DX cameras. We’ve had mistakes in the past 10 years: Nikon 1, D600, Df, D4, D4s, missing D300 and D700 replacements, etc. It’s feeling like more mistakes are being made now than successes, though. Given the industry’s decline, this is a VERY bad time to be making mistakes.

          • You can be 150 years old and have gathered all the data there is…. but this is matter of logic. Fuji and Sony mirrorless don’t have anything like a d400. Period. Sony has the a77 ii that’s perfectly capable of being like a d400 but compromises need to be made in terms of lens choices to jump ship to Sony.

            Yeah sure, I’m not disputing that there are d300 users buying even Fuji an Sony mirrorless cameras… I don’t know if you’ve read what I wrote but I ditched a 5D II and 24/1.4L II for a Nex-5+16/2.8. It doesn’t mean that the latter does everything the former can do. It means the latter is what was more needed.

          • Bokeh Monk

            It just seems to me that Nikon may have just read the needs of photographers a little bit incorrectly, trying to nudge all the D300 users to move to FX.

            Nikon & Canon for that matter, must surely realize the lost potential here ( the pent up demand is palatable ). I firmly do believe a pro-grade Nikon DX & a Canon 7DMk2 is on the way.

          • Thom Hogan

            Perhaps. Nikon read things as “maybe we can switch high end DX users to even higher priced FX bodies,” which is looking at things from Nikon’s benefit perspective. Users have been reading things lately as “maybe I want a smaller, lighter camera,” which Nikon hasn’t actually acknowledged much in designs.

            Personally, I’ve always taken the approach that the company doesn’t benefit unless the user benefits. You can fool customers for short periods, but eventually customers catch on and go elsewhere if you’re not giving them what they want/need.

            The problem with the missing D300 update is this: Nikon effectively skipped their own upgrade cycle (4 years). Now that we’re going to get to 8 years, Nikon had better expect that any update they do produce will not resonate as well, as they’ve lost some D300 type owners to other things when those customers re-evaluated their needs based upon what was available.

          • I’m considering the A7S as a back-up camera body, but the lack of lenses is one issue. I’m in no hurry, and I think Sony will address that lens line-up soon.

          • PGi

            There are millions or more lenses you can adapt on the Sony system. So not less but more lenses for the a7r than for any Nikon canon low tech half digital cameras.

          • The adapters are kludges, in my view. I would prefer native autofocus lenses. There’s not much point in adapters on a smaller body, when you hang big lenses on them. It’s one of the things I never liked about the NEX series. Anyway, just my viewpoint, and I’m willing to wait.

        • Zos Xavius

          I’m pretty sure I should follow your posts for pure comedic value. Fuji is a joke? If anything, the K-3 is the closest to a D400 replacement that Nikon users can currently get. The A77ii is comparable, but also has an EVF, a resolution eating SLT mirror, and most likely an AA filter. It also does not have a large selection of dedicated APS-C lenses to choose from (do they have any outside of basic zooms?), leaving you to pick from full frame lenses. So, really any benefit from the smaller sensor is now lost outside of the crop factor.

          • Fuji K3? You have insecurity issues.

          • Zos Xavius

            I never said fuji made the k-3. I’m just responding to your fanboy post with one of my own. 😛

          • Nice… for a moment I was under the impression that your IQ was just above 2 digits… now I see it’s well in the mid-2s, just like the IQ of everyone else here who cant hold an argument without name-calling.

            FYI I think the K3 is a nice APS-C camera. But that’s like saying a wheelchair is cool. Im happy it does wonders for you but don’t wait for me to get one.

          • PGi

            You guys are all morons

          • Since some of us are trying to explain things to uninformed, inexperienced idiots like you? You might be right.

        • Wally in Austin

          I am a self respecting Nikon user and I am shifting to Sony. Sony RX that is i dont see the need to carry my DSLR gear for 95% of what I shoot.

          • Please don’t take statements of context. We’re talking about D300 owners finding their D400 in Sony or Fuji.

            That aside a large number of mirror less users have been dslr users in the past, sharing a story similar to yours. .. myself included.

          • PGi

            Ovf is dead and low tech half digital SLR must die for good.

          • It’s not your call… especially since you’re not a serious professional photographer who has to look through the lens during an entire game.

            Also, SLT died in the 70s. Sony SLT has been DOA. If EVF is the future then Dual Pixel AF is the future. Can’t believe why people buy Sony A mount for anything other than SSS.

          • PGi

            Everybody had a bit of brain in their head figure it out sooner or later.

