« Another One Bites the Dust | Main | Ghetto Diffuser »

April 28, 2006


Gruber on Cringley on Aperture: >[Cringely is] certainly wrong that “Apple’s Aperture photo touch-up program could die so PhotoShop [sic] could reign supreme.” If Apple were to buy Adobe and replace Aperture with an app from Adobe, it’d be Lightroom, not Photoshop. Calling it a “photo touch-up program” shows that Cringely has no idea what Aperture actually is. While Robert X. Cringely is certainly perhaps one of the most vocal people referring to Aperture in such a manner, he's hardly alone. It seems that even after all this time, the only people who know what Aperture _actually_ does fall into one of two camps: Apple employees, and serious photographers. The probable reason? Every damned bit of coverage Aperture got early in its life had to play the "ZOMG APPLE'S TAKING ON PHOTOSHOP!!111" angle, which never was, still isn't, and likely never will be true. Everyone was obsessed with whether Apple would incur the wrath of Adobe, or if they were taking on Photoshop... despite the fact Aperture had nothing in common with Photoshop (other than a couple basic image adjustments and RAW import capability, I suppose) and Adobe didn't then have an announced competitor to Aperture. Being concerned about Aperture taking on Photoshop is like being concerned about pencil sharpeners taking on pencils; they're not competitors, they're _complementary tools_. Just as pencil sharpeners enhance one's enjoyment of a good pencil, so does Aperture aim to improve one's experiences with Adobe Photoshop. Why this hasn't managed to seep into the heads of the hype crowd is beyond me; talking to a single Aperture user or watching a few minutes of one of Apple's demo movies would reveal the fact that oh, hey, that's nothing like Photoshop at all.

Posted by Colin at April 28, 2006 6:39 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)