Soon, with “Apple’s Photos apps, your library is in the cloud. That is, you don’t just have an out-of-date copy of your pictures sitting on a server somewhere. Instead, you can access, edit and organize those pictures from pretty much any device,” Charlie Sorrel writes for Cult of Mac. “This is a fundamental shift. You no longer need to worry about which version of your photo you have on which device, because there is only one version, and it’s everywhere.”
“Clearly we have no idea what the Photos Mac app will bring, other than what we were told at the Worldwide Developers Conference keynote a few weeks back. But what we do know is exciting enough. It will share a library with your iOS devices. It will support RAW photos, so you can import images from a camera or anywhere else. And it will sync lossless edits across your devices, instantly,” Sorrel writes. “Apple is making iCloud canonical. That is, the central storage place for your library is on Apple’s servers, not your Mac. This means that you don’t even need a Mac to use the service. You could fill up your whole 200GB iCloud storage plan with pictures taken on your iPhone if you like.”
Sorrel writes, “Apple’s Photos app is already the central location for your photos on iOS. I think it will soon become the central location for all your photos, period.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Apple’s upcoming OS X Photos app appears to focus on iOS 8 editing features, not pro tools – July 2, 2014
How iCloud killed iPhoto and Aperture – July 1, 2014
Apple merges iPhoto, Aperture into a single new, free Photos app – June 30, 2014
Apple axes Aperture and iPhoto, says new Photos app for OS X is the future – June 28, 2014
Apple pulls plug on Aperture – June 27, 2014
Apple may have finally solved photo storage hell – June 23, 2014
Apple unveils new versions of OS X and iOS, major iCloud update with iCloud Drive – June 2, 2014
Who comes up with this nonsense?
My iPhoto library is over 600 GB; so a 200 GB iCloud would not cut it.
600Gb – wow that’s big!. I’ll wager there’s at least 100GB of rubbish in there. Do you drive a bus?
Say no more, say no more! Wink wink nudge nudge. 😛
“A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind bat!”
Seriously. Like I want to pull down six 22MB images for comparison purposes while onboard my flight where 220 other people are sharing the single internet connection?
Aperture 1.0 elevated RAW to the same performance level of JPEG from the browsing and viewing perspective. In my area the phone company is still pushing their 1.0Mbs DSL as “high speed” while the cable guys give us 60Mbs. Meanwhile, Apple gave us Thunderbolt (and then version 2) to allow images to come on/off hard drives at 10Gbs.
I would absolutely love an inexpensive way to have my 350GB photo library redundantly stored on commercially available servers, but it can’t come at the cost of workflow efficiency.
Maybe this will work for the people who think their phone is a great camera, or those who shoot 37 pictures a month or so.
I’m a sports photographer for local high schools, and my 2013-2014 school year library alone is over 700 GB.
My eight-year total library set is nearly 3TB.
Ain’t gonna work for me.
Commentators on American culture since the 1700s have remarked on our obsession with equality and our hatred of elites. Politically, that may be a good thing, but there are practical limits. Not everyone can run an Olympic-record marathon, no matter how earnestly everyone tries. Not everyone can consistently take professional-quality images. Sorry, but it’s true. Firing all the newspaper photo guys and handing the reporters iPhones is going to affect the product, just like firing all the reporters and relying on Twitter for breaking news. Replacing all the professional photo tools with mobile apps (and desktop apps that have feature-parity with mobile apps) will satisfy most folks, but not the elite. But we don’t have elites in America so that doesn’t matter.
From what I hear a lot of hacks are already using phones to take and send back to base news images.
It’s safe to assume that iCloud storage will not be requirement for Photos, it will be an option, but we’ll still be able to storage TB’s of photos on local hard disks.
This.
I don’t know why people keep thinking Apple would, or even could make Photos entirely cloud based. I spoke to people at WWDC, that’s not going to happen. iCloud won’t be needed at all to work with Photos.
And here we go again – everyone dumping on something no one knows anything about. What fun!
Tim Cook is dumbing down the Apple product line. This is for all those facebookers to organize their selfies.
Troll much?
I think the only people who would be concerned about an “out of date” photo on one of their plethora of Apple devices are exactly the same people for whom the “Cloud” is not a viable solution (see previous posts if you don’t understand why).
I think the ability to wirelessly (via peer-to-peer WiFi) move pictures from my MBP to an iPad (via Handoff or some other similar feature) is really cool. But I just don’t see keeping all my photos in the cloud as a reasonable alternative.
I’m not a pro, but I do have 170 GB of images on my MBP. I shudder to think what it would be like if I were a pro and stored them as RAW rather than JPEQ.
And then, of course, there is the issue of security with photos in the cloud (sorry, I reserve the right to keep my tin-foil hat firmly in place on this one; Snowden’s revelations have taught us a thing or two about the privacy we can expect on the cloud).
Why would photo versions be out of date I wonder. Surely if one is different from the other it had been due to a conscious decision and both originally were meant to be kept. I personally have versions of photos that each remains current even if dates vary. Certainly many may become redundant over time but not sure how a computer or network will be able to make such decisions reliably to delete them.
“It’s safe to assume that iCloud storage will not be requirement for Photos, it will be an option, but we’ll still be able to storage TB’s of photos on local hard disks.”
Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. While this may work to begin with, sooner or later, Apple stop supporting anything stored on your local drive.
EVERYONE, including Apple wants ALL your stuff, and will stop at nothing ’til they have it. Then you’ll have to “subscribe” to their service forever just to see your own pics. And when you stop subscribing, your pics are GONE. And, I might add, you must also subscribe to a service that connects you to the internet to begin with as well.
Subscribe to an ISP, subscribe to Apple’s iCloud, take a pic, and continue to subscribe to both forever, or loose them all… it’s going to be that simple.
http://2e78ahp7mz38gqxnqfsdksls25.hop.clickbank.net/