Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #61672 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-07-01 20:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-07-02 22:34 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-01 20:06 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-07-01 20:54 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-02 04:19 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-07-02 08:59 +0200
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-02 13:23 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-07-02 08:56 +0200
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-02 09:54 +0100
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 10:25 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-02 19:10 +0100
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 11:30 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-07-04 08:25 +0200
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-04 15:52 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-04 14:49 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 18:05 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2014-07-05 09:35 +0200
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-05 12:27 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-07-04 18:51 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-04 19:01 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-07-04 19:54 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 23:07 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 03:09 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 23:15 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 03:20 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 02:04 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 22:14 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-04 22:34 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 02:59 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-07-05 02:57 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 07:53 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-07-05 20:19 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-05 07:18 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 23:07 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 03:13 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 02:49 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-04 20:02 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-05 03:04 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 02:08 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-05 18:37 +1200
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 03:41 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-05 15:07 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-05 14:15 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-06 14:59 +1200
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-07-06 02:42 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-05 23:51 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-06 23:59 +1200
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-05 07:16 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 09:01 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos billy@MIX.COM - 2014-07-02 15:55 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 09:05 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 18:06 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-02 15:11 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 19:56 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-07-02 17:37 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-03 05:31 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 16:06 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-05 09:11 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:39 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 09:04 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-02 12:44 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 09:53 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-02 15:16 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-02 12:32 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 17:24 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-07-02 22:49 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-07-02 21:01 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 18:11 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-02 15:11 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 19:57 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:39 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-03 05:30 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2014-07-03 10:20 -0700
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-04 09:23 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-04 16:06 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-05 09:12 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-06 21:56 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-07 22:53 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-02 15:10 -0400
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-02 19:54 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:36 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2014-07-03 05:22 +0000
Re: Apple promises 'professional-grade' features in OS X Photos Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-02 22:34 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 15:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020720141516202288%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #61703 |
