Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Dumps Most of Aperture Dev. Team

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the smart-guys-looking-for-work dept.

305

SuperMog2002 writes "An article over at Think Secret is reporting that Apple has fired much of the Aperture development team. The Shake and Motion team was assigned to work on Aperture's image processing pipeline for version 1.1. Apple has also dropped the price of Aperture from $499 to $299, and is offering those who purchased the program at $499 a $200 Apple store coupon." From the article: "Perhaps the greatest hope for Aperture's future is that the application's problems are said to be so extensive that any version 2.0 would require major portions of code to be entirely rewritten. With that in mind, the bell may not yet be tolling for Aperture; an entirely new engineering team could salvage the software and bring it up to Apple's usual standards."

cancel ×

305 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Whoopideedoo!!! (-1, Troll)

gasmonso (929871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211749)

In other news, my hemroids are flairing up again.

http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]

Come a little closer, Billy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212364)

Quit your assfucking! You're damaging precious rectal tissues.

What were the problems? (1, Interesting)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211759)

Any Aperture users out there know what the problems were or perhaps have a link to a list of the problems?

Re:What were the problems? (3, Informative)

pixelated77 (472348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211785)

Well, it looks like the RAW processing was both slow and gave unacceptably poor results, the program was buggy and at least one review called it 'unusable in its current form.'

Re:What were the problems? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212169)

The fact is, RAW data doesn't look very good, but Apple showed it with as little alteration as possible, because customers had said that's what they wanted. The RAW importer in Aperture 1.0 showed what was really there, without the prettying-up that the cameras do when they convert to JPEG, or that Photoshop does when it coverts RAW to TIFF.

Several reviewers, including the clown at ARS technica who is admittedly not a pro photographer, and had probably never seen RAW data in his life, complained that it didn't look like images that had been through Adobe's converter.

-jcr

Re:What were the problems? (4, Informative)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212471)

The flamefest at Ars Technica about that was actually quite informative. RAW really is a raw dump of Camera sensors and looks like nothing without being "prettyed-up". So's apparently it is incorrect to say that Apple wasn't manipulating the RAW, they just weren't doing it to the same level of other products.

Re:What were the problems? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212498)

Several reviewers, including the clown at ARS technica who is admittedly not a pro photographer, and had probably never seen RAW data in his life

really ... namecalling, now that's a compelling argument. Have you seen pure RAW data? It's not like what Aperture shows at all. Look for 16-bit linear output from a RAW converter for minimal processing of the data (white balance) - and you'll get a darkish picture that has to be gamma/levels/etc adjusted.

Insightful indeed.

Re:What were the problems? (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211792)

There's a good list of bugs at ars's review of aperture [arstechnica.com]

The one people complained about most is the thumbnails not matching the actual image (and there's reports of this happenning in iPhoto too).

Re:What were the problems? (4, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212225)

I think before you put TOO much weight on the Ars review, you should take into consideration what jcr said above [slashdot.org] , because I think it's an important point.

Saying that Aperture's output isn't as pretty as Photoshop's is like complaining that your photos look shittier on slides than on prints, without taking into consideration that with the slide you're looking at your own (and the camera's) handiwork and nothing else, while with the print you're looking at something that's been optimized by someone else (the printer) to look good.

The speed problems are unacceptable though. I just thought the Aperture/Photoshop comparison wasn't a great one; although it's odd to say it, Photoshop has become a "mid grade" application, I think Aperture was going for an even 'more-pro' crowd than the average Photoshop user.

I think in retrospect Apple is realizing maybe that market is smaller than they originally thought.

Re:What were the problems? (2, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212323)

I think you've accidentally replied to the wrong post.

I didn't say "Aperture's output isn't as pretty as Photoshop's" or mention the speed problem - the only bug I specifically mentioned was the thumbnailing one.

This application is designed to speed processing of thousands of photos. If the thumbnails don't match the picture then it is unusable.

I note that I am the only Mac Fanboy in this discussion who's mentioned that particular bug. Everyone else seems to be concentrating on Aperture's other shortomings.

Re:What were the problems? (2, Interesting)

kuwan (443684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212351)

Except that these are bugs for Aperture 1.0. Now that 1.1 has been released I wonder how many of these are still an issue.

Also, there are problems with the Ars review. It starts out by saying that "Aperture is not a competitor to Photoshop" but then goes on to review Aperture as if it were a competitor to Photoshop. Basically it glosses over some of Aperture's strongest features, completely leaving out many of them, and then compares Aperture directly with Photoshop. The reviewer forgets that Aperture is not a competitor to Photoshop.

Most of the negative reviews of Aperture are done be people that don't actually understand that it is not Photoshop. And most of the positive reviews of Aperture are by people that understand what it should be used for. Understand your tools and use the right one for the specific job you need to do.

