Columns

It may have been a coincidence that Apple released Aperture 2.1 the day after Adobe launched a beta version of Photoshop Express. But I doubt it. Apple under Steve Jobs has become a marketing machine - indeed one of the most successful companies in the world at generating publicity with apparently little and sometimes no effort. In fact, at times it seems to be doing its level best to avoid promoting its products, the Xserve being a particularly good example.

And, of course, it's famous for refusing to talk about new products prior to their announcement, even under non-disclosure agreements.

Don't let any of that fool you though. The timing of Aperture 2.1, like so many of Apple's recent announcements, was designed to deflect the glare from Adobe. When it released Aperture 2, Apple knew that a new plug-in architecture was around the corner. Yet rather than include it in version 2, it issued it as an update.

That could have been because it wasn't ready when 2.0 shipped and the company didn't want to delay that release. Or it could have been because it knew that by launching 2.0 then following it up with a major update, it would get double the publicity.

It may not have known exactly when Adobe was planning to release Express but it knew it was imminent and, quite conceivably, could have had the 2.1 update ready to roll as soon as Adobe pushed the button on Express.

The irony is that it very nearly backfired because of a stray clause in the terms and conditions of Photoshop Express. Had that clause not been

ADVERTISEMENT

hastily withdrawn, the Aperture 2.1 news would have been swamped in a tidal wave of criticism directed at Adobe.

That clause said: 'You [the Photoshop Express user] grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed.' In other words, you upload your images to your Express account and while the company doesn't claim ownership, in every practical sense they immediately become Adobe's property.

Whether that was ever the intention is unclear. The immediate response of the Photoshop Express team, posted by Photoshop senior product manager John Nack on his blog, was: 'Our legal team is making it a priority to post revised terms that are more appropriate for Photoshop Express users.' That could be read either as 'We screwed up and will get it sorted,' or 'Damn, we were hoping no one would notice but I guess we'd better fix it.'

I'm inclined to believe it was the former, though how a company as big as Adobe would let a product as huge as Photoshop Express out of the door even in beta form, without making sure that the terms and conditions are bulletproof, is beyond me. And as I write this nearly a week later the revised clause has yet to be posted.

It would have been a great shame if a row over the use of images had detracted from what is shaping up to be an excellent product. We'll have full coverage in the next issue of MacUser but our initial impressions are favourable. It's a long way even from Photoshop Elements but provides plenty of tools for making basic adjustments and adding effects to images, plus 2GB of storage space. The flash-based interface is surprisingly good too. What then has that to do with an update to an Apple application for professional photographers? On the face of it - nothing. They are clearly aimed at two very distinct markets.