Apple Kills Aperture, Says New Photos App Will Replace It 214
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.
Aperture-specific plugins... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Aperture-specific plugins... (Score:4, 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.
Re:Aperture-specific plugins... (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.
Re:Aperture-specific plugins... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it going to stop working? I still use a version of paint shop pro from 1998!! (I'm not a graphics pro obviously) It still works fine on windows 7!
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it going to stop working? I still use a version of paint shop pro from 1998!! (I'm not a graphics pro obviously) It still works fine on windows 7!
It's a racket. (Mutter...)
Re:Aperture-specific plugins... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you sort-of do. Adobe doesn't provide raw updates for older versions of lightroom "for ever". I try to keep Lightroom up to date because it's fairly cost-effective -- my current problem is that I use "edit in Photoshop" occasionally for things Lightroom isn't that good at, and my copy of CS4 apparently doesn't support Nikon D610 raw format. I can't afford a more recent version right now, and the "cloud" version of Photoshop is out of the question, because I sometimes work in the field where there i
Re: Aperture-specific plugins... (Score:3)
"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 F [adobe.com]
Abandon large user base for no reason!! (Score:2)
Well, Ive was one of the most outstanding executive officers this company's ever produced. He was brave, outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too, humanitarian man, a man of wit and humor. He joined the Software Engineering Group. After that, his... uh... ideas... methods... became... unsound... unsound.
Now he's crossed into California with this mountaineered army of his that... worship... the man... like a god, and follow every order, however ridiculous...
Re: (Score:2)
If only someone had terminated Mehdi Ali and Irving Gould.
Re:Aperture-specific plugins... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Aperture-specific plugins... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you're budgeting less - because Creative Cloud is cheaper than paying for a CS upgrade annually.
Re:Aperture-specific plugins... (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Emmm.. You mean like Google?
How much did you pay for those services?
Re: (Score:2)
My privacy is priceless. My privacy certainly costs more than 80 odd bucks.
I conclude that you therefore never made the trade to begin with, and were thus completely unaffected.
Re: (Score:2)
Some were not free and yet pretty much killed as well when acquired by Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Some were not free and yet pretty much killed as well when acquired by Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S [wikipedia.org]...
Well, there's one. And they almost certainly knew it would be discontinued before they agreed to sell it, so you get to blame the devs (who became google employees) at least as much as google itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Emmm.. You mean like Google?
Yes, very much like Google...but what's your point?
Re: Aperture-specific plugins... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
/. must allow moderating of TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
but ...for God's sake...the idea that anything at all is "safe" in the cloud...is hilariously wrong.
The laughability of this depends entirely on what you are using the word "safe" to refer too.
For the average consumer, their photos are "safe"r from accidental loss in most cloud storage tools than they are on a hard drive.
If you're discussing the potential for having your photos stolen, that's an entirely different matter.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apple giveth and Apple taketh away. Blessed be the name of Apple.
Re: (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.
Choosing a photo editor is not as simple as many in here think. It happens that Adobe is shooing its customers into the cloud even faster than Apple is. I went with the one Adobe product, Lightroom, that still runs on one's own computer.
Re: (Score:3)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
Woo - apple fixes slow internet and data caps - magic!
My plan is to wait and see (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And, with Aperture gone
Ok, its another terrible idea from Apple made with absolutely no regard to their very supportive and loyal user base, but you're exaggerating tremendously.
Let me remind you that, although most users seem to be compulsive in how they click "update" whenever there is one available, its is a really dumb thing to do blindly and unnecessary except for three reasons and only three reasons: 1) you have security concerns and the update patches security holes; 2) the update has bug fixes of bugs you keep bumping i
Re:My plan is to wait and see (Score:5, 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.
Re: My plan is to wait and see (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but you can't GET a backup installer, if you bought from the App Store. Oh, and the most recent versions, you could ONLY buy from the App Store. As soon as Apple removes it from the store, you can't re-install. You are not only responsible for the data you own, but the installers you use -- and you can't get access to them in this case.
Re: My plan is to wait and see (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Tried it, but it is still linked back to the App Store. If you copy it to a computer that doesn't have a sub to the app in the App Store, it won't run. It wants you to login to the App Store. When it doesn't find it, it won't run.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to break the trivial DRM so that you don't need to sign in to your App Store account in the future, that is a completely different thing!
The App contains a receipt file that links it to your App Store account. Sign in so that you can validate the receipt and you can run the app.
I've personally tested some apps that have been pulled by Developers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's linked to an Apple ID via a certificate. Whether or not it's still in the app store is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
I see. So if I sell you my Mac and all the software therein, that contains an Aperture install, you could never use it. And being as you post on Slashdot, you are very respectful of software licensing, and you've never heard of The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.se].
You see you cant buy a disc with aperture on it,
Oh? then wtf is this? [ebay.com]
Re:My plan is to wait and see (Score:4, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Or Apple will push out their zero cost competitor. What would really stop Apple from stripping the best features from Aperture and putting them into iPhoto? TFA suggests that Aperture is being replaced, not discontinued.
