Prosumer digital image management has not progressed to our advantage

Every so often the software market fails. I've had this happen to me a few times. From 1997 to 2007 I used a variety of PalmOS devices for what we used to call "personal information management" (PIM) - including Contacts, Notes, Tasks and Calendaring. My many PalmPilot/Palm handheld stylus devices synchronized by cable connection with Palm desktop software.

PalmOS died around the time the first iPhone came out. That original iPhone was both revolutionary and crappy. Functionally it was a huge regression from PalmOS Calendaring and other PIM solutions, but it was immediately clear that the iPhone was the future (seriously, there were no honest skeptics). Palm had been ailing already, but at that moment it was utterly dead.

It took three years for the iPhone to develop useable solutions for the "PIM-4" that worked across devices (often using either Google or Microsoft Exchange). During that time I had no handheld solution; I returned to using a paper Franklin planner. Finally, in 2010 or so, I was able to transition to the iPhone and iOS.

The market failure of digital image (and video) management has lasted longer and there's no end in site. This means something.

Things were actually looking pretty good for image and video management in 2015. Apple had consumer (iPhoto) and prosumer/professional (Aperture) applications that (mostly) shared the same image library. Things were not perfect -- Aperture had had years of horrible bugs and performance issues, but in retrospect this was a golden age. SSDs were fixing the iPhoto/Aperture performance issues and there were several reasonably priced alternatives including Adobe Lightroom. We didn't know how well we had it.

And then 2015 was when Apple killed both Aperture and iPhoto. There was no replacement for Aperture; users were left stranded with limited ability to migrate to another platform. Photos replaced iPhoto, but in most ways it was a functional regression. There was only one Photos advantage -- it promised a cloud-centric approach to image management with some limited backup features. If your iPhone or laptop was lost or destroyed your Apple Cloud images were probably safe -- as long as you paid for storage or didn't get locked out of iCloud by a phone thief.

Several alternative prosumer image management solutions emerged. But they all had the same problem Aperture had -- they all had severe data lock. If the software were to be discontinued, as happens to most products, there would be no way to extract one's images, image edits, and image metadata (ratings, keywords, titles, descriptions, albums, and on and on). In addition, perhaps inspired by the power of this data lock, many vendors moved to a subscription model. Adobe Lightroom now costs $120 a year, if you don't pay your photo library is essentially dead. Adobe can, if they wish, double or triple that price and customers will simply have to pay up. (I don't know what happens to the image library when a subscriber dies.)

I hoped Apple Photos would mature and develop more advanced features, but it has essentially languished. Recently Apple introduced a "Shared Library" model that is complex to use and, in my experience, has weird bugs and permission problems. (Lesson to users - if you ask Apple for something be prepared to regret your request.)

Eight years after Aperture died there still is not a great prosumer photo management solution for macOS customers. All the options have Hotel California Syndrome -- you can check-in but you can never leave. Apple's only option, the most natural fit for a macOS users, is dreadful and may be deteriorating. Many choices are subscription based and it's very easy for vendors to raise costs.

It's not hard to create a new standards and file based photo management solution. The file system does much of the work. Adobe has an open specification for image metadata management (XMP). Image to album, project, folder relationships are simple row triples. We've known how integrate external image editors for decades [1].

It's not hard ... but it hasn't happened. No vendor has decided to disrupt the marketplace and no open source (really open data structure is what we care about) solution has emerged.

Why not?

My best guess is that the Cloud is the problem. We've only gradually learned how to build responsive synchronizing Cloud products and they are not intrinsically file based. Development is much more challenging and the data lock advantage is irresistible for incumbents.

In the absence of a decent solution vendors are starting to build around the Apple Photos framework. This week Power Photos has a migration and access project. CYME Peakto is some mixture of Photos extension and standalone management solution. Houdah Photos Workbench adds a minuscule number of missing features to Photos.app. I can sort of imagine who these products might work, but Photos is a terrible foundation on which to build.

It's easy to image ways Apple could help, but they've been butchering photo management for a long time. They appear to be broken. The more realistic hope is that it will become easier for open source and other vendors to implement a standards based Cloud solution that would allow library migration between cooperating vendors - either through direct Cloud-Cloud communication or (better) a file based interchange format (what's a TB or two between friends?). I would be happy to pay a $200/year subscription fee for that kind of data freedom solution.

