Have to say, it always amuses me when the more MAC-Centric folk in the workd think Apple are doing something new and cool yet the PC/UNIX systems have always done things in that way from almost day dot! Aperture was at best incomplete to be polite when it was released so unless the average user of MAC's using aperture are of substaitially low IQ, would it not have been in Aplle's interest to offer generic FREE upgrades to a totally flawed piece of software - Photoshop Updates do it (not main releases but did Aperture v1.0, 1.1. or likley 1.5 qualify as new, working and tested releses?) - Capture One Pro does it?? They only charge for fully fledged NEW releses of software. There's also the fact as pointed out in an earlier post, that many pro creatives would swear by nothing short of PC/Windows based machines because of their still superior upgradability and use of open components in the system - also the fact that High end Graphics, Editing, Animation systems etc still tend to be UNIX derivitive (note, not OSX) based. Makes me wonder at times if MAC user readers also eat MAC Flakes for breakfast, drink MAC Milk from MAC Cows, eat a MAC PRO Burger, for the hungry professional, at lunch, drive a MAC Mobile and date a MAC Chick (would that make payment for sex something you did with a slightly different MAC PRO???) - If there was a little less APATHY in MCD-DOM, there may truly be a fully customisable MAC option with costs that were realistic and software that really did what it said.....NOW back to that MAC PRO??

Your arguments would be better if they made more sense.

By the way, "Mac" isn't an acronym.

Poor PC user. Stuck in a bleak world where he is brainwashed by all of his closed-minded friends about how bad macs are. If only he had ever USED one, he may know how vastly superior they really are. I have nothing against photoshop (on the contrary in fact, I love it), and I have nothing against PC's. Its the people that refuse to belive that anything by apple could possible good, simply because they are a verticle market company. Go ahead guys, fight "the man". You're only helping another: Bill Gates.

Jason, you're absolutely right - I missed an 'A' in 'MAC', 'RELEASES' and a misplaced 'L' for a 'P' in 'APPLE' - as for MAC not being an Acronym, it is an Abbreviation for the original name/build code- name of the Apple Macintosh 9 1983/4). So apart from the spelling errors and an Abbreviation, now noted as a name, not an Acronym (though I'm pretty sure, in the English dictionary at least, nothing written would have suggested the use of MAC as an Acronym), what didn't make sense? Could this be the Apathy I'm talking about......?

Your arguments need some more credibility. As they stand, they can be easily shot down.

Okay, to try and back up the comments and make them a little less easy to shoot down:

1. When Apple releases anything, it's almost always greeted with somewhat child like glee by the Mac contingent - even though rarely, like ALL other hardware/software companies, does it get it right or in the case of Aperture, close to right 1st time...

2. No one, at any point thought Aperture v1.0 was a good piece of software, least of all functional for a professional photographer to use - and the offer of a rebate for an upgrade to v1.1 just shows how obedient Mac users seem to be at times - I really could not see that working so well for any other company. So, for Apple to offer an upgrade free of charge for v1.5 of Aperture would seem to me, the right way for a company of it's size to approach a piece of software it wrote that was truly lacking and to appease the poor people who bought it.

3. While no one ever gets it right first time - have you seen the versions of Adobe Lightroom since it's first Beta release - now V4!! It ran from the get go, with small glitches but still very useable, even to the point of working live with clients...

4. Adobe, Capture One, Leaf, Hasselblad etc all offer free upgrades to their capture/viewing software but charge for major new releases - so where does Apple get off justifying any cost for making new software work?

5. Lightroom, Photoshop are pretty power hungry pieces of software, but in no way compare to the bloat of Aperture on system resources just to load. Makes for a very long & slow working day.

6. I think you'd be surprised at how many High End graphics machines are actually based on Win2k/XP systems running Photoshop, Capture One or equivalent - the fact that Adobe has made Photoshop for the PC market for at least 4 years and is introducing Lightroom for it - and CS suite in general, kinda points out the market share and volume. More than that, for high end rendering, animation, graphice editing, music editing etc, it's mainly a UNIX based world with some windows systems in. I won't go into the high end storage, server, data server arena as this is 80% if not more windows and Unix.

7.Final point - I sometimes feel that dedicated Mac users are reminiscent of a cult - they follow their leader, clap and whoop loudly at any comment and will happily make claim to anything newly introduced as better than anyone else's. I've no argument that Aplle has been a leader in stylising computing and creating a new genre of computer user & music listener. Even less argument that they made computers cool and stylish. However, when the user becomes part of the 'collective' and fails to think individually about what's missing, freedom of choice in how they load software, what they can upgrade to, why they keep hearing how wonderful it all is when they have a problem......I start to be a little dubious.