Re:What were the problems? (5, Informative)

pixelated77 (472348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211804)

Check out Ars Technica's Aperture 1.0 reviwe:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/aperture.ars [arstechnica.com]

Mod parent up +20 informative (1)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212070)

Wow... that hit the nail on the head. Thanks for the link, Pixel. Mod parent up

Re:What were the problems? (3, Informative)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211887)

Not an Aperture user, but I was struck by the review in Popular Photography that made some apologies for the horsepower needed to run it. Yes, imaging is tough, but the program was apparently too slow to test unless it was installed on the absolutely most-tricked-out, highly-upgraded Power Mac G5 you can lay your hands on. Usually, the creampuff reviews from such magazines will give this sort of thing only the barest mention. The fact that the review actually talked about it for a few sentences told me that the program had problems.

I really hate having to read between the lines of reviews from mainstream outfits. That's why I love my online sources.

Note to Bill Gates (5, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211782)

Apple had a "bug-ridden" program, due to the (bad) "architecture", where the development process was a "mess" - so they fired the (whole) team responsible. Just a thought.

Re:Note to Bill Gates (4, Funny)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212125)

In related news Microsoft has fired 60,994 employees leaving 6 people working at the company...

Re:Note to Bill Gates (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212415)

In related news Microsoft has fired 60,994 employees leaving 6 people working at the company...

Which are Bill Gate, Steve Ballmer, Jim Allchin, Brian Valentine, Will Poole and Chris Jones

(sources : minimsft [blogspot.com] , microsoft [microsoft.com] )

I can't wait for the MS Vista relase ! How impressive it will be !

Think Secret (3, Insightful)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212217)

Don't forget, this is Think Secret, who hasn't been right about anything for nine months now. Where is our touchscreen video iPod, our Mac mini PVR, our "iPhone," etc.?

It's weird how in tech journalism, you can get away with being wrong about nearly everything for almost a year and still get your stories read.

Standards? (5, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211788)

an entirely new engineering team could salvage the software and bring it up to Apple's usual standards.

For a reference, the "Apple's usual standards for software" are "the best application in the Universe" (tm), that's tought to achieve.

They might as well fire all of their Windows ports division as well, QuickTime/iTunes on Windows is a piece of cr*p.

iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (3, Insightful)

QuatermassX (808146) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211851)

... isn't it? Although I use a Mac Mini most of the time, my work PC with Windows 2000 makes some beautiful music with the latest version of iTunes. What's so bad about it? Seems to function precisely as it does in Mac OSX, my iPod syncs beautifully, etc ... what makes it so awful?

I remember installing QuickTime and some of the preferences are a wee bit clunky, but no more so than **chuckle** Windows Media Player **shudder**.

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (0)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211921)

To site an example, Quicktime has ended in a crash roughly 100% of the times I have used it, which is noteably a small figure because unless something absolutely incredible happens I refuse to even bring it onto a system. I'm not alone on that, many other have found that Quicktime is the only simple videoplayer software that can bring a beefy gaming rig to its knees trying to play a 30 second low-res clip with no apparent explaination.

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (2, Interesting)

JasonBee (622390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212222)

I call bullshit...

I am IT guy within a large government corporation (18000 PC users) and we've NEVER heard of Quicktime causing issues on the systems.

Granted we're a controlled environment, but I bet this guy's system is fuxxored beyond belief. I bet it's not just QuickTime that crashes.

FYI - the reasons I put Quicktime on our builds (I'm our local build master) is because we must play MOV files frequently. I passed on installing the Real Player because of the extra garbage we could NOT remove to make it passable for corporate use.

FYI you _can_ remove the QuickTime extras to minimize the Quicktime application's inpact on the user (adverts and file ownership), but the crashing you are having is either an app conflict or you've buggered your sustem with no help from Apple.

Feel free to email me with the details of your problem if you're seriously stuck. I don't mean to put you down if I can help.

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (1)

JakusMinimus (49854) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212315)

... Feel free to email me with the details of your problem if you're seriously stuck. I don't mean to put you down if I can help.

That's so awesome, to paraphrase: If I cant help you, you really are as dumb as I think you are!

Just poking some mild fun mind you. I chuckled and thought to share.

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (2, Informative)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212391)

many other have found that Quicktime is the only simple videoplayer software that can bring a beefy gaming rig to its knees trying to play a 30 second low-res clip with no apparent explaination.

I'm one of them. My laptop can play divx full screen no problems, but if you try to view quicktime at even 2x (which should be an easy scale), it just falls apart. Struggles to play 1x at times as well.

Now a happy user of QuickTime Alternative [free-codecs.com]

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (1)

plumby (179557) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212163)

iTunes is (IMO) a good piece of software functionality-wise, but it is sooooo slooooooow. It can take a couple of minutes to start up on my (reasonably fast) PC, and normally takes another minute before it's noticed that the iPod is plugged in.

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (1)

misfit815 (875442) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212172)

I just uninstalled it when I found that two iTunes-related services were running even though I wasn't using it (and hadn't since my last reboot, btw). I'd prefer my apps to run only when they're actually being used, not all the time. And I don't remember the resources they were consuming, but it was large enough to irk me.