        • PGi

          Wake up to see the reality the Sony a77ii blows the d810 out of the water when it comes to Af track ability. If you do not believe me then go to getdpi forum and ask Guy about it, trust me the evf is the future, the dslr is dying. I personally the a99ii will finally put all Nikon canon low tech cameras into dSlr grave at Berlin camera museum.

          • a77ii? ROFL What junk… Sony A DSLT people have been shouting the end is near for others since day 1 of SLT… what has changed since then? Nothing. SLT is still the low quality hack job from the 70s it has always been. Lets not even talk about how miserable failures Sony has been in video quality (e.g. a99, VG900). Professionals don’t settle for anything less than Canon and Nikon’s pro bodies that come with pro lenses and pro support. Sony A mount has been taken even less seriously in the professional world because of SLT and junk “pro” lenses like their 35/1.4G LOL

            If you’re serious about AF, get a 1D IV, 1D X or even a D4s along with some real lenses… None of Sony’s poor excuses for lenses they have on A mount. Wake up and go to a shop… Sony A mount is nothing.

      • Thom Hogan

        Apple is well known for reinventing its products and positioning them for the future not the past. We recently went through a similar transition with Numbers/Pages/Keynote where they changed the architectures completely, lost features temporarily, but now have re-enabled most of those and made much better apps that’ll work better with their other devices.

        I’m sure that Adobe will indeed try to take advantage of the apparent displeasure of Aperture users. But Adobe has a bigger problem now: Apple knows how it is going to deal with images in the future and is frantically working to get there. It’s a mostly locked-in system if it works, and it seriously dampens Adobe’s nascent and problematic mobile intentions. There’s a large chance that Adobe’s efforts will be plug-ins to Apple’s, which would be an ironic twist for Adobe.

        Thing is, we’re going through transitionary times, much like we did at the turn of the century with the switch from film to digital for most users (I was already there). There will be some upheavals.

        • Sorin

          Position the for the future? YES

          The question is: whose future are we talking about? The millions and millions (billions) of consumers, or the odd photography enthusiast or pro?

          Let me suggest something: if you are so confident in Apple’s Photos app, why don’t you go back to using Aperture as of TODAY??!! You will have no issues down the line, “according to Thom”.

          • Thom Hogan

            Well, let’s get one thing out of the way first: I generally don’t use Lightroom or Aperture in my workflow. I prefer more control than either give me.

            What we’re facing is what we’ve always faced: photography is done by the consumer masses in much more quantity than in the pro community. It’s why smartphones eclipsed compact cameras: it gave the majority of photographers a better experience and workflow for what they use images for. This trend is continuing.

            However, what I’d give for that same workflow ;~). With enhancements targeted at the pro, obviously. Simply put, we’re not going to get that from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. We may not even get it from Adobe. The only way we’ll get it is if someone shows the way for the masses and others than have the Aha experience and figure out maybe everyone wants it.

            I didn’t say you’d have no issues moving from Aperture to Photos. I can’t really say what issues you will have other than to repeat what Apple has said: there will be a migration path. But I also remember the migration path we went through with FCP when iMovie changed the user experience and how timelines worked. It wasn’t without major issues, though now mostly resolved a couple of years later.

            Here’s the denial point most serious photographers are making: we just aren’t a very big group. I’d be surprised if 10% of the ILC buyers are what I’d call truly serious photographers, ones that would need an extensive and deep workflow. That’s less than 2m people a year. It’s difficult to build a business case to target them with new technologies and services. On the other hand, everyone has a camera of some sort these days, and it’s easy to build a business case for serving them.

            One other thing: I don’t necessarily condone what Apple is doing (though I understand it): I’m just trying to more accurately report what is happening. All the folks that are claiming they won’t have the ability to change hue, highlights, white balance, etc., in Photos are pretty clearly wrong just on the face of the screen shot that’s been made public, and it shows only one of eight control panels and doesn’t show any third-party plug-ins.

            The fear that Photos is just iPhoto with a different look is incorrect. It’s more like Aperture with a different look and style, though it does seem like some things are missing. I’m also curious how Apple is going to parcel out all that UI to a mobile device. Perhaps the mobile versions are subsets of the desktop version?

          • Sorin

            Thom, good analysis. What I am taking away is that we are @%$#^ out of luck. If we want a pro workflow, we need to look elsewhere. I am still at a loss when it comes to how Apple will include most of the advanced features in a consumer workflow. I am afraid Photos will actually be a spruced-up, cloud based iPhoto. We are still years away from being able to efficiently and safely store in the cloud the volumes of data that a pro or enthusiast produces.. It will happen (maybe), but in the meantime we are left with a gaping hole. I know you are wishing for a D4X (54MP??!!). Watch what you wish for …. 😉

            I feel that our only chance is to try to “float” over this hole by stretching the life of our current workflow.

