It's $12.99/mo or $129/yr for a subscription that includes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Motion, Compressor, MainStage, Keynote, Pages, and Numbers
Educational discount with verification required drops the price to $2.99/mo / $29.99/yr.
The regular-price subscription includes family sharing, education price does not.
One-time purchase versions remain available: Final Cut Pro ($299.99), Logic Pro ($199.99), Pixelmator Pro ($49.99), Motion ($49.99), Compressor ($49.99), and MainStage ($29.99).
The most important benefits in my opinion are choice and price - people like me who prefer to buy software outright can still do so at a reasonable cost, while others who opt for a subscription can also do so (again, at a reasonable cost).
It's pretty clever that they keep the "pay one time" option still alive while announcing the availability of subscription, so anyone who says "Boo, not you too Apple" can easily be shut down with "You still have the option to buy it!" instead of leaving those critics without answers. Of course, they'll eventually remove the option to buy the software by paying once, I think everyone can see the writing on the wall, but still clever of them to choose to do it later for PR purposes. 1-0 to Apple :)
Final Cut Pro X has been available for purchase (at the same price, IIRC) for well over a decade now. Pro feathers were ruffled at the time they leapt from FCP7 to FCPX: the $299 price point was something like 1/4 of the going rate for its predecessors, was Apple planning to abandon its pros for the consumer market? Well. Here we are almost 15 years later, and if you paid the one-time price back then, you're still getting free updates today (at least on desktop). And you can still buy in with 299 2025 dollars, rather than 299 2011 dollars.
At the time, the common wisdom was that they'd go the same route as Adobe: you'd have to buy Final Cut X+1 in a couple years for another $299, and Final Cut X+2 a couple years after that... to their credit, that's not the way it's gone.
So that way, I imagine, all the film folks have a little more money to chuck at their high-powered Mac hardware budgets in the next refresh cycle instead... An evergreen Final Cut Pro license costs almost as much as 1TB of SSD from those guys!
That is true, but it is also true that FinalCut lost big time against DaVinci for all semi-professional users which are exactly FinalCut's main target group.
I'd argue that it is very likely that Final Cut X+1 was Apple's plan. It just did not pan out and they were busy with other things. Now they made the first step correcting that (or cutting the losses, depending how you want to see it).
Davinci Resolve is free. At least, for the non studio version. (There’s a few studio only features, but almost everything is available in the free version of resolve). And a lot of people want to learn resolve anyway for color grading. Why not just edit in resolve too? Resolve studio is also quite cheap, given you buy it once and own it forever. Including updates.
I spent last week helping out at a short filmmaking course. The DP running it has used Final Cut for his entire career. But not a single student chose to edit their film using Final Cut. The class was split between resolve and premier pro. (Premier was chosen by a lot of people because it’s what they use at school, and they have a free licence to premier from their school while they’re studying.)
+ purchasing any BMD camera and you usually get a "free" license of DaVinci :) That's how I got my license many moons ago.
Now BMD have "prosumer" cameras available too that doesn't cost half a liver, which the second-hand market seems flush with too, so you can grab really good hardware for "cheap", and get excellent software with it too as the license is movable across hosts :)
> At the time, the common wisdom was that they'd go the same route as Adobe: you'd have to buy Final Cut X+1 in a couple years for another $299, and Final Cut X+2 a couple years after that... to their credit, that's not the way it's gone.
And that's despite Apple having zero interest in doing things that don't ultimately make them money.
I have a theory for how sales of these one-time-purchase yet indefinitely-updated apps happens to work out positively on Apple's balance sheet, while it doesn't for most other large players right now.
And that's that, due to Apple's vertical integration (they make the hardware, they make the OS that runs on the hardware, they make the apps that run on the OS) — and due to these apps only targeting their own OSes+hardware, with no consideration of portability to other platforms — a lot (like 90+%) of the "enablement" work for these apps ends up time-budgeted as OS work, rather than apps work.
Or, I guess, to be more charitable, you could say that Apple's engineers develop first-party apps not just to sell them, but at least in part to drive the development of the OS as a developer platform. You could even describe the OS frameworks as the product, and the apps themselves as the byproduct. (In that lens, the only reason FCP would cost anything at all is to avoid accusations of anti-competitive behavior.)
The core of Apple's success has always been to capture the cultural leaders. Artists, musicians, journalists, etc. have used Apple at much higher percentages than the general public.
Now that the iPhone made Apple much more of mainstream company, it's harder to do -- what does it mean to focus on cultural leaders when 90% of American teens have an iPhone? But in the 15 years since Steve Jobs' death they have still been doing a decent job of it.
The one-time purchase version of Microsoft Office is not available worldwide. Where offered, it is reduced to Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote, with Outlook as a Business edition extra. Individual apps can sometimes be bought separately, but pricing usually makes this impractical. This is to push buyers to Microsoft 365 subscriptions which is the primary product.
Microsoft is renaming the company to copilot, all of its software to copilot, and CEO satya nadella is changing his name to copilot copilot copilot which is also his favourite feature, software, operating system, and the names of his dog, cat, children, and spouse.
Soon the company formerly known as Microsoft will turn into a garbage slop Pokémon capable of emoting only with its name, copilot.
Yes - but perpetual purchases have an interesting gotcha that Microsoft didn't realise at first. To encourage subscription over perpetual, ongoing or evergreen updates are limited to subscription version.
Office 2024 has every feature that was added since Office 2021 to the subscription version - while a chunk of loyal customers are unaware of them.
Back when Google was competing hard with Google Suite, a big perception problem formed with the perpetual customers believing and convincing others that Google were far ahead, with collab editing and other features - after Office had added equivalent.
So for me, If there's a subscription and one-time option - I wonder if the one-time gets all updates going forward. If it doesn't, I realise that they'll regret that if competition picks up, and try to fix it later.
If it does include updates... I worry it will be like many other lifetime updates one-time purchases - when competition is low they'll renege on that promise.
You would definitely not get free upgrades for Office. You would get minor point release updates. You also had to upgrade the Mac version often for:
- the System 7 transition
- the 040 Macs and to get a “32 bit clean version”
- to get the full speed of running natively on PPC Macs
- to get a native OS X version instead of one that ran in the OS 9 sandbox
- the Intel transition to get native performance.
I would much rather pay $150 (?) a year for a five user license where each user gets 1TB of storage and each user can use Office across Macs, Windows, iPhones and iPads.
It’s the same price as Dropbox’s 2TB plan and all you get for that is storage.
On a related note: Steve Jobs was right - Dropbox is a feature not a product.
Yes. That sentence is setup for the speculation in the third paragraph. Folks in this sub-thread are wondering how the one-time price option plays out with Apple Creator Studio.
So far from what I can tell, Final Cut Pro has gotten perpetual updates. Since you can only buy it via the Mac App Store, ther can’t do upgrade pricing.
They could - and some of the 3rd party vendors did: There is a 1Password 7 and a 1Password 8. There was also a Things 1/2, which is now a Things 3. it usually works by creating a new app, and not updating the old one anymore.
Because there is no such product as Office 2025, much like there was no Windows 96. There is Office 2004, 2008, 2011, 2016, 2019, 2021 and 2024. They usually release roughly every three years so there might be an Office 2027. 365 is a separate (but closely related) product.
> Of course, they'll eventually remove the option to buy the software by paying once, I think everyone can see the writing on the wall
There's no indication Apple is planning to end the option of paying once for these apps.
Apple introduced subscriptions for Final Cut and Logic nearly three years ago [1]; this isn't new by any means. Pages, Numbers and Keynote remain available at no cost.
Why do you think they will remove the option to buy the software?
They’ve kept the model for years. They’re targeting different audiences with the move.
There are features they are planning to make exclusive to the subscriptions. I don’t know if they’re planning to make the one-time purchase go away completely, but it seems like it’s going to be approached as the “lesser” option.
Not Apple, but iMazing switched to subscription model and they simply lost me as a customer.
JetBrains tried something similar a while ago too, and almost screwed it up - but managed to listen to their customers and nailed it with the perpetual fallback licensing. Making me not just pay the subscription but feel respect to the company.
This is such a strange way to think about what was done. Rather than just being happy they kept the pay once option and saying that's good you're imagining critics who how Apple can "shut them down."
> so anyone who says "Boo, not you too Apple" can easily be shut down with "You still have the option to buy it!" instead of leaving those critics without answers
This is like saying that it's clever for Mars to keep Mars Bars while launching a new bar, as it "shuts down" complaints that Mars Bars will no longer exist.
I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to get at but your analogy doesn’t really work here because a new chocolate bar would be a new product. Not a different way of buying the same product.
Every choice a company does is a strategy in some way, for some reason, which has been calculated to make them more money than another choice. This is how 99% of businesses work, and Apple as well.
You have any email I could reach out to you on once Apple finally removes the purchase ability for this, and only lets people subscribe?
> You have any email I could reach out to you on once Apple finally removes the purchase ability for this, and only lets people subscribe?
If they do this, then still no one will ever have to say something as silly as "they only kept the other option so people won't complain about them removing the other option".
I think it's okay, or even better probably, if they move to subscription only. All Apple's paid apps have languished for years and if its actually a revenue stream for them maybe they'll actually make them industry-leading again.
The other thing that’s going to go away is purchasing only what you need. I want exactly one of these apps, I bet virtually nobody uses all of them, and yet the suckers are going to be telling us that being made to buy stuff we don’t want or use is “more value”.
Of course predictions about the future are not present reality.
It’s not set in stone, but it’s supported by the times this has happened before and by trends in Apple and in tech. “Nothing will ever change” is a prediction, too, and one much less supported by evidence.
Yea I've already purchased some of these apps so I was not going to thrilled if they pulled an Adobe and made me pay for an overpriced subscription on top of it >:(
Exactly what I was thinking. I bought Pixelmator Pro 3 days ago… But I am happy, as I have absolutely no need for the others, except for the free ones.
It's not outrageous, for sure, specially if you happen to have a use case for all the bundled apps. But things change if you consider that the one time payment for Logic Pro equals about 18 months of the subscription. In my case, I bought Logic Pro in 2013 for 180€. Obviously a subscription seems expensive no matter what the price is.
If a students needs Logic Pro for 3 months for a class then they can get it (with the other apps) for $9 total ($6 if you count the free month). That makes more sense than a one time fee of $200. On the other hand, if you're planning to use the software for over a decade like yourself then $200 is very cheap.
Indeed, and considering the 14 years of free Logic upgrades I'm surprised they bothered charging the initial $199! (I do remember being a bit miffed that it was $199 regardless of my existing license for the giant $999 box that was Logic Studio.)
> It's pretty clever that they keep the "pay one time" option still alive while announcing the availability of subscription, so anyone who says "Boo, not you too Apple" can easily be shut down with "You still have the option to buy it!"
Probably not. Those customers are almost completely irrelevant and not people who Apple or anybody else cares about. They won't mind if you kick and scream.
Yes, of course, ultimately every choice they ever do is for money, because they're a for-profit company. But maybe we can be slightly more granular about exactly how that choice makes them more money, which is because it gives them good PR. I was just being more specific, but we're saying the same thing :)
Parent isn’t insinuating otherwise. They’re saying the subscription model is more lucrative, so eventually they’ll remove the one time payment option, but keeping it as an option for the announcement keeps the bad PR at bay.
So what about next year when all of the apps receive updates/upgrades? Will the paid-in-full versions receive the upgrade for free, or will they have upgrade prices? I remember the days of Adobe's annual version upgrades, and they were at least $99 per app. Using that as the basis, the Adobe subscription plan is not more expensive that just broken up into 12 payments. People that kept running v4 to avoid the upgrade prices eventually got left out as they could not open files provided to them from others using the most recent version. Let's not forget our history on the one-time purchase pros/cons
These are being sold on Apple's AppStore, and there the model is that you get all of the updates for that App. Of course there is the work-around that some apps use, which is to create a new App (i.e.: MyApp vs MyApp2), which Apple could do at some point in the future.
The best one to watch at the moment is if Pixelmater Pro license holders from before it was bought by Apple get access to any of the new improvements.
All companies should do this. Sometimes I want a one-time purchase. Sometimes I want to try the program for a few months and I prefer a cheap subscription over a big upfront cost. And very, very rarely, I'll prefer the subscription, even though it's more expensive over time, to support a cool indie studio with recurring revenue instead of one-time purchases that may dry up and lead to lack of interest from the devs.
This is my argument for the Adobe subscription. One day, I'm a photographer needing apps like Photoshop and Lightroom and After Effects (because I do a lot of timelapse). One day, I'm a graphic designer, so I need Photoshop and Illustrator. One day, I'm an editor, so Photoshop, Premiere, Illustrator, and After Effects. One day, I'm doing desktop publishing with Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign.
The competition for the Creator Studio is not exactly Adobe. Of course Apple will be happy to build on their offerings to be able to really take on Adobe, but this subscription is priced to compete with the online services popping up from nowhere that have stolen the ease of use market away from Adobe.
The real competition in this market in 2026 is Canva.
Canva, really? Is this looking forward at what is coming?
I see the rise of and have to deal with Canva-generated PDFs instead of Adobe Illustrator. So the low end market of video / animation, I could absolutely see Canva dominating. Doubt we'll see audio tools though.
Final Cut Pro -- Professional non-linear video editing
* Canva? Partial: Best for social clips; lacks FCP’s RAW, multicam, and AI transcript tools.
Logic Pro -- Professional music production and MIDI sequencing
* Canva? No: No DAW capabilities, plugin hosting, or live mixing.
Pixelmator Pro -- Advanced image editing and graphic design
* Canva? Partial: Good for templates; lacks Pixelmator’s precision layers and AI retouching.
You're making your argument backward. The fact Apple can offer a bundle that includes a ton of features that Canva does not have right now does not mean that Canva is not a competitor! Canva just bought the whole Affinity suite and dumped it on the laps of its subscribers for no extra charge. They're on the warpath against Adobe. They want to dethrone them. Apple sees this battle and saw an opportunity to participate. They bought Pixelmator and bundled all their Pro apps together, making a very versatile bundle that is very different from the image editing heavy bundle of Adobe and Canva.
Apple can't take the market from professionals; they need the easel they learned at school. But they can definitely compete with Canva, whose market are untrained artists who need something done easily.
With Canva’s ownership of Affinity, yeah I see Canva as being a big competitor in parts of this space now. Or will be as those tools become more widespread across Canva’s users.
I would assume it's because younger generations of creatives are using their software less and less, increasing the risk of losing the market completely on the software side. At this pricing, more of them will turn to paying Apple rather than paying for multiple services, keeping them tied into the ecosystem.
Also so many people are paying for Canva, Capcut etc that taking a piece of that cake is quite a low hanging fruit if you have a distribution platform.
The acquisition of the Affinity software by Canva I imagine motivated this.
It’s even a similar pricing model, though technically with Pages / Numbers / Keynote covers a little more ground but I think the main intent is to get creatives using Apple’s creative software again
Pixelmator being the only 3rd party software because Apple never made a competitor to Photoshop
Though since Canva went full on toward more robust tools I imagine they have started capturing the entire editing chain more than they did 2-3 years ago, hence the Affinity acquisition
Apple hardware has "only" a 36% margin, while their software and services have a 75% margin. They definitely want to make more money on software with absurd margins.
Most of the comments here demonstrates the lack of abstraction abilities here at HN.
My comments weren’t related to whether apple has data centres or not (afaik they don’t and actually use google hardware).
My comments were related to a business model used by amazon to destroy local shops in our neighbourhoods: offer products at vastly reduced prices, making a loss but covering those losses by profiting on aws. Once there is no competition left, prices rise and shareholder profits are made.
Hence my conjecture that apple was doing the same and hence they were offering this product at undercut price. As was the OP was wondering about.
I was actually criticising the business model increasingly used by big tech. Which has the consequences that are neighbourhoods are emptied out and left with stores that act as amazon package pickup stores or stores where packages are returned to be sent back to amazon.
Pretty spot on. I think what's new is that Apple is employing this tactic, before they always went with "Our stuff is more expensive because it's better", but as they seem to slightly pivot into other directions now, this choice also seems to align with the new direction.
They don't need to, but they do lose a bunch more of the 'feeder' market. If need to edit video to a semi professional standard I'd pick this bundle at 12.99/month (and get extra tools i might need) vs adobe premiere for 22.99/month.
As someone who came up along side adobe, the only reason photoshop is as entrenched as it is is simply because of piracy. Ditto for premiere. It created the market that they then locked down with subscriptions.
I think you are going to see shops that are smaller, doing their own design stuff internally, increasingly moving away from adobe subscriptions.
They want marketshare to enhance their other market positions and give them optionality for future strategy.
They'd love the whole market, but they don't need it and they won't employ too many resources chasing that.