Davoud: > > An opportunity, yes, but I doubt if pro-level developers will jump in. > > Already, at least one high-end plug-in that works in Aperture and > > Lightroom are labeled "Some functions not available in Aperture." Not > > because Aperture couldn't handle them, but because it wasn't worth the > > expense of writing the code for such a limited market. Wouldn't you > > expect that all development of Aperture plug-ins has ceased as of the > > past week? Alan Baker: > But if Apple produces one app to serve the consumer and pro (or > pro-sumer) markets, then the potential customer base grows considerably. No. Apple already has a decent pro-level app--Aperture. And for whatever reason, it failed in the market place. Even among Mac users. > And no, actually. Those developers know that Aperture will still be > compatible with Yosemite. It will still be a dead app, not under development, not available for sale. Historically, that has not encouraged developers. Remember, 5% market share. > > Photos is not going to boost Apple's share against Adobe; the opposite > > may happen. Given that in 2009 (and it's gotten worse) only 6% of pros > > were using Aperture, there's just no money in Apple-branded photo > > software. And who will trust Apple to 1) get Photos right and 2) not > > abandon the app after a couple of years due to lack of interest. That's > > the thing with me. For now, I trust Apple hardware, but I'm steering > > clear of dependency on its software (except for iTunes, the > > functionality of which will stay around in some form, under some name, > > to support iThingies). At best, Photos will keep iPhoto users happy. > > But Photos WILL boost the overall number of potential customers for > plug-ins/extensions... > > ...because it will be on every Mac. Potential customers. How many iPhone snapshooters are going to pay for pricey add-ons for their free Photos.app? If they get beyond the snapshot stage they're going to look to Adobe or other developers. -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 12:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lp1mot$5c7$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #61712 |
On 2014-07-02 19:16:20 +0000, Davoud said: > Davoud: >>> An opportunity, yes, but I doubt if pro-level developers will jump in. >>> Already, at least one high-end plug-in that works in Aperture and >>> Lightroom are labeled "Some functions not available in Aperture." Not >>> because Aperture couldn't handle them, but because it wasn't worth the >>> expense of writing the code for such a limited market. Wouldn't you >>> expect that all development of Aperture plug-ins has ceased as of the >>> past week? > > Alan Baker: >> But if Apple produces one app to serve the consumer and pro (or >> pro-sumer) markets, then the potential customer base grows considerably. > > No. Apple already has a decent pro-level app--Aperture. And for > whatever reason, it failed in the market place. Even among Mac users. OK. So how does that invalidate what I just said? > >> And no, actually. Those developers know that Aperture will still be >> compatible with Yosemite. > > It will still be a dead app, not under development, not available for > sale. Historically, that has not encouraged developers. Remember, 5% > market share. Who says it won't be available for sale? And developers who've already invested their time and money will want to get out what they can. > >>> Photos is not going to boost Apple's share against Adobe; the opposite >>> may happen. Given that in 2009 (and it's gotten worse) only 6% of pros >>> were using Aperture, there's just no money in Apple-branded photo >>> software. And who will trust Apple to 1) get Photos right and 2) not >>> abandon the app after a couple of years due to lack of interest. That's >>> the thing with me. For now, I trust Apple hardware, but I'm steering >>> clear of dependency on its software (except for iTunes, the >>> functionality of which will stay around in some form, under some name, >>> to support iThingies). At best, Photos will keep iPhoto users happy. >> >> But Photos WILL boost the overall number of potential customers for >> plug-ins/extensions... >> >> ...because it will be on every Mac. > > Potential customers. How many iPhone snapshooters are going to pay for > pricey add-ons for their free Photos.app? If they get beyond the > snapshot stage they're going to look to Adobe or other developers. That would depend upon how "pricey" those add-ons are. With a much larger potential market, the developers of extensions could price them lower and make as much if not more money.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <201407021724149000-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #61713 |
On 2014-07-02 19:32:45 +0000, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> said: > On 2014-07-02 19:16:20 +0000, Davoud said: > >> Davoud: >>>> An opportunity, yes, but I doubt if pro-level developers will jump in. >>>> Already, at least one high-end plug-in that works in Aperture and >>>> Lightroom are labeled "Some functions not available in Aperture." Not >>>> because Aperture couldn't handle them, but because it wasn't worth the >>>> expense of writing the code for such a limited market. Wouldn't you >>>> expect that all development of Aperture plug-ins has ceased as of the >>>> past week? >> >> Alan Baker: >>> But if Apple produces one app to serve the consumer and pro (or >>> pro-sumer) markets, then the potential customer base grows considerably. >> >> No. Apple already has a decent pro-level app--Aperture. And for >> whatever reason, it failed in the market place. Even among Mac users. > > OK. So how does that invalidate what I just said? > >> >>> And no, actually. Those developers know that Aperture will still be >>> compatible with Yosemite. >> >> It will still be a dead app, not under development, not available for >> sale. Historically, that has not encouraged developers. Remember, 5% >> market share. > > Who says it won't be available for sale? > > And developers who've already invested their time and money will want > to get out what they can. > >> >>>> Photos is not going to boost Apple's share against Adobe; the opposite >>>> may happen. Given that in 2009 (and it's gotten worse) only 6% of pros >>>> were using Aperture, there's just no money in Apple-branded photo >>>> software. And who will trust Apple to 1) get Photos right and 2) not >>>> abandon the app after a couple of years due to lack of interest. That's >>>> the thing with me. For now, I trust Apple hardware, but I'm steering >>>> clear of dependency on its software (except for iTunes, the >>>> functionality of which will stay around in some form, under some name, >>>> to support iThingies). At best, Photos will keep iPhoto users happy. >>> >>> But Photos WILL boost the overall number of potential customers for >>> plug-ins/extensions... >>> >>> ...because it will be on every Mac. >> >> Potential customers. How many iPhone snapshooters are going to pay for >> pricey add-ons for their free Photos.app? If they get beyond the >> snapshot stage they're going to look to Adobe or other developers. > > That would depend upon how "pricey" those add-ons are. With a much > larger potential market, the developers of extensions could price them > lower and make as