            PS: Tongue-in-cheek: the fact that you are spending this much time on this topic in the forums tells me you are quite worried yourself. Am I wrong?

          • Thom Hogan

            Sadly, if we want a pro workflow, it’s going to break. If not now, soon. If not soon, soon enough. And it’s going to get more expensive. Declining market means declining options for any small niche. That’s even true of pro filmmaking, where Avid is barely hanging on.

            As I’ve written, give Photos a chance to actually lock down and show us what it is and what it has. I actually don’t fear the loss of things that most folk are thinking is gone. Things like Highlight/Shadows sliders and more are all still there. Many panels of options. Are they more consumer-oriented than before in naming and function? Maybe. Hard to tell at this point. What I personally fear is gone are the keywording/IPTC entry parts. “Tags” are Apple’s attempt to bring metadata across all devices.

            I’m actually moving all my images to the cloud. But that’s not the only place they live ;~). The only real question is how and when they get to the cloud, not that the cloud is a bad place for them.

            No, generally if you see me commenting, it’s because I’m traveling. When I’m in the office I mostly focus on my own work, but when I’m on the road it’s hard to do things that take long amounts of time and concentration, so I tend to pop into places where I can communicate quickly and in small spurts.

          • Sorin

            Well, safe travels and keep travelling. I am sure I speak for many when I say we thoroughly enjoy having you active on these forums.

            Let’s revisit this after the first Photos release, shall we?! All the best.

          • Hi Thom. Interesting points you make here, and in your article. Do you have security concerns of keeping professional images in the cloud?

          • Thom Hogan

            Depends upon “which cloud” ;~). I’m in the process of creating a private cloud and then choosing what goes where from there.

            Would I put all my images in Apple’s iCloud Photos? Unlikely, but we don’t know anywhere near enough about it, yet.

          • True enough, we don’t know how that will function. Perhaps we’ll see multi-stage authentication. Perhaps we will see more fingerprint unlocking.

            Many professionals have image storage questions, and would like to see some innovative solutions. I look forward to see what you are developing.

          • Current_Aperture_User

            I completely agree with most of your analysis, Thom. I think that what Apple realizes is that they are a hardware and UI company first, and a software manufacturer second (or third, fourth, etc.). The move toward the Photos platform suggests to me that Apple understands that, in terms of profitability, it is better to be the one who owns the stadium than the one who plays sports in it.

            From my perspective, I’d rather have an OS designed to embrace whatever tech innovation is next than cling to software that trudges the past into every forward glimpse.

          • Sorin
          • Thom Hogan

            No. Especially since we still have no idea what the extension aspect of Photos is all about.

          • Sorin

            How ’bout now??!!

          • Thom Hogan

            See the article I posted yesterday. The Photos that has appeared is a disappointment. Pity.

          • Sorin

            Agreed. Luckily I learned my lesson after the Apple Maps disaster. While I had high hopes for Maps only to be disappointed, I had absolutely none for Photos, so no disappointment for me. It is as bad as expected. Oh, well … I will continue squeezing every bit of life out of Aperture with DxO, NX-D, Nik and Photoshop ….

        • Spy Black

          “Apple is well known for reinventing its products and positioning them for the future not the past.”

          Not really. Shake and “iMovie Pro” come immediately to mind.

          • Thom Hogan

            I suspect you’re trying to be funny and referring to FCP X as iMovie Pro. Apparently you haven’t actually used it. I have. Both prior to and after the change in the timeline. It’s actually a good example of what I’ve been writing: Apple will take a temporary step backward to enable a step forward into new architectures.

          • Spy Black

            Tell that to all the professional and semi-pro editors that decided that they weren’t going to take what Steve Jobs dished out and either went back to Avid, or moved to another editor like autodesk smoke or Premiere. And I guess well just skip on Shake while we’re at it.

          • Thom Hogan

            Most market surveys I’m aware of show that Apple was #2 in market share prior to FCPX, and is still #2 considerably post FCPX’s launch. Avid tends to be a distant 4th, and you are aware that Avid just delisted from the stock exchange, right? We could talk about Avid Sibelius as a pretty poor update choice, too ;~).

          • Spy Black

            Apparently that didn’t dissuade those that jumped ship from FCP. Adobe was really smart, they saw an opportunity and jumped on it. Practically overnight they turned what was a comical crashbox into a real editor.