They're a powerful giant with hands in so many places. Each enforcing other endeavors.
This encourages people to stay in the Apple hardware ecosystem, for instance. It dog foods their silicon. It keeps people thinking of Apple as the creative brand and operating system. More creatives buying Apple -> more being produced and consumed for and on Apple.
Also the strategy of getting kids young has always been genius. They started that in the eighties, I think.
There are far too many tools out there (from FL Studio on one end, to MuseScore on the other) that present piano-roll-based rapid prototyping and traditional western score notation as diametric opposites. From day 1, Logic challenged itself "what if we can use the same event-based data model to render both."
None of this complexity is hidden - you can edit the raw event stream directly. If you're a developer familiar with, say, React, it makes music creation quite intuitive - everything from visual to audio output is a function of a transparently formatted data store.
And while that has its challenges, and some of the UX innovations of e.g. MuseScore have been slower to arrive in Logic, because of this "dual life" it's unmatched as a pedogogical tool, and a professional creative tool as well.
There's a lot of information in a traditional western score that cannot be easily represented in a pianoroll, at least not losslessly.
Considering them as alternate views of the same data model gets problematic when the composer uses the full bag of tricks that score notation allows (notably repeats, but also the problem of representing tuplets correctly when a pianoroll can offer no clues about how to structure them). So for example, the user can create a set of notes in the pianoroll that will never be played correctly by anyone reading the score; the user can create dynamics in the score that cannot be correctly presented in the pianoroll version.
I'm not saying it isn't possible to do an MVC-style system with two different views of the same data model - it clearly is. It's just moving between the two views is not lossless, and moving between the two controllers (i.e. editing) is not equivalent.
Among professional-ready DAWs, as far as I know, it's unique in its approach. Pro Tools and FL Studio still don't have score rendering or even MusicXML export! Reaper has limited score rendering/engraving support, but minimal customizability.
And on the notation-oriented side, you have things like MuseScore, Finale, etc. where there is an event model, but the UI itself doesn't have mature (or any) support for tracking mixer/knob automation (outside of what can be derived automatically from dynamic symbols).
Years ago, I used Logic in a musical theater context where I could build a constantly-updated demo for pitching/rehearsals/live-iteration and edit the final orchestration to be printed for the pit orchestra, both from the same living document. Could I have duplicated my changes in a DAW and notation software separately, and kept them in sync manually? Absolutely, and many creators do. But there's something special about having that holy grail at your fingertips.
Not related to your comment exactly but I feel like I need to get this out in this thread somewhere:
As someone who defended FCPX and used it professionally for years even when it was at its most hated (2011 or so), it’s been woefully supported the last few years and no one should be on it anymore. Resolve Studio outclasses it top to bottom for the same one-time cost and runs great on both MacOS and Windows. Linux it’s bumpy unfortunately but it does technically run lol
> Resolve Studio outclasses it top to bottom for the same one-time cost and runs great on both MacOS and Windows
Best 200-300 EUR I spent some years ago, and still receives free updates, Blackmagic Design is a really nice company. And, not only does Resolve run great on macOS and Windows, they have Linux native builds that run even better than it does with the same hardware using Windows, which is REALLY nice.
Runs like a dream for me, albeit on workstation-hardware so YMMV. It runs better under X than Wayland, at least the version I'm still stuck on, but otherwise the performance is top notch and easily worth a try :)
Hm, yeah, AMD GPUs was a long time ago I owned, only used it myself with either 5950X or 9970X, and either RTX 3090ti or RTX Pro 6000, works great for 4K footage with both of those :) Could be that it works worse with AMD GPUs indeed, that'd suck :/
It lacks a lot more than flashy social media features - and given their biggest driver in the 2010’s was arguably YouTubers, they actually need more robust social media features. For starters, they just added voice isolation what? A year ago? That has been bog-standard for resolve and premiere for years now. The audio tools in general are still very subpar.
I used it professionally from 2011-2020 or so. Around 2020 the gaps in feature parity became wider and more apparent, it’s clearly not a priority anymore. Once I went to resolve I basically abandoned it. I use maybe every 6mo tops now for quick stuff for friends and family or to open an old project.
The one thing I will say is for speed cutting, it’s probably the best. And that’s no small thing! But that’s about it.
It's certainly interesting that Apple have been pushing Blackmagic's products. They practically rely on Blackmagic software for all their demos when they release some new bit of hardware. They totally conceded on the camera app, for instance.
That has always been an issue. Pros buy Apple hardware but very rarely commit to Apple software.
In my experience, they are perfectly right. Not only can Apple not be trusted to maintain the software to be competitive feature-wise, but they are also very likely to get bored or make some annoying hardware requirement that makes fleet management annoying.
In the end, their creative software is just ok; it's probably best to not rely on it too much if you don't want to get stuck.
After they canceled Aperture for no good reason and destroyed the iWork suite while taking forever to even manage feature parity, I'll never rely on or recommend Apple software.
Thank god they preserved the one time purchase. I bought all of these apps back in like ~2013 and have been using them for literally 13 years with all updates (fcp, compressor, motion)
It's rare for a company to not only offer one-time purchases, and keep updating them, but also not rebranding/renaming/version cut-off charging at some point.
It helps that you have to continue to buy their hardware to keep running said software. I guess they could be greedy and keep making me pay for Logic every few years so I'm happy they don't do that but they're still making money off my initial purchase of logic just in a different way.
I bought a license for Pixelmator Pro a couple of years ago. IIRC it cost 30 or 40 EUR. I don't use it much, but it is unlikely you're going to need all of that software.
I could see using an iPad for automation, triggered by midi, but I use an Air for that (and even if I used an my Pro, I still have to use a USB C hub because for some reason Apple things 1 (or 2) USB ports is enough. Sigh.
I finally had to give mine up. Needed to reset the password which required a trip to 4HELP office and I live halfway around the globe now. But the kiddo will be starting college soon so I can mooch off their edu email address.
Ah, I've been mooching off an old library card for years to rent books for my Kindle. Finally got an email saying "Just pop into your local branch to renew this year." Ah...
YES! I was a happy Kanopy movie viewer until last year I got a message that my library card no longer worked on Kanopy and I had to physically go in to the library to get a new one. Maybe someday....
You have to renew them? I've been using the same card since '03. I went in a 2 years ago to pay my fine for a book lost in the couch cushion for a few months. Librarian thought it was quaint that I still have my old tattered library card.
This was Chicago. I believe a lot of people had managed to get online cards without physically being in the city and they decided to call it in and get everyone to renew in person to see who was still legit.
If you are planning anyway to break the terms of the license and effectively steal the software, why even bother paying something for the privilege? Just get it for free, surely it has to be available cracked
> break the terms of the license and effectively steal the software
We're all (mostly/some) software people here, you don't need to use terms established by the "anti-piracy" firms to make your point, no one is "stealing" anything here, even if they were getting it for free from TPB or whatever.
Indeed. But people are stuck on these archaic unrelated terms for now. AI firms will make the whole thing obsolete while luddites cry about “stealing from artists” and stuff like that.
When I moaned to the Adobe support person about a recent price hike they said "It's a real shame you haven't signed up for a free educational course online, like the ones from Google, that would qualify you for a student plan. Or have you? I'll wait here while you tell me if you are enrolled in one of those free Google courses. Take as long as you need."
There was no morality play. My point is your copy/use of software is equally "illegal" whether you just download a cracked copy or pretend to be an active college student and pay the student price, when you are not in fact an active college student. Either way, you won't have a valid license. So why bother paying?
This is quite the slippery argument IMO. So it’s not about morality, it’s about legality. But also it’s about paying for a valid license, so they shouldn’t pay at all?
Make the one-time purchase while you still can. The educational version is a great value, and the license allows the software to be used for commercial purposes.
the other benefit is that subs can be a sort of extended trial. Ive been wanting to try out final cut pro but I don't want to do a full video project if i'm going to be evaluating it. better to have 1-3 months to really know before I plunk down 299 bucks.
My concern here is are they going to start locking features for Pages, Numbers, and Keynote behind a paywall? Yes, it’s free—but will they still have all of the newer features without a subscription?
They'll be pressured by gdocs and other similar products to not keep too much of this behind a paywall. I already don't know anyone who loves using Pages (every time I share a document I have to export it to .docx, which is annoying), so they're already starting off behind by a bit.
I think many more would be on to Pages if they realized it was more than a simple WP. It's especially great for personal use, where there's no non-Mac sharing needed — there's no simpler layout program out there, & the typographic options are nice to have. If I have something longer/more detailed to put together, that's what ()LaTeX, Inkscape, etc., is for. We need alternate app ecosystems out there, & it's nice that Apple hasn't left these apps to rot like they did back in the 2010s.
I really enjoy Pages, but if they’re going to lock stuff behind a paywall — it might be time to look at other things. I can’t afford to add a whole bunch of new subscriptions.
The individual one time purchase versions are still available for all the apps. Final Cut, Logic, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage are offered in a bundle for education by Apple as a $199.99 one time purchase (no education status is verified) [1]. Pixelmator Pro is available as a one time purchase as well for $49.99 [2]. Not included in the Creator Studio is the Lightroom alternative Photomator, which is available as a one time purchase of $119.99. You could recreate just the Creator Studio as a one time $250 purchase, or the entire suite (including Photomator) for $370.
Not available for one time purchase are the AI features and templates available for the free apps (Keynote, Pages, Numbers, Freeform).
Personally, I'm glad that one time purchases are still options for the core pro suite: long term they do hold value compared to paying Adobe a subscription (or dealing with the high seas on macOS). However, I don't see things like the education bundle sticking around much longer, so purchase it sooner rather than later.
Additional info: Final Cut Pro is going to keep getting updates, but certain features (presumably AI related) are not going to be included with the one time purchase and are gated to the subscription [1].
The inclusion of Pixelmator Pro is simply so they no longer have a hole in the software lineup as a competitor vs Affinity (I think the real competitor to this bundle) and Adobe
I think they view Photos as a viable replacement for Lightroom and equivalents.
That's probably a clue that maintaining Photomator is not on Apple's long-term roadmap. I imagine they'll merge some features into Photos and eventually discontinue it.
Photos would need a lot of work to rival Photomator.
If they're essentially shutting down Photomator development, after doing similar with Aperture many years ago, they do seem very determined to drive people to Lightroom....
After Apple suddenly discontinued Aperture, which left users like me with huge complex photo archives hanging, I will never trust any professional software tool from Apple again. It is a disaster that I still haven't fully recovered from.
I've learned my lesson — all my archives will now be maintained by me, in file structures, with metadata in text files.
Learned that lesson too. Then got into Lightroom. Now getting out of that by exporting stuff slowly. Moving to files on disk and edits in Darktable now. No "library".
Please don’t take this as me saying you were wrong to ever trust Apple, however the best way to organise any data is usually just files on a disk.
That’s becoming a recurring theme for me and even some of my corporate clients now. Confluence, for example, is out the window for secure documentation around sensitive environments and Word Docs in One Drive are back in. It’s surprisingly refreshing and gets the job done way better.
From what I recall, aperture did use files-on-a-disk, maintaining original photos read-only and letting everything else be operations on those originals.
It's all true, but if you think organizing photo archives is easy, boy have I got news for you.
Metadata, versions, version groupings, projects, albums, there is lots of structure that most people don't realize exists.
Think every picture has an EXIF date and that's the date when it was taken? Think again. Scanning date is not the same as picture date.
Actually, even if you think of a date, you probably imagine the usual ISO8601 2026-01-14T17:37:46Z date — how about when we only know a year? This is something Aperture didn't do either, but when dealing with photo archives what you want is arbitrary precision date intervals. E.g. 1900-1902 for example.
Anyway. Just pointing out that even though "just files on disk" is the right approach, managing those files and their metadata is far from obvious.
Agree with all of this, apart from possibly OneDrive but that's for another post.
Not Apple-specific really that point for sure anyway. Personally I don't think we should ever ever trust any vendor to control our data or act as a proxy for access to it. If it's not on a physical disk in your hands, in a format which is documented and can be opened by more than one application, then you're one step away from being screwed. There are so many tangible risks we love to sweep under the rug from geopolitics, commercial stability, security, bugs to unexpected side effects. And I've seen some real horror stories on all of those fronts.
At the same time I managed to embed myself thoroughly in it and I'm 3 months in to undoing the mess. It's VERY hard to get back to files on disk. No moving away from that is probably the best option I suspect a lot of us never took.
Hardest stuff to get out of is iCloud/Apple and Adobe.
> These apps will continue receiving updates, with the latest versions adopting the beautiful new visual design language with Liquid Glass on all platforms
Are the Apple people really this oblivious, or is someone in PR trolling us?
Of course not, but I'd rephrase what the OP said as something more like "it's unrealistic to expect them to go 'hey, guess what, never mind about all that' after a half a year.
I think it's more realistic to expect that they're going to stick with a UI officially called "Liquid Glass" for the next decade, but it's going to go through some serious iterative changes in the next couple of years -- probably much more than it would have were Alan Dye still around.
I read it less as obliviousness and more as internal language leaking into marketing. What’s “Liquid Glass” to Apple reads like an aesthetic system though but to outsiders it sounds like jargon inflation. I feel the gap between internal coherence and external clarity shows up in these releases a lot.
You’ve never worked at BigCorp have you? At Amazon, part of the initial indoctrination when I was hired there was competitive messaging when talking to clients (I worked in ProServe) and what you were never allowed to say. I remember we could never say we had a “moat”.
Doesn’t matter. The apps run on the OS, the latest hardware only runs the OS at the hardware release date and later. You’re getting the Fisher-Price UI whether you want it or not, even if the apps never change a thing.
I guess it's enforced top-down. Yesterday I picked up my MacBook from a logicboard repair and they forced Tahoe on it despite running Sonoma originally so I spent most of yesterday getting rid of Tahoe and reverting back to Sonoma.
Each new macOS version brings new restrictions causing some essential apps to stop working or work in a more complicated way so I keep delaying macOS upgrades as late as possible. macOS used to be an OS that lowered my cognitive complexity but that's no longer true these days due to security overreach.
As a macOS sysadmin I feel this in my bones, and of course I don't know what apps are essential for you, but FWIW Sequoia has been basically identical to Sonoma for me. In fact I had to double check what I was running on this computer before writing this because there's just no functional or aesthetic difference that I know of off the top of my head.
(And yes, I'm holding off on Sonoma for as long as possible because... yuck)
I’ve been waiting to see what happens with Photomator, and the fact that it’s not being included in anyway here makes me think it might not survive? Either that, or it’s gonna be heavily integrated into Photos…
I was also surprised to not see Photomator included. Wouldn’t it perfectly complement the lineup? I hadn’t thought of such a pessimistic interpretation, but now I’m worried as well …
I think Apple killed Aperture primarily because it was confusing to have iPhoto and Aperture with largely overlapping workflows. Aperture had the loupe view, and side by side comparison stuff, saved color grading tools (I think?), sure, but it wasn’t differentiated enough to justify a Pro designation. I think it makes more sense for Photomator features to be absorbed into Photos… and maybe Photos gets some new Pixelmator integrations if you have it, for quick touch ups / enhancement type things.
On the other hand, Final Cut / iMovie will exist side by side because it’s truly a basic vs Pro situation.
Not a product manager at Apple, of course, but this is what logically seems to make sense.
Uff, I sure hope you are wrong! I don’t want to use the iCloud library for photos, but have my photos available as digital files elsewhere on the ssd. Of course, your prediction makes more sense from Apple’s standpoint, unfortunately.
I do like the convenience of iCloud, but totally agree that having them safe elsewhere is necessary. I’ve been pretty bad about keeping solid, non-iCloud backups of my photos. I definitely need to be more proactive about it.
Not to a professional, no. But this isn’t iMovie vs Final Cut. Aperture was only slightly above where iPhoto was going in capability. They should have raised the iPhoto/Photos bar a lot more to get back to where Aperture was, though.
I mean, the friendly way to kill off the differences between Aperture and Photos would have been to add all the missing workflow stuff to Photos before killing Aperture. Photos did not get lift-and-stamp edits until late 2022, years after Aperture was discontinued, and it isn't as good as the corresponding feature in Aperture was. Also, it would have been cool if the Photos import from Aperture library had ever worked, even a little bit. I keep an external hard drive around with my old Aperture library because I know it contains photos that Photos.app still hasn't pulled in correctly.
Frustrating that Photos is really not suitable for anything other than editing snaps. I'd love to ditch Adobe, but Darktable doesn't support Fuji raws, and there really aren't that many great commercial alternatives to Lightroom that don't also have a subscription model.
darktable has supported Fuji raws since 2014! It currently supports the classic "uncompressed" RAFs, as well as the newfangled "lossless" (compressed) RAFs. I do not believe that it supports the "compressed" (lossy) format. So setting "recording type" appropriately on your camera is necessary.
