# Apple Ups the Ante with Aperture for a measly 79.00 through the new OSX App Store



## RikkFlohr (Jan 6, 2011)

Apple pushed the 10.6.6 update today. It also launched the OSX app store featuring Apple's Aperture, a prime Lightroom competitor, for 79.00 (120.00) less than a boxed version was on Apple's site earlier. 

With Lightroom priced at 299.00 and 99.00/Upgrade Apple is apparently trying to buy the upgrade market from a perceived frustrated user base with a cheaper-that-Lightroom full-blown Aperture.  What does this bode for future Adobe pricing? And what will that do to development resources.

Stay tuned...


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 6, 2011)

Another way of putting it - they can hardly give it away?


----------



## RikkFlohr (Jan 6, 2011)

Or, they are charging what it's worth? No that's cruel.  And, since I have never run Aperture, I am not qualified to disrespect it.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 6, 2011)

OK, to be fair, at that price it is a bargain. I've owned Ap1 and Ap2, mainly to keep myself informed, though I've done q a few jobs bringing Aperture refugees over to Lightroom. Much as I liked Ap3's geotagging, I decided not to upgrade to version 3 as I didn't feel it was worth the money and because I don't really have much real use for an app that only works on one OS. But now it's available for less than the price of a tank of petrol I decided I would upgrade. What struck me most was the OS10.6.6 AppStore experience. I don't have an iPhone/Pad, but I imagine it's the same - clicked the buy button and it downloaded and installed itself. Very slick.

John


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 6, 2011)

With the latest updates to Aperture and OSX it now runs very well. Aperture is a very complex product in comparison to Lightroom and has a lot of very nice features that would make most LR users green with envy. It still has a few issues though that seem to keep it from the professionals first choice. It had a rocky start too which didn't help it much. Apple and their stupid secrecy policy are probably more to blame than anything for the demise of Aperture rather than the product itself.

For $79 its worth buying just for the Books and Slideshows, oh and the highlight recovery tool which is amazingly good... and the curves tool and proper stacks and albums and projects and relocate masters and multiple brushes and the full screen UI and video support and light tables and the proper clone tool and GPS support and facial recognition...    sorry got carried away 

All of which will be in Lightroom 4 of course so I'm hanging there !


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 6, 2011)

I don't really find it "very complex in comparison to Lightroom", just a little more traditional and fiddly in style (Extensis meets Outlook), though with 3 they've really dumbed down the UI. Slideshow struck me as strong when I tried it before, and I've said I like built-in geotagging. Facial recognition though works pretty well, but as an organisational tool is amateur. As for relocate masters, it's utter junk - sure there's value in a utility to reorganise folders but not instead of giving the user direct control of physical locations. You still can't see where your blxxdy files are! Give me LR's Folders panel and Collections any day.

John


----------



## edgley (Jan 6, 2011)

I had to use A3 recently; spent my whole time wishing I was in LR.
If I need books or prints I just use iPhoto instead.

Yep, the AppStore is as slick as for iOS, and just as hard to find things in.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 6, 2011)

johnbeardy said:


> As for relocate masters, it's utter junk - sure there's value in a utility to reorganise folders but not instead of giving the user direct control of physical locations. You still can't see where your blxxdy files are! Give me LR's Folders panel and Collections any day.
> John


 
I think it is very useful and it would be a very useful tool in Lightroom too. How many times do we get posts on this forum that start...  I started using LR but now I want to re-organise my 10 bazillion files as I didn't plan it properly in the first place...  and of course you can't automate it at all.

I can see where my Aperture files are with a single click of the mouse, I don't understand why this is an issue. I import my images in a date structure exactly the same as Lightroom.

Its not complex to use Aperture but it provides more functionality than Lightroom. I think a lot of people don't see that until they have used it extensively. I have a love-hate relationship with it to be honest but then I could probably say that about Lightroom too lol !


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 6, 2011)

As I say, as a re-organisation utility I accept it has a value (though usually people are better off accepting their legacy folder structure, adding metadata, and moving on). But beyond that....


----------



## ukbrown (Jan 7, 2011)

FWIW - Recent reports show that a large number of people are moving towards DSLR, may be low end, and compact sales are down, phones taking over.  THere is a bit of a gap for a decent photo product, at this price they may sell more than just the s/w maybe a bit of tin as well.


----------



## ukbrown (Jan 7, 2011)

@sizzlingbadger, looked at a nice mac, still too expensive for me.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 7, 2011)

Yep they do cost a bit, but its like Gin, once you start drinking Bombay Sapphire you just can't go back to Gordon's


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 7, 2011)

Anyone happen to know what happens with upgrade pricing on the App Store?  Will they offer discounted future upgrades, or is it a case of paying full price for the new version?


----------



## harringg (Jan 7, 2011)

I switched from A3 to LR3 because of the tighter integration with PS CS4 (now using CS5).  I created a beautiful book in A3 with precision and ease that I just couldn't achieve online in AdoramaPix, SnapFish, etc...  A3 has a much better search filter than LR3, bit depth, pixel dimension, etc...  Also, a feature I still go back into A3 on a case-by-case basis is: with my Fuji S5Pro, A3 has an overlay that shows me the same focus grid as the LCD on the camera has, so I can see where the focus was on a given picture if something looks "off".  I've been through so many DAM programs, and my 17k image collection is tagged for good and I'm sticking with LR, but A3 has it's place in my workflow too.  Also, A3 offers the ability to have Managed libraries.  The originals are part of the library. I've read too many posts here about people losing their images because they thought LR had them contained in the library file.


