deep7: This is Apple getting a little nasty in the style of Adobe. You used to get these updates without "updating" to a newer operating system. Now you don't. Then again, I think I've done enough camera shopping lately to last a few years, so it doesn't affect me personally.
There's a whole stream of updates only available under Mavericks. I tried to work it out and believe doing the full update would take my computer out of action for around two days. It was actually easier to keep up to date in the days of dial-up and CD/DVDs!
What did you do, go back and read every one of my worthless comments from the past two years? I’m flattered.
Can anyone say “stalker”?
There's a third possibility: I decided to turn the other cheek and disregard your critique of my character, knowing that it was spurred by an emotional reaction to the way I have been indirectly criticizing your choices.
Thanks. In other words, you don't like what I have to say about Apple, but you do like what I have to say about France. Trust me, the same eyes judge both things with equal scrutiny. And I continue to use Macs. It's just that I care enough to complain.
Any second now one of these guys is going to insist that this latest raw compatibility update is proof that Aperture is still under development, and at $80 is a steal.
Which it is.
I'm not going to argue ethics or semantics here, but it feels sleazy to me that Aperture has ceased development, yet Apple is still taking money for it on the App Store. It's especially weird considering that Photos, its replacement, is almost certainly going to be a free download.
I can’t think of any consumer-facing photo applications which once offered and have now ceased raw support, but nor can I think of any, other than Aperture, which got ignored for four years and then discontinued with a press release.
Owning the point-and-shoot camera market would be a clear benefit.
Noirdesir, the reason Apple is adding raw support to Photo Stream is because they plan to open up the iPhone camera’s raw format. It’ll benefit users of other cameras only so long as Apple continues to support third-party raw formats. With Apple having abandoned Aperture, I wonder how long they’ll continue to do that.
People will pretty much use and adapt to whatever they're given, which is why it irks me when the decision is made to go tacky. It took a lot of concerted effort to make Aqua look bad. I also find that people flounder and fail just as much with a Dock as without. I think the problem is that Apple designs things to close the sale, with usability being secondary, hence we have displays lacking height adjustment, and which are so skinny that they run hot and develop heat discoloration after a year of use. But gee, look how pretty they are!
I have to wonder how long Apple will remain interested in supporting third-party camera raw formats. It's a thankless job, and now with Aperture put out to pasture, the've run their pro photographers out of town anyway. Well, except for those stubborn few who won't take the hint.
And yet under Jobs we got the Dock, which is great at nothing and is always in the way (even when it's hidden), and the OS X Finder, which has been broken since day one. Furthermore, he gave us Aqua. It's taken more than a decade for the last tacky bits of Aqua — stripes, translucency, candy drop buttons etc — to finally vanish, and now we're being saddled with the awful Yosemite. Sigh.
Funny opening line there.
iOS 7 is pants. My girlfriend's iPhone has iOS 7 on it, and whenever she hands it to me to show me something in Safari, I spend half my time trying to get rid of all the panels which come swooshing in from every edge of the screen. There's about a two centimeter area in the middle of the screen from which it's safe to scroll a window, and if you move beyond that, in swoop the panels. Total garbage. I think Jony Ive might be the worse user interface designer in the last 30 years.
I got to poke around a friend's Linux Mint system the other day, and was astonished by how much more Mac-like it was than what we laughably call Macs nowadays. When did this happen? When did Apple become the purveyor of junk user interfaces? So disappointing.
But yeah, in the end we learn to adapt. People even got used to Windows.
I made the mistake of upgrading the OS of my v1.0 iPad, found that it made the iPad about 4x slower and caused it to crash frequently, but there was no way to downgrade the OS. I eventually just recycled the thing. That was the first and last iPad I purchased.
I still have 10.6.8 on my MacBook Pro. It's superior to every version of OS X which followed it, except for one feature: the list option to sort by Date Added. I think this was added in Lion, and I miss it when I'm using the MacBook.
It could probably use a bit less Aqua candy, but I digress.…
Um, according to noirdesir's link, the system requirements for the latest camera raw update are —
• OS X Mountain Lion 10.8.5 w/ iPhoto 9.4.3 or Aperture 3.4.5 • OS X Mavericks 10.9 w/ iPhoto 9.4.3 or Aperture 3.4.5
— but according to the Aperture Technical Specifications page, Aperture requires “Mac OS X v10.9 (or later)”.
I think that you and the people who liked your comment don't understand what deep7 was saying. In the past, there weren't so many artificially forced inter-dependencies between OS versions and applications. Lots of old software which ran on Mac System 1 still ran just fine on System 7, and updating the OS rarely mandated updating applications, or vice versa. Today, however, the latest camera raw update requires the latest version of Aperture which requires the latest version of Mavericks which ruins poorly on lots of older hardware, particularly if it lacks an SSD. It doesn't matter if the OS is free if installing it requires a $1000 hardware upgrade.
danieljcox: I agree with karip regarding miscalculations and a snow flake starting an avalanche. Right after Apple announced the death of Aperture they make sure to mention they plan to still support their other two pro apps. Then they release updates to those apps. Nice try, if anyone thinks that the other pro apps are not on the table for elimination, you're fooling yourself. One of the main ways Apple sold computers in the past was due to great softer that only ran on the Mac. The death of Aperture has seriously fractured my faith in Apple making great software for just their machines. That was the benefit of buying a Mac, it had the best software. Apple is eliminating one of the reasons to buy their equipment. Not a smart move. I'm really, really surprised at this announcement.
Daniel J. Coxwww.naturalexposures.com
The problem is that Apple's idea of what makes software great is different than yours. You want powerful tools packed with features aimed at professionals, but Apple's money comes from consumers who don't do anything, and for whom even the Finder is too complex. iOS users are their primary focus now, and over the next five years we're going to see Apple dropping what's left of its professional software and hardware in lieu of simplistic consumer products.
Sonyshine: Lets hope they have taken both iPhoto and Aperture forwards with this new 'combined' app. I'm very fond of Aperture and will be sad to see it go.
I couldn't care less about cloud storage though.
Clearly you didn't watch the keynote. Photos is even more consumer-oriented than iPhoto. I guess iPhoto was too hard for iOS users.
Prognathous: The only thing you need to know: the $10 photography bundle is a trap.
Quote from Adobe's membership contract:
"The price of your one-year commitment (as reflected in the monthly installment amounts) may change for your next annual renewal, and we’ll provide you notice of a change by email"
In short, nothing but a teaser price. Get ready to pay through the nose as soon as you've created enough project files and can't properly open them by anything else. Good luck being Adobe's hostage.
I'll continue to use Lr and PS too since the versions I have don't require a subscription and will keep working even if I never pay Adobe another cent.
Good luck with the Cloud.
@ String: The money isn't the issue. The issue is that if you stop subscribing, the software stops working. The same isn't true with non-subscription software. You pay for it once, and that version keeps working even if you never upgrade to another version or pay Adobe another dime. I would have no complaints against the subscription model if you could stop subscribing and lose only access to further updates. That would be fair. But Adobe CC as it stands is for suckers and apologists and the self-loathing.
It's confounding that any rational human being would defend Adobe's subscription model.