I'm curious where the notion comes from that there is no support for Fujifilm RAF files, as I see this in a cousin comment as well.
It's a massacre. The originals[0] were metaphorical and easy to grasp. These new ones are meaningless, for most of them you can't guess what the app does from the icon. The beautiful 3-axis colorwheel gimbal, gone. The concert access badge, gone. The pressed record award replaced with a disc? Is that the MP3 player app?
And Final Cut Pro looks like Windows 11's garbage free ClipChamp! None of them have the gravitas of the old ones.
It's weird because uniformity and minimalism haven't been "in" in years, outside the Silicon Valley bubble. They're very culturally out of touch.
Oh Thank You for the link. Exactly what I am talking about. You dont have to like or agree with every icons beings used previously, but at least they serve its purpose which is easily recognisable.
I saw the new icon and it nearly made me puke. Had it been coming from Google or Microsoft I would have thought oh not surprised.
Eh not sure I agree. The former icons are definitely unique, but not consistent or cohesive at all, especially when viewed as a group.
I think these new icons will grow on people. There were similar negative reactions back ~15 years ago when Adobe switched to their minimalist icon style.
> There were similar negative reactions back ~15 years ago when Adobe switched to their minimalist icon style.
Adobe icons are terrible and should not be the standard. Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, InDesign 2 were so much more memorable and recognizable than the lazy minimalist slop we have now. Even the first CS or CS2 icons were a thousand times better. The fact that the company behind the most powerful and popular creative software did this is unforgivable.
Some tasteless manager made a PowerPoint about "brand cohesion", got his promotion and ruined it for everybody else.
Great strawman dude (and even if that was my point, they didn't cool in isolation only, they looked good as part of an entire screen of icons too). The purpose of icon isn't to look cohesive within a brand either.
Look at the new Pixelmator icon: geometric shapes overlayed with Bezier Curve handles at the bottom. What does it look like? Vector design. What does the app do? The exact opposite, raster design, pixel painting. What the previous icon signaled.
The previous Compressor icon: A machine compressing film, because despite the name Compressor is for encoding video files. The new icon? Sure with the context of the label you will understand it's something being squeezed, but what? And without the label?
The previous Final Cut icon was unmistakably a movie slate. The new one almost looks like a radio. Why is the pattern under the body? Why is it only at on the bottom and not the top clapper stick?
How are the new ones superior design? How does it improve on anything?
It's forcing everyone to learn new icons that convey are less clear, convey less meaning, look uglier, just to serve the corporate interests of "brand cohesion"?
macOS Tahoe icons are a regression on every single front. I invite you to compare Disk Utility (where is the disk now?), or Migration Assistant (where is the notion of migrating from old to new?). And these are just a few examples.
> Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage — plus new AI features and premium content in Keynote, Pages, and Numbers — come together in a single subscription
> Name me something a product, not a service which you can only subscribe in Apple's ecosystem.
The shows on Apple TV are only available via a subscription; there's no way to have a perpetual purchase (at least as far as that a la carte style of purchase is perpetual).
Well really they are copying the original Microsofts suite packaging which everyone has copied over the years! But yes specific they are trying to take market share on Adobe.
Its actually like taking on MS and Adobe together... but they aren't really taking on MS office.
Subscription model so it’s adobes model. But you can buy “one time”. Though they have a tendency to just end product support (aperture software was canceled leaving a lot of bad taste for photographers that used it)
Wonder what Adobe thinks of this. Their support for Mac was pretty important in getting OS X off the ground, now they’re competing with a unified stack.
When I was a Mac user I remember buying Logic express 9 (I still have the disk). The price is a good deal, but you really are all in forever..
You're never free to unsubscribe because you become accustomed to the tools, and use the file formats, etc. (That's why I don't do subscription, ever.)
FTA: “Alternatively, users can also choose to purchase the Mac versions of Final Cut Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage individually as a one-time purchase on the Mac App Store.”
It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number.
> It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number.
Apple doesn't work that way.
Unlike almost all other tech companies that are organized by divisions, Apple uses a functional organizational structure.
So all of the software teams are under one head of software; there's no senior vp of the Final Cut division, for example.
For accounting purposes, all software is lumped together.
Apple made $391 billion in revenue last fiscal year; when you're making that kind of money, you can afford to do things for reasons other than the amount of money you could make.
Whatever revenue Final Cut generates isn't required to fund the Final Cut team.
> you can afford to do things for reasons other than the amount of money you could make.
This is what I'm saying and why I don't see the point in charging at all for these apps. The existence of the subscription price tag on them is evidence against what you're claiming.
> The existence of the subscription price tag on them is evidence against what you're claiming.
I disagree. Apple doesn’t need the money, but they also know consumers don’t value free apps the same way they do for pay apps.
It also plays into people’s desire for something better than what everyone has. Everyone gets Numbers, Pages and Keynote for free, but if you subscribe, you get bonus content and features.
So while Apple doesn’t need this to be a blockbuster product, they’re not going to leave money on the table either.
$129/year is surely better than $300 once, 15 years ago. Though I'm guessing not offering it for free is to keep it distinct from iMovie and to maintain some semblance of "Pro"-ness (which I'm gathering is up for debate either way.. the last time I did any actual video editing it was on Final Cut Pro 5 so I'm out of the loop)
It's the problem that the whole industry is facing - the current generation of hardware is sufficient that hardware refreshes will continue to decline, and companies that want to keep milking us for money regularly need to find a new way to do it.
> the current generation of hardware is sufficient that hardware refreshes will continue to decline
If anything, Apple is refreshing their hardware much faster now compared to the Intel days. There's literally a new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air every year. And of course there are 3-4 new iPhones every year.
I hate subscriptions as much as the next person but how would you pay for continued development of software? Do you say a person can continue to run version X forever but if they want a new version they pay for it?
When there are no more new buyers to sell devices, or new versions of existing software packages, the only way to keep the curve growing for shareholders and MBAs is to sell subscriptions.
It is also the only way to convince developers to pay for software.
Having a part hosted on some server is so much better than whatever anti-piracy schemes one can think of, and provides the continuous growth curve for printing money.
Thus subscriptions aren't going away in the modern software world.
It's a pity Apple didn't choose to acquire Affinity when there was a chance. Pixelmator Pro looks like a toy app compared to Logic or Final Cut. I don't see how it could ever catch up to Photoshop. Even at such small scale it's always been very buggy in my experience and development seems to have stalled (apart from some obligatory AI features).
I am glad the standalone purchases are still available and I assume they will stay updated in sync with the subscription-based ones. I would hate my copy of Logic getting slowly obsolete..
A truly well-designed Mac app is not just form, it is function as well. If you think a good Mac citizen is only what it looks like you're not looking at all.
Sadly mac-assedness doesn't automatically mean feature richness or overall robustness. Those are actually quite hard to achieve when you spend half of each year updating the UI widgets to the latest SDK and fixing new performance problems you didn't cause. That should be clear when you compare Affinity Photo and Pixelmator Pro.
Your experience couldn't be more different than mine. I love Pixelmator Pro. One of my favorite apps on my computer. Super quick and snappy. Does what I need it to. Which doesn't mean it does what everyone needs it to. I get that it isn't a Photoshop replacement. But not everyone needs a Photoshop replacement.
Your experience is starkly different than mine. Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Pixelmator, Pixelmator Pro’s much more toy-like predecessor from ~10 years ago?
My experience is that while there’s a feature and community gap for both Pixelmator Pro and Affinity, Affinity just tried to copy Photoshop, positioning it as a worse but cheaper Photoshop, while Pixelmator Pro feels like an attempt to make a better photo editor, losing some familiarity points but also being tangibly better than Photoshop at most use cases it can handle, which is many. It’s also an excellent macOS citizen. Between those two factors, it seems much more up Apple’s alley.
I guess it depends a lot on the use cases. I've used both the original Pixelmator app and the "Pro" may have been a rewrite internally but it didn't feel like a significant step up for me at the time, more like a rebrand and a way to charge for it again. And so many bugs. The development team did respond to a few of my bug reports, which was nice.
Yeah, in my experience, Pixelmator looks the part but isn't a very good software, especially for vectors.
Affinity stuff doesn't look as good but gets much closer to Adobe quality tools.
Seems like a pretty solid deal, if you need everything. I don't know who that person is though. The intersection between Final Cut Pro and Logic users is pretty small, I'd imagine.
I'm that kind of user but I would rather not use Logic, Final Cut, or PixelMator unless Apple really improves those. On top of that there's also the platform lock-in concern.
Unless Apple gets off several high horses regarding code signing and, more importantly, app containerization; any Xcode for iPadOS is going to be useless. Like, imagine Xcode without custom build steps or third-party compilers.
The larger problem is that the iPad has a dual nature. At the launch of the product, Apple positioned it as a netbook killer - i.e. a simplified computer for specific tasks, one where the locked down nature of the device might actually be considered a feature. That's why they built everything on iPhone OS[0]. However, there's always been the implication that this is supposed to Someday™ replace the Mac. It keeps getting new features to make it more useful as a computer replacement, which just makes the deliberate restrictions placed on the device more and more glaring. And Apple seems to think they can just keep adding features until they can make you do every computing task wearing a strait-jacket in a padded room.
This particular duality came to a head with the Apple Vision Pro. Any app that would actually be useful on a VR headset is either:
- Incompatible with Apple's code-signing and containerization requirements (i.e. developer tools)
- Not economic to offer at the small scale of the visionOS app market (at least, not while Apple is demanding 30%)
- A game (Apple really doesn't wanna talk about the Vision Pro as a games machine)
On a related note, Swift Playgrounds stopped getting updates almost a year ago. I updated my HTML editor demo project for iPadOS 26 and now I can't even compile it because Apple has yet to ship the version 26 SDK. And there's really nothing any third party can do to fix Swift Playgrounds to make it actually usable again.
[0] Strictly speaking, Apple's first internal demos of capacitive touch were for a tablet project specifically to spite Windows XP tablets. Although by the time they were writing actual shipping code it was intended for iPhone and iPad came later.
It isn't about doing and publishing apps without having to buy a mac.
Rather having a more powerful development experience that isn't as constrained as Swift Playgrounds, useful for prototyping ideas.
I do not care if in a similar vein, to a Smalltalk like environment I would always need to run the app from inside the dev env, and then use a Mac, or some cloud build workflow if I ever would like to actually publish it.
Just like I use several other coding on the go environments.
I played once with hosting a VSCode server on a raspberry pi for general development and it was actually quite powerful, when used from an iPad. Just not strictly for Swift unfortunately
I'm hosting a VSCode server with Termux/Ubuntu container on my old Pixel 6a and I cannot overstate how awesome it is for just a fun dev setup, especially with a tablet. Easy to nuke and start clean too!
The ecosystem is fine for non-Apple development. It's just building apps for iOS, macOS, etc. that is impossible on iPad right now past some basic applications.
The only apps from Apple I give a sizeable fraction of a dam about are Pages and Numbers, and hopefully they’ll emerge from the scourge of AI largely unscathed.
Yeah I read that but what I meant (and failed to express clearly, I openly admit) is that I hope it doesn’t somehow become core functionality you’re kinda-sorta expected to have. Pages and Numbers work fine and I’d be willing to go back to paying for them as was true back in the iLife days (I still have an iLife ‘06 or ‘09 distribution CD or DVD on my shelf in a storeroom) but paying a subscription for creative apps I just never use just to get stuff everybody will expect you to have in productivity apps is a path I hope they don’t go down. Incidentally what Numbers really lacks is a circular converge-to-solution mode like Excel has had for decades, that would make it a serious tool tor simple business planning and financial projections.
I'm keeping an eye on Graphite (https://graphite.art/) as something to move to from Affinity's stuff, but it's good there's a new option for people who need more.
It’s actually a pretty big deal. I always wondered why they didnt compete with Adobe. Even when Steve Jobs was still around. 90%+ of Adobe users are on Macs.
Why though isn’t such a significant announcement on the Apple.com homepage?
Here is a quick side by side comparison between Apple Creator Studio and the Adobe Creative Cloud suite.
Each app may be stronger or weaker depending on the use case, workflow, and specific user needs, so this is only a rough equivalence.
Function | Apple | Adobe | Adobe price / month
--------------------|----------------------|---------------------|--------------------
Image editing | Pixelmator Pro | Photoshop | ~USD 20
Video editing | Final Cut Pro | Premiere Pro | ~USD 23
Motion graphics | Motion | After Effects | ~USD 23
Audio production | Logic Pro | Audition | ~USD 23
Video encoding | Compressor | Media Encoder | Included with Premiere Pro
Live audio | MainStage | No direct equivalent| N/A
Docs/presentations | Keynote/Pages/Numbers| Express/Acrobat | ~USD 10 to 24
--------------------|----------------------|---------------------|--------------------
TOTAL | USD 12.99 / month | ~USD 100+ / month |
| (7 apps bundle) | (5 apps separately)|
| | USD 69.99 / month |
| | (bundle 20+ apps) |
Disclaimer: table formatting assisted by ChatGPT (hope it works on HN).
What this misses is that Creative Cloud is much more than a bundle of apps. It includes everything you need around the apps for pro workflows (i.e. fonts, AI, stock, collaboration, etc...).
Logic Pro gets regular updates. I believe most of it is AI driven nonsense but they are making changes. Flashback capture was a nice fairly recent addition and surprising this wasn't implemented sooner. There are also regular bug fixes and performance improvements. I can't speak for the other apps.
TikTokers ("influencers" in general) don't do their editing or any part of their "production pipeline" on computers, kids are doing the full thing via smartphones nowadays. Blew my mind initially too, as I always did "serious work" at a computer and never the phone, but seems they're managing it somehow.
They often start there, some stay there, some graduate to an iPad, but a a lot of the higher end creators absolutely edit in desktops or laptops (usually MacBooks)
My old job dealt with this quite a lot as they were our target market, so I got some up close views of how for example, creators like MrBeast go about their editing (well the employees anyway)
Though I did note a lot of creators that do graduate to more robust software basically go from lightweight editor via Canva -> iMovie or equivalent -> professional software e.g. FCPX or Premiere
Yeah, that matches what I've seen too, bigger productions adopting a more traditional pipeline, while "influencers" or whatever they're called today, kind of stick with the tools they've learned, until they "graduate" as they expand the team and bring in actual professionals.
This sounds really cool, but I honestly can’t imagine stopping using Adobe apps after so many years and switching to completely new tools. It feels like that would take a lot of time and effort to relearn everything.
I can’t help but notice Apple in the last decade has kind of been spinning in circles software wise while their hardware division makes breakthroughs with M-series chips.
Tangential, but: MainStage the best deal in the entire pro audio industry.
As a keyboard player who mainly plays (and owns) classic electro-mechanical keyboards like Hammonds, Rhodes, Clavinets, and Wurlitzers, Apple's emulators that they brought from Logic are really top-notch - often better than what you get with dedicated hardware.
$30 is an insane price for what it delivers. I just wish it were available for iPad, and I'd use it more for gigging.
This seems like an Apple AI subscription under the guise of a software bundle.
It’s a good value for some, especially if you want to use FCP, but seems like a bad value for most users who are expecting more value from their Mac purchase.
I wonder if new Macs will offer a three-month trial for this suite, or if the standard apps will be pre-installed and the AI features are unlocked through a subscription.
If bundled versions of iWork go away, we may see a renaissance for G Suite.
Sounds plausible. Someone internally likely has AI sales numbers to meet, so creating new subscriptions and adding "AI" to them can help juice AI-related numbers toward that quota.
I don’t get why they think “professional” is a generic tier.
If I’m a music producer, what’s the value of being given a digital art drawing program? If I’m an illustrator, why do I need a cinema post production suite?
Some people might happen to do both, but overlap is largely accidental, right? The fact that they think of all professions as a bundle is even insulting as it signals the products are mostly toys/hobbyist stuff.
I think that's why they call it "Creator" studio. Creators - in the way the term is usually used today - indeed do use many of these tools. Maybe you produce music, create a video about you producing music and also need an engaging thumbnail for YouTube.
In a feature film production, these would certainly be separate roles. But apart from maybe Logic Pro for composers, Apple's tools are not really relevant at those levels of the entertainment business anymore. Post-pro would be Pro Tools for audio, something like Avid Media Composer for editing etc.
I think Apple has realized they are not playing on that level anymore and target their marketing to where they are still in the game. That's not necessarily a bad move.
Tons of professionals use logic. Really, you will find money making musicians using any of the major daws. Pro tools might still be the standard for recording studios but that's likely it.
My point was more that creators will often use more than one tool.