Re: (Score:2)
Complexity. Aperture assume at least a highly interested amateur. iPhoto assumes a general users knowledge of photography. What's good for one type of user is often a negative for the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but that's the thing. Everyone I've met who has a digital camera thinks they're a photographer, and hell, they WANT to be a photographer.
But right now, you either use a dumbed down program like iPhoto, or a program like Lightroom / Aperture where you can use things like content aware fill, or any of the other magic goodies Adobe / Apple comes up with.
I could see Apple, as a game changer, pull in all sorts of advanced features under one single umbrella. That way, you don't have to buy crazy expensive
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is anyway to have today's level of complexity in a general usage application. There is too much background required. But if Apple can offer the 15% of features that do 70% of the important work....
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I won't be switching to Lightroom, there is no way I am going to rent software from Adobe.
Lightroom can be purchased as a stand-alone product, [adobe.com] and Adobe currently has no plans [dpreview.com] to move LR to CC.
Re: (Score:2)
The point was that Adobe has no plans currently to change because of Aperture's availability as a competitor. That could well change in which case Adobe will of course switch to a more lucrative (for them) plan.
Re: (Score:3)
The point was that Adobe has no plans currently to change because of Aperture's availability as a competitor.
According to this, [adobe.com] 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?
Re: (Score:2)
A VP of a company lying? Could it be?
It is a trend (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple won't be happy until they've reimplemented MS Bob but with a little more style.
Re: (Score:2)
You got some stuff right, but you also loaded in a load of simply untrue stuff. Where to start?
Aperture hadn't been updated since 2012. They merely announced that they won't be updating it any longer so that people know to not bother waiting around. It's been poorly supported from the start. No one was left in the dust here. Lightroom has been doing the same job better for years now.
Spaces? It's still around as a part of the bigger Mission Control feature. They even made it more powerful than it used to be,
Killing Aperture? (Score:3)
My buddy GLaDOS would have some words with you.
*Pulls out a portal gun*
Re: (Score:2)
Wipe the cheeto crumbs from your beard fatty.
They're Doritos you insensitive clod!
They are following the app store model.... (Score:3)
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.
Check some Facts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting read - thanks for the link. The author makes some compelling arguments, but there's little in the way of hard facts in that article.
I'd also note that the author seems to have a bias against Adobe, as evidenced by his dismissive comments regarding Adobe's response to the Aperture news. [adobe.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there are no 'hard facts' - nothing has happened yet and both Adobe and Apple are renown for not being especially forthcoming.
Yes, Hogan (along with half the planet) doesn't like Adobe. He's been pretty negative about the whole Creative Clown, er Cloud, thing. But his underlying premise is interesting - that this is the first step in Apple rationalizing a photography workflow. It's not 'the' photography workflow and may not fit many professional / prosumer goals - but that doesn't appear to be
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, what camera produces 18GB RAW images? Also, The "serious/professional photographer" doesn't do 5 shot HDR's and neither does Lightroom.
Re: (Score:2)
Stack 5 shots of a raw file from a D800 and you'll get to 2 GB, not quite 90 ... Still not what I'd like to push across my typical sucks-to-be-me broadband Internet connection.
'
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Some telescopes are around that resolution or higher. Darpa started working on cameras that are mobile (can be mounted on a satellite) or airplane that are higher resolution (50 gigapixel) years ago and there certainly are working prototypes. Though I suspect he meant 18mb.
Re: (Score:2)
Lightroom doesn't have to keep track of multiple-shot HDR's. I have Photomatix set up as my second alternative editor in LR, to be called when needed. My first alternative editor is the last cloudless version of Photoshop.
Re: (Score:2)
What you mean is that there was a brief kerfluffle circa 2010 about the early, clumsy use of HDR. Today it has settled down to being as much a professional technique as any other. It can be used for artistic effect or to bring life to cloudy and rainy dats.
And if you have ever faced a canyon headwall that requires nine wide-angle shots to get the whole thing in, you're going to want the ability to compose a magnificent, 50GB stitched and blended image.
Sheer insanity (Score:5, 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).
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
90 GB per shoot? Hopefully you're doing 4K video, otherwise you need to work on shot discipline a bit. With that many files you'll never get out of the basement. It's just not healthy at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I usually only edit about 1/4 to 1/8 of the shots I take -- sometimes less depending on the client. Each one takes at most 5 minutes to edit -- usually closer to 2 minutes. Each day of shooting takes a day of editing. But RAW does chew up LOTS of space with a good camera.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, RAW does. A Nikon D800 RAW file is 36 MB or so. I use 16 GB cards in my cameras and really have trouble filling them in a whole day shooting. If you're shooting between 2 and 5 16 GB cards for still images on a daily you might want to review that. You're shooting too often. Slow down and look. Even if you're only editing 10% of that you have 9 GB of files - that's roughly 250 edited images on a daily basis.
You'll never get out of the basement alive.
Re:Sheer insanity (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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...
That's the working library size.