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212422)

One of those processes at least is to detect when you plug in an iPod - otherwise Windows just mounts the iPod as a disk, rather than popping up iTunes. Seriously, is running two processes (out of the 50+ normally running) really that much of a problem that you would stop using the software?

Re:iTunes is a nicely implemented on Windows .... (4, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212414)

"... isn't it? Although I use a Mac Mini most of the time, my work PC with Windows 2000 makes some beautiful music with the latest version of iTunes. What's so bad about it?"

Installs services that take up RAM and CPU even if an iPod isn't attached? Is terribly slow to resize compared to a normal XP application? Is taking too much RAM and CPU for what it is?

Also iTuned doesn't "make some beautiful music", it just plays it, but I guess Steve had you people convinved otherwise. There's some magical filter in it that makes music the best in the universe, doesn't it?

"I remember installing QuickTime and some of the preferences are a wee bit clunky, but no more so than **chuckle** Windows Media Player **shudder**."

It takes ages to start, has horrible interface (slightly improved in version 9 but still very odd) for a Windows application, crashes way too much in Firefox (brings the whole Firefox down one time of 4 when there's a QT movie: crashes in the QT dll), crashes one time out of four when I click a high definition trailer link on apple.com?

It's very slow to go in and out of full screen mode and sometimes displays odd interpolation artifacts (seen neither in WMP or other media players)?

What more reasons can I have to not like it?

Re:Standards? (2, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211879)

They might as well fire all of their Windows ports division as well, QuickTime/iTunes on Windows is a piece of cr*p.

I'm not an Apple fanboy, but it seems to me that it's rather easy to just toss out an "iTunes is crap" type comment with no explanation at all. What exactly do you find deficient? Do you feel that QuickTime and iTunes work better or have functionality missing in the Windows version? My biggest complaint about them both is that they are too simple and have been dumbed down too much. Sometimes I have problems doing very simple functions on both because I assume incorrectly that sure you have do more than step X to make it work because that's how most other software works, but I have always been able to figure out how to do what I wanted even if it took a few tries because I wasn't looking for the simplest way possible. That is part of what has made Apple so successful - any idiot can figure out how to do what he wants with their software and hardware.

Re:Standards? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212064)

My biggest complaint about them both is that they are too simple and have been dumbed down too much. Sometimes I have problems doing very simple functions on both because I assume incorrectly that sure you have do more than step X to make it work because that's how most other software works, but I have always been able to figure out how to do what I wanted even if it took a few tries because I wasn't looking for the simplest way possible. That is part of what has made Apple so successful - any idiot can figure out how to do what he wants with their software and hardware.

Ok, how exactly is this a complaint? The software is easy to use. I find it hard to believe that you would rather it be complicated and difficult to figure out. Are there some missing essential functions because of them being "dumbed down?"

-matthew

Re:Standards? (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212119)

Ok, how exactly is this a complaint?

It's not really much of a complaint at all. Just a tiny tiny one. Not worth wasting much time on. Unfortunately, the written word does not always convey the same content as spoken language, but the point I failed to make was that if all I can say bad about the software is that "it's too simple", that's not really much of a complaint at all. At least I listed a deficiency of sorts in my post, unlike the parent.

Re:Standards? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15211882)

I have not had any problems with iTunes in the past 2 years or so of using it. What exactly is crap about it?

Re:Standards? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15211915)

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the developers of Apple's Windows applications. Remember, they're basically stuck working with the existing Windows APIs (Win32, MFC), and PowerPlant. Those APIs are inferior, feature-wise and functionality-wise, to the Cocoa framework they can use under Mac OS X. It's no wonder their Windows offerings are often trumped by their Mac OS X offerings: they have a far superior framework to build off of on Mac OS X.

Notice that the reverse is also true. Microsoft's products for OS X are often far better than the Windows equivalents. This held true for Internet Explorer, and even today with their Office port. While .NET may (or may not) change this, the fact remains that the existing Windows APIs and frameworks pale in comparison to Cocoa.

Re:Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212386)

This entire post is misinformed. Apple has ported a large amount of its own Carbon to Windows, so they are using their own inferior API and not someone else's. As for MS's products, perhaps you believe the widgets were more tastefully themed, but the software itself lags behind the Windows versions in terms of features.

Re:Standards? (3, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212475)

"I wouldn't be so quick to blame the developers of Apple's Windows applications. Remember, they're basically stuck working with the existing Windows APIs (Win32, MFC), and PowerPlant."

Good, this explains how Windows Media Player 10 is a lot faster, lighter and stable than Quick Time on Windows... Oh wait it doesn't.

Your argument was totally off. I'm primarily a Windows user. I don't complain that all Windows apps are inferior, I complain specifically of the QT/iTunes ports being inferior compared to other apps with their functionality.

Re:Standards? (0, Troll)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211988)

You are wrong about QuickTime on Windows: It is a very faithful port of QuickTime on Mac, which is also a total piece of shit.