I've spent 7-8 years sitting on Mojave preparing to migrate to Apple Photos. The more I use Apple Photos the less I like this idea.  At this point I expect to convert my beloved 2015 MacBook Air to a non-networked Aperture machine and purchase a new M2 machine for my other work. Since Ventura Photos.app no longer supports importing Aperture Libraries. I'll be looking for other migration options over the next one to two years. Maybe some vendor will decide to disrupt the data-lock. In the meanwhile I'll test Power Photos migration by periodically migrating my Aperture library to Photos.

[1] For each image store original, the proprietary image editor non-destructive edit recipe, and the most recent edited version in a user-defined format (lossy or lossless). If the editor is or changed the edit recipe is useless, bu the edited version is good.

Tech regressions: MORE, Quicken, PalmOS, iOS, Podcasts, Aperture, Music, iPad photo slide shows, and toasters.

One of the odder experiences of aging is living through technology regressions. I’ve seen a few — solutions that go away and are never replaced.

Symantec’s classicMac MORE 3.1 was a great outliner/editing tool with the best style sheet implementation I’ve seen. It died around 1991. The closest thing today would be Omni Outliner — 16 years later. There’s still no comparable Style Sheet support.

Quicken for DOS with 3.5” monthly diskette records of credit card transactions was the most reliable and useable personal accounting tool I’ve experienced — though even it had problems with database corruption. I think that was the 1980s. Today I use Quicken for Mac, a niche product with unreliable transfer of financial information, questionable data security, and limited investment tools.

PalmOS Datebk 5 was an excellent calendaring tool with good desktop sync (for a while the Mac had the best ‘personal information management’ companion). That was in the 1990s. When PalmOS died we went years without an alternative. I briefly returned to using a Franklin Planner. Somewhere around year 3 of iOS we had equivalent functionality again — and a very painful transition.

iOS and macOS have seen particularly painful combinations of progressions and regressions. OS X / macOS photo management was at its best somewhere around the end of Snow Leopard and Aperture 3.1 (memory fuzzy, not sure they overlapped). OS X photo solutions had finally reached a good state after years of iPhoto screw-ups — the professional and home products more or less interoperated. All Apple needed to do was polish Aperture’s rough edges and fix bugs. Instead they sunset Aperture and gave us Photos.app — a big functional regression. Apple did something similar with iMovie; it’s much harder to make home “movies” than it once was.

iOS was at its most reliable around version 6. So Apple blew it up. Since that time Podcasts.app has gone from great to bad to not-so-bad to abysmal. The iPad used to have a great digital picture frame capability tied to screen lock — Apple took that away. For a while there was a 3rd party app that worked with iCloud photo streams, I could remotely add images to my father’s iPad slideshow digital picture frame. There’s nothing that works as well now; as I write this I’m working through a web of bugs and incompetence (I suspect a desperate timeout stuck into iTunes/iOS sync) to sneak some photos from Aperture to an iPad.

Apple Music is following the path of Podcasts.app as Apple moves to ending the sale of music (probably 2019). At the same time iTunes is being divided into dumbed down subunits (iBooks regression). The last 2-3 revisions of iTunes have been so bad that this feels almost like a mercy killing.

We don’t have a  way to avoid these regressions. Once we could have gotten off the train, now the train stations are dangerous neighborhoods of lethal malware. We need to keep upgrading, and so much is bundled with macOS and iOS that we can’t find 3rd party alternatives. Data lock is ubiquitous now.

I think regressions are less common outside digital world. It’s true toasters aren’t what they were, but since 2006 Chinese products have become better made and more reliable. Perhaps the closest thing to tech regressions in the material world is the chaos of pharma prices.

This takes a toll. There are so many better ways to spend my life, and too few minutes to waste. I wonder what these regressions do to non-geeks; I don’t think it goes well for them.

My iPhoto miscalculation - whitewater world

iPhoto is dying.

That much is clear. iPhoto 11's launch bug problems followed the pattern of the past decade. Unlike past releases though, iPhoto 11 lost important capabilities -- just like iMovie and Final Cut Pro X regressed from prior versions.

That's bad, but what's worse is that, after seven years of sort-of trying, Aperture is still not an adequate iPhoto replacement.