Re: (Score:2)
I shoot live events. Typically concerts or conferences, but I've done weddings and other engagements like that as well. It is not unusual to snap between 1,200 shots and 1,800 shots in one evening between my three cameras. My 7Ds stores RAW files sized about 50MB or so each. My 5D-MK3 ends up somewhere in the 35-40MB range per shot. Heck, even my backup 60D takes 35MB RAWs.
I don't delete shots that make my first pass. Blurry ones, or test shots usually get deleted but the rest stay. I edit the ones I
Cloud as a requrement (Score:2)
Sucks.. Cloud as an additional option, ok.
So i assume that this new 'version' will be geared towards the home market and not professional. That seems to be the trend for apple.
In Other News (Score:3)
FREE app that doesn't exist MAY HAVE less features (Score:2)
So a FREE app (#1) for a small subset of people will soon be replaced by another FREE app (#2) for a small subset of people and the author thinks that #2 will have less features than #`1 but of course it will only affect a small subset of people.
Well tea in China may get expensive next year too.
Don't be beholden to one company, be it Apple, ChinaTeaCo, or anyone. Then you don't have to whine when one app you didn't pay a dollar for FREE app (#1 or #2) you don't feel like wadding up tissues and crying. Man
Re: (Score:2)
So a FREE app (#1) for a small subset of people will soon be replaced by another FREE app (#2) for a small subset of people and the author thinks that #2 will have less features than #`1 but of course it will only affect a small subset of people./p>
E
Of course app #1 wasn't free....
Privacy? In The Cloud? (Score:2)
So apple is retiring a photo editing software product and expects their customers to switch to their cloud photo editing service. They're replacing images stored locally with images stored externally.
Ignoring Snowden and the NSA for the moment, let's look at LEGAL seizure of your pictures to be used as evidence by government agencies, in rule enforcement, investigation, and criminal prosecution.
Not only are files under your physical control y'harder to get to physically than those transmitted over the Inte
This will accelerate my transition (Score:2)
I was already making the switch to Lightroom from Aperture. Apple's last update of Aperture really started messing it up, so I saw the writing on the wall, and will fully move my library to Lightroom.
It is a shame, because when I first started using Aperture, it was awesome, about 1/2 the price of Lightroom at the time, and it was lightyears ahead of iPhoto.
With my MacBook Air, I thought I would just use iPhoto, but gah, after not using it for 6 years or so, it still sucks tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I've read, you'd be wrong about that. Link your source or I have to call misinformation / FUD on that one.
Re:In addition... (Score:5, Informative)
Aperture won't run in Yosemite because Apple wants you to use the new app.
Not according to this [techcrunch.com] which claims "an Apple spokesman told them" (distinct lack of "horse's mouth" links, unfortunately) that it would be updated to run on Yosemite.
Re:In addition... (Score:4, 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... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://slashdot.org/prefs.pl?section=exclusions [slashdot.org]
you're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
thanks... how do I get to that page... besides your link of course. I can't seem to find it otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
>hand held
>pointed directly at filter
>not satisfied
I foed you for a reason. Thanks for reminding me.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
That's mean... :(
Your link helped but how do I get there without using that link? How do you navigate to that position without using the link to jump to that spot?
As to foeing me... you don't know me and likely never will... and I don't know you and likely never will... so that really accomplishes nothing.
Re:... I need to filter out the apple posts... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
oh yeah? Enlighten me as to how I would do that because every time I've looked at it, I have been unable to find the setting.
Some other person linked me to settings but I can't for the life of me find out how to get to that window on my own. Do you have to /save a list of URLs to modify your account or am I missing some links or buttons around here?
Re: (Score:2)
Hover over your name, and click on 'Options' that appears in the dropdown.
Or click on "Account" on the user info panel on the right, and poke through the options there. This tends to work better, I find the lightbox interface to be a bit buggy in general.
Re: (Score:2)
I can get to it through options but as you said that bugs out and I can't actually do anything in there. Nothing to click on or enter.
Under account I don't see anything about exclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
um apple didn't remove spaces it is still there. I am using it now.
The just merged the functionality into expose. I middle click my mouse up comes expose and I select the desktop I want. if you have an app running on one desktop and you are in another just click on the app in the dock it will take you right there.
Re: (Score:2)
And it still works well with a keyboard. The only thing missing is a two dimensional grid, though.
I love full screen and spaces, and my mind handles the layout perfectly. I want to be able to have left-right orientation of major apps, and up-down orientation of the apps I'm using the support. Thus a 2D grid instead of the currently 1D line we have.
For example: I like Parallels to be far off to the right of my desktop. XCode to the left of my Desktop. OneNote under XCode. PHPStorm to the left of XCode. Photo
Re: (Score:2)
Expose works fine under the new system hit F9. As for spaces you still have virtual desktops and the applications support them better. What's gotten worse? And In particular each physical display has its own set of virtual displays rather than having them span. That's an upgrade.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are working with raw images you are no longer in the market Apple is interested in.
Apparently.