Mod Goaway and parent as TROLLS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212033)

'nuff said, end of story. where are the STATS that back up your wilde claims? qt works for me on my trust old dell.

Re:Mod Goaway and parent as TROLLS! (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212198)

Both as a user and as a developer, it is very easy to tell that Quicktime is horribly written. The plugin architecture is a mess, to the point that adding support for new codecs is nearly impossible (Watch the Flip4Mac team struggle to get WMV files playing in Quicktime - it's not pretty), the library is buggy (I have here a JPEG file that shows up just fine in most every viewer, but it will crash Quicktime hard, to the point where it sometimes crashes a couple more time on subsequent images), and programming for it is an utter pain in the ass.

Microsoft's DirectShow is by far the better architecture, and when MS manages to design a better API than yours, that's saying a lot.

Goaway troll returns, he's a MS fanboi! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212272)

DirectShow?! Jesusalmighty. Why not just yank the power cord out of the pc - BOOM! QuickTime is just fine, the plugin architecture works just fine and extends it's use nicely. Not sure what you're smokin', gimme some!

Re:Goaway troll returns, he's a MS fanboi! (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212419)

If it works so well, how come I can have an AVI demuxer, an MP3 codec, a WMV3 codec, yet not be able to play files with WMV3 video and MP3 audio in an AVI container?

DirectShow only needs the individual components installed, and it will build a codec graph that can decode the whole thing. Quicktime apparentyl does nothing of the kind, and forces every demuxer to handle video and audio formats on its own. This is probably the reason there is no MKV or OGG demuxer available for QuickTime.

See:

http://www.flip4mac.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview .aspx?catid=29&threadid=842&enterthread=y [flip4mac.com]
http://www.flip4mac.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview .aspx?catid=29&threadid=1141&enterthread=y [flip4mac.com]

Re:Goaway troll returns, he's a MS fanboi! (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212453)

PS: Calling me an "MS fanboi" is totally hilarious. Maybe you missed the part where I am a Mac OS X developer? Like so: http://wakaba.c3.cx/s/apps/xee.html [c3.cx]

I heard... (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211802)

I heard they're bringing Woz back to fix it all up nice and purty...

That would be fine if .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15211973)

... Apple decided to implement the app in hardware. Maybe Apple is thinking about going old school and actually shipping apps in carts. However, they will add an innovative "twist", old cartridge apps were still easy to pirate by dumping the roms and running from (sometimes read only) ram. However, the new iApp's (to be renamed MacApps) carts will actually contain logic that the main Macintosh will not be able to execute without the cart being present.

Now in that scenario, it makes sense to bring the Woz back.

That or they want to extend the range of their new remote.

"Dumps" not entirely accurate (5, Insightful)

ThousandStars (556222) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211803)

The Ars Technica Mac Achaia already has a discussion about the Aperture issue here [arstechnica.com] , and the consensus seems to be that this is more likely a reorganization than a sign of Aperture becoming abandon-ware.

Before posting conspiracy theories and such, you may want to read what others have to say.

Re:"Dumps" not entirely accurate (5, Insightful)

znu (31198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211910)

Mac rumors sites have made mistakes like this before. There was one famous case where they confidently predicted the iMac was being canceled, because some sources at the company which had the manufacturing contract reported that the contract wasn't being renewed. Of course, it turned out that was because Apple had signed a new production contract with someone else.

I suspect the discussion over at Ars is right, and this is really just a reorganization. A lot of the technologies Aperture uses (including RAW image processing) are actually operating system features, so it might make sense to fold the people working on that stuff into the OS development team. The article rather overstates Aperture's problems. I find it to be a very useful program. The RAW processing was never all that bad (at least for my camera), and got better with the 1.1 release. I seriously doubt the program would require major rewrites to 'fix', since there really isn't all that much wrong with it.

The article also sort of tries to spin Apple's price cut as evidence that maybe the app is in trouble, but I'd say it actually shows the opposite. If Apple didn't care anymore, they wouldn't have bothered. To me, the price cut says they're trying to pick up as many users as they can, in preparation for the battle with Adobe that we'll see when Lightroom is completed.

Dvorak-like stupidity? (1, Interesting)

rhesuspieces00 (804354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211827)

Perhaps the greatest hope for Aperture's future is that the application's problems are said to be so extensive that any version 2.0 would require major portions of code to be entirely rewritten. With that in mind, the bell may not yet be tolling for Aperture; an entirely new engineering team could salvage the software and bring it up to Apple's usual standards.
ThinkSecret normally doesn't have such inane punditry... We're saying here that a good strategy for a piece of softwares survival is to make it so bad that someone will be compelled to rewrite it? Only if you have politicians on your development team!
The guys from the Shake and Motion teams have jobs already--working on important software that has an installed userbase. I don't think Apple is going to relocate them to a new Copeland and hire a bunch of new engineers to fuck up currently functional products.

Re:Dvorak-like stupidity? (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211876)

ThinkSecret normally doesn't have such inane punditry... We're saying here that a good strategy for a piece of softwares survival is to make it so bad that someone will be compelled to rewrite it?