Bad on bad news, but the real sign of a dying platform is the echoing silence. When users stop complaining, a software platform is dead.

Fortunately I had planned from this the very beginning. I knew, nine years ago, I was taking a big risk putting my photos and data into an Apple product. Even then Apple had a reputation -- it didn't worry much about customer data. I figured Apple might abandon iPhoto, but I also figured the Mac community would come up with a migration solution.

I was wrong. There's no migration to Lightroom, there is no exit from iPhoto that preserves data.

Where did I go wrong? I missed this ...

Of funerals, digital photos and impermanence — Tech News and Analysis

... Apps like Instagram and Path, both of which I love, actually make this problem worse instead of better in some ways. They are great for sharing quick snapshots of a place you are visiting or someone you are with or what you are eating — and you can share those easily to Flickr and Facebook and Tumblr and lots of other platforms (more than 26 photos are uploaded to Instagram every second). But do you want to save all of these for a lifetime, along with the ones you took of your new baby or your sister’s wedding? Probably not. So again, there is a filtering problem....

I didn't imagine that geeks would basically give up; overwhelmed by rapidly changing technologies. I didn't anticipate that the 'prosumer' computer platforms would die instead of reforming. I didn't imagine that OS X would go into maintenance mode. I didn't imagine a technology regression of this magnitude.

I expected rough waters, I didn't expect whitewater.

See also:

• iPhoto 9.2.1 to Aperture 3.2.1 - it doesn't actually work 1/2012
• Migration of metadata from Aperture to iPhoto and Google's Picasa web albums 9/2011
• Stuck in Apple's photo management Limbo 5/2011
• Aperture Projects descriptions and iPhoto Event descriptions - what happens on iPhoto migration? 12/2010
• Gordon's Notes: Lessons in Software: Aperture 3 and iPhoto 11 10/2010
• iPhoto 11 and Aperture 3 - more bad news 10/2010
• Aperture keyword hierarchy does not support inheritance queries 2/2009
• Aperture 2: consolidating two iPhoto Libraries 2/2008
• iPhoto '08: don't embed metadata in JPEG originals 12/2007
• Aperture: can't import iPhoto Library 3/2006
• Aperture woes - and iPhoto 6 image export 4/2006
• Why are Apple products so risky? 1/2006
• Apple Aperture: iPhoto replacement? 10/2005
• iPhoto: A Potemkin Application? 12/2003 - shipped before it was ready.

iPhoto - Apple's stupidity burnz

Size of typical JPEG image in iPhoto '09: 3.5MB

Size of identical image when exported at "Maximum" quality JPEG: 6.9MB

So why did the size of this JPEG image double when it was exported?

 

There’s only one possible explanation. In order to do the export iPhoto is first decompressing the image, then re-compressing it using a 99% or near-lossless JPEG algorithm. This doubles the image size while degrading image quality. (You can’t improve the quality of a JPEG image by recompressing it.)

In older versions of iPhoto the app simply copied the image. Now iPhoto behaves like Aperture.

I suspect this back-asswords behavior is related to a surprise of a few months back, when people who thought they were archiving their images to MobileMe learned that Apple's "full resolution" was in fact a high-quality JPEG (about 97% compression). iPhoto was presumably doing a similar decompression/compression cycle on upload to MobileMe. (Supposedly this was "fixed". I'm skeptical.)

Apple's heading for a fall.

Update: If you export as "Current" you avoid the perverse "maximal quality" degradation. Apple should have made "maximal quality" JPEG the same as "current" for images that are already JPEG.

Google Maps: sort of display Picasa photos

Ooops. This was posted here by accident. The real one is here (Gordon's Tech).

Sorry!

The Apple iMovie story: An interesting lesson in modern software evolution

Apple's iMovie was a very good product for editing home videos. Apple decided, however, that they needed to provide a simpler product for managing small video fragments (phone, camera) including editing and organization (iPhoto also organizes video fragments, but even my fellow geeks don't know that.)

Apple decided to kill their original iLife product (iMovie 2006) and replace it with a new 1.0 product called, not coincidentally, iMovie 2008. iMovie 2006 and iMovie 2008 are very different products with some overlapping and some distinct features -- but 2008 is definitely not a superset of 2006. In some ways iMovie 2008 is a significant step backwards from iMovie 2006. If you don't like it, one imagines Jobs saying, you can buy Final Cut Pro and new Mac to run it.

