I wonder why Apple still hasn’t released a podcasting app. I mean you can do it with GarageBand but they don’t tell people that and it’s pretty basic, just like iMovie.
With automatic transcription now available on the Podcast app it feels like having it on GarageBand, which can also work for text oriented editing, is a given. Shove an LLM into GarageBand, boom! Power move. Watch people use it for all sorts of non music recording. https://social.podnews.net/@podnews/112155977487670815
I used to think Apple would be the one major company that will keep going head to head with Adobe on creative software choices. They were on their way with Aperture, Logic, Final Cut Studio, Soundtrack, Motion, and so on on the Pro side, with GarageBand, iMovie, iWeb, iDVD, iPhoto, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, etc. on the consumer side.
About 10-12 years ago it became clear that’s not where they’re going. I don’t think Steve Jobs’s passing had anything to do with it but under Tim Cook the company became a fully focused hardware, especially iPhone, company. They may release minor updates to their apps every now and then but there’s been no sign of a focused intention to keep developing and innovating on the software side. Maybe they figured third party developers would pick up the slack.
Would love to see something creative apps related at WWDC from the company but that’s probably a long shot.
@aulia Correction: under Tim Cook, Apple has focused on hardware and services revenue.
The real turning point, I think, was the introduction of the iOS App Store. I think Phil Schiller created through his App Store policies (intentionally or not) an environment where customers perceived software as worthless, free additions to hardware, where subscription-based services were the only things worth paying for. So it followed that it was no longer worth Apple’s time to create standalone software that competed fiercely with others in the industry, because they could get subscription revenue more cheaply elsewhere.
@mariani1@aulia I mean, Schiller took over App Store operations in 2015, but he was a key person right from the very beginning. He was influential in crafting the App Store rules, including its monetization policies.
@drahardja I did think about that, I was part of that team for a while after all 🤣🤣🤣 but I thought about it some more and services revenue in my view is in support of the hardware. While the software side was playing a similar role, it had the bigger impact and attraction as tools for creative consumers and pros.
IIRC the software argument for Apple for years was, “we make the best software so if you want to use them you use our hardware”. That statement no longer applies as strongly as it used to.
@aulia I felt the shift from hardware+apps to services happen when I worked on Photo Stream, and Aperture was sunsetted in favor of the (much less powerful) Photos app. I think Apple now develops only the minimum set of (non-OS-bundled) apps to meet the “table stakes” bar for customers, e.g. the iWork suite. Other excursions into interesting, standalone, competitive apps (remember iMovie for iOS, Cards, and Clips?) were not sustained. Most of the app-making energy is spent on subscription channels such as Music (that poor, redesigned-every-year app) and TV.
I’m actually surprised that FCP and Logic Pro are still developed. I guess there is enough of a niche customer base for those apps that to them these apps are table stakes for a Mac purchase.
@drahardja@aulia I suspect it’s in part because if Apple pulled those apps it would make a nonsense of its position in two key industries. Logic in particular is such a big deal in music production that Apple killing it would send shockwaves and I’m sure result in a lot of people switching to Windows.
@drahardja@aulia
I always assumed the demise of Aperture was both because of a directional change away from making top tier first party apps as well as Randy Ubillos’ retirement. I expect there was no one left at Apple with his design chops for pro software.
@freediverx@aulia IMO Aperture was sidelined because there was a desire to unify the photo adjustment model across all platforms and back it with the iCloud photo library. Aperture’s long-evolved model was quite hard to integrate this way. The choices were to a. embrace the Aperture model everywhere (too hard), b. Add a second (optional) model to Aperture and sync only those photos (bad UX), c. Keep Aperture as-is and exclude it from the iCloud ecosystem, d. Migrate users’ photos to the new model (resulting in some data loss), or e. Discontinue Aperture.
The zeitgeist at the time was to embrace simpler, cloud-based apps, so Aperture was discontinued. (Interestingly, Apple chose path d. for iWork, migrating their documents to a different model for the sake of iCloud sync and losing some data as a result). There was just not enough desire/potential income to maintain Aperture as a standalone product at the time.
@drahardja@aulia
Yes of course, iCloud was the elephant in the room. And I would understand them putting together a bare bones Photos app at first.
I just hoped that over time they would make an effort to restore much (any?) of Aperture’s features. Instead, they relinquished the market to Adobe Lightroom and abandoned Aperture customers without any decent digital asset manager that's compatible with iCloud.
@KingShawn@drahardja@aulia
I’m still bitter because I had many years of photos and videos in Aperture that I never see because I didn’t want to import them into Photos (and lose edits and/or organization) nor shackle myself to an Adobe subscription.
@freediverx@drahardja@aulia Luckily for me, I had been burned by Apple many years beforehand (anyone remember Quicktime Broadcaster? 🤦🏼♂️) and had vowed to not get caught up in getting screwed by Apple's app ecosystem ever again if I could. I was an original Lightroom user and only dabbled in Aperture so I dodged that bullet.
@KingShawn@freediverx@aulia I took away the same lesson from all of this: diversify your software and service providers. Don’t get all your essential tools from one corporation, especially if they aren’t its core products.
@drahardja@KingShawn@aulia
Even now I worry that my dependence on iCloud Photo Library will come back to haunt me one day. Companies, including Apple, have a cavalier attitude about how strategic changes negatively impact long time customers.
@freediverx@KingShawn@aulia After I finished work on Shared Photo Stream, I declined to work on iCloud Photo Library, because I saw what they did to Aperture. I converted my photo library to Lightroom, and I have all my photos on a local Lightroom Classic (non-cloud) library. At worst, I still have all the RAW photos and their adjustments (XMP sidecars) available, and will likely be able to find a tool to read or migrate it to whatever software I need to move to next.
@drahardja@KingShawn@aulia
I’ve been procrastinating setting up a Siracusa-style backup system to export all my photos and albums to a hierarchical folder structure that can be accessed without any proprietary software. But of course that’s only a last resort, since photo library management without a database is painful and impractical.
@freediverx@KingShawn@aulia Lightroom lets you have that. My photo files are organized by year-month-day folders by default. Each photo has the edit metadata alongside it as an XMP file.
@drahardja@KingShawn@aulia
Part of the friction keeping me from migrating to Lightroom (aside from ‘Adobe’) is the split between Lightroom Classic (or whatever they call it now) and the cloud version.
I prefer the modern, streamlined UX and sync features of the cloud version but I need the flexibility of the classic version to control which files I do or don't want in the cloud and how my local files are organized at the file system level. Doesn't seem like Adobe intends to bridge that gap.
@KingShawn@drahardja@aulia
I hear you, but once you’re living in the cloud there are enormous conveniences that are hard to give up. Being able to access anything anywhere, anytime, from any device, and having any edits or organizational tweaks synced automatically. Of course, there are costs and risks that come with that as well.
@freediverx@KingShawn@aulia Even with Lightroom CC, you can mark certain collections to sync to the cloud. You can then view (but not edit) those files on cloud-enabled Adobe apps.
Add comment