Works for some companies [microsoft.com] I could mention.

Re:Dvorak-like stupidity? (3, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211906)

We're saying here that a good strategy for a piece of softwares survival is to make it so bad that someone will be compelled to rewrite it?

No, we're saying that if your software is so bad that you actually have to apologize to people who bought it with cash than it might be a good survival strategy to rewrite it.

KFG

MSFT? (0, Flamebait)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211833)

Aperture, Apple's most heavily criticized and bug-ridden software release in recent years.

Honest ... If I programmed like that at my job (a bank) ... I'd be out the door quicker than they were!

Re:MSFT? (2, Funny)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211862)

They were probably being forced to document the code so their successors know where to look for specific screwups.

Re:MSFT? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212151)

Depends on where the problems stemmed from. It could have been poor management, rushed release, unrealistic goals, etc. It would not be wise to simply fire the programmers. You could lose some really talented people and keep the people who screwed things up.

-matthew

Re:MSFT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212236)

Wouldn't be the first time apple did that though...

Didn't Microsoft snatch up a ton of former Apple programmers a few years ago to work on the MS office for macintosh and that was probably better than the windows version.

This doesn't surprise me.... (-1)

the_macman (874383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211845)

I've never used Apeture, but wasn't it supposed to compete directly with Adobe Photoshop? Correct me if I'm wrong. I doubt a small app like Aperture can make a dent when Adobe Photoshop is the de facto standard for photographers. So yea I guess Apple saw it as a lost cause and scrapped it. Except to see the Aperture features trickle into iPhoto over the next few releases.

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15211853)

No.

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (1)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211869)

"I've never used Apeture, but wasn't it supposed to compete directly with Adobe Photoshop?"

Short answer: no.

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (2, Informative)

rhesuspieces00 (804354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211893)

No, its for batch processing large numbers of RAW pictures. There is a freee plugin for Photoshop to do that same sort of thing, but you cant compare the two in terms of feature sets. One is hack to add some basic RAW processing features to Photoshop. With some issues worked out, Aperture would be a god-send to photographers that work with RAW format pics. Adobe has since released a beta of a piece of software to compete with aperture, but i forget its name.

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (3, Informative)

GroinWeasel (970787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211987)

lightroom: http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/ [macromedia.com]

and the beta is better than the aperture release version

no windows beta at this point, sorry

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212015)

If that is the case, then Aperture must really be an utter piece of shit, because the Lightroom beta I tried was horrible, the interface especially.

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (1)

rhesuspieces00 (804354) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212430)

I think they suck in different ways. Aperture has a really good UI, but a significant portion of the Files that are being processed get fucked up. Adobe already had the RAW processing part done, as it was already implemented in the Photoshop plugins, but their UI is shitty. So with lightroom, you can get stuff done, but its a huge pain in the ass. With Aperture, your files might get fucked up, but its a pleasant and intuitive process of getting there.

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (1)

JasonBee (622390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212260)

I think they tried to name it "Apicture" but their legal dept said no.

Re:This doesn't surprise me.... (4, Insightful)

chrisbw (609350) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212179)

I've never used Apeture, but wasn't it supposed to compete directly with Adobe Photoshop? Correct me if I'm wrong. I doubt a small app like Aperture can make a dent when Adobe Photoshop is the de facto standard for photographers. So yea I guess Apple saw it as a lost cause and scrapped it. Except to see the Aperture features trickle into iPhoto over the next few releases.

That is entirely incorrect.

Photoshop is an image manipulation tool. Aperture is a tool for professional photographers and photo editors (I don't mean people who manipulate photos, I mean people in editorial positions who select photos to be used for a purpose -- think "the photo editor at the New York Times" type of position) that has its strengths in managing RAW image files as if they were JPEGs like iPhoto can. It has phenomenal capabilities around metadata and managing a large library, and offers the basic correction tools that photographers would need (exposure, color correction, saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc.).

There is little to no overlap with Photoshop, nor is there any evidence that Aperture has been "killed."

I happen to be a photographer, and have the problems that Aperture solved. At an event, I might easily shoot over 800 exposures. Before Aperture it would take me at least a day or two to sort through them and make my selects. At an event a week ago, I was able to sort through 762 exposures and pull out about 120 selects in under two hours. It has more than paid for itself many times over in productivity savings.

no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212254)

it competed with IrfanView! Really, it's just a thumbnail viewer that does
RAW. There's nothing like IrfanView on Mac, something that will just browse a directory for pix.


iPhoto totally sucks for casual browsing, although it has incredibly effective tools for color correction and sharpening, and its compression is the best.

Enough to look at aperture website from OS X (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15211849)

www.apple.com/aperture - I opened it on my OS X (10.4.5) workstation in Firefox (1.5) and Safari (no idea, whatever was on this box).

Site is broken in both of them. In firefox the floating movie ad breaks, leaves junk image pieces all over the screen and in general misbehaves. In safari the movie ad just does not work and the page looks extremely broken with huge empty part taking up most of it (guess that's where the ad would have been).

