OSX Photos, and the worst of all things preceeding it

On 10/21/2015 3:08 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 10/20/2015 6:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Sandman 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.


OMG, nospam made a sensible remark.

Sandy buys expensive equipment from Apple Corp... Shouldn't he find joy
in the throw alongs? ;-p


Far be it from me to dictate his behavior.

--
PeterN

On 10/21/2015 9:30 AM, nospam wrote:
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?

No reason at all. However, I think there is a moral obligation to
continue support for some reasonable period of time. I don't know
whether Apple does, or doesn't, I am simply saying the obligation exists.



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.


Sometimes just because the product is deemed a distraction from the core
business.

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.



--
PeterN

On 10/21/2015 9:30 AM, nospam wrote:
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.

How long have you been around, and I see few signs of that happening
with you.



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.



--
PeterN

On 10/21/2015 10:55 AM, Davoud wrote:
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.


A lot of graphics pros I know, use Windows.

--
PeterN

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:55:29 -0400, Davoud wrote:

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.

Please explain how the OS determines how a pro program like Adobe
Photoshop or Adobe Lightroom becomes more or less demanding to use.

The Mac is simply more comfortable and more configurable... You get that
that you want faster. I'm using both. Right now I'm using the w8 laptop
for scanning while doing other stuff, like inspect the scans on the Mac.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 10/21/2015 3:08 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 10/20/2015 6:23 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Sandman 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.


OMG, nospam made a sensible remark.

Sandy buys expensive equipment from Apple Corp... Shouldn't he find joy
in the throw alongs? ;-p


Far be it from me to dictate his behavior.

Is that who you are or do you feel that it's out of your powers and
means?
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-10-21 13:30:10 +0000, nospam said:

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

A much better designed POS, to what purpose. It is a successful
exercise in striving for mediocrity.

and much faster than iphoto,

Who cares? At one time iPhoto was a reasonable solution for the casual
user. Photos is somewhat like a badly designed mobile app which has
been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Hell! It is like
having Snapseed on the desktop.

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.

Why? If Apple wasn't going to invest the development effort to polish
Aperture, why would they make the same required effort for Photos?

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.

....and yet most casual Mac users would prefer to return to iPhoto.

The truth of the matter is Apple designed Photos as a desktop auxillary
app for iOS devices to feed iCloud.

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

I can't see On1, NIK, AlienSkin, UnifiedColor setting up development
teams to writing extensions for Photos. It isnt going to happen. You
might get toy plug-ins and extensions for the POS that is Photos, and
they will be targeted for the "casual user" demographic.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Sandman 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.

bull****. bull ****ing ****. complete bull****.

photos is a *much* better designed app than iphoto and is also much
faster too, so much so that it makes one wonder just wtf apple was
doing before. iphoto and aperture have always been slugs, particularly
in their early days.

let's start with iphoto:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2108...-slow-iphoto-l
ibrary.html
Given that the vast majority of us have been filmless for a decade or
more, it does seem odd that iPhoto chokes on just 10,000 images. But
you¹re right, it can and does. Poky performance with largish
libraries has been a feature of iPhoto for years and the latest
edition is no exception.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1151183/iphotospeedtips.html
If you find that iPhoto is running a bit sluggish on your Mac, here
are a few suggestions for speeding it up‹some tried and true such as
rebuilding the library, and others a bit more esoteric such as
vacuuming the database.

moving on to photos, every review says it's faster and an improvement
over what it replaced. they say that because they actually spent time
with it (which you clearly have not):

http://www.imore.com/photos-os-x-review
As someone who got increasingly aggravated over iPhoto's sluggish,
bloated looks and behavior, Photos for OS X feels like a breath of
fresh air. It's speedy, even with 10,000+ images and videos of
different sizes and shapes weighting it down

http://www.macworld.com/article/2907...phy/review-pho
tos-for-os-x-is-faster-than-iphoto-but-less-powerful-than-aperture.html

Perhaps the best news is that Photos feels fast. Even on an older
Mac
(my main machine is still a 2010 MacBook Pro), Photos is speedy and
responsive.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/798...-announced-pho
tos-app-for-mac
Apple is finally killing iPhoto ‹ and this is the replacement
It's fast, fast, fast
....
And since the software is completely brand new, it¹s super fast, even
with a large library of photos ‹ at least, it was on the new MacBook
Pro we tested it on.