I know Logic is widespread amongst beat producers and songwriters, especially in the US. But you will also often see tracks getting produced on Logic but the final mix then happens on Pro Tools (by professional mixing engineers).
But that's why I explicitly mentioned Logic, I think it's the one pro app from Apple that still deserves the moniker, at least in regards to where it is used. The video stuff not so much anymore.
A lot of people round trip through various softwares to create things. As a film editor I use NLE’s, DAW’s, music production tools, various encoders (like compressor), graphic design tools…I’d say it’s the norm not the exception to need 2-3 specialized pieces of software during projects.
The real difference is that a "true professional" already has the software—purchased at full price by themselves or by their employer—and doesn't need a subscription in the first place.
The biggest distinction, in my experience, is that prosumers tend to be means-focused and professionals tend to be ends-focused, so there's less zealotry and evangelism in professional circles.
> If I’m a music producer, what’s the value of being given a digital art drawing program? If I’m an illustrator, why do I need a cinema post production suite
> A one-time purchase will still be available, but access to some of the premium content is available only to Apple Creator Studio subscribers. If you already own Final Cut Pro, it will continue to be updated.
Looks like some new "premium content" features will be only available to those with a subscription
I am done with Apple. They've become a company only extracting money on the margins rather than innovating. Most products are stale, especially on the software side. Asking for yet another subscription is what makes the boiling kettle run over.
Many years ago, before Final Cut Pro x my cousin asked me to help inject some video from tapes and keep the time code. In Final Cut Pro. I couldn’t figure it out.
So in desperation I read the manual. It was seriously well written and I understood the program, what needed to be done and how to do it.
I've had "buy motion" on my todo list for a while now.. just wanted to learn something new but it never made sense to buy it. With the subscription I think I'll give it a shot. Awesome!
I find it useful as a massive canvas for keeping a bunch of stuff in context, visually. And accessible via Mac and iPhone. But it is sorely lacking a major feature: highlight text to add a hyperlink. I end up with full URLs instead of hyperlinked words and it's pretty messy.
I use it regularly to do rough sketches of objects on my iPad to model in CAD later on the computer. It doesn't feel right for artwork or notes or basically anything else.
Yeah! They were courageous enough to take the step that Microsoft did with the Office suite (announced 1988, launched 1990) and with Microsoft 365 as subscription in 2011.
Keynote is so much better for presentations that PowerPoint it's not even funny. But if you're not doing presentations, I can understand dumping it. I do like to have Pages because it means I don't have to bother with Word's annoying ribbon interface and Copilot AI when I'm writing...though sounds like that may be changing?
Keynote is completely underrated, likely because people assume it's just a Powerpoint clone, but it's more like a highly templated motion graphics app with a UI that steers people into using it as Powerpoint replacement.
So not only is it a far quicker way to make a PPT than using Powerpoint. I also see it used for making presentation videos, interactive PDFs and even animated GIFs/HTML5 animations.
The number of motion graphics marketing videos I see which are actually just Keynote files exported to video is impressive.
That’s kind of funny you mention “quicker way to make a PPT.” Everyone at my company had been asking me how I make my presentations look so good. I’m no designer; I’m a lowly engineer. But I do them in Keynote and export them to PowerPoint, which is half the battle!
(Sadly, my work laptop is Windows. So I create them on my personal laptop then migrate to PPT and do my best to fix up the fonts on Windows.)
I put up with Numbers awful pivot table mechanics (why do they have to be manually updated?) because it genuinely allows you to create nice information displays with your tables.
I have a numbers file for my personal finances and it is so nice having some tables at the top with mortgage info and then details below. It makes running what-ifs super easy. Charts in excel and GSheets just kinda float over your content awkwardly.
I absolutely would. I've used them for years, alongside MS Office on Windows and Libre Office on Linux, and while they lack a few features they're not ones I've ever needed and the UI and ease of use is far superior to Office. Especially Pages is a pleasure to work with compared with Word.
I paid for Numbers way back when it was a paid app. I have simple needs, and I much preferred the smooth inertial scrolling compared to running Excel in a VM (which was what I was doing before).
I'm curious how many people actually use all this stuff themselves. It seems like an extreme niche, and more often than not will have people paying for apps they will never use.
Maybe I'm old skool... but for the last 30+ years I've been using a combination of photoshop, illustrator, FCP, after effects (back when it was CoSA...), some audio editing and mixing in quite a bit of code as well. While others on my team specialize in one or two domains, I've managed to keep my skills in many.
Back in the day I was considered a 'MultiMedia' creative. I don't even know what to call myself these days.
1.0 Creating a software bundle is the expected play by a company that keeps trying to grow their subscription revenue, but lots of creators are fed up paying an arm and a leg for software they'll never own that they need to do their job. Canva turned a lot of heads and got new people into Affinity just by making it free, I would have liked to see Apple lead with the same pitch rather than make just another bundle.
2.0 I feel like this is a u-turn on what made buying Apple hardware so great. You paid a pretty penny for the hardware but you would get high quality software with more care and attention paid to it than their competitors. This has changed in recent years, with many of the iWork products languishing with only minor updates as the market has evolved towards simplified cloud-based tools. Although there's still free functionality and the subscription provides a more affordable way to get into their pro tools, I fear the free versions will become second-class.
2.1 The same has happened to their stance on advertising as well, with the App Store getting ads and Maps being next in line to get them too. Microsoft and Google are still much worse than Apple in this regard, but I thought they would hold out for much longer than cave to growing pressures to grow revenue.
3.0 I'm not a fan of putting generative AI as a selling point in a product called "creator studio". Many artists are against the usage for various reasons, and Apple has a long history of aligning themselves with creative individuals. Seems like a misunderstanding of what their audience would want.
4.0 No Garageband or iMovie feels like they've abandoned them. Which is a shame for tools that have started so many creator's careers. There's still a need for simplified tools for creators early in their careers or with simpler needs, something that CapCut has shown.
5.0 There's still gaps in their bundle. There's no software for UI design. I could see Apple acquiring Sketch, they would just need to reach feature parity with Figma. There's lots of organizations getting squeezed by Figma's enterprise contracts, and most product designers I know are already on Macs. There's also no drawing or animation software. I could see them acquiring the team behind Procreate and Procreate Dreams to fill it. That software already sells iPads, many artists have gotten their start with digital art with it. Another gap is publishing, although they could probably add functionality to Pages or buy Swift Publisher.
6.0 Who is this for? Every organization under the sun already pays for Office 365, and I've never known a designer who's used Pixelmator for their day to day work. Affinity felt like a much more compelling alternative to Adobe, and anyone with simple enough needs to use these tools is probably already using web-based tools on their Windows laptop. I suppose hobbyists, but I'm not sure if a subscription is compelling for them.
I feel like if you were to be content with those tools, you wouldn't really want to pay for them.
I guess the argument is getting access to Final Cut and Logic for cheap, but there are pro software of the same quality accessible for free or close to it (usually people get starter DAW licenses from buying hardware, and DaVinci has free stuff).
Apple is losing the plot on so many levels.
If they want to make their stuff subscription, they really need to make it much better than it is at the moment.
Except that isn’t an alternative title, unless you want to lie by omission thus being wrong.
“Apple offers new option for subscription in addition to existing one-time purchase optinos” might be an alternative though, and reduce the number of cynically inane comments from people that apparently didn’t RTFA before commenting.
God fucking damn not you too, Apple. Adobe isn't a role model to emulate. I hate Adobe's practices. The whole world hates Adobe's practices. I want to pay for a thing with my money and then use it without worrying about ongoing costs, the UI changing, features breaking, or shit being shoved down my throat because some seedy PM wants a raise.
EDIT: I know you can still buy the software... but for how long?
Doesn't sound like it
> Alternatively, users can also choose to purchase the Mac versions of Final Cut Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage individually as a one-time purchase on the Mac App Store.5
> Alternatively, users can also choose to purchase the Mac versions of Final Cut Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage individually as a one-time purchase on the Mac App Store.
And here's the ruining of Pixelmator Pro everyone was waiting for. I paid one time 20 euros for it (discounted). And I would gladly pay again even full price for a new major version.
I don't want yet another subscription.
I see that they can still be bought (for now) but I wonder how long that will last.
I think this is a huge mistake at least as far as the office software goes. One of the key advantages to Pages.app and friends is that they are pre-installed and free on MacOS. This will just drive people to M365 and Google Docs.
Pages and other iWork apps will remain free. The premium features are for curated images and templates, and AI assisted document creation. If you don't care for those features, you will not be affected by the change.
It's $12.99/mo or $129/yr for a subscription that includes Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Motion, Compressor, MainStage, Keynote, Pages, and Numbers
Educational discount with verification required drops the price to $2.99/mo / $29.99/yr.
The regular-price subscription includes family sharing, education price does not.
One-time purchase versions remain available: Final Cut Pro ($299.99), Logic Pro ($199.99), Pixelmator Pro ($49.99), Motion ($49.99), Compressor ($49.99), and MainStage ($29.99).
Comes out January 28th
The most important benefits in my opinion are choice and price - people like me who prefer to buy software outright can still do so at a reasonable cost, while others who opt for a subscription can also do so (again, at a reasonable cost).
It's pretty clever that they keep the "pay one time" option still alive while announcing the availability of subscription, so anyone who says "Boo, not you too Apple" can easily be shut down with "You still have the option to buy it!" instead of leaving those critics without answers. Of course, they'll eventually remove the option to buy the software by paying once, I think everyone can see the writing on the wall, but still clever of them to choose to do it later for PR purposes. 1-0 to Apple :)
Final Cut Pro X has been available for purchase (at the same price, IIRC) for well over a decade now. Pro feathers were ruffled at the time they leapt from FCP7 to FCPX: the $299 price point was something like 1/4 of the going rate for its predecessors, was Apple planning to abandon its pros for the consumer market? Well. Here we are almost 15 years later, and if you paid the one-time price back then, you're still getting free updates today (at least on desktop). And you can still buy in with 299 2025 dollars, rather than 299 2011 dollars.
At the time, the common wisdom was that they'd go the same route as Adobe: you'd have to buy Final Cut X+1 in a couple years for another $299, and Final Cut X+2 a couple years after that... to their credit, that's not the way it's gone.
So that way, I imagine, all the film folks have a little more money to chuck at their high-powered Mac hardware budgets in the next refresh cycle instead... An evergreen Final Cut Pro license costs almost as much as 1TB of SSD from those guys!
That is true, but it is also true that FinalCut lost big time against DaVinci for all semi-professional users which are exactly FinalCut's main target group.
I'd argue that it is very likely that Final Cut X+1 was Apple's plan. It just did not pan out and they were busy with other things. Now they made the first step correcting that (or cutting the losses, depending how you want to see it).
I had thought a main problem for professional video editors w FC had to do with video editor UX philosophy. Something difficult to pivot away from.
I’m hand waving there because I’m not a pro but my neighbor is and I don’t recall the details.
But I’m curious how you see FC also lost in semi pro to Davinci specifically.
Davinci Resolve is free. At least, for the non studio version. (There’s a few studio only features, but almost everything is available in the free version of resolve). And a lot of people want to learn resolve anyway for color grading. Why not just edit in resolve too? Resolve studio is also quite cheap, given you buy it once and own it forever. Including updates.
I spent last week helping out at a short filmmaking course. The DP running it has used Final Cut for his entire career. But not a single student chose to edit their film using Final Cut. The class was split between resolve and premier pro. (Premier was chosen by a lot of people because it’s what they use at school, and they have a free licence to premier from their school while they’re studying.)
This, plus:
- The studio version of DaVinci is still affordable should you need it.
- DaVinci has many good tutorials
+ purchasing any BMD camera and you usually get a "free" license of DaVinci :) That's how I got my license many moons ago.
Now BMD have "prosumer" cameras available too that doesn't cost half a liver, which the second-hand market seems flush with too, so you can grab really good hardware for "cheap", and get excellent software with it too as the license is movable across hosts :)
I'm surprised to hear the software moves with the hardware! This and the other comments help explain the spread.
The 'cut' page in DaVinci specifically exists to replicate the FC editing UX.
It's an optional way of editing separate from the 'edit' tab.
Oh that’s where Cut comes from. I could never get used to edit in Cut screen.
Agreed, I hate it.
> At the time, the common wisdom was that they'd go the same route as Adobe: you'd have to buy Final Cut X+1 in a couple years for another $299, and Final Cut X+2 a couple years after that... to their credit, that's not the way it's gone.
And that's despite Apple having zero interest in doing things that don't ultimately make them money.
I have a theory for how sales of these one-time-purchase yet indefinitely-updated apps happens to work out positively on Apple's balance sheet, while it doesn't for most other large players right now.
And that's that, due to Apple's vertical integration (they make the hardware, they make the OS that runs on the hardware, they make the apps that run on the OS) — and due to these apps only targeting their own OSes+hardware, with no consideration of portability to other platforms — a lot (like 90+%) of the "enablement" work for these apps ends up time-budgeted as OS work, rather than apps work.
Or, I guess, to be more charitable, you could say that Apple's engineers develop first-party apps not just to sell them, but at least in part to drive the development of the OS as a developer platform. You could even describe the OS frameworks as the product, and the apps themselves as the byproduct. (In that lens, the only reason FCP would cost anything at all is to avoid accusations of anti-competitive behavior.)
The core of Apple's success has always been to capture the cultural leaders. Artists, musicians, journalists, etc. have used Apple at much higher percentages than the general public.
Now that the iPhone made Apple much more of mainstream company, it's harder to do -- what does it mean to focus on cultural leaders when 90% of American teens have an iPhone? But in the 15 years since Steve Jobs' death they have still been doing a decent job of it.
The company
Office 365 - the subscription version of Office - was released in 2011.
Microsoft still offers a one time purchase of Office. There is precedent for Bigcorp keeping a one time purchase version and offer a prescription.
The one-time purchase version of Microsoft Office is not available worldwide. Where offered, it is reduced to Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote, with Outlook as a Business edition extra. Individual apps can sometimes be bought separately, but pricing usually makes this impractical. This is to push buyers to Microsoft 365 subscriptions which is the primary product.
What else is there/have they thats not?
*Microsoft 365 Copilot
Please note that you need Microsoft 365 Copilot Live Essentials for Business Premium if you want InsightDeck (formally PowerPoint) included.
I had to google this to see if it was satire... What have we come to
Microsoft is renaming the company to copilot, all of its software to copilot, and CEO satya nadella is changing his name to copilot copilot copilot which is also his favourite feature, software, operating system, and the names of his dog, cat, children, and spouse.
Soon the company formerly known as Microsoft will turn into a garbage slop Pokémon capable of emoting only with its name, copilot.
Yes - but perpetual purchases have an interesting gotcha that Microsoft didn't realise at first. To encourage subscription over perpetual, ongoing or evergreen updates are limited to subscription version.
Office 2024 has every feature that was added since Office 2021 to the subscription version - while a chunk of loyal customers are unaware of them. Back when Google was competing hard with Google Suite, a big perception problem formed with the perpetual customers believing and convincing others that Google were far ahead, with collab editing and other features - after Office had added equivalent.
So for me, If there's a subscription and one-time option - I wonder if the one-time gets all updates going forward. If it doesn't, I realise that they'll regret that if competition picks up, and try to fix it later. If it does include updates... I worry it will be like many other lifetime updates one-time purchases - when competition is low they'll renege on that promise.
> To encourage subscription over perpetual, ongoing or evergreen updates are limited to subscription version.
Of course ... ? Before the subscription model, you wouldn't get free Office upgrades.
You would definitely not get free upgrades for Office. You would get minor point release updates. You also had to upgrade the Mac version often for:
- the System 7 transition
- the 040 Macs and to get a “32 bit clean version”
- to get the full speed of running natively on PPC Macs
- to get a native OS X version instead of one that ran in the OS 9 sandbox
- the Intel transition to get native performance.
I would much rather pay $150 (?) a year for a five user license where each user gets 1TB of storage and each user can use Office across Macs, Windows, iPhones and iPads.
It’s the same price as Dropbox’s 2TB plan and all you get for that is storage.
On a related note: Steve Jobs was right - Dropbox is a feature not a product.
Yes. That sentence is setup for the speculation in the third paragraph. Folks in this sub-thread are wondering how the one-time price option plays out with Apple Creator Studio.
So far from what I can tell, Final Cut Pro has gotten perpetual updates. Since you can only buy it via the Mac App Store, ther can’t do upgrade pricing.
They could - and some of the 3rd party vendors did: There is a 1Password 7 and a 1Password 8. There was also a Things 1/2, which is now a Things 3. it usually works by creating a new app, and not updating the old one anymore.
Actually, you can buy only the 2024 version of MS Office for Mac, while the subscription is more up to date. You cannot buy a packaged 2025 version.