          • Nexus

            I still use Shake! As far I understood, back when Apple bought Shake, the software developers left and went on to create Nuke.

          • Spy Black

            Isn’t that getting a little long in the tooth now? I kinda know how you feel, I did that with combustion for a while, but it’s a 64-bit world today, and motion image compositing needs all the power you can get your paws on. 😉

        • M42

          Apple is dead in the water without Jobs.

    • Darin M

      How does the statement “Apple also said it is working with Adobe to help users transition to its Lightroom app for Mac.” fit with your argument?

      • Darin M

        Scratch that. Apparently bad reporting by Tech Crunch.

        • Thom Hogan

          Moreover, that wasn’t the exact statement ;~). Apparently we’re not teaching people how to read conditional statements any more. “…for users moving to Lightroom” is different than “…to move users to Lightroom.”

          Apple has suddenly gotten friendlier with outside developers, something that for many years was not the norm. It appears that Apple is getting back to their evangelic ways of wanting to enable developers rather than fight with them. So it wouldn’t surprise me that they trying to help Adobe work with their changes to the way they deal with images.

          • Neopulse

            Never got why they would alienate outside people when in fact they are trying to provide a service TO the people and also keep their pulse on what the people want.

          • Darin M

            Three different Apple fan blogs, each quoting the same wrong statement, each using a slightly different wording. My quote was from Apple Insider. After my first post I read on the LL forum that Tech Crunch corrected that statement. No change on the fan blogs (well Apple Insider is not accessible as I write this, but the other two still say the same thing).
            Anyway, Aperture is not a problem for me as I’ve never used it… I’m one of the Capture NX2 users, with my D700 (and old D40 files). I’ve read your articles. If the Mac version will stop working at some point, I hope the Windows version will work a little longer. After that, will see…

          • Thom Hogan

            The Windows version of CNX2 should work as long as we’re at 8.1 or lower. After that, I don’t know. However, CNX2 will no longer be updated to any new camera Nikon puts out, including the D810. So, as long as you stick with your current equipment and software, you’re fine, but if anything iterates, then you’re probably looking for a new workflow.

    • Sorin

      Thom, I think you are wrong. There is no way Apple can roll out to the average selfie taking user the rich feature set of Aperture. It simply would not work. How will the 14 year teenager using her iPhone deal with stacks, non-destructive RAW adjustments, brushes, brushes with edge detection, brushes without edge detection, referenced files vs managed files, etc etc etc.

      There is simply no way I can see that happening. If they did, Photos would become an epic failure. Sadly, Aperture users must start planning their workflow transition now. Lightroom is OK, but imposes an entirely different workflow, so, get busy, folks ….

  • Bokeh Monk

    What an idiotic headline !

  • jintoku

    How does one achieve the adjustment panel overlay as in the Aperture screen shot shown in the title of this article, in full screen mode?

  • Meow

    no real surprises here. Aperture is 2+ years out of date and has fairly little users. It is not such a big win for Adobe if you count the numbers… In fact the all integrated and hidden iOs style aperture library should have been a red warning light for any aperture users.

  • Heh… First time I picked the winner… 🙂

    Sad to not have the competition. On the positive side, Preview and iPhoto already have a lot of features of Aperture. Maybe Photos could still be an alternative, probably cheaper.

    • alfredo_tomato

      If it comes as part of the OS, that would be sweet. Remember, the software adds value to the hardware.

  • TinusVerdino

    DXO and Capture One are also very capable

  • Pachoo Ricky

    I think rather than a boon to Adobe we’ll see people delaying any investment in Adobe software or cloud until they see what Apple has coming out.

    • alfredo_tomato

      That’s what I was thinking. I’ve done quite well without Adobe products since the intro of OSX 10.6.

  • Spy Black

    This isn’t that big a deal. How many people use Aperture? It’s Mac-only. Out of all the Macs out there, how many do you think have Aperture? It’s a niche market. The only really good thing about Aperture was that it put Adobe in a state of panic and they put out Lightroom, an app that Mac AND PC users can use. Aperture ultimately wasn’t competition, but Capture One definitely is. Just as Lightrooms’ existence was a knee-jerk reaction to Aperture, Lightroom 5 is Adobe’s knee-jerk reaction to Capture One Pro 7.

    • Focuspuller

      To say Aperture is in a niche market is a little misleading. All the Apple Pro Apps are in niche markets compared to the vast consumer market. The Pro Apps are really marquee items to prove credibility to the masses. Installed base means nothing. Aperture as it is is not competitive, but an updated version could easily have been. We will have to see exactly what Photo provides in the editing/adjustment department to draw any final conclusions.

