Retroactive: Run Aperture, iPhoto and iTunes on macOS Ventura, Monterey, Big Sur
github.com
github.com
What I loved was that your original photos were read-only
Even the iPhoto of that time (on iOS) had features that Photos doesn’t have till today (I recall buying iPhoto that allowed erasing things from a photo or blurring things from a photo just by using one’s finger).
Not only is there no genuine empathy for users, it seems important that giant corporations should have the freedom to disappoint, manipulate, and abuse everyone, should they choose to.
Not to mention the cohort in product, design and engineering who want to work on the new shiny and embark on massive rewrite projects that deliver only a subset of old functionality because the ‘metrics’ support it. They’re never around to maintain it long term.
Not an issue if you don’t go public or accept VC or have perverse incentives that encourage enshittification over excellence. Nobody pulling the strings for you then.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparrow_%28email_client%29
An old article about a Media Rage update on Mac World: https://www.macworld.com/article/175779/mediarage19.html
Also, does it produce a new application package that can be installed on other computers that doesn't have Retroactive installed, or is Retroactive needed on each target machine?
I can't even keep track of which iPhone or macOS we're on now.
In tech circles I try to use the actual OS release number whenever I can for this reason.
I dislike photo editing deeply, but for some reason, the Aperture design just made sense to me, being a person who could never grok photoshop.
For security reasons, DxO integrates DRM (“Digital Rights Management”)
software components in the Software.
Don't know if it's still Pace Interlok, don't care.I've never been in to photo editing and whatnot but when Aperture came out I decided to spend time learning it, organizing my library, tagging things and figuring all that stuff out.
I invested a lot of time and even bought some ebooks and whatnot to learn it better.
Then the EOL'd it and I just have never recovered. I have to sit down and spend time learning Lightroom, redoing all my libary and reworking my storage.... and I just have never had the desire to do it. Many of my photos are sitting in an old Aperture library tar'd up on my NAS.
What in the world happened?
(At least we have DaVinci Resolve now... but it just doesn't have the finesse that Apple pro apps once had.)
Their argument for denying users the ability to sideload software on iOS is that said software may include critical security vulnerabilities or even malware. So, why are they leaving their macOS users exposed to vulnerabilities? Why wouldn't they attempt to go in the same direction with macOS?
Their absolute main reason is of course that they take a cut on all software sold via the App Store. Thankfully the EU is doing something[1].
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-13/will-appl...
And peoples mostly talk about the annoying front-end stuff that has been removed or neglected but if you look at all the small things that you could find on a Mac it's really sad.
This is exactly why I now say that Apple is not worth it nowadays. The hardware is nice sure, but there is plenty of nice hardware provided you are willing to pay the price. The software is becoming terrible quicker than ever and it already is a poor copy of what it was before (the way they "remade" the iWork suite is almost criminal).
I don't see any evidence that Apple's product managers are directly influenced by quarterly returns and AAPL share price fluctuations. If we were talking about Apple's financial behavior (such as their stock buyback program, or the killing of an entire product line), then perhaps. But I strongly doubt Apple's product managers were motivated by what you call "greed" when they made the choices that led to today's iWork suite.
Perhaps it was something more like building the product that most of their customers wanted. Maybe market research told them they'd have better success letting Microsoft build the productivity suite for people at work, and instead build a product that people would use at home (even/especially people who don't use Office or any productivity suite at work). These are both credible possibilities that don't involve "greed".
I'm very curious to know what really happened.