much if not more money. Let us take the plug-in developers who already have plug-ins or auxiliary apps for Photoshop, Lightroom, and Aperture: NIK with the NIK Collection which has had a price drop to $150 after being bought by Google. OnOne Perfect Photo Suite. $179 for the premium edition, $129 for the LR, & Aperture only edition. I own and use the NIK Collection & OnOne PPS with Photoshop & LR5. AlienSkin Exposure 6 $149 AlienSkin Eye Candy $129 AlienSkin Photo Bundle $199 (Exposure, Blow up, & Snap Art) The Topaz Complete collection, $380 Tiffin Dfx, $149 Those guys actually successfully sell those at those prices, somehow I don't see them dropping prices when a new Apple app is going to have them incur additional development costs if the Aperture<-->Photos plug-in compatibility is in anyway drastically changed. The interesting thing is that many of those add-ons will function as stand-alone apps, and that might be all they provide Photos App users if they have to do too much to alter the current Aperture versions. -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 22:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020720142249432519%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #61713 |
Davoud: > > It will still be a dead app, not under development, not available for > > sale. Historically, that has not encouraged developers. Remember, 5% > > market share. Alan Baker: > Who says it won't be available for sale? Perhaps it will be. Perhaps it will be free. "Hi there, camera buffs! This is Apple, reminding you that Aperture is still available for purchase! It hasn't been updated in five years, and it will never be updated again, so be sure to buy your copy today!" I would advise anyone who wants to start using Aperture to buy it soon. The talk on the professional forums and blogs is not about how long Apple will continue to sell Aperture or what Photos.app will be like. It's about how to migrate to Lightroom, whether someone will release an Aperture-to-Lightroom migration utility, and the sooner that happens, the better. On making the transition, Scott Kelby, a top pro photographer and photography educator, has posted a free, lengthy webcast on the subject. Go to http://scottkelby.com and scroll down to "If you missed last nights 'Make the Move from Aperture to Lightroom' WebcastŠ" -- 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2014070221012622278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| In reply to | #61723 |
On 2014-07-03 02:49:43 +0000, Davoud <star@sky.net> said: > Davoud: >>> It will still be a dead app, not under development, not available for >>> sale. Historically, that has not encouraged developers. Remember, 5% >>> market share. > > Alan Baker: >> Who says it won't be available for sale? > > Perhaps it will be. Perhaps it will be free. > > "Hi there, camera buffs! This is Apple, reminding you that Aperture is > still available for purchase! It hasn't been updated in five years, and > it will never be updated again, so be sure to buy your copy today!" > > I would advise anyone who wants to start using Aperture to buy it soon. > > The talk on the professional forums and blogs is not about how long > Apple will continue to sell Aperture or what Photos.app will be like. > It's about how to migrate to Lightroom, whether someone will release an > Aperture-to-Lightroom migration utility, and the sooner that happens, > the better. > > On making the transition, Scott Kelby, a top pro photographer and > photography educator, has posted a free, lengthy webcast on the > subject. Go to http://scottkelby.com and scroll down to "If you missed > last nights 'Make the Move from Aperture to Lightroom' Webcast" There seem to be some issues with that rebroadcast, even after I login to kelbyone.com it does not materialize for me. There is also this: <http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom-where-do-i-begin/> -- Regards, Savageduck
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr8j4l.8vj.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #61700 |
In article <lp1aj3$fr5$1@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker wrote: > > > Michelle Steiner: > > > http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/07/01/app.will.support.third.party.exte > > > nsions/ > > > > > In the wake of Aperture's demise, the upcoming Photos app for OS > > > X Yosemite will incorporate professional-level features, an > > > Apple representative claims. These include functions related to > > > editing, effects, and image search, and support for third-party > > > extensions. The spokesperson didn't go into any further details > > > however. > > > > Sandman: > > I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have > > lens corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings > > for Chromatic abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade > > app that as far as we know will be even simpler than iPhoto and > > probably a limited plugin architecture as well. > > And if it doesn't have those things, don't you think that that might > be an opportunity for a third party to write an extension or two? Well, that depends. If the overall application is a simplistic user friendly photo app, then it's unlikely that the heavy duty plugin makers will see any benefit porting their Aperture/Lightroom plugins to it, since their paying customers (professional photographers) most likely won't be using Photos instead of Lightroom. Also, some functionality is expected to be built-in in a professional level application, such as top level noise reduction, keywords, EXIF/IPTC editing, advanced import and export functionality, most of which is probably cumbersome to facilitate via a plugin either way. The plugins we'll see will most likely be of the photo-editing kind, i.e. pseudo-HDR, retro filters and things like that. Nothing wrong with that, but most of that doesn't really help make the app more "pro" so to speak. Also, if iOS8 is any indication, if a developer want to supply a Photos plugin, they would have to have a main app in the App Store that provides the plugin, which is a rather big step to take for a plugin author. Is it possible? To some extent, yes. We'll see how far this plugin architecture can take us. -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 15:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020720141511271500%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61707 |
