Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Apple Technology

Apple Says Its Photo Editing Suite Aperture Won't Run in Future macOS Versions (macrumors.com) 268

Posted by msmash from the end-of-road dept.
In a new support document, Apple has indicated that its legacy photo editing suite Aperture will not run in future versions of macOS after macOS Mojave. From a report: The support document provides users with steps to migrate Aperture libraries to Apple's newer Photos app for Mac or Adobe Lightroom Classic. Apple ceased development of Aperture in June 2014 and removed the software from the Mac App Store in April 2015 after the launch of the Photos app for Mac. However, the application continues to function on macOS Mojave for users who still have it installed, albeit with some performance limitations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Says Its Photo Editing Suite Aperture Won't Run in Future macOS Versions More

Apple Says Its Photo Editing Suite Aperture Won't Run in Future macOS Versions

Comments Filter:

  • No Technical Reason to End 32 Bit Support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @08:50PM (#58519434)

    This has been INFURIATING to me as there is absolutely zero reason for Apple to drop 32bit app support.

    64bit processors still support 32bit instruction sets hence why Windows doesn't plan on eliminating 32bit app support. Apple doing this doesn't make any sense other than potentially eliminating old and antiquated software. I absolutely refuse to upgrade Office. I paid for my copy of 2016 and I am NOT paying a subscription fee for the privilege of using it.

    I'm willing to bet that this might be the death knell for Apple for most of the normies. The only people still using Macs and "liking" the newer models are die hard fanboys and people who don't know any better.

    I hope to GOD that 32bit support can be enabled via the 3rd party of terminal tomfoolery.

    It's such a shame what has become of Apple. Jobs is clearly spinning in the grave.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Eh? Apple has ALWAYS been like this. They want everyone to upgrade to the latest stuff all the time. New computer every year, etc. They purposefully disable older hardware to force people to upgrade. It's their whole business model!

      I have no idea why anyone knowledgeable would ever buy anything from that company. To top it off, their hardware is often crap.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        Sort of. Apple's hardware has always aged far more gracefully than Windows PCs, and Apple supports older hardware far longer than Windows, and arguably Linux. However Apple's software, on the other hand, moves far more quickly than Windows does. They don't mind dropping compatibility with older software, such as ditching 32-bit. Whereas Windows has always maintained as much compatibility with older software as possible. Sometimes even 20 years. Even Linux doesn't do that. I think Apple just expects the

    • Like when Steve Jobs dropped support for PowerPC code?

      • No. What are you, stupid?

        Its a serious question because clearly x86 is compatible with x64 while PPC isnt compatible with either x86 or x64

        • There is no (good) reason Rosetta couldn't keep working on newer versions of macOS. And since newer CPUs are so much more powerful, the emulation is not even a big performance hit today. They created an entire emulation layer and then intentionally abandoned it once they thought they had a critical mass of users moved to x86.

    • there is absolutely zero reason for Apple to drop 32bit app support.

      Could it be related to their plan to abandon x86 and move the Mac to ARM entirely?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by maralatho ( 5087207 )
        This. Aperture is a 64-bit app, so it's not a 64-bit thing.

      • Re:No Technical Reason to End 32 Bit Support (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @05:24AM (#58520772)

        there is absolutely zero reason for Apple to drop 32bit app support.

        Could it be related to their plan to abandon x86 and move the Mac to ARM entirely?

        I would pledge to eat my hat if they move from x86 to ARM but since I had to eat my hat when they moved from PPC to x86 I will resist the temptation. Hats are chewy, they don't taste nice and they are hell on the lower intestine.

    • Re:No Technical Reason to End 32 Bit Support (Score:5, Interesting)

      by _merlin ( 160982 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @10:07PM (#58519654) Homepage Journal

      Apple changed the Objective-C ABI substantially with the switch to x86-64. Part of this is because they have more bits in a pointer than they need for the address, so they can store other things like small strings and reference counts in the same 64-bit space as a pointer. Supporting 32-bit and 64-bit applications means keeping the 32-bit and 64-bit Foundation and AppKit frameworks mapped, using twice as much memory. Overall, I think supporting 32-bit x86 was a mistake for Apple. The development kit hardware supported x86-64, it was only the first generation production machines with Core CPUs that didn't. They should've held off for Core 2 and gone straight for x86-64, avoiding this mess of abandoning yet another architecture.

      • There’s no world in which they could have done that. IBM still hadn’t delivered the promised mobile PowerPC G5 chip, the PowerBook and iBook lines were stagnating, and Intel was delivering major advances in computes per watt and computes per dollar.

        The only reason Apple is in the position they’re in now is the massive sales of MacBooks and the Pro, which even without the iPhone, were enough to turn the tides for the company (and probably financed the iPhone)

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Bert64 ( 520050 )

          Sure they could.