Because there is no such product as Office 2025, much like there was no Windows 96. There is Office 2004, 2008, 2011, 2016, 2019, 2021 and 2024. They usually release roughly every three years so there might be an Office 2027. 365 is a separate (but closely related) product.
> Microsoft still offers a one time purchase of Office.
he writing is on the wall, they will remove it sooner or later.
It's been available for something like 15 years since subscription purchase was introduced. Why so negative?
> Of course, they'll eventually remove the option to buy the software by paying once, I think everyone can see the writing on the wall
There's no indication Apple is planning to end the option of paying once for these apps.
Apple introduced subscriptions for Final Cut and Logic nearly three years ago [1]; this isn't new by any means. Pages, Numbers and Keynote remain available at no cost.
[1]: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/05/apple-brings-final-cu...
[flagged]
Many years ago Apple reduced their pricing on many of these apps. They also made their OS updates free.
Apple wants its customers to buy/subscribe to these tools so that you’re in the Apple ecosystem and buy more hardware and services.
Unlike Adobe, they have profit-maximizing incentives to let you stay on the buy/rent model that you prefer.
Why do you think they will remove the option to buy the software? They’ve kept the model for years. They’re targeting different audiences with the move.
You are complaining about a problem that hasn’t happened yet and there is no inherent reason it will happen.
There are features they are planning to make exclusive to the subscriptions. I don’t know if they’re planning to make the one-time purchase go away completely, but it seems like it’s going to be approached as the “lesser” option.
https://www.macrumors.com/2026/01/13/apple-creator-studio-ex...
Not Apple, but iMazing switched to subscription model and they simply lost me as a customer.
JetBrains tried something similar a while ago too, and almost screwed it up - but managed to listen to their customers and nailed it with the perpetual fallback licensing. Making me not just pay the subscription but feel respect to the company.
YMMV, of course.
This is such a strange way to think about what was done. Rather than just being happy they kept the pay once option and saying that's good you're imagining critics who how Apple can "shut them down."
> so anyone who says "Boo, not you too Apple" can easily be shut down with "You still have the option to buy it!" instead of leaving those critics without answers
This is like saying that it's clever for Mars to keep Mars Bars while launching a new bar, as it "shuts down" complaints that Mars Bars will no longer exist.
I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to get at but your analogy doesn’t really work here because a new chocolate bar would be a new product. Not a different way of buying the same product.
Adding a new option but keeping the old one is not some strategy to counter people criticising them removing the old option.
Every choice a company does is a strategy in some way, for some reason, which has been calculated to make them more money than another choice. This is how 99% of businesses work, and Apple as well.
You have any email I could reach out to you on once Apple finally removes the purchase ability for this, and only lets people subscribe?
> You have any email I could reach out to you on once Apple finally removes the purchase ability for this, and only lets people subscribe?
If they do this, then still no one will ever have to say something as silly as "they only kept the other option so people won't complain about them removing the other option".
They're running a conspiracy to trick people into not shutting them down by offering two ways to pay, the devious foxes.
I think it's okay, or even better probably, if they move to subscription only. All Apple's paid apps have languished for years and if its actually a revenue stream for them maybe they'll actually make them industry-leading again.
The other thing that’s going to go away is purchasing only what you need. I want exactly one of these apps, I bet virtually nobody uses all of them, and yet the suckers are going to be telling us that being made to buy stuff we don’t want or use is “more value”.
> and yet the suckers are going to be telling us that being made to buy stuff we don’t want or use is “more value”.
You're making up an individual to get mad at for no reason.
> The other thing that’s going to go away is purchasing only what you need
There is no proof of this. So you're making up a situation to get mad at for no reason.
> I want exactly one of these apps
Perfect, Apple lets you buy the one app you want for a reasonable price! So what's the issue?
Of course predictions about the future are not present reality.
It’s not set in stone, but it’s supported by the times this has happened before and by trends in Apple and in tech. “Nothing will ever change” is a prediction, too, and one much less supported by evidence.
Yea I've already purchased some of these apps so I was not going to thrilled if they pulled an Adobe and made me pay for an overpriced subscription on top of it >:(
Exactly what I was thinking. I bought Pixelmator Pro 3 days ago… But I am happy, as I have absolutely no need for the others, except for the free ones.
> overpriced
Seriously? This is incredibly reasonable.
It's not outrageous, for sure, specially if you happen to have a use case for all the bundled apps. But things change if you consider that the one time payment for Logic Pro equals about 18 months of the subscription. In my case, I bought Logic Pro in 2013 for 180€. Obviously a subscription seems expensive no matter what the price is.
If a students needs Logic Pro for 3 months for a class then they can get it (with the other apps) for $9 total ($6 if you count the free month). That makes more sense than a one time fee of $200. On the other hand, if you're planning to use the software for over a decade like yourself then $200 is very cheap.
So you bought Logic Pro vX for 180€. Did you receive Logic Pro vX++ for free?
Yes, Logic updates have been free for many years. FCP as well.
Well what I didn't receive for free is the 3 macs that have been running the same licensed product ;)
Indeed, and considering the 14 years of free Logic upgrades I'm surprised they bothered charging the initial $199! (I do remember being a bit miffed that it was $199 regardless of my existing license for the giant $999 box that was Logic Studio.)
> It's pretty clever that they keep the "pay one time" option still alive while announcing the availability of subscription, so anyone who says "Boo, not you too Apple" can easily be shut down with "You still have the option to buy it!"
Probably not. Those customers are almost completely irrelevant and not people who Apple or anybody else cares about. They won't mind if you kick and scream.
Yes, shame on them for only making good decisions now, instead of in the future.
> but still clever of them to choose to do it later for PR purposes. 1-0 to Apple :)
They're doing it because it makes them more money. Corporations are not your friend.
Yes, of course, ultimately every choice they ever do is for money, because they're a for-profit company. But maybe we can be slightly more granular about exactly how that choice makes them more money, which is because it gives them good PR. I was just being more specific, but we're saying the same thing :)
Fair enough. I was just trying to point out / remind everyone that they're not doing it out of benevolence. Your post just read a bit like that to me.
Obviously you're right that PR ultimately translates into money.
Parent isn’t insinuating otherwise. They’re saying the subscription model is more lucrative, so eventually they’ll remove the one time payment option, but keeping it as an option for the announcement keeps the bad PR at bay.
"PR purposes" IS doing it for money
So what about next year when all of the apps receive updates/upgrades? Will the paid-in-full versions receive the upgrade for free, or will they have upgrade prices? I remember the days of Adobe's annual version upgrades, and they were at least $99 per app. Using that as the basis, the Adobe subscription plan is not more expensive that just broken up into 12 payments. People that kept running v4 to avoid the upgrade prices eventually got left out as they could not open files provided to them from others using the most recent version. Let's not forget our history on the one-time purchase pros/cons
These apps have provided free updates after initial purchase for many years already. It would be big news if that stopped.
That is definitely a break from the old Adobe model
You know this is a thread about Apple and not Adobe, right?
These are being sold on Apple's AppStore, and there the model is that you get all of the updates for that App. Of course there is the work-around that some apps use, which is to create a new App (i.e.: MyApp vs MyApp2), which Apple could do at some point in the future.
The best one to watch at the moment is if Pixelmater Pro license holders from before it was bought by Apple get access to any of the new improvements.
All companies should do this. Sometimes I want a one-time purchase. Sometimes I want to try the program for a few months and I prefer a cheap subscription over a big upfront cost. And very, very rarely, I'll prefer the subscription, even though it's more expensive over time, to support a cool indie studio with recurring revenue instead of one-time purchases that may dry up and lead to lack of interest from the devs.
This is my argument for the Adobe subscription. One day, I'm a photographer needing apps like Photoshop and Lightroom and After Effects (because I do a lot of timelapse). One day, I'm a graphic designer, so I need Photoshop and Illustrator. One day, I'm an editor, so Photoshop, Premiere, Illustrator, and After Effects. One day, I'm doing desktop publishing with Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign.
This isn’t the whole story as one-time purchases will no longer have access to all new features without a subscription [1].
1. https://www.macrumors.com/2026/01/13/apple-creator-studio-ex...
For now. Let's not forget MS Office had a period like that as well. I give it five years max.
For *now.
Adobe also started out as a choice between subscription or buying. The only thing maybe keeping Apple honest is that their stuff isn't as popular.
Except certain features in the software will be reserved for subscribers only.
That's actually surprisingly cheap compared to other subscriptions in the industry, especially for such a high powered suite.
As long as you buy a macbook to use it on, they are happy
They'd be even happier if you bought one of the Mac Studios or Mac Pro. Please, someone, anyone.
I don’t think they have any trouble selling Studios. Pros, on the other hand…
Yeah studios are pretty boss machines, I know at least two companies that offer studios instead of macbooks to WFH employees if they want.
The competition for the Creator Studio is not exactly Adobe. Of course Apple will be happy to build on their offerings to be able to really take on Adobe, but this subscription is priced to compete with the online services popping up from nowhere that have stolen the ease of use market away from Adobe.
The real competition in this market in 2026 is Canva.
Canva, really? Is this looking forward at what is coming?
I see the rise of and have to deal with Canva-generated PDFs instead of Adobe Illustrator. So the low end market of video / animation, I could absolutely see Canva dominating. Doubt we'll see audio tools though.
Final Cut Pro -- Professional non-linear video editing * Canva? Partial: Best for social clips; lacks FCP’s RAW, multicam, and AI transcript tools.
Logic Pro -- Professional music production and MIDI sequencing * Canva? No: No DAW capabilities, plugin hosting, or live mixing.
Pixelmator Pro -- Advanced image editing and graphic design * Canva? Partial: Good for templates; lacks Pixelmator’s precision layers and AI retouching.
Motion -- 2D/3D motion graphics and cinematic effects * Canva? No: Canva uses presets; Motion offers granular keyframing and VFX creation.
Compressor -- Advanced media encoding and batch exporting * Canva? No: No control over specific codecs, bitrates, or pro output formats.
MainStage -- Live performance audio rig for stage use * Canva? No: No live audio processing or MIDI instrument hosting.
Keynote -- Cinematic presentations and slide decks * Canva? Yes: Canva’s primary competitor for collaborative, template-based slides.
Pages -- Word processing and page layout * Canva? Yes: Canva Docs is a direct alternative for visual/marketing documents.
Numbers -- Spreadsheets and data visualization * Canva? Yes: Canva Sheets handles basic data viz, though lacks Numbers' complex formulas.
You're making your argument backward. The fact Apple can offer a bundle that includes a ton of features that Canva does not have right now does not mean that Canva is not a competitor! Canva just bought the whole Affinity suite and dumped it on the laps of its subscribers for no extra charge. They're on the warpath against Adobe. They want to dethrone them. Apple sees this battle and saw an opportunity to participate. They bought Pixelmator and bundled all their Pro apps together, making a very versatile bundle that is very different from the image editing heavy bundle of Adobe and Canva.
Apple can't take the market from professionals; they need the easel they learned at school. But they can definitely compete with Canva, whose market are untrained artists who need something done easily.
With Canva’s ownership of Affinity, yeah I see Canva as being a big competitor in parts of this space now. Or will be as those tools become more widespread across Canva’s users.
That was my thinking. I already use several of these apps, the $130/mo. is a no brainer to pick up the others.
Get them in the door now and jack up the price later.
Undercut the competition until there is no competition, then raise prices or have I missed something?
Ah, yes - cross finance your loses by selling compute in your own data centres / hosting service because you can.
I would assume it's because younger generations of creatives are using their software less and less, increasing the risk of losing the market completely on the software side. At this pricing, more of them will turn to paying Apple rather than paying for multiple services, keeping them tied into the ecosystem.
Also so many people are paying for Canva, Capcut etc that taking a piece of that cake is quite a low hanging fruit if you have a distribution platform.
The acquisition of the Affinity software by Canva I imagine motivated this.
It’s even a similar pricing model, though technically with Pages / Numbers / Keynote covers a little more ground but I think the main intent is to get creatives using Apple’s creative software again
Pixelmator being the only 3rd party software because Apple never made a competitor to Photoshop
Though since Canva went full on toward more robust tools I imagine they have started capturing the entire editing chain more than they did 2-3 years ago, hence the Affinity acquisition
> Pixelmator being the only 3rd party software because Apple never made a competitor to Photoshop
Pixelmator isn’t third party. https://www.pixelmator.com/blog/2024/11/01/a-new-home-for-pi...:
“November 1, 2024
A new home for Pixelmator
Today we have some important news to share: the Pixelmator Team plans to join Apple”
That deal completed almost a year ago.
Apple doesn't ever need to make much money on this software, when they make money on hardware needed to use it.
Apple hardware has "only" a 36% margin, while their software and services have a 75% margin. They definitely want to make more money on software with absurd margins.
A huge portion of that margin is from the 33% App Store cut which is infinite margin for them, effectively.
"software and services" really should be broken out from the App Store cut.
Is margin profit/revenue or profit/costs? I think it is the former, so it should be “effectively 100%” right?
Anyway, this isn’t really a meaningful quibble argument-wise, it is obvious what you mean!
Most of the comments here demonstrates the lack of abstraction abilities here at HN.
My comments weren’t related to whether apple has data centres or not (afaik they don’t and actually use google hardware).
My comments were related to a business model used by amazon to destroy local shops in our neighbourhoods: offer products at vastly reduced prices, making a loss but covering those losses by profiting on aws. Once there is no competition left, prices rise and shareholder profits are made.
Hence my conjecture that apple was doing the same and hence they were offering this product at undercut price. As was the OP was wondering about.
I was actually criticising the business model increasingly used by big tech. Which has the consequences that are neighbourhoods are emptied out and left with stores that act as amazon package pickup stores or stores where packages are returned to be sent back to amazon.
Not an Apple fan at all, but damn, in the views of some of the HN community, one can only do wrong. Pathetic.
Pretty spot on. I think what's new is that Apple is employing this tactic, before they always went with "Our stuff is more expensive because it's better", but as they seem to slightly pivot into other directions now, this choice also seems to align with the new direction.
Somehow I don't think Apple is going to put Adobe out of business.
They don't need to, but they do lose a bunch more of the 'feeder' market. If need to edit video to a semi professional standard I'd pick this bundle at 12.99/month (and get extra tools i might need) vs adobe premiere for 22.99/month.
As someone who came up along side adobe, the only reason photoshop is as entrenched as it is is simply because of piracy. Ditto for premiere. It created the market that they then locked down with subscriptions.
I think you are going to see shops that are smaller, doing their own design stuff internally, increasingly moving away from adobe subscriptions.
They don't need to.
They want marketshare to enhance their other market positions and give them optionality for future strategy.
They'd love the whole market, but they don't need it and they won't employ too many resources chasing that.
They're a powerful giant with hands in so many places. Each enforcing other endeavors.
This encourages people to stay in the Apple hardware ecosystem, for instance. It dog foods their silicon. It keeps people thinking of Apple as the creative brand and operating system. More creatives buying Apple -> more being produced and consumed for and on Apple.
Also the strategy of getting kids young has always been genius. They started that in the eighties, I think.
Well put.
Best framing I’ve seen of the answer to, “Why is Apple in the streaming service business?”
What data centers? Does Apple even have data centers? Can people purchase compute on Apple's data centers?
> What data centers? Does Apple even have data centers?
Apple absolutely has data centres. Where do you think Apple TV, Apple Music, iCloud, Maps, etc compute happens?
Here's a press release straight from the horse's mouth about one in Denmark, in late 2020: https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2020/09/apple-expands-rene...
> Can people purchase compute on Apple's data centers?
Not to my knowledge, but that's not saying much.
> Not to my knowledge, but that's not saying much.
But that's the entire crux of their comment: undercut the competition, and make them pay for compute on Apple's data centers.
As someone who's loved Logic Pro since the days before Apple bought Emagic, this is amazing that it will be accessible to a broader audience.
There are many discussions e.g. https://gearspace.com/board/music-computers/1433515-why-does... about the reasons for its popularity, but one stands out to me - its event data model.
There are far too many tools out there (from FL Studio on one end, to MuseScore on the other) that present piano-roll-based rapid prototyping and traditional western score notation as diametric opposites. From day 1, Logic challenged itself "what if we can use the same event-based data model to render both."
None of this complexity is hidden - you can edit the raw event stream directly. If you're a developer familiar with, say, React, it makes music creation quite intuitive - everything from visual to audio output is a function of a transparently formatted data store.
And while that has its challenges, and some of the UX innovations of e.g. MuseScore have been slower to arrive in Logic, because of this "dual life" it's unmatched as a pedogogical tool, and a professional creative tool as well.
There's a lot of information in a traditional western score that cannot be easily represented in a pianoroll, at least not losslessly.
