Okay, I have copies of both iLife ’08 and iWork ’08 installed (thanks to Lordkat for picking them up so that we’d be ready for their usage at Gnomedex in a few days). They seem to be solid updates all around, but… I’m still a bit baffled as to how Jobs could’ve bungled the new iPhoto unveiling. Let’s see if you can point out the problem in the following Engadget transcription:
10:30AM: “When you get your hands on this, you’ll think it’s great. We’re all familiar with .Mac. It’s our internet subscription service. We’re pleased to announce we have over 1.7M .Mac subscribers, we’re going to see it grow even faster after today. Marry .Mac and iPhoto. Announcing .Mac Web Gallery. Works hand in glove with iPhoto ’08. What does it do? Has one button photo sharing. integrated into iPhoto ’08. Makes web gallery, uploads automatically. Users get rich Web 2.0 experience [Did Steve really just say “Web 2.0″?]. You can see photos in gallary, mosaic. can see in any browser you’d like. Now people that view photos, if you let them, can download print quality downloads. Users can contribute photos from anywhere. You publish on .Mac, someone is on a PC, there is special email address they can get from the web gallery, and they will appear on your web gallery. Photos will sync to your iPhoto library, too.
Really, iPhoto is Web 2.0? You can upload the photos to Flickr or any other photo service? There’s finally an API? There’s a way to escape the .Mac silo? There’s… no way I’m swallowing that load of malarkey, Apple. If you’re gonna call something “Web 2.0,” at least understand what people expect that experience to be. iPhoto is as much “Web 2.0″ as my dad is the emperor of China.
Fancier graphics and mirror effects are nothing more than… fancier graphics and mirror effects. This is the same ol’ Apple apps that were designed to work with the same ol’ Apple services (albeit, now with more storage availability). .Mac is still largely a waste o’ your money. If there is such a thing, Web 2.0 app integrates with services beyond its own (and its own product family). iPhoto is merely making it easier and more beautiful for its own users – not for those of us who use Flickr. Sorry.
Oh, I’m sorry… it’s not iPhoto that’s allegedly “Web 2.0,” it’s the .Mac Web Galleries… which are still only accessible through a .Mac subscription and an application that doesn’t seem to interoperate with any other service but Apple’s. Maybe I’m mistaken – maybe .Mac has integration with third-party APIs that I’m not seeing anywhere? My point is that Apple isn’t half as open as people think it is. I’m not arguing the simplicity, but I am arguing that a one-way street is not what people keep telling me this damn “Web 2.0″ is.
Why should a user with a photo storage account somewhere else have to upload or reupload those photos? Why should they be left to discover a random plugin (hack?) to get it to work with their existing services? I have the exact same problem with Windows Movie Maker, mind you… but they also left it open-ended for vendors (like Blip.tv) to give their users an easier way of getting their data from a machine to their service. The onus is not on the user, it’s on the gateway and the developer.
Here’s the post-mortem.