          They could have waited 6 months for the core2 to be available (which they did for the higher end mac pro, the 64bit g5 remained as the highend option for a few months).
          They could have used an AMD mobile cpu which were already available and compatible...
          They could have used the 64bit capable mobile variant of the p4, although it was power hungry and would have made for quite a poor laptop.

          There was also a 64bit low power powerpc from pa-semi, although i'm not sure what timeframe that was so i

        • They've gone longer without updating their hardware even recently. How long did the Macbook Pro line stagnate?

      • And what was Apple's excuse for Aperture still using 32-bit code when they last updated it 4 years ago? Core 2 Duo was available on Macs in late 2006.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Having 32bit support requires having and maintaining a complete set of 32bit libraries on the system, in addition to the 64bit libraries... It causes apple a significant amount of extra development work and causes bloat on every install and a second set of libraries has to be loaded into memory if you run a 32bit app. The latest version of OSX (and the previous one too i think) displays a warning if you run a 32bit binary, i've not even seen this warning very often as most things are already 64bit and looki

      • Re:No Technical Reason to End 32 Bit Support (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @03:49AM (#58520512)

        Linux also has support for 32bit binaries, but it's optional and not even enabled by default in many modern distros.

        It works perfectly on Debian and thus Ubuntu. That is most Linux users right there. Probably works great on pretty much every other major distro, however I could not personally attest to that.

        Let me clarify this a bit: 32-on-64 doesn't just work perfectly on Linux, is pretty much astounding how well it works. A lot of genius work there all the way from the kernel APIs to the rather nice way Debian handles the multiple libraries. Note: the Debian support wasn't always ideal, it went through a phase when it mostly worked ok, then Multiarch [debian.org] landed and that was solid, thanks guys. And the solidity of the 32/64 thunking at the kernel level is beyond amazing, efficient too. We have some highly talented kernel hackers to thank for that.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Malc ( 1751 )

          Meanwhile Apple made it possible to run 64-bit apps, even when the OS was running with a 32-bit kernel. All utterly transparent. For some weird reason Microsoft is still providing 32-bit only builds of Windows, and enabling 32-bit support on some 64-bit Linux distros requires Googling first to figure out the distro-specific magic incantations.

        • Additionally, 32 bit support is needed for WINE and Win32 binaries that it runs.

    • I'm willing to bet that this might be the death knell for Apple for most of the normies.

      No, it will just be an annoyance, most people will just curse a bit an move on to get a Creative Cloud subscription. Most of us do not expect that software that saw its end of development in 2014 will be supported indefinitely. Out of development since 2014 means what it says on the tin, just be glad you got 5 extra years of use out of the product after EOD.

    • I paid for my copy of 2016

      You got something in 2016 that isn't 64bit? How!

    • It's such a shame what has become of Apple. Jobs is clearly spinning in the grave.

      The jobs which lead the move to x86 dropping the PowerPC architecture? That Jobs?

    • I hope to GOD that 32bit support can be enabled via the 3rd party of terminal tomfoolery.

      OS X developer here.

      Users will probably be able to run 32-bit apps within virtual machines: VMWare, etc. that are hosting earlier versions of OS X (excuse me, "MacOS", yay marketing, cough.)

      Right now, I run an OS X 10.6.8 VM (as well as a Windows VM and an Ubuntu VM) in order to properly support some older applications and build systems which get around Apple's various damage to later versions of the operating system.

      Fo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      here is absolutely zero reason for Apple to drop 32bit app support

      No there is the not insignificant disk cost of practically doubling the size of the system. Its not like 32->16bit thunking. Because the number of address bits did not really double. Its not possible to ensure you can call into and get callbacks from 64-bit code from a 32-bit address space; at least not without imposing other heavy restrictions on memory allocation which are not present. So basically you end up with 2 copies of a of each lib ( or fat binaries etc which are more or less multiple copi

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • This has been INFURIATING to me as there is absolutely zero reason for Apple to drop 32bit app support.

      There are reasons; you may not like them or think they are justified, but there are reasons.

      64bit processors still support 32bit instruction sets hence why Windows doesn't plan on eliminating 32bit app support. Apple doing this doesn't make any sense other than potentially eliminating old and antiquated software.

      Read up on 64 bit data models [wikipedia.org]. The issue is what the OS and the programming language will support. Being Unix based, Apple folllows LP64 whereas Windows follows LLP64. LLP64 maintains backwards compatibility at the cost of forward compatibility. Apple could have broken with Linux and Unix but that would have been a major deviation from the Unix model.

    • Apple needs to drop 32-bit support because their emulator to run Intel apps on ARM chips only supports 64-bit apps.