In article <slrnlr8j4l.8vj.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > The plugins we'll see will most likely be of the photo-editing kind, i.e. > pseudo-HDR, retro filters and things like that. Nothing wrong with that, > but most of that doesn't really help make the app more "pro" so to speak. you have no idea what plug-ins will exist for an app that's not due to be released in a year, or what plug-ins will even be needed. > Also, if iOS8 is any indication, if a developer want to supply a Photos > plugin, they would have to have a main app in the App Store that provides > the plugin, which is a rather big step to take for a plugin author. how extensions work on ios 8 has nothing to do with mac os. > Is it possible? To some extent, yes. We'll see how far this plugin > architecture can take us. quite far based on what's already been said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr8pbd.96g.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #61711 |
In article <020720141511271500%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote: > In article <slrnlr8j4l.8vj.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman > > Sandman: > > The plugins we'll see will most likely be of the photo-editing > > kind, i.e. pseudo-HDR, retro filters and things like that. Nothing > > wrong with that, but most of that doesn't really help make the app > > more "pro" so to speak. > > you have no idea what plug-ins will exist for an app that's not due > to be released in a year, or what plug-ins will even be needed. And neither do you. > > Sandman: > > Also, if iOS8 is any indication, if a developer want to supply a > > Photos plugin, they would have to have a main app in the App Store > > that provides the plugin, which is a rather big step to take for a > > plugin author. > > how extensions work on ios 8 has nothing to do with mac os. According to whom? > > Sandman: > > Is it possible? To some extent, yes. We'll see how far this plugin > > architecture can take us. > > quite far based on what's already been said. Cite? -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 22:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr92h2.frl.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61716 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> was all, like: --> 2 Jul 2014 19:57:25 GMT <slrnlr8pbd.96g.mr@irc.sandman.net> > In article <020720141511271500%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote: >> In article <slrnlr8j4l.8vj.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman >> > Sandman: >> > The plugins we'll see will most likely be of the photo-editing >> > kind, i.e. pseudo-HDR, retro filters and things like that. Nothing >> > wrong with that, but most of that doesn't really help make the app >> > more "pro" so to speak. >> >> you have no idea what plug-ins will exist for an app that's not due >> to be released in a year, or what plug-ins will even be needed. > And neither do you. But *you* have said what Photos will not have. >> > Sandman: >> > Is it possible? To some extent, yes. We'll see how far this plugin >> > architecture can take us. >> >> quite far based on what's already been said. > Cite? https://developer.apple.com has all the WWDC videos. Lots of information on what plugins can do (summary: shitload). No account required, anyone can watch those videos. -- She hated everything that predestined people, that fooled them, that made them slightly less than human. --Witches Abroad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-03 05:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr9qua.a7a.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #61719 |
In article <slrnlr92h2.frl.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis wrote: > > > > Sandman: > > > > The plugins we'll see will most likely be of the > > > > photo-editing kind, i.e. pseudo-HDR, retro filters and things > > > > like that. Nothing wrong with that, but most of that doesn't > > > > really help make the app more "pro" so to speak. > > > > > > nospam: > > > you have no idea what plug-ins will exist for an app that's not > > > due to be released in a year, or what plug-ins will even be > > > needed. > > > > Sandman: > > And neither do you. > > But *you* have said what Photos will not have. Will not have what? > > > > Sandman: > > > > Is it possible? To some extent, yes. We'll see how > > > > far this plugin architecture can take us. > > > > > > nospam: > > > quite far based on what's already been said. > > > > Sandman: > > Cite? > > https://developer.apple.com has all the WWDC videos. Lots of > information on what plugins can do (summary: shitload). Here are the session videos: https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2014/ Which ones, specifically, talk about the OSX Photos plugin architecture? There are a couple of videos on creating iOS and OSX extensions, and they specifically say "On iOS only, we have the photo extensions" so this is probably not the method they will be using for Photos plugins, but it's unclear. Also, the videos really doesn't talk about the limits of extensions/plugins on OSX, or in what video do they discuss it? -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-03 10:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lp43c3$864$1@news.datemas.de> |
| In reply to | #61726 |
On 2014-07-03 05:30:40 +0000, Sandman said: > In article <slrnlr92h2.frl.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis wrote: > >>>>> Sandman: >>>>> The plugins we'll see will most likely be of the >>>>> photo-editing kind, i.e. pseudo-HDR, retro filters and things >>>>> like that. Nothing wrong with that, but most of that doesn't >>>>> really help make the app more "pro" so to speak. >>>> >>>> nospam: >>>> you have no idea what plug-ins will exist for an app that's not >>>> due to be released in a year, or what plug-ins will even be >>>> needed. >>> >>> Sandman: >>> And neither do you. >> >> But *you* have said what Photos will not have. > > Will not have what? > >>>>> Sandman: >>>>> Is it possible? To some extent, yes. We'll see how >>>>> far this plugin architecture can take us. >>>> >>>> nospam: >>>> quite far based on what's already been said. >>> >>> Sandman: >>> Cite? >> >> https://developer.apple.com has all the WWDC videos. Lots of >> information on what plugins can do (summary: shitload). > > Here are the session videos: > > https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2014/ > > Which ones, specifically, talk about the OSX Photos plugin architecture? > > There are a couple of videos on creating iOS and OSX extensions, and they > specifically say "On iOS only, we have the photo extensions" so this is > probably not the method they will be using for Photos plugins, but it's > unclear. > > Also, the videos really doesn't talk about the limits of extensions/plugins > on OSX, or in what video do they discuss it? You wanted more info on the plug-in architecture. Here: <http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/03/inside-app-extensions-the-cloud-kit-savvy-photos-future-of-apples-iphoto-aperture> And more importantly, here: <https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/ExtensionOverview.