----------



## RikkFlohr (Jan 7, 2011)

This post made me laugh: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/774794?tstart=0 If JAO is right...


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 8, 2011)

I checked out the upgrades - at this point in time, there is no discounted paid upgrade facility in the App Store.  If that remains true, then the pricing makes a bit more sense - $80 for a downloaded upgrade (previously $99 boxed I believe?) each time they release a new version - so they're taking a hit to get new users but still get basically their normal upgrade price in future.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 8, 2011)

harringg said:


> Also, A3 offers the ability to have Managed libraries.  The originals are part of the library. I've read too many posts here about people losing their images because they thought LR had them contained in the library file.



Is that really an advantage? Then they just complain about not being able to find their files any more, and think back to the storm over Aperture 1 only allowing you managed libraries and how quickly Apple were forced to backtrack (sorry "listened to customers and innovated"). As we discussed recently here, the problem is partly the language of "importing" rather than using words like "transfer" and "register" or using "catalogue" as a verb.

John


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 8, 2011)

Managed Libraries are an advantage for those that are not computer savvy. I think we that are computer savvy forget that many people are not. My wife is reasonably ok with computers but would have no idea how to backup LR and the separate masters, it would be a mess in a short space of time as the posts to these forums prove daily. 

With Aperture she just has to create a vault on an external drive and click update. Yes there are limitations to this but its better than doing nothing and stuff like this along with TimeMachine is what Apple does well, they help non computer savvy people get along. There is a place for managed libraries and vaults out there, not everyone complained about their images being stored in a package (which is still accessible via one click of the mouse). At least you have the choice 

After spending a lot of time in both apps I can honestly say that one isn't any better than the other, they have different strengths and weaknesses and will suit different peoples needs. I use Lightroom, my wife and son use Aperture. If I had to use Aperture I wouldn't lose any sleep over it (especially once the've added a gradient tool and the ability to copy the brush masks from one adjustment to another)

I think Apple is just making Aperture more accessible financially to the many new amateur photographers on a budget ( I see more dSLRs in the street every time I step out there). I see this as a move to compete in a slightly different market to Adobe. Adobe are synonymous in photography circles with years of Photoshop market share and this is always going to help them in the professional scene. Aperture will only run on Apple tin-ware too so it will be a non starter for many. Apple have always been good at marketing and they have learn't a lot from the mobile apps store and iTunes store, they know that selling millions copies of something at few dollars is a viable business model and has nothing to do with the perceived price value of the product.

I'm sure many people will see this price drop as Apple waving the white flag at Adobe but I think that would be very short sighted. Love them or hate them (or both as I do), Apple successfully change the game every now and then.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 8, 2011)

"I see this as a move to compete in a slightly different market to Adobe." I agree there and was struck by how the AppStore was targeting iPhoto users. I suspect they'd sell the same number of boxes regardless of Aperture's existence, so what they must be looking for is more software sales with each box, like a paid-for iPhoto. But to generate those kinds of sales do you really need as sophisticated a program as Aperture? Would you still put resources into pro-oriented features (eg fixing the ampersand bug in metadata)? So while the white flag might not be there, it's a different future - iPhotoPro?

One thought, wouldn't it be funny if Adobe tried to sell Lightroom through the App Store? Do you think Apple would let them? After all, as you say, it's not a competing product.

John


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 9, 2011)

I think your right, iPhoto is practically free if you change your hardware every 3-4 years like I do. Aperture would fill that spot nicely but I too can't imagine the support being the same as it would be if it was still considered a Pro App, we'll have to wait and see. I would love to see Lightroom in the App Store.

I know David is a bit of an Aperture Fan Boy but his latest post does have some interesting points.


----------



## aardvark (Jan 11, 2011)

The software might be cheaper but the Apple hardware will never be cheaper. Is it worth paying another $500 for a system that is less powerful than a Dell just to save $200 on some software? Also, LR has the backing and support of Adobe, a dedicated graphics and new media company, Apple makes computers, not photo software


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 11, 2011)

aardvark said:


> The software might be cheaper but the Apple hardware will never be cheaper. Is it worth paying another $500 for a system that is less powerful than a Dell just to save $200 on some software? Also, LR has the backing and support of Adobe, a dedicated graphics and new media company, Apple makes computers, not photo software


Maybe, though people will argue all day about the price of Apple hardware! It's perhaps better to question whether it's wise to tie the management and adjustment of your photo collection to a single brand of computer. 

John


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 12, 2011)

Apple has been in the software business years, including media applications, they are also way bigger than Adobe so support is not an issue. As for cheaper PC's its about "value" not $$$. I happily pay more for my Apple Mac as I prefer it to a PC in so many ways. Apple hardware is getting cheaper too if you look back over the last few years.

I'm not even sure tying you photo management to one brand matters much. Its just as much work to move from Aperture as it is to move from Lightroom to another product, if you had too in the future. You may be less likely to move from Lightroom with the present state of things mind.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 12, 2011)

Nik, 

I said one brand of computer.

John


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 12, 2011)

I know.


----------