      • Spy Black

        To try and say Apple Pro Apps are a niche market compared to the consumer market is a little misleading. 😉

        Lightroom and Capture One are not consumer products, even though they may be used by non-professionals. Similarly with Final Cut, Avid Media Composer and Adobe Premiere Pro are not consumer products, yet they both have a larger user market on comparison. Same for Pro Tools compared to Logic. Both Adobe and Avid have the advantage of both legacy and, more importantly, the fact that they run not only on Macs, but the much larger PC platform.

        Comparitively however Aperture was a far more niche market than its Apple stablemates. Apple, as a corporation, is only concerned with the bottom line, and apparently there was no money to be made with Aperture. This is why it hasn’t been updated in about two years, and finally put out to pasture.

        The replacement app Apple has designed may however simply have all the functionality of Aperture, so ultimately Aperture users may not be missing out on anything. Aperture’s demise may wind up being simply “much ado about nothing”.

      • PGi

        Apple is shit very proprietary and useless for most of us pc users.

        • Focuspuller

          You add so much class to the discussion.

        • Bokeh Monk

          Membership has it’s privileges . . .

  • alfredo_tomato

    I’ll stick with GIMP and LightZone. IPhoto is useful for straightening and cropping then the rest goes to either GIMP or LightZone.

  • Mr_Miyagi

    I am not interested in storing my photo images in the cloud, nor would I be interested in any photo editing app that forced me to upload and download image files of 100MB just to view them or to work on them. Perhaps that’s not what Apple has in mind. Perhaps it’s only much smaller preview files that would reside in the cloud. That seems plausible if the Photo app follows the normal non-destructive photo editing model, as in Adobe Lightroom, for example. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume when I’m working in Lightroom the image that’s displayed on my computer monitor is not my original image file but rather a much smaller preview file. And when I edit the photo in LR’s Develop module I am actually looking at and working with the preview, again not the original. Uploading and downloading small preview files to the cloud along with the same sort of information that LR puts in small photo sidecar files might be practicable; exchanging my original photo files would not. In the end, what it comes down to is that the more Apple drives its customers to the cloud, the less interested I am in their products…and I say this ruefully as someone who’s sitting in front of an $8K MacPro 2013.

  • Dave

    Apple just wants one photo-platform: We will get the opportunity to buy an in-app pro bundle and several other in-apps for fotobooks with e.g. blurb etc.pp. The fusion of iphoto and aperture is just the logic from the app strategy

  • Wally in Austin

    Personally i dont use Apeture and am winding down Lightroom. I think my situation is critical to the Imaging Making industry. My paradyme has shifted to a RX 100 with tablet/smart phone based workflow tied to mirrorless with wifi doing sharpening contrast and color correction that I past to Facebook them am DONE DONE DONE!

    Apple Adobe Nikon all have lost my revenue stream. So Long nice knowing you. I have left you all in the dust and haven,t seen any product that has moved me to spend any money with you.

    The money stream is the issue for these companies.

    I suspect for 98.3%of camera users this is the same situation that all of the imaging companies have to worry about.

    Would the last employee turn out the light at the end of the tunnel? The sound you hear are former employees of these companies sitting around saying what happened?

  • Fants

    Uuuuugh. I like Lightroom’s editing features, and their RAW algorithms are MOSTLY better than Aperture’s (especially for Sony cameras), but Aperture, in my opinion, completely spanks LR in the organization department. I know that’s a highly subjective thing, but the two are absolutely worlds apart on that front.

  • PGi

    I kinda like it but as long as it is only available for Mac system , it is useless for me.i personally use Capture One

  • Seb

    Uhm, they are not stopping to develop it, they will combine Aperture and iPhoto in one, new App. That headline is totally missleading

  • Andy G

    Now all Adobe needs is to come up with “migration” tool for Lightroom for those who store their photos in libraries (I don’t). I have used both programs from the beginning – Aperture being first, then LR, then A again. Lately LR has been solid and I have been using it more and more, especially with excellent print support (using it as mini rip for my Epson 11880). I found printing part lacking on Aperture. As much as I admire Apple products, I have found myself spending money elsewhere as Apple keeps insisting on that “glossy is the best”screen strategy. I beg to differ, I hate glossy laptop screens and that’s why I am using OSX on my hackintoshed Lenovo X220. But that might be a thing of the past soon as I ween myself off Apple juice – first was the demise of FCP7, now Aperture.

  • M42

    I bought it and then switched to Lightroom when I found out Aperture was an unsupported orphan.

  • Back to top