OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that
Apple knows how to make a kickass photo management
application. Bleh.

nospam:
you're not its target market.

Savageduck:
What market? Its target is every OSX user. It is free and an
integrated part of OSX. If you are an OSX user you are going to
have it on your computer even if you don't want it. Then you have
to employ avoidance tactics to stop it from intruding where it is
not needed.

the target market is casual users who do not need the power and
capabilities of a pro-level product.

those who want something more capable can buy lightroom or something
else that better fits their needs.

expecting apple to include something on the level of lightroom or
aperture with every mac entirely for free is ludicrous.

Stark contrast to earlier comments from you:

"it looks a lot like lightroom/aperture."
/ nospam- 07/01/2014

...when talking about features.



--
Sandman

On 2015-10-20 20:30, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

The Adobe side of things is no better and their GUI looks like an X
Windows app straight out of 1989.

You're totally daft, blind or still using the 1989 version.

I've been struggling with the horrid
workflow of Canon DPP simply because it renders accurately without
crashing.

I run various Adobe Photoshop products and I don't recall any crashes at
all in a very long time.

I'm going to buy some new photo software as soon as I get a
new Linux box.

Now _that_ is funny.

In article 2015102016112841871-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So Photos - still a huge disappointment for us that know that Apple
knows how to make a kickass photo management application. Bleh.

you're not its target market.

What market? Its target is every OSX user. It is free and an integrated
part of OSX. If you are an OSX user you are going to have it on your
computer even if you don't want it. Then you have to employ avoidance
tactics to stop it from intruding where it is not needed.

the target market is casual users who do not need the power and
capabilities of a pro-level product.

However, Apple alienated a group of Aperture users, who had the power
capabilities and had them taken from them.

that's what happens when a product is discontinued.

why should apple, or any company for that matter, continue to develop a
product that is not selling well?

those who want something more capable can buy lightroom or something
else that better fits their needs.

I have been using LR since the Beta. However, many loyal Apple users
paid good money for Aperture, and had the rug pulled out from under
them.

it ain't just aperture nor is it just apple.

lots of products are discontinued for a variety of reasons.

expecting apple to include something on the level of lightroom or
aperture with every mac entirely for free is ludicrous.

Agreed. That was why some folks bought Aperture, which was not inexpensive.

originally it was spendy, but eventually its price was cut to $99,
forcing adobe to cut the price of lightroom in response, where it's
remained even after aperture is no more.

The truth is, it is a huge disapointment given that Apple once had a
very good pro level application in Aperture and **** canned it. For
those of us who are LR users, we lucked out, now Photos is just an
irritation like a chronic rash.

aperture wasn't included with every mac.

Nobody expected it to be.

then why bring it up in a discussion about photos and iphoto?

apple killed aperture because it was a market failure. it should not be
a big surprise that a product that does not sell well is discontinued.

They let it sit on the shelf gathering dust for 40 months without
adding refinements, and developing new features. They let it die on the
vine because they were not prepared to compete.

aperture never competed. lightroom was a far better product from the
start.

in its early days, aperture was incredibly slow compared to lightroom
that it was pretty much unusable on anything short of a top of the line
mac. meanwhile, lightroom ran well on low end and midrange hardware.

aperture's speed did improve over the years (it had to) but lightroom
was always faster (and still is).

another problem was that apple did not add new raw support as fast as
adobe did.

sometimes a product turns out to be a dud. aperture was one of them.

In article , J.
Clarke wrote:

Good luck finding photo software that is better than the Adobe products
and runs on Linux.

good luck finding photo software on linux that even approaches the
level of adobe products.

what exists on linux is garbage.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In the end, Apple came up with a POS that leaves nothing in the dust, but is left
in the dust itself by every single photo management application known to mankind.

photos is much better designed and much faster than iphoto, however,
it's still a work in progress. photos has been around for about 1 year,
while iphoto was around for roughly a decade. give it time to mature.

and as i said before, you aren't it's target market anyway. it's for
casual users, not advanced users. for that demographic, it works quite
well.

as far as the non-destructive extensions, just because there aren't any
*yet* doesn't mean there won't ever be.

On 10/21/2015 09:30 AM, nospam wrote:
what exists on linux is garbage.

gimp, krita, etc., are pretty good for free, and they are open source
editable

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

In article , Dale
wrote:

what exists on linux is garbage.

gimp, krita, etc., are pretty good for free,

the gimp is not even worth free, it's that bad.

it does less than photoshop did ten years ago, and what it does do is
absurdly slow in comparison.

and they are open source
editable

who cares.

In article , Dale
wrote:

On 10/21/2015 09:30 AM, nospam wrote:
what exists on linux is garbage.

gimp, krita, etc., are pretty good for free, and they are open source
editable

Gimps 8bit crap! Whatever good have you managed to do with krita???
--
teleportation kills

nospam:
what exists on linux is garbage.

Dale:
gimp, krita, etc., are pretty good for free, and they are open source
editable

How clueless can you be? Toy graphic apps that the user can hack for
her own purposes? Get serious. Pro-level graphics work, still and
video, require a lot of work. No graphics pro is interested in hacking
the apps, but only interested in productivity. And that brings us to
Macintosh for the most demanding, Windows for those who are willing to
settle for second best.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
In the end, Apple came up with a POS that leaves nothing in the
dust, but is left in the dust itself by every single photo
management application known to mankind.

photos is much better designed and much faster than iphoto

Photos with tens of thousands of photos is a lot slower than iPhoto with tens of
thousands of photos in it. And see my OP for all the poor design that Photos has.

however, it's still a work in progress. photos has been around for
about 1 year, while iphoto was around for roughly a decade. give it
time to mature.

That it may be a great application in a decade doesn't excuse the piece of ****
it is right now.

and as i said before, you aren't it's target market anyway. it's for
casual users, not advanced users. for that demographic, it works
quite well.

Yes, I can see why Adobe was so afraid of Photos.

as far as the non-destructive extensions, just because there aren't
any *yet* doesn't mean there won't ever be.

There won't be. There, I said it. There will never ever be non-destructive plug
ins for Photos. Feel free to quote me on that.

There never was a plan for non-destructive plugins. Apple never said so, no one
ever said so unless they were mistaken.

You know how I know? There are at several reasons.

First the technical reason - making plugins non-destructive requires that the
complete image manipulation process must be 100% known to Photos which either
means the plugins have a very limited image operations it can perform, or Photos
plugin architecture is crazy-complex and powerful which is so unlikely that it's
laughable.

Secondly, for plugins to be non-destructive in the future means that the entire
*current* plugin architecture needs to be removed and replaced, meaning that
every developer that has made a Photos extension today would be left in the cold.

Thirdly, Photos is a kids toy. There is no way in hell that Apple would insert a
crazy-complex and crazy-powerful plugin architecture to an application that is as
superficial as Photos. If someone had said that Apple was planning or releasing
non-destructive plugins to Aperture than I'd be very interested in hearing more
about it, but for Photos - not a chance in hell.

--
Sandman