mattcohen wrote:SFA wrote:mattcohen wrote:
I'd be embarrassed if I made something that was more limited (in any way) than five-year-old dead software.
I get your point but is that not what Apple did when replacing its now dead software?
If the mighty Apple can do that to its users why on earth would you expect comparatively little Phase One to fill the gap left by Apple's development that used Apple's own development tools and, presumably, was optimised for them?
And if they did, would they have to develop on a completely different set of products for the Windows market?
Grant
Maybe you misunderstood, maybe you didn't. Today I can search through an Aperture library of 120,000 pictures with multiple keywords and full IPTC with zero lag. With the same setup, C1 chokes on 30,000, I wouldn't be surprised if it choked on 10,000. Aperture hasn't been developed really since 2013, and C1 has had ~5 versions since. Yes, I absolutely expect that problem to have been solved completely in the intervening years. This is basic DAM functionality.
If I understand things correctly Apple replaced Aperture with Photos for OS X.
How does Photos compare to Aperture?
Remember that until recently Phase also offered Media Pro.
So if Apple don't see a long term need for an Aperture type product (or don't wish to compete with other applications available) and Phase don't see a future for Media Pro ( a comprehensive DAM product in its own right as I understand it) then maybe the DAM market is either too small or too specialised or too well populated with free application or something to make it worth the development investment?
Affinity seems to have become quite popular as an alternative to PhotoShop. No DAM functionality that I can find in Affinity. Nor Keywords. Nor much additional metadata.
Lightroom forced the use of a catalogue (at version one - maybe still?) for whatever reasons they had at the time.
I didn't like the catalogue approach at the time.
What else does Adobe offer for cataloguing other than LightRoom?
Canon always provided separate products for RAW conversion and cataloguing. I didn't get into either of them very much.
Other products may well be trying to offer both catalogues and RAW conversion/editing in a single integrated application and UI. Can they do it without performance issues on one side of the application or the other?
The point about the Apple in house development is that they only had to create a product for Apple users, could make use of all of their internal knowledge of their self developed tools and totally integrate to the OS or other useful features from their suites of products in way that third party developers may never be able to do.
The same goes for MS and Windows.
In terms of business strategy they can also to exit a particular market at any time they choose to and both of them do frequently. Some Microsoft applications have extremely short lifespans an no realistic end of life portability.
So if a major developer does create a super performing product based on their own architecture you would expect it to be good. And marketable. To drop it rather suddenly suggests they don't really see a future for that market in that form - or at least not a market they are interested in .
Alternatives development tools and market options may be more compromised.
Grant