It works a lot better on my Windows workstation in IE. Now I understand that this is a Quicktime and its integration - but shouldn't it be better when working in conjunction with other Apple products?

I don't know about that famed Apple quality - perhaps they should fire the Quicktime team too?

Re:Enough to look at aperture website from OS X (2, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212040)

...perhaps they should fire the Quicktime team too?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES, YES PLEASE!

Quicktime is such an utter piece of shit. This coming both from the perspective of a user and a developer.

Respect (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211855)

I have to say I respect Apple for their actions in this Aperture case. Clearly the dev team didn't do the job well, and apple was fair to the consumers and current owners of the Aperture product. They fired the team and are going to make sure the next version lives up to the hype.

Aperture 1.1 (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211861)

I don't think anyone's saying that Aperture 1.0 had some bugs and problems (as a 1.0 release of a MAJOR product), and the recently released major update, Aperture 1.1 [apple.com] , addresses many of these (not to mention making the application Universal for PowerPC and Intel).

Apple may feel that Aperture's architecture needs to be completely retooled, but it's not going to kill one of its pro software products that has been out for mere months, especially one that was desired as much as Aperture. Apple just needs to figure out internally which teams are going to be responsible for ongoing development and/or retooling.

Yes, Aperture has had mixed reviews, but many people already love it and are basing their entire workflows on it. It's not like it's the incapable piece of utter shit Think Secret makes it out to be. (Gotta love Think Secret's sensationalism lately...must be bitter about becoming progressively more and more wrong about almost all of their pre-event predictions.)

Re:Aperture 1.1 (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211970)

Doh, of course the first line should read:

"I don't think anyone's saying that Aperture 1.0 didn't have some bugs and problems..."

Apple's usual standards (-1, Troll)

umedia (964947) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211874)

In other words you'll need to buy another computer, a non backwards compatible o/s and hope the platform exists two years down the road.

But you can use your coupon for iPod batteries... wait, you can't, that form factor changed as well.

Rebate?? (5, Funny)

dumpsterdiver (542329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211931)

Apple is rebating for software already sold, because it isn't good enough for their standards? My god, what would happen if Microsoft had to live by these standards?

Re:Rebate?? (2, Funny)

Jerom (96338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212096)

We'd all be zillionaires by now.

***WARNING***

It'a joke OK? A JOKE!!!
If you mod me down I will become more powerfull than you could ever imagine,... or something.

*grin*

J.

Re:Rebate?? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212273)

Bill wouldn't have millions of your dollars to donate to charity.

OH PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

hehehehe. I so hate that loser.

Tom

Re:Rebate?? (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212403)

I think it's crap that they give you a $200 voucher for the Apple store. If the consumer overpaid give them their money back. Not a flippin' voucher.

So to answer your question, if MS did the same thing for their buggy software, users would just get a voucher to purchase more MS products that they may or may not really want.

Apple bots (-1, Troll)

1000101 (584896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211941)

I love how there are only 24 comments and the Apple Bots are already spinning this failure into a Microsoft bashing bananzaa. What rock do I have to live under where dropping a significant portion of a development team due to major bugs and poor performance isn't considered a failure? Last time I checked, you don't get 'dumped' because your code was amazing.

Re:Apple bots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15211984)

Aiming for a +5 "insightful"?

Re:Apple bots (2, Funny)

CptNerd (455084) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212032)

Last time I checked, you don't get 'dumped' because your code was amazing.

Well, at Microsoft apparently you don't get dumped because your code sucked. That's the difference.

Re:Apple bots (1, Interesting)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212072)

Remember when the first story about Aperture appeared, any criticism was silenced by apple fanboys with "It's the first version, so it's ok that it doesn't really work!"? Well, now looks like it was so fucked up that they'll have to rewrite a large part of the code.

Re:Apple bots (4, Insightful)

246o1 (914193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212104)

Well, there's something to be said for Apple's decision here. Not many companies (that I have had dealings with) would offer a $200 rebate to everyone who bought a product just because the product was not up to par. Firing the team responsible, plus this rebate, is the kind of mea culpa companies, especially computer-related companies, hardly ever provide. (Granted, the rebate as an Apple coupon is a little unfortunate, but I wouldn't complain about that too much.)

It's hard not to compare this to MS (M$ if you prefer), considering how many times there have been calls for the heads of various decision-makers/teams/ec., and how unrepentant Microsoft has been when their products suck. Not to say they always suck, by any means, but they are the biggest target out their, and a juicy one on this topic.

"Last time I checked, you don't get 'dumped' because your code was amazing."

Of course, no one here is praising the team that got dumped. They are praising the way Apple handled this problem, and bashing MS because many think (rightly, it seems to me) that Microsoft would not have responded at all like this.

Re:Apple bots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212378)

It mostly has to do with integrity. If the dev team didn't perform, they are let go and their work is redone to a higher standard. Microsoft (and my current employer) refuses to address any problem like this.