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014214-CH2-SW2>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-04 09:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlrcsvc.anu.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #61729 |
In article <lp43c3$864$1@news.datemas.de>, Alan Baker wrote: > > Also, the videos really doesn't talk about the limits of > > extensions/plugins on OSX, or in what video do they discuss it? > > You wanted more info on the plug-in architecture. Here: > <http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/07/03/inside-app-extensions-the-cloud-kit-savvy-photos-future-of-apples-iphoto-aperture> Yeah, nothing new there, other than Daniel Eran Dilger assuming that the new OSX Photos will use the same "App Extension" philosophy as on iOS, which as I said earlier means that the plugin needs to be in the App Store. I'm not sure that this will be the case, but we'll see. > And more importantly, here: > <https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/ExtensionOverview.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014214-CH2-SW2> Yeah, I've been there :) It's for the iOS documentation, however, so it's unknown how much it applies to OSX. There's a bit more here: <https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/General/Conceptual/ExtensibilityPG/Photos.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014214-CH17-SW1> But again, for iOS. And for obvious reasons, App Extensions needs to be kept simple on iOS. For OSX, extensions needs to be a bit more powerful for the user. For instance, if you have a photo in "Photos" and you want to run it through your "HDR-ify" extension, there are some obvious questions here. 1. Will you be able to select more than one photo to use in the same extension process? The documentation for iOS doesn't have any info on this, because it will most likely not be possible there. 2. Will the user be able to select wether the result of the extension's edits results in a new photo in the library or if it replaces the photo you're editing. As for number 2, you may think that no, app extensions allow for non-destructive edits so the original photo is always available, but that's not entirely true - the Extensions API will ask your extensions if your extension can read the adjustment data, and if your extensions report it can't, it will render a interrim file with all the adjustements and send that to the extension, so what happens when the extension is done? That's what I meant that it's unknown what the limits of this is - and that's assuming that OSX Photos users the same App Extensions API as iOS, or similar :) -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-04 16:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <040720141606315276%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61733 |
In article <slrnlrcsvc.anu.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > That's what I meant that it's unknown what the limits of this is - and > that's assuming that OSX Photos users the same App Extensions API as iOS, > or similar :) yet you already defined the limits as being a dumbed down iphoto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-05 09:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlrfgn4.oj4.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #61770 |
In article <040720141606315276%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote: > > Sandman: > > That's what I meant that it's unknown what the limits of this is - > > and that's assuming that OSX Photos users the same App Extensions > > API as iOS, or similar :) > > yet you already defined the limits as being a dumbed down iphoto. The above was in reference to the extension/plugin limits, which you would have known had you not snipped away most of my post. Photos looking like a dumbed down iPhoto is a conclusion based on the facts we know about it, all of which I've provided ample substantiation for. -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-06 21:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <060720142156081708%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61954 |
In article <slrnlrfgn4.oj4.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > > > That's what I meant that it's unknown what the limits of this is - > > > and that's assuming that OSX Photos users the same App Extensions > > > API as iOS, or similar :) > > > > yet you already defined the limits as being a dumbed down iphoto. > > The above was in reference to the extension/plugin limits, which you would > have known had you not snipped away most of my post. > > Photos looking like a dumbed down iPhoto is a conclusion based on the facts > we know about it, all of which I've provided ample substantiation for. the only thing you've provided is your wild imagination of what you want it to be so you can continue to rant. apple has publicly stated that it will have pro level features, which they never said about iphoto. that right there says it will not be a dumbed down iphoto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-07 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlrm9id.8kv.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #62038 |
