Get Aperture for FREE

[E. John Thawley III]

For those of you on Macs, I just got a FREE copy of Aperture by attending this free
seminar (http://edseminars.apple.com/seminars/event_template.php?eventTemplateID=395).

I've been a Lightroom user for the last 6 months or so and have a sort-of love/hate attitude about it. Both it and Aperture smoke Photoshop actions for everyday image processing. But after seeing Aperture 2.0 in action last night, I'm convinced its a superior product. Biggest downside is its Mac only. That's not a problem for me, but we prefer dual-platform software for educational use. I've been using Lightroom because that what the college where I teach uses.

Oh well.

[Rob Bye]

I think as Aperture develops, we'll see a version for PCs.

Apple has obviously poured a lot of resources into developing it, but the Mac market, alone, is too small for Aperture to ever develop into a major Photoshop or Lightroom competitor. They'll need to get it onto all other computers, as they've now done with iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari.

Time will tell....

[John Thawley]

I think as Aperture develops, we'll see a version for PCs.

Apple has obviously poured a lot of resources into developing it, but the Mac market, alone, is too small for Aperture to ever develop into a major Photoshop or Lightroom competitor. They'll need to get it onto all other computers, as they've now done with iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari.

Time will tell....
I wouldn't hold your breath. This is a Pro App. Like Final Cut Pro, they'll more than likely push the development into a "must have" type of benchmark and use it as a draw to Mac.

Your statement that the Mac market alone is too small, a) is not necessarily true, and b) not really an issue. What is more in play is the number of photographers using Mac... and the number of PROFESSIONALS using Mac. There the market share is MUCH greater and of MUCH greater importance to Mac and Aperture.

JT

[Daniel Buck]

is there a linux version?

[Aaron Kupferman]

Apple is, and has always been, a hardware company. The primary purpose of their software is to drive sales of hardware. This is why they have opened up their computers to run Windows, but won't open up their software to run ON Windows.

As for Aperture, I am sure it kicks serious behind and I'd love to try it out at some point, but I am a PC person so it's a no deal for me. Thanks for the heads up on the free copy though!

[Bill Jurasz]

Um.... iTunes runs on Windows. So does Safari.

[John Thawley]

Um.... iTunes runs on Windows. So does Safari.

Bill, not sure of your point.

However, iTunes and Sarfari are web based applications... and they are both FREE. ;) In the case of iTunes, it came about via the need to connect iPods to Wintel based machines.

Whereas, Aperture and other proprietary Apple software applications are what Apple refers to as PRO Applications. They are geared to specific audiences who are typically going to invest in the necessary hardware to run them.

JT

[Rob Bye]

What is more in play is the number of photographers using Mac... and the number of PROFESSIONALS using Mac. There the market share is MUCH greater and of MUCH greater importance to Mac and Aperture.
We'll see...

As a professional photographer, who uses Macs exclusively, I won't mind either way. I get to use anything.:p

[John Thawley]

We'll see...

As a professional photographer, who uses Macs exclusively, I won't mind either way. I get to use anything.:p

So, are you using Aperture?

JT

[John Waugh]

Serious software for the serious photographer.
Not only the most elegant and functional photo management software, but the most affordable.
A one stop package. File management, Adjustment, Output and Archive.
A creative product for creative thinking.
John

[Bill Jurasz]

John, I understand your point about pro software, but I was simply addressing the broad statement that none of Apple's software runs ON Windows. There are two counter-examples to this. Personally I never thought the day would happen that Apple would write software native for Windows, but iTunes was a wise move. I'm unsure about Safari.

I admit I used these two examples to show that there is now a precedant for Apple porting software to Windows, and that it could eventually happen to Aperture. But its clear to me now that porting iTunes was to drive the hardware sales of iPods. Porting Aperture would simply drive sales of Aperture.

[John Thawley]

John, I understand your point about pro software, but I was simply addressing the broad statement that none of Apple's software runs ON Windows. There are two counter-examples to this. Personally I never thought the day would happen that Apple would write software native for Windows, but iTunes was a wise move. I'm unsure about Safari.

I admit I used these two examples to show that there is now a precedant for Apple porting software to Windows, and that it could eventually happen to Aperture. But its clear to me now that porting iTunes was to drive the hardware sales of iPods. Porting Aperture would simply drive sales of Aperture.

Sorry... it's just not Apples to Apples. Pun intended!!! :)

iTunes is the equivalent of an online app.. it's a web app and it's ecommerce. I'm not sure why they did Safari either. But either way, the "porting" was not anything remotely close to porting a true application.

JT

[Ashton Smith]

As a technical point. Aperture heavily relies on a technology in OS X called Core Image. It is one of the reasons that the video card being used in Aperture is almost more important than the processor being used. Core Image off loads pixel based processing to the graphic card's GPU since it is designed purely to "push pixels" rather than sending it to the processor which is more general in design.

Strangely, this is one of the reasons that Aperture runs faster on Mac Pros that use the base ATI video cards rather than the faster Nvidia card upgrades. The ATI's drivers are better optimized for Core Image. This may change at any time, but currently if your goal is Aperture with a Mac Pro you are better off saving the cash.