Article:  |
Cleaning iPhoto | |
| Subject: | That's honorable | |
| Date: | 2004-03-01 22:53:30 | |
| From: | brian_d_foy | |
|
Response to: That's honorable
|
||
| I can understand your disappointment, but I have a different perspective. I would like to control other applications with whichever tool I decide to use, whether that is AppleScript, Perl, or something else. I cannot expect the application designers to anticipate everything I might want to do. Indeed, I would rather have the iPhoto developers concentrate on getting rid of the file-based storage system they use on the backend. | ||
Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.
-
RE
2004-03-02 13:47:37 r_miller [Reply | View]
Oh I understand that point. I do not think Apple should cripple a program so that advanced users cannot alter things to get what they want out of it. However, the ability to reduce image (size) and discard duplicates is in such demand it should have been included all along. That's all I was trying to say. Yeah, I am glad that Apple is leaving the backdoor open so developers can come up with new solutions. I just think Apple should do some of this on the front end. iPhoto I think is great, but its feature set is not much and now that we are paying for it, I expect more. -
RE
2004-03-05 14:20:42 schmiddi [Reply | View]
I think that one has to keep in mind that iPhoto is not a photo editing application. Apple always said and markets iPhoto as nothing more than a shoebox replacement, somewhere where you store your pictures. This includes turning them around, giving them names, maybe some minor picture enhancement, but if you want to do some picture changes then you need should get Photoshop or Photoshop Elements.
You said you are paying for it, and yes you do, but you not only get iPhoto but three other apps, most of all Garageband, I can understand if people don't need all four of them or only want one and think Apple should sell them individually for $10, but the price is not bad, and for what iPhoto does I think $10 to $15 is still a great deal. It is the easiest way to manage your digital pictures and that't its purpose, not to be some thing more. That Apple left the back door open for developers is great.
I hate to bring discord to this happy gathering, but I will.
I think this reply demonstrates why a lot of *nix users have taken so long to recognize mac as a resonable alternative to other operating systems. It was (pre os x) an operating system that was SO user-centric that the users gave up any responsibility for what they generate. And, on the flip side. If an advance system user would ask how anything complicated was done with a mac. They were likely to to be met with "well why would you want to" or "who would do something like that". As if the only things worth doing were things that you could associate with pretty pictures.
As polite as this user may be, he still sounds like a user stomping his feet, demanding the developer think of everything he could possibly imagine, give him an eloquent graphical way to do it, and do it yesterday.
The reason that Unix tools are generally command-line and compos-able is that every application wasn't designed to do everything (except maybe emacs:-), and the USER took responsibility for what he generated, provided he had some chain of tools he could pipe together to do it.