In article <060720142156081708%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote: > In article <slrnlrfgn4.oj4.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman > > > > Sandman: > > > > That's what I meant that it's unknown what the limits of this > > > > is - and that's assuming that OSX Photos users the same App > > > > Extensions API as iOS, or similar :) > > > > > > nospam: > > > yet you already defined the limits as being a dumbed down > > > iphoto. > > > > Sandman: > > The above was in reference to the extension/plugin limits, which > > you would have known had you not snipped away most of my post. > > > Photos looking like a dumbed down iPhoto is a conclusion based on > > the facts we know about it, all of which I've provided ample > > substantiation for. > > the only thing you've provided is your wild imagination of what you > want it to be so you can continue to rant. Incorrect on all accounts. I am very much looking forward to Photos, I think it will be a great application. I am just countering some misinformation from you here. > apple has publicly stated that it will have pro level features, ...while at the same time listing features found in iPhoto. Should tell you something. > which they never said about iphoto. Because iPhoto wasn't launched and then a professional tool was EOL:ed in the process. There was no need to say that about iPhoto. But the features they listed as "pro-level" for Photos are all found in iPhoto. > that right there says it will not be a dumbed down iphoto. You can hope, but no - it doesn't say that at all, unfortunately. -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <020720141510479108%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #61683 |
In article <slrnlr7it5.3o5.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > > http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/07/01/app.will.support.third.party.exte > > nsions/ > > > In the wake of Aperture's demise, the upcoming Photos app for OS X > > Yosemite will incorporate professional-level features, an Apple > > representative claims. These include functions related to editing, > > effects, and image search, and support for third-party extensions. > > The spokesperson didn't go into any further details however. > > I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens > corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic > abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we > know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin > architecture as well. not based on what apple has said.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr8p5c.96g.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #61709 |
In article <020720141510479108%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote: > In article <slrnlr7it5.3o5.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman > > > Michelle Steiner: > > > http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/07/01/app.will.support.third.party.exte > > > nsions/ > > > > > In the wake of Aperture's demise, the upcoming Photos app for OS > > > X Yosemite will incorporate professional-level features, an > > > Apple representative claims. These include functions related to > > > editing, effects, and image search, and support for third-party > > > extensions. The spokesperson didn't go into any further details > > > however. > > > > Sandman: > > I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have > > lens corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings > > for Chromatic abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade > > app that as far as we know will be even simpler than iPhoto and > > probably a limited plugin architecture as well. > > not based on what apple has said. But based on what they have shown and experience with prior software projects from them. -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 22:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr92c3.frl.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #61683 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> was all, like: --> 2 Jul 2014 09:01:18 GMT <slrnlr7it5.3o5.mr@irc.sandman.net> > In article <010720142006262552%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner wrote: >> http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/07/01/app.will.support.third.party.exte >> nsions/ >> In the wake of Aperture's demise, the upcoming Photos app for OS X >> Yosemite will incorporate professional-level features, an Apple >> representative claims. These include functions related to editing, >> effects, and image search, and support for third-party extensions. >> The spokesperson didn't go into any further details however. > I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have lens > corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings for Chromatic > abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade app that as far as we > know will be even simpler than iPhoto and probably a limited plugin > architecture as well. "support for third party extension" but you've already decided what Photos will do, so since your mind is made up, why even worry about it. You've said it will not have certain features and that you are moving to Lightroom. -- Where there is a party, everyone is there Everyone will leave at exactly the same time When this party is over it will start again But not been any different be exactly the same
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-03 05:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlr9qfh.a7a.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| In reply to | #61718 |
In article <slrnlr92c3.frl.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis wrote: > > > Michelle Steiner: > > > http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/07/01/app.will.support.third.party.exte > > > nsions/ > > > > > In the wake of Aperture's demise, the upcoming Photos app for OS > > > X Yosemite will incorporate professional-level features, an > > > Apple representative claims. These include functions related to > > > editing, effects, and image search, and support for third-party > > > extensions. The spokesperson didn't go into any further details > > > however. > > > > Sandman: > > I won't hold my breath. Do anyone imagine that Photos will have > > lens corrections of professional-grade noise reduction? Settings > > for Chromatic abberations? Not likely. It will be a consumer-grade > > app that as far as we know will be even simpler than iPhoto and > > probably a limited plugin architecture as well. > > "support for third party extension" but you've already decided what > Photos will do, so since your mind is made up, why even worry about > it. You've said it will not have certain features and that you are > moving to Lightroom. I haven't made up my mind at all, I'm going by the facts we already know. -- Sandman[.net]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web