  • Been there, done that through Mac 68K, PPC, etc.

    PC Isn't immune to this either, DOS, Windows 3, 95, XP, etc.

    If you like it so much first thing to do is make sure you have a bare metal restore data and procedure so you can migrate it to a newer (used) computer when your current hardware fails. Its not hard to keep stuff like this going if you get your ducks in a row now.

    • PC Isn't immune to this either, DOS, Windows 3, 95, XP, etc.

      it's funny you mention that, since you can run programs for all of those operating systems on Windows 7. Or probably 10, but I've barely used 10.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Can confirm. I run a game from 1993 (16 bit Windows 3.1 application) today on Windows 10 (32-bit) with no modifications.

        You can talk shit about MS all you want (rightfully so in many cases) but application compatibility is one area where they seriously do not fuck around.

  • Apple...why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yodleboy ( 982200 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @08:54PM (#58519444)

    Why does Apple always get a pass on this crap? Why do users keep coming back for more? Say what you want about MS and the drawbacks of backwards compatibility but I know when I buy a piece of software for Windows that the odds are it's going to be usable a long time, even if the developer disappears.

    • Why does Apple always get a pass on this crap? Why do users keep coming back for more? Say what you want about MS and the drawbacks of backwards compatibility but I know when I buy a piece of software for Windows that the odds are it's going to be usable a long time, even if the developer disappears.

      Because a substantial portion of /.'s audience are so stubborn and set in their ways that they refuse to acknowledge anything positive about Microsoft?

      • For some of us Microsoft to Apple is like Frying Pan to Fire.

        Microsoft at least fosters an open architecture. Apple is proprietary all the way down.

    • Why does Apple always get a pass on this crap? Why do users keep coming back for more?

      That is called begging the question in the most literal way. Apple isn't getting a pass on this crap, just look at the comments here. And why do users keep coming back for more? Apple has a long history of slowly killing off it's creative user base. Their market share has remained completely unmoved in the past 5 years despite the clusterfuck that was Windows 8 / 10 coming out in the meantime.

      That should tell you what users think.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Running abandoned unmaintained software is not a good idea for security reasons, depending on the nature of the software you could end up having to take significant extra precautions to avoid being owned.

      Software migrations should not be a problem if you plan things properly... Before you deploy anything, ensure you have an exit strategy - how are you going to get your data out of the old program and migrate it to a new one, what formats are used to store the data etc?

  • Apple flips the rubber covered finger to creatives and loyalists once again. Message to all jaded Apple survivors: jump in to Linux, do it now, we care about you and the water is fine.

    • Apple flips the rubber covered finger to creatives and loyalists once again.

      Look, I was a really heavy Aperture user and still have a very, very large 4TB library I have yet to move to anything else.

      The thing is Apple shuttered Aperture long ago. I knew many years ago I had to find some way to migrate off it, I knew the software would not last forever, I'm amazed it still works as well as it does.

      Even after the switch it just means anyone running Aperture has a few years more to keep running High Sierra u

      • I must admit I still prefer Aperture to anything else I’ve tried. And I’m staying on High Sierra for as long as I can... although that has more to do with some 32-bit games I like than anything else.

        But I can always spin up a VM with El Capitan or High Sierra if I care about an app that much. Heck, I’ve still got a Snow Leopard VM around for running iTunes 10.7 and Requiem...

      • this isn't Apple flipping the bird at creatives, since all kinds of apps are affected - it's Apple saying that 32 bit stuff is legacy and it's time to go has come.

        In contrast to Debian/Ubuntu Linux that simply makes 32-on-64 so seamless that 32 bit stuff just works. Yep, it is indeed Apple flipping the rubber covered finger, perhaps up its own ass, but flipping the finger all the same.

    • Darktable, RapidPhotoDownloader and GIMP (Score:4, Informative)

      by ikhider ( 2837593 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @01:42AM (#58520246)
      You can cultivate professional photography workflow on Linux and this is a good place to start: https://www.rileybrandt.com/ [rileybrandt.com] Riley Brandt, a professional photographer shows you how over two lesson packs that are several hours long at a modest price. This is a good resource too: https://pixls.us/ [pixls.us] Yes, you can do professional grade photography on GNU/Linux, the tools *are* there.

    • Apple flips the rubber covered finger to creatives and loyalists once again. Message to all jaded Apple survivors: jump in to Linux, do it now, we care about you and the water is fine.

      Oh stop whining!! They stopped developing the thing in 2014, it is still working in 2019 even FOSS software will break eventually due to changes in the underlying Linux APIs and 3rd party libraries if nobody maintains the project.

      • Oh stop whining!! They stopped developing the thing in 2014, it is still working in 2019 even FOSS software will break eventually due to changes in the underlying Linux APIs and 3rd party libraries if nobody maintains the project.