This is arguably a rather arrogant move, but we Apple customers are accustomed to this sort of thing. Those of us who knowingly sold our souls to Mephistophejobs knew there'd be days like this. The iPhone doesn't have, cut and paste, tasks or search capabilities (ok, there's a long list of missing basic PIM functionality), Aperture can't modify image dates and the database is unbelievably slow, iPhoto can't import/merge iPhoto Libraries, etc, etc. Apple's software gets dumber and dumber, but that's what non-geeks want. Geeks just have to suck it in -- for us the pinnacle of software development on any platform was probably the mid-90s.

That's what I thought, until I read this: Buy iLife '08 and get iMovie '06 for free.  This is so unlike Apple I'm a bit stunned. It's almost as though Satan were say "John, I'm really sorry about that eternal hellfire bit, I'll drop the temperature". They're effectively apologizing for the kill/switch move, and providing the old functionality for those who want it. They barely waited for the screaming to start.

So what happened? Is Jobs grip weakening? Is some non-satanic force emerging within Apple?

Wow. Next thing you know they'll build an iPhone I can buy, or maybe even, dare I dream, fix Aperture?

Gordon's Tech is not gone -- but feeds may require a manual update

The short version: I moved Gordon's Tech to a new address: tech.kateva.org. Subscriptions (like bloglines, google reader) were supposed to auto-update, but it's not working. If you read that blog, you'll need to update your feed. Sorry!

The longer version: Gordon's Tech is one of my 3 public blogs (Gordon's Notes is this one, Be the Best You Can Be focuses on cognitive disorders). GT consists almost entirely of technical notes and discoveries I'm interested in; instead of storing them in a desktop file I put 'em into a blog. Works for me, and the results are available for search. Most readers find those posts when solving a tech problem with Google. A small number of readers subscribe to the feed, though the blog doesn't make many concessions to a subscriber audience.

Yesterday I moved Gordon's Tech from a blogspot domain to a Google custom domain. In theory Google's Blogger uses a "301 redirect" to tell feed readers to update their feeds. In practice, that's not working. So subscribers need to update manually. The new URL is tech.kateva.org.

We now return you to your regular programming ...

Apple's OS delay: iLife, iWork, NetInfo, remote control -> it's bad

Mac Geeks are mostly fairly complacent about Apple's five month schedule slip to OS X desktop (vs. OS X TV, OS X iPhone, and OS X video iPod). The most knowledgeable, however, are quietly cautious. Gruber isn't saying this is bad, but my read is that he's starting to worry about Apple's priorities.

I'm also unhappy. It's not just OS X. I expected an Apple replacement for AppleWorks over a year ago. Microsoft still owns the only mass market spreadsheet solution on the Mac [1], and it's tied to buying into their entire suite of file formats. iPhoto hasn't had a major update in over a year, and it needs some serious help (such as importing Libraries). We don't have any adequate remote control solution for the Mac -- that's several years behind Windows. Apple's NetInfo based home and corporate network solutions are a mix of state-of-the-art and vintage 1978 unix. Aperture 1.5 is far slower than it should be, and the best explanations point to weaknesses in OS X data services. We all know the OS X Finder is very weak, and that OS X hasn't not yet equaled MacOS Classic file management. Simple Finder is a farce and OS usability leaves much to be desired. Not to mention the Dock ...

Oh, yes, and Safari. The browser that's stuck in 2004. The range of web sites that Safari supports shrinks every month. Google barely supports Safari; anyone who uses Blogger or Gmail with Firefox or IE can't tolerate Safari on Google. Hmm. Safari barely works on Google? Might as well say it doesn't work at all. There is a far better version of Safari in Apple's labs, but it's waiting on 10.5.

Speaking of core OS X applications, don't users deserve a version of Mail.app that loses massive email repositories less often?

Apple clearly has issues with their computing solutions that go beyond OS X. The saving grace for Apple is that XP is ailing and Vista is about as appealing as a root canal. Even so, there's no room for complacency. They're failing in more than one domain and OS X still has a vast amount of unrealized potential.

[1] Time for me to again test OpenOffice. The last time I tried it wasn't ready for my wife. Happily Nisus Writer Express is quite good.

Update: I almost forgot about Safari and Mail. app.