So much for dancing with who brung ya (2, Insightful)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211966)

Isn't Apple the original strategic partnership company? Aldus, Adobe and Quark...

Guess their partners weren't strategic enough.

Their date is chatting up someone else (2, Insightful)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212141)

Maybe they're at the same party, but Adobe hasn't been Apple's date for a while.

For years now there's been competition between the two companies in one spot or another. Adobe's CEO, Bruce Chizen, made some rather cutting remarks a few years back about the Mac OS generally, and last April described the relationship as "like a marriage where you're in it for the kids." [macworld.co.uk] Adobe generally has grown in Windows markets more than with the Mac -- with products like Acrobat -- and has made a point of saying so.

Quark, meanwhile, took so long to be OS X compatible that they caused the entire world of graphic designers to be incredibly wary of upgrading anything at all now.

"Strategic" decisions aren't immutable. Notice the chips Apple is shipping in its latest machines.

Fair enough (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212477)

But, while I'm not the head of a giant corporation, from my own business experience I've learned that invading someone else's marketspace is dangerous at best and plain ignorant at worst.

As a website business, we could easily invade the domains of neighboring graphics businesses (and, in fact, very few of them have even been any good for our business). But, we still opt to avoid because:

1. It's not our marketspace.
2. They will trash your name.
3. Sometimes it suits just to be a good neighbor.

It's my feeling that with something like PS's dominance, there is no point making a half-hearted attempt to invade that marketspace. I would have to be incredibly convinced I had The Killer Imaging App before I'd joke about it.

Sign that Aperture isn't dead yet... (5, Insightful)

bananaendian (928499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15211985)

Just an observation: Apple's website's frontpage ad [apple.com] for the new 17" MacBookPro has Aperture on it's screen. If Aperture was so crap and dead as some are suggesting Apple woundn't use it in their advertising for their latest flagship product.

Re:Sign that Aperture isn't dead yet... (1)

marcushe (895126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212102)

It's the other way around - Apple is using their best hardware product to advertise another product in distress.

Re:Sign that Aperture isn't dead yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212128)

sure they would: aperture LOOKS great, it doesn't quite work properly (yet)

Ongoing litigation (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212044)

Considering the ongoing litigation "Apple vs. Does" and the fact that "Nick de Plume" of Think Secret fame may be involved, I wouldn't believe ANY information coming out of Think Secret.

From what I've seen, Aperture is a great application that stumbled out of the blocks with some performance issues and fairly poor handling of many devices' RAW formats. The 1.1 update has resolved the bulk of these issues.

If Aperture has any problem, it's that it is a solution in search of a problem. Most amateur photographers' needs are met with iPhoto. Most professional digital photographers are slow to adopt new technologies, because they directly impact the bottom line. It takes time to learn new applications and new methods of working; time that could be better spent working with clients and making money.

Aperture also has direct competition in the form of Adobe Lightroom.

In any case, I find it highly unlikely that Apple has dissolved the development team for an application that just released a 1.1 update and a universal binary to positive reviews. And with the recent price drop, Apple clearly wants to get this application in the hands of the users.

Think Secret is wrong on this one. Perhaps they are wrong on purpose. Could they be intentionally smearing the application in the press? Were they paid off to do so by Adobe?

Hmmm.

Re:Ongoing litigation (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212413)

I don't see any reason to doubt it. Nick de Plume may be concerned when, say, someone who has a job in Steve Job's office rings him up and notifies him that Apple are about to launch the new iBox 360 (or some other similar rumour); but what exactly would be the legal comeback if an employee who has been fired from Apple phones him up and tells him he's been fired and the department has been disbanded, and, as there's not much more Apple can do to him at this time, it's ok to make public the name is Apple comes suing?

What's Apple going to do? Fire the already fired employee? What's the point?

The truth is this rumour actually passes muster. It's something de Plume can easily report without worrying about Apple. It's also very probable. Aperture isn't just not what Apple hoped, but it's also about to face competition from Adobe, and Apple really doesn't want to compete with its third party developers unless they're screwing up and putting out lousy products (or alternatively have a technology Apple would like to include in the OS, but that's another story.)

Back aperture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212068)

Back aperture now, or it will close forever ..

The Bibble Alternative (4, Informative)

stanwirth (621074) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212103)

Bibble [bibblelabs.com] is better, and was started by one guy in his garage that wanted some decent SW for the raw files coming off of his digital camera. At least four developers have touched it over the years...i.e. small, smart and agile development team. I think they're pretty cool. The principal developer/entrepreneur Eric Hyman gladly does the support, and he's a very nice guy besides. The SW is QT based and they do extensive testing on Mac (their professional customer base), Linux (where they get many helpful comments) and Windows. They have a freeware version. The whole series of changes you make to an image are stored as an .XML file, which lets you edit it and script a systematic image-processing stream to apply to whole shoots once you pointy-clicky on a representative image to see what works. Reputed to have the best white-balance algorithm in the business. They're usually the first to decode a new obfuscated raw file format for new cameras, too.