Considering them as alternate views of the same data model gets problematic when the composer uses the full bag of tricks that score notation allows (notably repeats, but also the problem of representing tuplets correctly when a pianoroll can offer no clues about how to structure them). So for example, the user can create a set of notes in the pianoroll that will never be played correctly by anyone reading the score; the user can create dynamics in the score that cannot be correctly presented in the pianoroll version.
I'm not saying it isn't possible to do an MVC-style system with two different views of the same data model - it clearly is. It's just moving between the two views is not lossless, and moving between the two controllers (i.e. editing) is not equivalent.
How else could you represent piano roll data than as a stream of events? I thought that was ubiquitous since the invention of MIDI.
Are you saying other sequencers are unable to render the same data as piano roll and score?
Among professional-ready DAWs, as far as I know, it's unique in its approach. Pro Tools and FL Studio still don't have score rendering or even MusicXML export! Reaper has limited score rendering/engraving support, but minimal customizability.
And on the notation-oriented side, you have things like MuseScore, Finale, etc. where there is an event model, but the UI itself doesn't have mature (or any) support for tracking mixer/knob automation (outside of what can be derived automatically from dynamic symbols).
Years ago, I used Logic in a musical theater context where I could build a constantly-updated demo for pitching/rehearsals/live-iteration and edit the final orchestration to be printed for the pit orchestra, both from the same living document. Could I have duplicated my changes in a DAW and notation software separately, and kept them in sync manually? Absolutely, and many creators do. But there's something special about having that holy grail at your fingertips.
Among professional-ready DAWs, as far as I know, it's unique in its approach.
Cubase, surely? I'm pretty sure it has done this for decades unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying.
Cubase recently revamped their score editor to embed a version of Dorico, so it's better than it was!
https://blog.dorico.com/2024/11/cubase-14-score-editor/
I'm still a Logic Pro fan, but credit where credit's due!
Not related to your comment exactly but I feel like I need to get this out in this thread somewhere:
As someone who defended FCPX and used it professionally for years even when it was at its most hated (2011 or so), it’s been woefully supported the last few years and no one should be on it anymore. Resolve Studio outclasses it top to bottom for the same one-time cost and runs great on both MacOS and Windows. Linux it’s bumpy unfortunately but it does technically run lol
> Resolve Studio outclasses it top to bottom for the same one-time cost and runs great on both MacOS and Windows
Best 200-300 EUR I spent some years ago, and still receives free updates, Blackmagic Design is a really nice company. And, not only does Resolve run great on macOS and Windows, they have Linux native builds that run even better than it does with the same hardware using Windows, which is REALLY nice.
Oh interesting re: Linux. My understanding was it was rougher but maybe I should try myself!
Runs like a dream for me, albeit on workstation-hardware so YMMV. It runs better under X than Wayland, at least the version I'm still stuck on, but otherwise the performance is top notch and easily worth a try :)
9800x3d + 9070 + 32gb ram so I’ve got horsepower. Though I’ve seen people have issues with the 9070 specifically
Hm, yeah, AMD GPUs was a long time ago I owned, only used it myself with either 5950X or 9970X, and either RTX 3090ti or RTX Pro 6000, works great for 4K footage with both of those :) Could be that it works worse with AMD GPUs indeed, that'd suck :/
Not arguing against Resolve, but FCP is still great for edits.
It lacks some flashy social media features and modern conveniences for sure, but it's still a very good and widely used editor.
It lacks a lot more than flashy social media features - and given their biggest driver in the 2010’s was arguably YouTubers, they actually need more robust social media features. For starters, they just added voice isolation what? A year ago? That has been bog-standard for resolve and premiere for years now. The audio tools in general are still very subpar.
I used it professionally from 2011-2020 or so. Around 2020 the gaps in feature parity became wider and more apparent, it’s clearly not a priority anymore. Once I went to resolve I basically abandoned it. I use maybe every 6mo tops now for quick stuff for friends and family or to open an old project.
The one thing I will say is for speed cutting, it’s probably the best. And that’s no small thing! But that’s about it.
Based on revenue estimates, if Apple wanted to be competitive here, they could buy Blackmagic for a billion or so ...
It's certainly interesting that Apple have been pushing Blackmagic's products. They practically rely on Blackmagic software for all their demos when they release some new bit of hardware. They totally conceded on the camera app, for instance.
Also in their behind the scenes for their "Shot on iPhone" videos, usually they show Resolve, Premier or Media Composer, but rarely Final Cut.
That has always been an issue. Pros buy Apple hardware but very rarely commit to Apple software. In my experience, they are perfectly right. Not only can Apple not be trusted to maintain the software to be competitive feature-wise, but they are also very likely to get bored or make some annoying hardware requirement that makes fleet management annoying.
In the end, their creative software is just ok; it's probably best to not rely on it too much if you don't want to get stuck. After they canceled Aperture for no good reason and destroyed the iWork suite while taking forever to even manage feature parity, I'll never rely on or recommend Apple software.
Thank god they preserved the one time purchase. I bought all of these apps back in like ~2013 and have been using them for literally 13 years with all updates (fcp, compressor, motion)
good on them
It's rare for a company to not only offer one-time purchases, and keep updating them, but also not rebranding/renaming/version cut-off charging at some point.
It helps that you have to continue to buy their hardware to keep running said software. I guess they could be greedy and keep making me pay for Logic every few years so I'm happy they don't do that but they're still making money off my initial purchase of logic just in a different way.
I thought they basically gave away Keynote/Pages etc to anyone with an Apple device?
It's literally in the introduction of the page.
> plus new AI features and premium content in Keynote, Pages, and Numbers
So it's the GP comment that is inaccurate.
Potentially AI slop features coming to both that they'll charge for?
>Comes out January 28th
I wonder why? Why not today but 28th of Jan?
Part of me thinks M5 MacBook Air and M5 Pro MacBook Pro will also be released on January 28th.
Well I guess either Great Mind thinks alike or they just read my HN comment
https://9to5mac.com/2026/01/14/apple-may-have-hinted-at-a-hi...
Mac Studio is still on M4 Max and M3 Ultra chips.
I could see a press release refresh on that day to M5 chips.
Could be related to billing cycles
I would like this to be very true. Can’t wait to get the new Air.
That's actually a hell of a deal considering I already pay $5 a month just for Logic on the iPad.
I bought Logic maybe 8-9 years ago, and get free upgrades.... If I had paid $5/mo it would already have cost me ~$280.00 more than I paid.
Even if I had to purchase an occasional update (assuming they were reasonably priced), I'd still be coming out ahead.
I hate "renting" software.
Oh yeah, my Logic for Mac is probably about that age too, but there's no choice to buy it outright on iPad sadly.
I bought a license for Pixelmator Pro a couple of years ago. IIRC it cost 30 or 40 EUR. I don't use it much, but it is unlikely you're going to need all of that software.
Oh, didn't know that. That's lame.
I could see using an iPad for automation, triggered by midi, but I use an Air for that (and even if I used an my Pro, I still have to use a USB C hub because for some reason Apple things 1 (or 2) USB ports is enough. Sigh.
Meanwhile the subscription for Adobe Premiere ALONE is 22.99/mo
Yeah, I'm pissed that the Photography plan (Lightroom/Photoshop) has gone from 9.99/mo to 24.99/mo in the last 18 months.
> Educational discount with verification required drops the price to $2.99/mo / $29.99/yr.
Guess it’s time to take some online self-paced courses at a university for no reason in particular …
time to dust off that 20 year old edu email address. with these discounts, college has paid for itself!
I finally had to give mine up. Needed to reset the password which required a trip to 4HELP office and I live halfway around the globe now. But the kiddo will be starting college soon so I can mooch off their edu email address.
Ah, I've been mooching off an old library card for years to rent books for my Kindle. Finally got an email saying "Just pop into your local branch to renew this year." Ah...
YES! I was a happy Kanopy movie viewer until last year I got a message that my library card no longer worked on Kanopy and I had to physically go in to the library to get a new one. Maybe someday....
You have to renew them? I've been using the same card since '03. I went in a 2 years ago to pay my fine for a book lost in the couch cushion for a few months. Librarian thought it was quaint that I still have my old tattered library card.
This was Chicago. I believe a lot of people had managed to get online cards without physically being in the city and they decided to call it in and get everyone to renew in person to see who was still legit.
That almost never works for me, they usually use a service that verifies current student enrollment like SheerID.
If you are planning anyway to break the terms of the license and effectively steal the software, why even bother paying something for the privilege? Just get it for free, surely it has to be available cracked
> break the terms of the license and effectively steal the software
We're all (mostly/some) software people here, you don't need to use terms established by the "anti-piracy" firms to make your point, no one is "stealing" anything here, even if they were getting it for free from TPB or whatever.
Indeed. But people are stuck on these archaic unrelated terms for now. AI firms will make the whole thing obsolete while luddites cry about “stealing from artists” and stuff like that.
> But people are stuck on these archaic unrelated terms for now
Seen it in media for decades at this point, which makes sense, most people can't tell up from down.
What's sad is hearing those things echoed here of all places, a community for hackers, and people are repeating the words of the MPAA.
>luddites cry
oh come on I thought we had gotten past this crap
When I moaned to the Adobe support person about a recent price hike they said "It's a real shame you haven't signed up for a free educational course online, like the ones from Google, that would qualify you for a student plan. Or have you? I'll wait here while you tell me if you are enrolled in one of those free Google courses. Take as long as you need."
So now I'm getting an education too.
Cracked software has risks attached to it, such as malware.
Spare me the morality play. Apple gifted Donald Trump a 24k gold statue! They will gift me an educational discount to Final Cut Pro.
There was no morality play. My point is your copy/use of software is equally "illegal" whether you just download a cracked copy or pretend to be an active college student and pay the student price, when you are not in fact an active college student. Either way, you won't have a valid license. So why bother paying?
This is quite the slippery argument IMO. So it’s not about morality, it’s about legality. But also it’s about paying for a valid license, so they shouldn’t pay at all?
I mean, why not? I barely use FCP, sometimes to trim a movie in places. I'm still going to be subsiding other users. I'd rather not pirate.
won't somebody think of the poor trillion dollar company!
Make the one-time purchase while you still can. The educational version is a great value, and the license allows the software to be used for commercial purposes.
But Keynote, Pages and Numbers are already free
Hopefully staying as such. I like Numbers, but I suspect I could totally replace my use of it with Emacs org-mode.
From the subheading: “plus new AI features and premium content in Keynote, Pages, and Numbers”
Seems like a great "opportunity" for Apple to pump up their Services revenue
I thought Keynote, Pages, and Numbers were complimentary. Or part of an iCloud subscription or something. Is that changing?
the other benefit is that subs can be a sort of extended trial. Ive been wanting to try out final cut pro but I don't want to do a full video project if i'm going to be evaluating it. better to have 1-3 months to really know before I plunk down 299 bucks.
They offer a 3 month trial already.
Does this mean Keynote and Pages are now paid products? Aren't they included with Mac OS?
From the subheading: “plus new AI features and premium content in Keynote, Pages, and Numbers”
My concern here is are they going to start locking features for Pages, Numbers, and Keynote behind a paywall? Yes, it’s free—but will they still have all of the newer features without a subscription?
I’m assuming that they’re going to (fairly) lock AI generative features behind the subscription since they’ll be incurring ongoing costs.
They'll be pressured by gdocs and other similar products to not keep too much of this behind a paywall. I already don't know anyone who loves using Pages (every time I share a document I have to export it to .docx, which is annoying), so they're already starting off behind by a bit.
I think many more would be on to Pages if they realized it was more than a simple WP. It's especially great for personal use, where there's no non-Mac sharing needed — there's no simpler layout program out there, & the typographic options are nice to have. If I have something longer/more detailed to put together, that's what ()LaTeX, Inkscape, etc., is for. We need alternate app ecosystems out there, & it's nice that Apple hasn't left these apps to rot like they did back in the 2010s.
It's OK but way too limited for proper layouts and doesn't have enough features for long/complex documents like books.
As it is, it's barely better than GDocs but less convenient, and since people rarely need to print stuff, layout isn't that important.
What do you recommend for long/complex documents like books?
I really enjoy Pages, but if they’re going to lock stuff behind a paywall — it might be time to look at other things. I can’t afford to add a whole bunch of new subscriptions.
The individual one time purchase versions are still available for all the apps. Final Cut, Logic, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage are offered in a bundle for education by Apple as a $199.99 one time purchase (no education status is verified) [1]. Pixelmator Pro is available as a one time purchase as well for $49.99 [2]. Not included in the Creator Studio is the Lightroom alternative Photomator, which is available as a one time purchase of $119.99. You could recreate just the Creator Studio as a one time $250 purchase, or the entire suite (including Photomator) for $370.
Not available for one time purchase are the AI features and templates available for the free apps (Keynote, Pages, Numbers, Freeform).
Personally, I'm glad that one time purchases are still options for the core pro suite: long term they do hold value compared to paying Adobe a subscription (or dealing with the high seas on macOS). However, I don't see things like the education bundle sticking around much longer, so purchase it sooner rather than later.
[1]: https://www.apple.com/us-edu/shop/product/bmge2z/a/pro-apps-...
[2]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pixelmator-pro/id1289583905
Additional info: Final Cut Pro is going to keep getting updates, but certain features (presumably AI related) are not going to be included with the one time purchase and are gated to the subscription [1].
[1]: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/#:~:text=A%20one%2Dtime%...
The inclusion of Pixelmator Pro is simply so they no longer have a hole in the software lineup as a competitor vs Affinity (I think the real competitor to this bundle) and Adobe
I think they view Photos as a viable replacement for Lightroom and equivalents.
Photomator would be a more level Lightroom alternative, odd it's not included in the new Creator Studio package.
That's probably a clue that maintaining Photomator is not on Apple's long-term roadmap. I imagine they'll merge some features into Photos and eventually discontinue it.
That would be the third photo editing software that I like that Apple discontinues and I would very much not like it
Photos would need a lot of work to rival Photomator.
If they're essentially shutting down Photomator development, after doing similar with Aperture many years ago, they do seem very determined to drive people to Lightroom....
Thanks for the info, I was looking for this. I have the "Pro Apps Bundle for Education" that I bought years ago and it is an fantastic deal.
Did Photomator increase in price? I seem to remember buying a lifetime license for $79.99.
After Apple suddenly discontinued Aperture, which left users like me with huge complex photo archives hanging, I will never trust any professional software tool from Apple again. It is a disaster that I still haven't fully recovered from.
I've learned my lesson — all my archives will now be maintained by me, in file structures, with metadata in text files.
Me too, with Aperture. Huge misstep and insult to the user base.
This is a useful tool: https://github.com/cormiertyshawn895/Retroactive
However, you still need to run an older OS. I've still got on my todo list the process of fixing all of this.
It's been a decade and it still hurts that it was discontinued.
Learned that lesson too. Then got into Lightroom. Now getting out of that by exporting stuff slowly. Moving to files on disk and edits in Darktable now. No "library".
Not only Aperture. The FCP7-FCPX transition was a disaster as well.
Please don’t take this as me saying you were wrong to ever trust Apple, however the best way to organise any data is usually just files on a disk.
That’s becoming a recurring theme for me and even some of my corporate clients now. Confluence, for example, is out the window for secure documentation around sensitive environments and Word Docs in One Drive are back in. It’s surprisingly refreshing and gets the job done way better.
From what I recall, aperture did use files-on-a-disk, maintaining original photos read-only and letting everything else be operations on those originals.
(am I recalling correctly?)
It's all true, but if you think organizing photo archives is easy, boy have I got news for you.
Metadata, versions, version groupings, projects, albums, there is lots of structure that most people don't realize exists.
Think every picture has an EXIF date and that's the date when it was taken? Think again. Scanning date is not the same as picture date.
Actually, even if you think of a date, you probably imagine the usual ISO8601 2026-01-14T17:37:46Z date — how about when we only know a year? This is something Aperture didn't do either, but when dealing with photo archives what you want is arbitrary precision date intervals. E.g. 1900-1902 for example.
Anyway. Just pointing out that even though "just files on disk" is the right approach, managing those files and their metadata is far from obvious.
Agree with all of this, apart from possibly OneDrive but that's for another post.
Not Apple-specific really that point for sure anyway. Personally I don't think we should ever ever trust any vendor to control our data or act as a proxy for access to it. If it's not on a physical disk in your hands, in a format which is documented and can be opened by more than one application, then you're one step away from being screwed. There are so many tangible risks we love to sweep under the rug from geopolitics, commercial stability, security, bugs to unexpected side effects. And I've seen some real horror stories on all of those fronts.
At the same time I managed to embed myself thoroughly in it and I'm 3 months in to undoing the mess. It's VERY hard to get back to files on disk. No moving away from that is probably the best option I suspect a lot of us never took.
