Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics OS X Software Upgrades Apple

Apple Kills Aperture, Says New Photos App Will Replace It 214

Posted by timothy
from the you-can-shop-outside-the-company-store dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Kills Aperture, Says New Photos App Will Replace It

Comments Filter:
  • by chrysalis (50680) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @04:03AM (#47343677) Homepage

    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.

    • by jovius (974690) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @04:30AM (#47343723)

      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.

      • by BlackPignouf (1017012) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @04:43AM (#47343733)

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2014 @05:03AM (#47343759)

          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.

        • by MrL0G1C (867445)

          Every Aperture user will have to change after X months.

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward

            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.

          • by roc97007 (608802)

            Every Aperture user will have to change after X months.

            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!

            ...but you're using it to edit JPG images. Raw image formats are proprietary and change from vendor to vendor and camera to camera. For instance, I have an older Nikon body that is supported by very old versions of the Adobe suite, but my most recent body produces raw images that can only be opened by the most recent Adobe products. And not at all by Paint Shop Pro, I suspect.

            It's a racket. (Mutter...)

        • by BitZtream (692029) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:58AM (#47344137)

          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.

        • Not to be supportive of adobe per se (they are miserable too) but that is why dng was developed. Raw is very hard to support from an archival perspective.
        • by roc97007 (608802)

          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

          • 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 F [adobe.com]

    • 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...

      ...very obviously, he has gone ins

    • by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @10:50AM (#47344519) Journal
      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).
  • by CaptainOfSpray (1229754) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @04:12AM (#47343693)
    "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.
    • 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.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @04:17AM (#47343697)

    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.

    • 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

      • by Lumpy (12016) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:20AM (#47344055) Homepage

        "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.

        • by Henriok (6762) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @09:07AM (#47344173)
          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.
          • by quetwo (1203948)

            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.

            • Aperture as with all other Mac App Store titles is a bundle that gets dropped into /Applications. If you are concerned, copy your Aperture.app bundle to an external hard drive and you're done.
              • by quetwo (1203948)

                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.

                • Your concern was with backing up the installer, which isn't a requirement.
                  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.
                • It's linked to an Apple ID via a certificate. Whether or not it's still in the app store is irrelevant.

        • 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]

  • It is a trend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 29, 2014 @07:03AM (#47343933)

    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.

    • Apple won't be happy until they've reimplemented MS Bob but with a little more style.

    • 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,

  • by Chas (5144) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @07:30AM (#47343979) Homepage Journal

    My buddy GLaDOS would have some words with you.

    *Pulls out a portal gun*

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:16AM (#47344047) Homepage

    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)

    by molnarcs (675885) <{molnarcs} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:27AM (#47344065) Homepage Journal
    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... [dslrbodies.com]
    • 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]

      • 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

    • by Rick Zeman (15628)

      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

      • by dfghjk (711126)

        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.

        • 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.
          '

        • by Rick Zeman (15628)

          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...

        • by jbolden (176878)

          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.

        • 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.

  • Sheer insanity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rick Zeman (15628) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @08:51AM (#47344117)

    "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).

    • by quetwo (1203948)

      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...

      • 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.

        • by quetwo (1203948)

          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.

          • 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)

              by quetwo (1203948) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @01:15PM (#47345263) Homepage

              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.

      • by Rick Zeman (15628)

        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.

  • 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.

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday June 29, 2014 @09:38AM (#47344281) Homepage Journal
    Cave Johnson burns down Steve Jobs' house with lemons.
  • 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

    • by Rick Zeman (15628)

      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....

  • 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

  • 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.

    • by MichaelJ (140077)
      The thing about Aperture is not only is the workflow perfect for my needs, but it also integrates into the Apple Ecosystem - trivial syncing of albums to iOS devices for show-and-tell with friends, as well as selection of photos in any file dialog under the Media picker. Going to Lightroom, Capture One, or any other third-party solution loses out on that (at least partially; I know about arbitrary folder-of-photos syncing). Additionally, I have Aperture set to auto-import my iCloud (Photostream) images to a

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...