iOS-Inspired iPhoto for Mac Update Coming This Summer?

I hope that Apple integrates iPhoto into the Photos app on iOS, it makes no sense to have two apps considering they have the exact same function bar a few photo editing features on iPhoto.

yay ... more limitations :rolleyes:

the iPad version is horrible, you cant even delete and reorganize your pictures as far as i know

For an average user this would be a nice change. The rest of us photography snobs can keep using what we use.

Yay! Let's dumb everything down even more! WTF has happened to apple... They used to have excellent products.

Have you even used the App? Its got much more to offer than the current iPhoto app for Mac.

Seriously. Everyone needs to get off the "Apple are dumbing down everything" bandwagon :rolleyes:

----------

Interesting. I'm guessing it will be optimally used with the trackpad since it seems that is the direction Apple is going. What would be cool is if you could transfer pictures via a home's Wifi between the iOS and Mac version w/o going outside the program or app or having to use iCloud.

You can publish the photo's to Photostream but I believe it lessons the MP.

Yay! Let's dumb everything down even more! WTF has happened to apple... They used to have excellent products.

With iCloud, this could be sweet.

iCloud as a whole is somewhat useless, but especially with photos and videos. I posted this before, but I will repost it.

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.

For an average user this would be a nice change. The rest of us photography snobs can keep using what we use.

Apple's line of logic, probably: Why pay $14.99 for iPhoto when you could pay $79.99 for Aperture?

They really need to have iOS iPhoto sync up with Mac iPhoto. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have two separate libraries and force the users to do a bunch of legwork to keep them up to date. Ideally, we would have an option to back up our libraries to iCloud (iPhoto in the Cloud?) for a fee? The current solution is a bit rubbish, I think. :confused: /opinion

Yay! Let's dumb everything down even more! WTF has happened to apple... They used to have excellent products.





iCloud as a whole is somewhat useless, but especially with photos and videos. I posted this before, but I will repost it.

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.

I some what agree with you. Compared to music, cloud for pictures, assuming each file around 15MB isn't too different from music. But I think, most would agree that your example of 250-400 shots per shoot is way above an average user. It wont work for you. Nothing will work for you.

Do you understand how large photos are? My low end DSLR makes files that are about 15MB a piece. Some of the high end models such as the Nikon D800 make photos up to 75MB. Lets use my camera for example. I typically take about 250-400 shots per shoot. Assuming each file is around 15MB, that would mean I have between 3.7 and 6 GB of data. Like most in the US, I also have low upload bandwidth. To be exact, I get about 1.5megaBITs up, or 192 kilobytes per second. At that rate, it would take over five and a half hours just to upload 250 shots to iCloud. If I had a nice D800, it would take 27 hours to upload those shots on my connection. Also note that on one vacation, in which I toured Europe, I took over 2000 photos. Do you see how ridiculous it would be to actually use iCloud? It is not a viable option.

Photostream is a consumer product. It is designed to push iDevice photos to other devices, getting rid of the need to transfer your photos to your computer. Doing so, it backs up your photos to your PC, without the need to do any work.

For $100, you can get 55GB of yearly storage. That will satisfy 99.9% of the population. The fact that you may be in the 0.1 percent, is tough luck :P.

Lucky Apple and Canon didn't forget about you :
http://www.apple.com/thunderbolt/
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/canon-to-use-intels-thunderbolt-in-future-cameras-11-03-2011/

'Appleweetjes' is just guessing. Never heard from this site (im belgian), they probably just need viewers :o