Politely? (1)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212113)

Apple recently asked the engineering team behind its Aperture photo editing and management software to leave, Think Secret has learned
Microsoft and others would kill for fan sites like this - they love Apple so much that they make firings seem polite and cordial.

I've always found that particular phrasing ("asked to leave") sorta funny - what if they said no?

Re:Politely? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212244)

I've always found that particular phrasing ("asked to leave") sorta funny - what if they said no?

"It would be a shame if anything happened to that nice new MacBook Pro of yours. But accidents will happen..."

-matthew

Re:Politely? (0)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212463)

they love Apple so much that they make firings seem polite and cordial.

I know. I'm just looking for the posts claiming some sort of butterfly effect / chaos theory explaination about how good this is for the developers involved. One might meet the girl of his dreams when he heads to India looking for work I suppose...

To be honest, the hypocracy is beginning to grate on me. Apple could fit razor blades on the spacebad and we'd be hearing about their "cutting-edge sharp designs".

Go on...mod me down. Modding down any anti-apple statement is generally validation for whoever said it, in the same way that mentioning OSS or "does it run linux" will always take you in the opposite direction.

Re:Politely? (1)

giminy (94188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212470)

It's all about benefits (I suspect).

If employee voluntarily leaves the job, they aren't eligible for unemployment. I imagine that there are things in the tax code that save the employer money in that case (anyone?). At the very least, 'firing' someone is difficult, unless the company is downsizing. In exchange for compliance, the company will give glowing reviews of the employee.

Of course, if you make things difficult and expensive for the employer, they probably won't be a very good reference...

aperture performance (2, Informative)

derniers (792431) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212137)

Aperture pegs both processors on an MBP but then so does Lightroom.... as to bugs there are about 13,000 posts on the Apple discussion site http://discussions.apple.com/index.jspa [apple.com] and there are probably about the same number in the Lightroom forums.... while I like most Apple apps I've been using Lightroom (so far) but it has its own "features".... both apps still seem like betas to me, both Apple and Adobe are going with interfaces unlike those in their other apps and each approach has some pluses and minuses.......... with millions of dslrs out there and more being bought every day there is a real market for this type of app and $299 is a lot less than the price of a lens (at least I get edu prices on apps if not lenses)

It's a rumor remember... (3, Insightful)

kuwan (443684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212197)

When I read the article on ThinkSecret, which is entirely a rumor, I thought to myself "I wonder how long it will take for this unfounded rumor to spread as if it were fact through the Internet like wildfire." Well, obviously the answer to that is not very long.

It's also obvious that whoever wrote the ThinkSecret article hasn't actually used Aperture. While Aperture is not perfect it does many thing much better than anyone else and some things that no else does. It's multi-monitor support is better than any other application on the market. And its photo organization and rating features are among the best. In my opinion Aperture was designed very well. Sure there are bugs, but it's only at 1.1 right now which is a good improvement over 1.0.

I don't think that Aperture will be going away any time soon.

Bullshit (4, Informative)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212201)

I know two of the engineers who wrote Aperture. They have both moved to other groups, one to Application Frameworks, and one to CoreImage. In each case, their new job is a higher-profile position. If there had been a round of firings of the Aperture developers, I would have heard about it.

-jcr

I was on the team... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212227)

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

Most of the team was not fired, they simply found new positions in Apple once 1.0 was completed because the project management was too shoddy. For instance I am now back working on Mac OS X. Most of the management however has been fired.

Aperture is not being abandoned but is just being reorganised.

Many of the problems in Aperture were caused, not fixed, by the Shake and Motion teams contributions. Originally the rendering pipeline, based on Core Image, was working fine but it was decided to speed it up so over a period of 4 months it was rewritten. It has never worked correctly since then.

Re:I was on the team... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15212434)

Most of the team was not fired, they simply found new positions in Apple once 1.0 was completed because the project management was too shoddy. For instance I am now back working on Mac OS X. Most of the management however has been fired.

But you too will be fired for making this post when your identity is uncovered. Just how many people from that team are "back" working on OS X who write like you do? Was your venting worth risking your job over?

Firing a dev team is counter productive (2, Insightful)

zaqintosh (905307) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212283)

I've been on quite a few software project ranging from small to big over the last few years.

Most of the time, if the entire thing requires a complete re-write, its not because the individual programmers are bad, its because of a lack of organization and planning at the beginning stages. Could be the fault of a team leader or lead architect (or whatever terms you choose to use).

It's easy to program, its hard to design software in a well organized, modular, scalable way. And it requires good leadership... Apple is more immature than I thought.

How can they fire the programmers? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15212464)

How can you fire programmers for a group failure? Normally a sacking that
quick only results from gross misconduct. How can any individual coder
be accused of gross misconduct for a bad product arising from a TEAM effort?
Unless management went through the code module by module and tallied up the
bugs in each and fired anyones who tally when over some limit. Even so, I
feel some lawsuits gestating if this really is true (and not simply journo
hype).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?