Talk:Aperture (software)

Fair use rationale for Image:Apple Aperture.png
Image:Apple Aperture.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New picture...
The image accompanying this article is very small and, as stated, is not subject to copyright laws as it is a screenshot. A full sized screenshot would be helpful in demonstrating the purpose and features of this program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.42.225 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding time line for raw support
Would this new section be useful? Should it be formatted differently? Does anybody have a good idea to obtain shipping dates?

Raw support history
This raw support applies both to Aperture 2.x and iPhoto'08. Camera release dates and estimated shipping date from dpreview.com, luminous-landscape.com
 * Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.2, released 16 Sep 2008.


 * Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.1, released 28 May 2008.


 * Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 2.0, released 20 March 2008.

Noirdesir (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Peachpit
Speer320, as I admitted, I have not yet had the time to check the material from peachpit. Did you do so? In which way is it more of advertising than an informative article about the economy from the NYT with plenty of flash ads? They probably contain the company name peachpit, just like the articles from the NYT contain the name New York Times. I just try to understand why information from one source is acceptable but not from another? Mlewan (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * NYT is a publication that reports news very different from what Peachpittv Did . The Edits made violated Wikipedia Guidelines see: Not. Speer320 (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your logic is far from convincing. "Very different"! What's that supposed to mean? And in which way do they violate any guidelines? In the future, please, don't just add a link to a "guideline" without explaining in which way a particular source in your opinion violates it.


 * However, I have now watched the actual clips, and I agree that in this case, they do not add any valuable information. Not because they "violate" anything, but because their information is trivial. They are not at the same level as many of the other peachpit podcasts. I will not add them back to the article. Mlewan (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am Sorry I gave such a short answer I was in a rush. I was saying that what they edited was a collection of external links Which violates the Guidelines. Also In My opinion NYT is a Much More reliable source/link since it is a Newspaper vs a Producer of learning materials Speer320 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification! Mlewan (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No Problem Speer320 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Aperture (photography software) → Aperture (software) — The name if the proposed article title currently redirects to this article. It should be simplified for convenience.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Was developed"?
The first line of the article has the words "Aperture is a photo editing and management software program that was developed by Apple", which sounds like the program is discontinued. Any specific reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqbal.safdar (talk • contribs) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Another misconception is that Apple was the original developer and now another entity is the developer.  I suggest removing "that was" so that it reads "...and management software program developed by Apple..."Gregtheross (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the intervening years this issue has resolved itself. Since mid 2014, Apple has ceased development on Aperture, so now "was developed" is now correct. 82.30.103.179 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Aperture (software) → Aperture (application) — This article should be moved to Aperture (application) as it is more specifically an application, software seems too broader term whereas application more accurately reflects the articles subject. Additionally, programs developed for Apple's operating systems (i.e. Mac OS X and iOS) refer to computer programs as applications. - 81.154.164.210 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; "software" is only too broad if there is other software with the same name. "Application" is just short for "software application", so there's no material advantage there.  Powers T 23:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; per Powers. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why the detailed version history?
...with every little bug and change? Isn't that a bit much for Wikipedia? Equinox (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely too much for Wikipedia. They are hardly notable, and half of the References are from Apple itself, which is out of bounds given the prohibition on primary sources.  NewkirkPlaza (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Citation for demise from App Store
This MacRumors page confirms that Aperture was actually removed from the App Store on or about April 9. I'll let a more experienced Wikipedian convert this to a proper citation and resolve the cn annotation. Caveduck (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)