Hardest stuff to get out of is iCloud/Apple and Adobe.
Power tip: replace the Word docs with Markdown.
Thinking that Markdown is comparable to a Word doc for even most purposes is delusional.
Markdown should work reasonably well for the use case of Confluence pages that have been moved into Word docs.
The Aperture discontinuation still pains me as well. Especially since I can't even run it anymore.
I also bought Final Cut Express. Not sure I'll buy Apple software again either.
Logic users on Windows also weren't too happy when Apple bought Emagic and dropped Windows support shortly after.
> These apps will continue receiving updates, with the latest versions adopting the beautiful new visual design language with Liquid Glass on all platforms
Are the Apple people really this oblivious, or is someone in PR trolling us?
They don't have much of a choice. They bet the house on liquid glass and need to keep up appearances.
I think they just need to wait a bit and then present something more sensible as the new hot design.
> They bet the house on liquid glass
How? If they reverted to the previous iOS and macOS designs, Apple would go out of business?
Of course not, but I'd rephrase what the OP said as something more like "it's unrealistic to expect them to go 'hey, guess what, never mind about all that' after a half a year.
I think it's more realistic to expect that they're going to stick with a UI officially called "Liquid Glass" for the next decade, but it's going to go through some serious iterative changes in the next couple of years -- probably much more than it would have were Alan Dye still around.
God only knows how much money they invested into the new GUI engine for all their platforms. It was a super expensive bet.
> God only knows how much money they invested into the new GUI engine for all their platforms. It was a super expensive bet.
What are you basing these claims on?
Stop being so aggressive.
You can look at Apple’s own published consent regarding Liquid Glass development. It’s very evident that it was thoughtful and involved.
Topic of discussion was the price of developing and rolling back the new GUI, not how much thought Apple put in it.
The employees aren't thinking for free, making something "thoughtful and involved" is probably expensive, too.
When you are in a hole you can at least stop digging.
I read it less as obliviousness and more as internal language leaking into marketing. What’s “Liquid Glass” to Apple reads like an aesthetic system though but to outsiders it sounds like jargon inflation. I feel the gap between internal coherence and external clarity shows up in these releases a lot.
> like an aesthetic system
An idiotic aesthetic system that ignores all the human interface guidelines that the Apple of 30+ years ago helped start.
Pretty sure these marketing speak was decided half-an-year before. Sales and marketing just do their job
/S
It sounds like internally it’s a checklist item they have to mention everywhere.
Yep, it's not trolling, it's just them doing the job. A well paid lawyer will defend a client even if they're guilty
A well paid lawyer defending a guilty client is upholding the Justice system. Every man has a right to a fair trial.
Apple wasting years of everyones time on bad faith UX design
You’ve never worked at BigCorp have you? At Amazon, part of the initial indoctrination when I was hired there was competitive messaging when talking to clients (I worked in ProServe) and what you were never allowed to say. I remember we could never say we had a “moat”.
I’m sure there is approved marketing copy.
I like the Liquid Glass design so this is a point for me.
[flagged]
Next version will probably "build on Liquid Glass", while moving away from it. At least that's my guess.
Dear Apple, Please do not add liquid glass to your professional applications. Keep it simple, gray, performant, and functional. Thank you.
Doesn’t matter. The apps run on the OS, the latest hardware only runs the OS at the hardware release date and later. You’re getting the Fisher-Price UI whether you want it or not, even if the apps never change a thing.
I guess it's enforced top-down. Yesterday I picked up my MacBook from a logicboard repair and they forced Tahoe on it despite running Sonoma originally so I spent most of yesterday getting rid of Tahoe and reverting back to Sonoma.
Sonoma won't receive updates for long any more. Better off switching to Sequoia. It'll give you 20 months to switch away, instead of 8 months.
Each new macOS version brings new restrictions causing some essential apps to stop working or work in a more complicated way so I keep delaying macOS upgrades as late as possible. macOS used to be an OS that lowered my cognitive complexity but that's no longer true these days due to security overreach.
As a macOS sysadmin I feel this in my bones, and of course I don't know what apps are essential for you, but FWIW Sequoia has been basically identical to Sonoma for me. In fact I had to double check what I was running on this computer before writing this because there's just no functional or aesthetic difference that I know of off the top of my head.
(And yes, I'm holding off on Sonoma for as long as possible because... yuck)
At least in the screenshots I did not notice absurdly large window corner radii.
Because every app is presented in fullscreen. Showing the windowing system would make sense if this was announced pre-LG.
Have you never had to toe a company line before?
someone in PR is trolling
the beatings with liquid glass will continue till morale improves
Apple no longer supports GL, so Liquid Glass - GL = Liquid Ass.
I still miss Aperture. Photos is a far cry still, many years later.
Lightroom never matched Aperture's organizational abilities for libraries with tens of thousands of RAW photos.
I’ve been waiting to see what happens with Photomator, and the fact that it’s not being included in anyway here makes me think it might not survive? Either that, or it’s gonna be heavily integrated into Photos…
I was also surprised to not see Photomator included. Wouldn’t it perfectly complement the lineup? I hadn’t thought of such a pessimistic interpretation, but now I’m worried as well …
I think Apple killed Aperture primarily because it was confusing to have iPhoto and Aperture with largely overlapping workflows. Aperture had the loupe view, and side by side comparison stuff, saved color grading tools (I think?), sure, but it wasn’t differentiated enough to justify a Pro designation. I think it makes more sense for Photomator features to be absorbed into Photos… and maybe Photos gets some new Pixelmator integrations if you have it, for quick touch ups / enhancement type things.
On the other hand, Final Cut / iMovie will exist side by side because it’s truly a basic vs Pro situation.
Not a product manager at Apple, of course, but this is what logically seems to make sense.
Uff, I sure hope you are wrong! I don’t want to use the iCloud library for photos, but have my photos available as digital files elsewhere on the ssd. Of course, your prediction makes more sense from Apple’s standpoint, unfortunately.
I do like the convenience of iCloud, but totally agree that having them safe elsewhere is necessary. I’ve been pretty bad about keeping solid, non-iCloud backups of my photos. I definitely need to be more proactive about it.
I don't think it's actually confusing to a professional at all
Not to a professional, no. But this isn’t iMovie vs Final Cut. Aperture was only slightly above where iPhoto was going in capability. They should have raised the iPhoto/Photos bar a lot more to get back to where Aperture was, though.
I mean, the friendly way to kill off the differences between Aperture and Photos would have been to add all the missing workflow stuff to Photos before killing Aperture. Photos did not get lift-and-stamp edits until late 2022, years after Aperture was discontinued, and it isn't as good as the corresponding feature in Aperture was. Also, it would have been cool if the Photos import from Aperture library had ever worked, even a little bit. I keep an external hard drive around with my old Aperture library because I know it contains photos that Photos.app still hasn't pulled in correctly.
Frustrating that Photos is really not suitable for anything other than editing snaps. I'd love to ditch Adobe, but Darktable doesn't support Fuji raws, and there really aren't that many great commercial alternatives to Lightroom that don't also have a subscription model.
> but Darktable doesn't support Fuji raws
darktable has supported Fuji raws since 2014! It currently supports the classic "uncompressed" RAFs, as well as the newfangled "lossless" (compressed) RAFs. I do not believe that it supports the "compressed" (lossy) format. So setting "recording type" appropriately on your camera is necessary.
I'm curious where the notion comes from that there is no support for Fujifilm RAF files, as I see this in a cousin comment as well.
I wish there was something like GOG but for old general software
Apple dropping Aperture right after I landed stateside was enough to knock me out of the photography hobby entirely.
Tried Darktable?
For me it didn't work with Fuji RAW, so I couldn't really use it.
This is Off Topic, but the first thing I notice on that page were those icons for apps with Apple Creator Studio.
They look AWEFUL.
It's a massacre. The originals[0] were metaphorical and easy to grasp. These new ones are meaningless, for most of them you can't guess what the app does from the icon. The beautiful 3-axis colorwheel gimbal, gone. The concert access badge, gone. The pressed record award replaced with a disc? Is that the MP3 player app?
And Final Cut Pro looks like Windows 11's garbage free ClipChamp! None of them have the gravitas of the old ones.
It's weird because uniformity and minimalism haven't been "in" in years, outside the Silicon Valley bubble. They're very culturally out of touch.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1qbz6g8/whos_excited...
Oh Thank You for the link. Exactly what I am talking about. You dont have to like or agree with every icons beings used previously, but at least they serve its purpose which is easily recognisable.
I saw the new icon and it nearly made me puke. Had it been coming from Google or Microsoft I would have thought oh not surprised.
I don’t think they look awful, and they’re more interesting and opinionated than most boring icons you see these days.
They're definitely awful compared to the icons they're replacing. Losing so much identity and detail.
Eh not sure I agree. The former icons are definitely unique, but not consistent or cohesive at all, especially when viewed as a group.
I think these new icons will grow on people. There were similar negative reactions back ~15 years ago when Adobe switched to their minimalist icon style.
> There were similar negative reactions back ~15 years ago when Adobe switched to their minimalist icon style.
Adobe icons are terrible and should not be the standard. Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, InDesign 2 were so much more memorable and recognizable than the lazy minimalist slop we have now. Even the first CS or CS2 icons were a thousand times better. The fact that the company behind the most powerful and popular creative software did this is unforgivable.
Some tasteless manager made a PowerPoint about "brand cohesion", got his promotion and ruined it for everybody else.
I think we fundamentally disagree about what the purpose of icons is. The point isn’t just to be something that looks cool in isolation.
Great strawman dude (and even if that was my point, they didn't cool in isolation only, they looked good as part of an entire screen of icons too). The purpose of icon isn't to look cohesive within a brand either.
Look at the new Pixelmator icon: geometric shapes overlayed with Bezier Curve handles at the bottom. What does it look like? Vector design. What does the app do? The exact opposite, raster design, pixel painting. What the previous icon signaled.
The previous Compressor icon: A machine compressing film, because despite the name Compressor is for encoding video files. The new icon? Sure with the context of the label you will understand it's something being squeezed, but what? And without the label?
The previous Final Cut icon was unmistakably a movie slate. The new one almost looks like a radio. Why is the pattern under the body? Why is it only at on the bottom and not the top clapper stick?
How are the new ones superior design? How does it improve on anything? It's forcing everyone to learn new icons that convey are less clear, convey less meaning, look uglier, just to serve the corporate interests of "brand cohesion"?
macOS Tahoe icons are a regression on every single front. I invite you to compare Disk Utility (where is the disk now?), or Migration Assistant (where is the notion of migrating from old to new?). And these are just a few examples.
It has that new slop aesthetics.
Yup, looks like they have been created by some intern with Image Playground.
TERRIBLE! Can’t believe Apple is using these.
> Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage — plus new AI features and premium content in Keynote, Pages, and Numbers — come together in a single subscription
So Apple is copying Adobe's business model?
No, all apps are available for purchase for a one time payment.
I don't care about video, so I'll be buying Pixelmator now, and maybe music stuff later, and Video part never.
So it works like before, if you want.
Pixelmator is great and integrates well with Apple's tooling for batch processing.
For video, the free version of DavinciResolve goes a very long way, and their Studio is a single-payment-life-time license.
DaVinci Resolve also runs on Linux, so you won't be locked to staying on MacOS if you want to switch OSes but maintain your skillset.
Available for purchase... for now.
The only "...for now" event I have seen in last 20 years of Apple software is iWorks and Mac OS X become free.
...and they integrated some of the Aperture to new Photos app, which is again was a transition to free.
Name me something a product, not a service which you can only subscribe in Apple's ecosystem.
Logic Pro in iPad is subscription only.
They didn’t take away a one-time purchase option for it though. It just never existed to begin with so the op’s point remains.
> Name me something a product, not a service which you can only subscribe in Apple's ecosystem.
The shows on Apple TV are only available via a subscription; there's no way to have a perpetual purchase (at least as far as that a la carte style of purchase is perpetual).
They specifically said “not a service” and you brought up a service.
I would argue a season or episode of television is a product, and Apple TV gates them behind a subscription.
I used to buy the season passes so I could return to shows later; that's not an option for ATV stuff.
Well really they are copying the original Microsofts suite packaging which everyone has copied over the years! But yes specific they are trying to take market share on Adobe.
Its actually like taking on MS and Adobe together... but they aren't really taking on MS office.
How so? Apple's subscription cancellation is one click away, and you don't get overcharged when canceling.
Subscription model so it’s adobes model. But you can buy “one time”. Though they have a tendency to just end product support (aperture software was canceled leaving a lot of bad taste for photographers that used it)
Wonder what Adobe thinks of this. Their support for Mac was pretty important in getting OS X off the ground, now they’re competing with a unified stack.
When I was a Mac user I remember buying Logic express 9 (I still have the disk). The price is a good deal, but you really are all in forever..
Depends on if you are stuck with the subscription for life, or if there's actually a reasonable way to unsubscribe.
You're never free to unsubscribe because you become accustomed to the tools, and use the file formats, etc. (That's why I don't do subscription, ever.)
FTA: “Alternatively, users can also choose to purchase the Mac versions of Final Cut Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage individually as a one-time purchase on the Mac App Store.”
Yeah but this is $129/yr, that's significantly cheaper
It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number.
> It’s cheap enough it’s not enough to fund development of Final Cut but also not enough money to bother spending time on it. Find it odd personally, just offering them free to keep hardware makes more sense than trying to push a tiny subscription revenue number.
Apple doesn't work that way.
Unlike almost all other tech companies that are organized by divisions, Apple uses a functional organizational structure.
So all of the software teams are under one head of software; there's no senior vp of the Final Cut division, for example.
For accounting purposes, all software is lumped together.
Apple made $391 billion in revenue last fiscal year; when you're making that kind of money, you can afford to do things for reasons other than the amount of money you could make.
Whatever revenue Final Cut generates isn't required to fund the Final Cut team.
> you can afford to do things for reasons other than the amount of money you could make.
This is what I'm saying and why I don't see the point in charging at all for these apps. The existence of the subscription price tag on them is evidence against what you're claiming.
> The existence of the subscription price tag on them is evidence against what you're claiming.
I disagree. Apple doesn’t need the money, but they also know consumers don’t value free apps the same way they do for pay apps.
It also plays into people’s desire for something better than what everyone has. Everyone gets Numbers, Pages and Keynote for free, but if you subscribe, you get bonus content and features.
So while Apple doesn’t need this to be a blockbuster product, they’re not going to leave money on the table either.
$129/year is surely better than $300 once, 15 years ago. Though I'm guessing not offering it for free is to keep it distinct from iMovie and to maintain some semblance of "Pro"-ness (which I'm gathering is up for debate either way.. the last time I did any actual video editing it was on Final Cut Pro 5 so I'm out of the loop)
It's the problem that the whole industry is facing - the current generation of hardware is sufficient that hardware refreshes will continue to decline, and companies that want to keep milking us for money regularly need to find a new way to do it.
> the current generation of hardware is sufficient that hardware refreshes will continue to decline
If anything, Apple is refreshing their hardware much faster now compared to the Intel days. There's literally a new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air every year. And of course there are 3-4 new iPhones every year.
By declining hardware refreshes, I meant on the consumer side, not the producer side.
Sufficient for whom? At my job they’re still refreshing workstations regularly. They buy and churn hardware on a regular basis.
Not quite “buying on release week” basis but some % of employees always getting new hardware at max specs in the design org
Makes even engineering jealous sometimes
I hate subscriptions as much as the next person but how would you pay for continued development of software? Do you say a person can continue to run version X forever but if they want a new version they pay for it?
> Do you say a person can continue to run version X forever but if they want a new version they pay for it?
I'm not particularly interested in sustaining the financial growth of software companies. I did that for years and I'm done.
But, what you suggest is literally what the software industry did for decades before subscriptions became the norm.
One might argue it offers significantly less value too.
Adobe invented subscription bundles? In that sense did the Creative Cloud copy iCloud?
When there are no more new buyers to sell devices, or new versions of existing software packages, the only way to keep the curve growing for shareholders and MBAs is to sell subscriptions.
It is also the only way to convince developers to pay for software.
Having a part hosted on some server is so much better than whatever anti-piracy schemes one can think of, and provides the continuous growth curve for printing money.
Thus subscriptions aren't going away in the modern software world.
It's a pity Apple didn't choose to acquire Affinity when there was a chance. Pixelmator Pro looks like a toy app compared to Logic or Final Cut. I don't see how it could ever catch up to Photoshop. Even at such small scale it's always been very buggy in my experience and development seems to have stalled (apart from some obligatory AI features).
I am glad the standalone purchases are still available and I assume they will stay updated in sync with the subscription-based ones. I would hate my copy of Logic getting slowly obsolete..
