20 ms·
This is likely the truth, but as someone that sorely misses Aperture, I have a bit of hopium that Apple does want to start competing with Adobe in the RAW proce
by thewebguyd 2y ago
This is likely the truth, but as someone that sorely misses Aperture, I have a bit of hopium that Apple does want to start competing with Adobe in the RAW processing space.
I think there's a significant market of "not quite professional, but more than a hobby" photographers for which they don't want to pay an Adobe subscription, and CaptureOne is too much software for their needs.
a RAW converter with all the standard tools, integrated with the Photos app, and presets curated and polished by Apple, could do well. Add some AI features like Lightroom, but run locally on device instead of allowing Adobe to train on your photos, and I think they'd have a winner in that space.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoI would love Photos to become actually usable. I actually ran a project that produced a pretty awesome photo browser that would still be top-notch today, but it was killed. Photo browsers are really, really difficult to get right, and they don't make money. Most folks expect them to be free.
- sroussey 2y agoWhat’s your reference for Adobe training on your photos?
- thewebguyd 2y agoIt's opt-out, enabled by default in Lightroom (non-classic) or if you sync classic with CC. "Adobe may analyze your content using techniques such as machine learning to develop and improve our products and services." Not explicitly training their models, I was wrong there - but it wouldn't be a stretch for them update terms in the future. Not as egregious as training their models on your photos, but most certainly should be opt-in, not opt-out.
- coldtea 2y ago>Not explicitly training their models, I was wrong there Nothing in the paragraph above rules this out. "techniques such as machine learning" could easily include AI in the "such as".