        You missed the point. They stopped developing the thing in 2014. That's the key message here. The platform for the creative individuals now has 5 year old obsolete software that is more functional than it's replacement. Apple shed a ton of users when they "modernised" Final Cut Pro. Expect them to shed users again as soon as this stops working.

        • 8 years after moving their hardware to 64-bit. Why on earth would Aperture still require 32-bit libraries even in 2014?

    • Message to all jaded Apple survivors: jump in to Linux

      Errr no. The message is to jump to Windows. Linux does not even remotely offer a usable alternative environment for creatives. Support for photo editing applications is primitive. Support for graphic design is marginally better. Support for video editing barely exists at all only to be outdone by support for creative suites which is a big fat zero.

      If the creative loyalists get screwed by Apple you can bet your last dollar that not one of them would move to Linux as a viable alternative. Not in its current s

  • Slashdot - home of haters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Tuesday April 30, 2019 @10:27PM (#58519716)

    Apple is saying that an application that hasn't been updated in 5 years isn't going to work on future versions of the OS.

    That's an app that hasn't been updated from the KitKat/Lollipop era.

    You can use it just fine if you don't upgrade your OS, because security updates to Mojave will be released for the next few years.

    So what the fuck are the losers here complaining about?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      So what the fuck are the losers here complaining about?

      Maybe that the platform for creative artists has stopped giving a shit about creative artists to the point of complete abandonment. You're under the assumptions that the complaints are current. They aren't. They are long and ongoing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by seebs ( 15766 )

      I used Aperture. It worked. It did things I wanted. Photos can't do those things, and never will. Also, I won't be able to run Mojave on new hardware, so I'd be stuck with old hardware if I wanted to use it, and so on. So basically, people are complaining that a platform which used to offer reasonable prosumer functionality dropped it entirely.

      Apple has spent the last couple of decades following the visionary design decisions of Steve Jobs. The last thing he did was get thinner and thinner until he couldn't

    • So what the fuck are the losers here complaining about?

      That there is not really a replacement for RAW image workflow. The closest thing is Adobe Lightbox which requires buying into per month licensing and ecosystem. Other software out there typically falls short. Either way, edits done in Aperture for printing are not exportable as they are non-destructive RAW modification layers. Even just exporting images anyway is not easy to do.

      In the end, I will just have an old Mac Pro running Mojave sitting in my work area to manage and edit photos for print. Just the sa

  • Adobe always took this market more seriously (Score:3)

    by Octorian ( 14086 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @01:08AM (#58520158) Homepage

    When I was first getting into digital photography, there were two serious contenders in this application space... Both new products at the time. Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture. I ultimately chose Lightroom, in no small part because it ran on Windows and MacOSX (I do actually use both).

    Several months later, Nikon released a new DSLR that I bought. Lightroom had support practically overnight. It took Apple SIX MONTHS and a major version update to bother adding support to Aperture. That alone basically vindicated the decision.

  • New mac pro is going ARM and they are dropping a lot of old api soon to be app store only and maybe even no more finder.

  • All Apple products seem to be sitting on their own little island of version compatibility that will be quick to go under if anything in the environment changes. The other day I had to use configurator 2 and it wouldn't install unless I upgraded my OS and my entire stack. Can you imagine if you had to upgrade windows to the newest build every time you needed to copy something to a phone?

  • What this means.... (Score:3)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @06:06AM (#58520896)

    ...is I won't be upgrading my MacOS any time soon as Aperture is more important to me than the latest bells and whistles. Photos just doesn't cut it for a RAW workflow, or, frankly, anything more than snapshots.
    Migration to Lightroom would be a nightmare, not to mention the whole "you can only rent the software not buy it" bullshit.
    Ugh. I've been dreading this moment.

    • Darktable is like Lightroom but better and free open source. Check it out. The only thing you might miss is full support for brand-new cameras but that improves over time like all open source programs.

    • While a fellow responder recommended Darktable, which is a solid option, Corel's Aftershot Pro is pretty good as well. It works on Win/OSX/Linux, and it's $80 one time, with most of the features you'd want from Lightroom.
      https://www.aftershotpro.com/e... [aftershotpro.com]

      Not a shill, just a happy user.

  • Open source (Score:3)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <.moc.eeznerif.todhsals. .ta. .treb.> on Wednesday May 01, 2019 @10:58AM (#58522328) Homepage

    Why won't Apple open source Aperture?
    It's clear they have no intention to continue developing it, and it's also clear it still has a significant fan base. Rather than let the development effort go to waste, they should release the code and let the community update it to run on newer versions of OSX. It's quite likely it would end up being ported to other platforms too.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close