If we take a step back, 1984 Superbowl, Big Brother Is Watching You....the Apple Macintosh ad? - doesn't it sometimes feel a little like Apple is becoming Big Brother??? We've given you this and you will like it....

Wow, this has turned into quite the debate. I would love to spend more time involving myself in this argument, as I think you have made some valid points, but unfortunately I have other things to tend to. All I will say is this:

No one is lapping into the hands of Apple with "childlike glee" as you portray it, at least not here. I was not happy with Aperture 1.0, but I did buy it. That was my decision. If I wanted to return the software to Apple for a refund, I could have easily gotten one (don't believe me? check the Apple Aperture Forums). Aperture 1.1 came around and fixed some of my complaints, along with a $200 rebate. This made me more satisfied with my purchase. As Apple continues to upgrade & fix their application (and do it for free), I am only going to get more pleased, thus the point of this post. You must remember that the name of this site is MacUser. We are not here solely to praise the work of Apple, but we certainly aren't here to tear it apart, limb by limb, as you so love to do.

However, when the user becomes part of the 'collective' and fails to think individually about what's missing, freedom of choice in how they load software, what they can upgrade to, why they keep hearing how wonderful it all is when they have a problem......I start to be a little dubious.

Scott, my point is that you may not be a Mac Cultist but from a slighlty removed view, there are many Mac users who would seem to be showing symptoms. It is for those with knowledge, experience or simply belief to tear apart as well as build up that which we have opinion on - and I am simply the Yang to your Yin, no name calling, just an opinion. Just to ally Jonny's fear, I am in fact a Mac user - Powerbook 1.67, 15", 80Gb HD, 128mb Graphics, 1Gb Ram etc - I use it every day in a professional capacity including live image capture & editing, retouching in photoshop, ftp'ing files, burning DVD's of images - on average it's in use 20 hours of most days. I've also used PC systems from Dos 6 upwards and even SUN mainframes to some degree. My first Apple was a IIe, a lil while ago. I also worked in the infrastructure/networking arena for 7 years before doing what I do now. What this did teach me was a truly fair view of what makes a good system, piece of software or working enviroment withing computing. It also taught me who really went out of their way to make the consumer using their product happy. End of the day, a computer is still a computer and software is still software - regardless of how pretty the box looks, it's still there to perform a function and if it does not do that well, questions should be asked...For me, that means when I edit at home it's using photoshop on a Win2K system that's faster than anything else I've yet used, including the new Macs. Yet my Mac is on my shoulder every day and on every job I shoot...

I cant wait till I can download the free "major" update (perhaps on tuesday, they usually make updates available on tuesday). You can tell its something major because it went from 1.1.2->1.5 which would make it a semi upgrade. I just wonder how big the download will be.

Btw... MAC is an acronym for Mouse Activated Computer.

While I do agree that offering a free upgrade to an apparently not-so-great application is nothing to write home about, the whole "Mac Cult" idea just seems childish to me.

Everything has its pros and cons, and I think most Mac users feel that the good outweighs the bad with many Apple products. That's why they are fans. While Mac computers may not be as customizable and upgradable, the design and ease of use make them worth it for many people. True, they aren't for everyone, but there are plenty of other options out there as well.

Reading this blog, I don't see any lack of pointing out the flaws in some of Apple's decisions. Yes, there's excitement when they release new products and such (what's the crime in that?) But I also see criticism for some of the products as well, within the Mac community, if they aren't up to snuff.

MAC is also an acronym for the Mid-American Conference. And btw, I didn't like Aperture from day one and still don't like it due to abnormally high system requirements.

Rich, your argument is a ridiculous straw man. Flog it all you like, but it's still a straw man.

While Rich's initial post may have been somewhat rambling, his follow-ups have been cogent and logical. Don't bash someone simply because they have a different or less popular opinion.

That being said, even a casual read of Macuser belies any claim that the bloggers here are incapable of calling Apple out on something, much less cultists.

I don't use Aperture or its competitors, so I'm staying out of that fray. I will respond to your sixth (gasp) point, in which you said: "the fact that Adobe has made Photoshop for the PC market for at least 4 years and is introducing Lightroom for it - and CS suite in general, kinda points out the market share and volume." Am I to assume that because that there exists some software out there that has been produced for 4 years automatically means it has achieved some high level of market penetration? I think not. I'm not saying that Photoshop, et al on Windows machines have not achieved some level of commercial success. But to intimate that 4 years of production is somehow a barometer of that success is, at best, a very flawed argument. Maybe the long-term production of Microsoft Office Suite for Macs indicates that the ascendant dominance of Apple is well-nigh here.