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/05/photos-for-os-x-first-impressions/
The Wall Street Journal describes Photo for OS X as a significant
improvement for users in the Apple ecosystem, adding that the app is
less confusing to use than iPhoto thanks to an improved iCloud-based
approach. It also found Photos for OS X to have snappier performance
than iPhoto based on the Apple-provided demo notebook.

Wired was also impressed with Photos for OS X, describing the
software as a "vast improvement" over iPhoto and praising its new
built-in photo editing tools. It believes that, while some
professionals might opt for Adobe Lightroom and other tools, Photos
for OS X is an ideal photo management and editing solution for most
Mac users.

Even further praise of Photos for OS X was provided by Re/code, which
described the software as a "huge improvement" over iPhoto with
easy-to-use editing tools and seamless iCloud syncing. Its hands-on
impressions found Photos for OS X to be lacking some advanced editing
tools found in Aperture, however, noting that some users might opt
for professional software.

The Verge went hands on with Photos for OS X and walked away
impressed, noting that it handles large photo libraries much better
alongside more powerful photo editing, sharing and syncing options.
As with other publications, it found Photos for OS X to be more
suitable for beginners than professionals.

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.

it's more than adequate for its intended market and a huge step up over
what it replaced.

you aren't its customer.

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.

they're competing with a free app.

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.

will do.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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?

No reason at all. However, I think there is a moral obligation to
continue support for some reasonable period of time. I don't know
whether Apple does, or doesn't, I am simply saying the obligation exists.

and they did exactly that.

apple said that aperture would continue to be supported through
yosemite, which was over a year beyond the point at which they
cancelled it.

furthermore, the new photos app reads aperture libraries and apple
worked with adobe for migrating to lightroom.

that gave users a *lot* of time to decide what to do going forward.

apple does not officially guarantee anything beyond yosemite, however,
aperture still works in el capitan and they even fixed some bugs
related to it, which means they are still supporting it.

In article 2015102108444343566-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck 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

A much better designed POS, to what purpose. It is a successful
exercise in striving for mediocrity.

do you consider iphoto to be a pos?

you're not its target market for that either.

and much faster than iphoto,

Who cares? At one time iPhoto was a reasonable solution for the casual
user. Photos is somewhat like a badly designed mobile app which has
been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Hell! It is like
having Snapseed on the desktop.

iphoto has always been crap.

it was horribly slow in its early days, so much so that apple even
bragged that they made it faster.

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.

Why? If Apple wasn't going to invest the development effort to polish
Aperture, why would they make the same required effort for Photos?

because it's included with every mac, so millions of people will be
using it. it also tightly integrates with idevices.

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.

...and yet most casual Mac users would prefer to return to iPhoto.

only because people hate change and want to bitch and moan. they see
something different and start whining. it happens with any change.

those who have used photos find it to be much better. see multiple
links in my other post.

The truth of the matter is Apple designed Photos as a desktop auxillary
app for iOS devices to feed iCloud.

put another way, apple designed photos to tightly integrate with the
macs and idevices the user has so that they can access any or all of
their photos at any time. they can also edit a photo on one device and
see those changes on another.

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

I can't see On1, NIK, AlienSkin, UnifiedColor setting up development
teams to writing extensions for Photos. It isnt going to happen. You
might get toy plug-ins and extensions for the POS that is Photos, and
they will be targeted for the "casual user" demographic.

if they see a viable market, they will. they generally cater to a more
advanced market. nothing stops other developers from filing the void.