{"id":50803,"date":"2026-01-23T19:28:30","date_gmt":"2026-01-24T00:28:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=50803"},"modified":"2026-01-26T12:15:27","modified_gmt":"2026-01-26T17:15:27","slug":"a-lament-for-aperture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2026\/01\/23\/a-lament-for-aperture\/","title":{"rendered":"A Lament for Aperture"},"content":{"rendered":"

Daniel Kennett<\/a> (BasicAppleGuy<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

An exception to that, however, is Apple’s Aperture<\/a>. I’m still<\/em> grumpy that Apple discontinued it back in 2015, and I’m not alone. Start spending time in the online photography sphere and you’ll start to notice a small but undeniable undercurrent of lament of its loss to this day. Find an article about Adobe hiking their subscription prices because they added AI for some reason, and amongst the complaining in the comments you’ll invariably find it: “I miss Aperture.”<\/em><\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

So, I dug out the ‘ol Trashcan Mac Pro I lovingly reviewed here on this very blog<\/a> over eleven years ago and fired up Aperture to document — at least partially — just why<\/em> it was so special.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

This sort of design is common in apps like Photos, and especially in “shoebox” apps. Every feature is in its own place, and if you want to use that feature you need to pick up your thing (in this case, a photo) and take it over to where the feature is. In this example, the journey from the map to the editor is through a separate list of images, the fullscreen viewer, then finally to the editor.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Aperture comes to you<\/em>. <\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

In Aperture, the loupe is a little round zoomy thing you can either drag around to view a zoomed-in portion of the image it’s on top of, or attach to the mouse so you can just point at stuff to zoom in. […] Aperture’s technical brilliance is remarkable in how quiet<\/em> it is.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The 2015 discontinuation of Aperture continues to break my heart for two reasons: the loss of support for a tremendous piece of software, of course, and also for what it represents. It was, for reasons Kennett writes about and plenty more, a pinnacle of software design and engineering. It felt like it was built by people who took two crafts — software and photography — very seriously.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

This week’s announcement of the Creator Studio bundle included no news about the future of Photomator. However, my spidey-sense says this is a case where no news might be good news.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Perhaps the biggest omission in this first release of Apple Creator Studio is the lack of a Lightroom rival, which is exactly what Photomator is — and Aperture was<\/a>. My guess is that Apple and the acquired Pixelmator team are hard at work on a new Creator Studio version of Photomator, including a version for iPad, and it just isn’t finished yet.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

I doubt this would be a Pro tool like Aperture was, though.<\/p>\n\n

Joe Rosensteel<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Why not forecast that possibility by telling us what will happen with the multi-platform app Photomator? It’s the direct analog to Lightroom, making it the most obvious missing piece in Apple’s bundle. If it’s because there are no updates to announce for Photomator after over a year, then I would ask, “Why is Apple charging $30 a year for the existing version of Photomator?”<\/p>\n

If it’s because Photomator will instead be a $30 a year freemium unlock for the Photos app, then I would ask, “What’s the Creator Studio bundle for if it doesn’t include photography? And<\/em> why is Apple still charging $30 a year?”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n