Me, Ramble....:) I think you'll just as easliy find the continued support and development of MS Office for MAC shows why Microsoft has such a strong hold on the software market in general - around 95% for the office applications users. Allowing for the fact that it also allows for cross compatibility of files in a generically MS based world means the openess and useability is increased for people wanting to use Mac's, not diminished. I'll beg to disagree and say that any major software company that contines to support and develop new software versions for multiple OS's, is indeed proving market share and value of those systems just by investing the amount of money required to fund such projects. Least of all the fact that Photoshop, an initially Mac based software product, was in fact then ported over to MS/Windows enviroments because of the growing number of users who wanted it to run on windows based systems. This was also prompted by the openly customisable design that PC's inherently have in comparison to Mac's - at least till now. Microsoft is great at covering it's market share, hence Office for Mac. Remember, it also invested around 40% of required finance back into Apple at a time when it nearly went bust. Another way it holds the market share it owns.

One thing I do need to point out by the way, is I'm no way a great supporter of Microsoft either - even less so in fact as I've dealt with the problems caused by it's lackse security and code design at a corporate enterprise level. But, I guarantee that MS jump pretty high and fast when enough people scream and still make software/OS that are infinitely more customisable that Apple. I'm still looking forward to the day when the options are as open on a Mac based system as they are with PC's - and I will move over so fast it will be almost scary. We may be getting there, but it's a very slow crawl. My only other gripe is the Memory Management/Virtual Memory subsytem in OSX/Mach which I think is most likley a huge culprit in why certain software does run cleaner on windows than OSX. Faster processors, more memory will not help until this is fixed -10.5?

I meant no offense with ramble (laughs)... suffice it to say, your follow-up posts were, ah, more coherent.

I only brought up MS Office for Mac as an example, not to hijack the thread. I could just have easily have cited tons of freeware that has been on the market for 4 years and longer as an example that "length on the market" is not an accurate barometer of "market penetration." Nothing in your posts refutes that. That is not to say that Photoshop on windows does not enjoy substantial market penetration. It was merely an attempt to encourage you to bolster the claim with something better than the fact that it had been on the market 4 years, which does nothing for your position.

No offence was taken, at 3-4am - my time in London at first posting, I'd say I may well have been sleep deprived...though I'm still upset that no one seemed to pick up on the sarcastic humour at all!

I think the difference between the point you're making, and realising that my point holds ground is a matter of finance. No major software, hardware or system player will ever invest money into a dead end project if it fails to meet cost and defined earning expectations. Makes for bad business, unhappy stock holders and creates bad publicity on any new product they may venture to release. Prime example, Apple keeps quiet about almost everything they do till the last minute, then releases the product and plugs the holes where required. Minimal damage caused by early declarations of great new things. Microsoft on the other hand, who almost never learn this lesson, give unrealistic release dates, project ideas and then spend the 12-18 months before release fixing bad press, bad betas and fluctuating share prices. Their saving grace however, is their sheer size and value. For a small software developer or even an independant, the value, quality and/or usefulness of an app they develop has almost no quantifiable value to anyone but themselves and the users who may enjoy said app. But there is never a cost involved decision to keep the app running for 4+ years least of all, port it over to another operating system. If the operating cost of porting to both Mac and Windows is $10,000,000 - you can bet that money has been made back and that show's a valid base for market penetration. This is where the he says, she says no longer holds court, where the Mac user and Pc user no longer hold value, it's simply down to the $$$ earnt against the investments and if they keep investing the money and updating the software, there is defined market penetration and in more than one field. Proof of this is also attainable by the simple fact that MS will still cover the cost of developing Vista and then make a fortune on top of it. Freeware in the end does not show anything as to market share, market pentration or even user trends other than to show a healthy need by both users and developers to create and use tools that are either not offered by a major manufacturer, or cost too much for the masses to buy. Remember, there is also a huge amount of freeware for the windows, linux and unix based world as well - but it's still not factual in establishing market pentration unless the development cost to profit ratios, the continued support/upgrading of it and it being ported to multiple operating systems is also a factored in and then after 3-4 years, the software is still going strong.

I think perhaps it's best to agree to disagree. By way of example, the Xbox has hardly taken the market from the Sony Playstation, yet Microsoft has not only stuck with it but produced a next gen console. I'm not sure when the Xbox debuted, but I'm relatively confident it's at or close to 4 years old. Far more importantly, the market is rife with examples where a company incorrectly saw advantages or bright futures in products causing them to keep it on the market yet never saw those products become a commercial success. That undermines the strength of the correlative relation on which your argument is solely based. But if you're satisfied with supporting your argument of market penetration by pointing out 4 years of production, that's okay... But I assert it is far better to make a point with solid data showing market penetration rather than a weak correlation.