Affinity never made mac-assed Mac apps. Pixelmator is more a Mac app than Messages or Music. That's why they bought them instead of Affinity.
Maybe. Form over function, not a surprise.
A truly well-designed Mac app is not just form, it is function as well. If you think a good Mac citizen is only what it looks like you're not looking at all.
Sadly mac-assedness doesn't automatically mean feature richness or overall robustness. Those are actually quite hard to achieve when you spend half of each year updating the UI widgets to the latest SDK and fixing new performance problems you didn't cause. That should be clear when you compare Affinity Photo and Pixelmator Pro.
Your experience couldn't be more different than mine. I love Pixelmator Pro. One of my favorite apps on my computer. Super quick and snappy. Does what I need it to. Which doesn't mean it does what everyone needs it to. I get that it isn't a Photoshop replacement. But not everyone needs a Photoshop replacement.
Your experience is starkly different than mine. Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Pixelmator, Pixelmator Pro’s much more toy-like predecessor from ~10 years ago?
My experience is that while there’s a feature and community gap for both Pixelmator Pro and Affinity, Affinity just tried to copy Photoshop, positioning it as a worse but cheaper Photoshop, while Pixelmator Pro feels like an attempt to make a better photo editor, losing some familiarity points but also being tangibly better than Photoshop at most use cases it can handle, which is many. It’s also an excellent macOS citizen. Between those two factors, it seems much more up Apple’s alley.
I guess it depends a lot on the use cases. I've used both the original Pixelmator app and the "Pro" may have been a rewrite internally but it didn't feel like a significant step up for me at the time, more like a rebrand and a way to charge for it again. And so many bugs. The development team did respond to a few of my bug reports, which was nice.
Yeah, in my experience, Pixelmator looks the part but isn't a very good software, especially for vectors. Affinity stuff doesn't look as good but gets much closer to Adobe quality tools.
Seems like a pretty solid deal, if you need everything. I don't know who that person is though. The intersection between Final Cut Pro and Logic users is pretty small, I'd imagine.
TBF, you can say the same thing for adobe creative cloud - the intersection between After Effects and Indesign users is also effectively nil!
But having one simple opex line item for "software I buy for the creative types" is appealing for a lot of orgs.
But the CC subscriptions offers a lot more.
Photohsop, Illustrator and After Effects are pretty much industry standards.
Apple really should’ve grabbed Affinity before canva. Would’ve rounded out this suite much better.
Yeah. The Affinity team with Apple's resources could have made an amazing Adobe CC alternative for Mac users.
Yes, re: opex. The product is “renewals,” not software really.
I'm that kind of user but I would rather not use Logic, Final Cut, or PixelMator unless Apple really improves those. On top of that there's also the platform lock-in concern.
There’s quite a few creative hobbyists and freelancers.
In a past life, I’d have fallen quite squarely in the latter and I still fall in the former.
Given this also extends to my family, it feels like a no-brainer replacement for creative cloud.
Subs like this are great for people who can’t afford the full versions yet
I am still waiting for "XCode for iPadOS", where we can have a Smalltalk like approach to development, beyond what Swift Playgrounds allows for.
Unless Apple gets off several high horses regarding code signing and, more importantly, app containerization; any Xcode for iPadOS is going to be useless. Like, imagine Xcode without custom build steps or third-party compilers.
The larger problem is that the iPad has a dual nature. At the launch of the product, Apple positioned it as a netbook killer - i.e. a simplified computer for specific tasks, one where the locked down nature of the device might actually be considered a feature. That's why they built everything on iPhone OS[0]. However, there's always been the implication that this is supposed to Someday™ replace the Mac. It keeps getting new features to make it more useful as a computer replacement, which just makes the deliberate restrictions placed on the device more and more glaring. And Apple seems to think they can just keep adding features until they can make you do every computing task wearing a strait-jacket in a padded room.
This particular duality came to a head with the Apple Vision Pro. Any app that would actually be useful on a VR headset is either:
- Incompatible with Apple's code-signing and containerization requirements (i.e. developer tools)
- Not economic to offer at the small scale of the visionOS app market (at least, not while Apple is demanding 30%)
- A game (Apple really doesn't wanna talk about the Vision Pro as a games machine)
On a related note, Swift Playgrounds stopped getting updates almost a year ago. I updated my HTML editor demo project for iPadOS 26 and now I can't even compile it because Apple has yet to ship the version 26 SDK. And there's really nothing any third party can do to fix Swift Playgrounds to make it actually usable again.
[0] Strictly speaking, Apple's first internal demos of capacitive touch were for a tablet project specifically to spite Windows XP tablets. Although by the time they were writing actual shipping code it was intended for iPhone and iPad came later.
Everyone that argues about this misses the point.
It isn't about doing and publishing apps without having to buy a mac.
Rather having a more powerful development experience that isn't as constrained as Swift Playgrounds, useful for prototyping ideas.
I do not care if in a similar vein, to a Smalltalk like environment I would always need to run the app from inside the dev env, and then use a Mac, or some cloud build workflow if I ever would like to actually publish it.
Just like I use several other coding on the go environments.
I played once with hosting a VSCode server on a raspberry pi for general development and it was actually quite powerful, when used from an iPad. Just not strictly for Swift unfortunately
I'm hosting a VSCode server with Termux/Ubuntu container on my old Pixel 6a and I cannot overstate how awesome it is for just a fun dev setup, especially with a tablet. Easy to nuke and start clean too!
The ecosystem is fine for non-Apple development. It's just building apps for iOS, macOS, etc. that is impossible on iPad right now past some basic applications.
Too bad they killed Aperture.
Now they acquired Photomator with Pixelmator, but it's still an independent subscription... not even included in this bundle. Maybe they just forgot.
The only apps from Apple I give a sizeable fraction of a dam about are Pages and Numbers, and hopefully they’ll emerge from the scourge of AI largely unscathed.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but they certainly won't.
It's in the announcement and look at what Microslop and Google have done to their versions.
Yeah I read that but what I meant (and failed to express clearly, I openly admit) is that I hope it doesn’t somehow become core functionality you’re kinda-sorta expected to have. Pages and Numbers work fine and I’d be willing to go back to paying for them as was true back in the iLife days (I still have an iLife ‘06 or ‘09 distribution CD or DVD on my shelf in a storeroom) but paying a subscription for creative apps I just never use just to get stuff everybody will expect you to have in productivity apps is a path I hope they don’t go down. Incidentally what Numbers really lacks is a circular converge-to-solution mode like Excel has had for decades, that would make it a serious tool tor simple business planning and financial projections.
I'm keeping an eye on Graphite (https://graphite.art/) as something to move to from Affinity's stuff, but it's good there's a new option for people who need more.
It’s actually a pretty big deal. I always wondered why they didnt compete with Adobe. Even when Steve Jobs was still around. 90%+ of Adobe users are on Macs.
Why though isn’t such a significant announcement on the Apple.com homepage?
Because Adobe would have gone Windows only, which would have been a potentially fatal blow to Apple at the time. Same reason Claris was spun out.
At least Acrobat reader is not relevant on macOS.
Here is a quick side by side comparison between Apple Creator Studio and the Adobe Creative Cloud suite. Each app may be stronger or weaker depending on the use case, workflow, and specific user needs, so this is only a rough equivalence.
Disclaimer: table formatting assisted by ChatGPT (hope it works on HN).What this misses is that Creative Cloud is much more than a bundle of apps. It includes everything you need around the apps for pro workflows (i.e. fonts, AI, stock, collaboration, etc...).
(I work for Adobe)
A lot of those are paid extras. I know my Adobe CC didn't come with any stock credits.
In general, they are included with CC.
More info here:
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud.html
Pixelmator probably is Lightroom. And adobe has "Photography Bundle" with Lightroom and Photoshop for $20/mo.
No, Lightroom is a dedicated photo editor and DAM.
Pixelmator is closer to Photoshop, you can do some photo editing, but its not focused on it, and does not have asset management.
No, Photomator (and Photos) is Lightroom. Pixelmator is Photoshop.
Wow, RIP the icons I guess :/
Excited to see whether the new Apple boss will lead to software innovation, which has been pretty stagnant the last few years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/technology/apple-ceo-tim-...
When was the last time Apple made some significant update to its professional desktop apps?
Logic Pro gets regular updates. I believe most of it is AI driven nonsense but they are making changes. Flashback capture was a nice fairly recent addition and surprising this wasn't implemented sooner. There are also regular bug fixes and performance improvements. I can't speak for the other apps.
https://support.apple.com/en-afri/109503
Forget that. TikTokers are the revenue stream now.
TikTokers ("influencers" in general) don't do their editing or any part of their "production pipeline" on computers, kids are doing the full thing via smartphones nowadays. Blew my mind initially too, as I always did "serious work" at a computer and never the phone, but seems they're managing it somehow.
They often start there, some stay there, some graduate to an iPad, but a a lot of the higher end creators absolutely edit in desktops or laptops (usually MacBooks)
My old job dealt with this quite a lot as they were our target market, so I got some up close views of how for example, creators like MrBeast go about their editing (well the employees anyway)
Though I did note a lot of creators that do graduate to more robust software basically go from lightweight editor via Canva -> iMovie or equivalent -> professional software e.g. FCPX or Premiere
Yeah, that matches what I've seen too, bigger productions adopting a more traditional pipeline, while "influencers" or whatever they're called today, kind of stick with the tools they've learned, until they "graduate" as they expand the team and bring in actual professionals.
[dead]
They use CapCut which is free and on the web and Google Docs.
To them what Apple just announced is trash.
This sounds really cool, but I honestly can’t imagine stopping using Adobe apps after so many years and switching to completely new tools. It feels like that would take a lot of time and effort to relearn everything.
Apple CC
Like Adobe CC
I love Logic and all but really?
I can’t help but notice Apple in the last decade has kind of been spinning in circles software wise while their hardware division makes breakthroughs with M-series chips.
2026, the year of the Linux Desktop…
Tangential, but: MainStage the best deal in the entire pro audio industry.
As a keyboard player who mainly plays (and owns) classic electro-mechanical keyboards like Hammonds, Rhodes, Clavinets, and Wurlitzers, Apple's emulators that they brought from Logic are really top-notch - often better than what you get with dedicated hardware.
$30 is an insane price for what it delivers. I just wish it were available for iPad, and I'd use it more for gigging.
This seems like an Apple AI subscription under the guise of a software bundle.
It’s a good value for some, especially if you want to use FCP, but seems like a bad value for most users who are expecting more value from their Mac purchase.
I wonder if new Macs will offer a three-month trial for this suite, or if the standard apps will be pre-installed and the AI features are unlocked through a subscription.
If bundled versions of iWork go away, we may see a renaissance for G Suite.
Sounds plausible. Someone internally likely has AI sales numbers to meet, so creating new subscriptions and adding "AI" to them can help juice AI-related numbers toward that quota.
In this thread: No one who has even skimmed the article
I'll say this loud for the people in the back: YOU CAN STILL BUY IT OUTRIGHT
They are still offering one-time purchases, calm down.
But for how long?
I don’t get why they think “professional” is a generic tier.
If I’m a music producer, what’s the value of being given a digital art drawing program? If I’m an illustrator, why do I need a cinema post production suite?
Some people might happen to do both, but overlap is largely accidental, right? The fact that they think of all professions as a bundle is even insulting as it signals the products are mostly toys/hobbyist stuff.
I think that's why they call it "Creator" studio. Creators - in the way the term is usually used today - indeed do use many of these tools. Maybe you produce music, create a video about you producing music and also need an engaging thumbnail for YouTube.
In a feature film production, these would certainly be separate roles. But apart from maybe Logic Pro for composers, Apple's tools are not really relevant at those levels of the entertainment business anymore. Post-pro would be Pro Tools for audio, something like Avid Media Composer for editing etc.
I think Apple has realized they are not playing on that level anymore and target their marketing to where they are still in the game. That's not necessarily a bad move.
Tons of professionals use logic. Really, you will find money making musicians using any of the major daws. Pro tools might still be the standard for recording studios but that's likely it.
My point was more that creators will often use more than one tool.
I know Logic is widespread amongst beat producers and songwriters, especially in the US. But you will also often see tracks getting produced on Logic but the final mix then happens on Pro Tools (by professional mixing engineers).
But that's why I explicitly mentioned Logic, I think it's the one pro app from Apple that still deserves the moniker, at least in regards to where it is used. The video stuff not so much anymore.
Most musicians I know use Ableton or Bitwig on macOS. Logic Pro is really a hassle for collaboration and touring from what I've heard.
A lot of people round trip through various softwares to create things. As a film editor I use NLE’s, DAW’s, music production tools, various encoders (like compressor), graphic design tools…I’d say it’s the norm not the exception to need 2-3 specialized pieces of software during projects.
> I don’t get why they think “professional” is a generic tier.
The target market is prosumer, not true professional.
I don't think there's that much of a distinction.
The real difference is that a "true professional" already has the software—purchased at full price by themselves or by their employer—and doesn't need a subscription in the first place.
The biggest distinction, in my experience, is that prosumers tend to be means-focused and professionals tend to be ends-focused, so there's less zealotry and evangelism in professional circles.
Also in professional circles, there's usually one or two industry standards and you just use what everyone else is using.
Many people that use professional tools are genuinely doing hobbyist stuff. Especially if they haven't already bought their tools outright.
But besides, this subscription works with Family Sharing and is only $12, so it looks easy to get your money's worth.
> If I’m a music producer, what’s the value of being given a digital art drawing program? If I’m an illustrator, why do I need a cinema post production suite
Are you talking about Adobe here?
Probably not, seeing as Creative Cloud has bundles focused on specific mediums.
Their default is the "All" plan which includes many of the same categories as the Apple bundle.
> A one-time purchase will still be available, but access to some of the premium content is available only to Apple Creator Studio subscribers. If you already own Final Cut Pro, it will continue to be updated.
Looks like some new "premium content" features will be only available to those with a subscription
Is the one-time purchase versions guaranteed for life?
If not, then this would likely go the way of others before where it will eventually be removed.
Nothing is ever guaranteed for life...except the promise of death.
I am done with Apple. They've become a company only extracting money on the margins rather than innovating. Most products are stale, especially on the software side. Asking for yet another subscription is what makes the boiling kettle run over.
apple can pry my one-time final cut pro purchase from my cold, dead hands.
Many years ago, before Final Cut Pro x my cousin asked me to help inject some video from tapes and keep the time code. In Final Cut Pro. I couldn’t figure it out.
So in desperation I read the manual. It was seriously well written and I understood the program, what needed to be done and how to do it.
An Aperture-like is still the stand out missing piece here, especially when you have the Garageband to Logic and iMovie to Final Cut progression
Photos isn't even close to the genuine Lightroom competitor that Aperture was
Not only that, but Photos has gotten less and less capable over time.
Last thing I did when I was a student was to buy the Apple pro apps bundle for education. It still haven't regretted it :D
So, if you are a student, you can get logic, final cut, motion, compressor and mainStage for $199.99 for ever.
I've had "buy motion" on my todo list for a while now.. just wanted to learn something new but it never made sense to buy it. With the subscription I think I'll give it a shot. Awesome!
When you're not plowing money into putting AI everywhere, it's easier to be cheaper than Adobe I guess...
(For what it's worth, the iWorks apps – Pages/Keynote/Numbers are free and bundled with macOS.)
> Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Keynote, Pages, Numbers
https://i.imgflip.com/2siu6l.jpg
I wondered when Apple was going to do this. Seemed inevitable when Final Cut Pro on the iPad had a subscription, I think.
I hope I can still use the non subscription version of Pixelmator pro I bought
Is anyone finding Freeform useful?
I tried it out when it was first announced and found it painfully limited --- did I miss something? Has it gotten better?
The main thing about Freeform that has been useful is that it has been a https://infinitecanvas.tools without a lock-in subscription.
I find it useful as a massive canvas for keeping a bunch of stuff in context, visually. And accessible via Mac and iPhone. But it is sorely lacking a major feature: highlight text to add a hyperlink. I end up with full URLs instead of hyperlinked words and it's pretty messy.
I use it regularly to do rough sketches of objects on my iPad to model in CAD later on the computer. It doesn't feel right for artwork or notes or basically anything else.
It’s odd not to see Photomator in this bundle. Feels even more likely that they’re going to kill it off in place of the regular Photos app.
Innovation!
More seriously, the subscription probably comes out cheaper than buying several (even if not all) of the apps that come in the bundle.
Yeah! They were courageous enough to take the step that Microsoft did with the Office suite (announced 1988, launched 1990) and with Microsoft 365 as subscription in 2011.
Are they planning to discontinue Garage band?
That Synth Player and Chord ID seem to be killer features on Logic Pro. Are they recent additions? Do they work well?
It's not released yet.
Pixelmator Pro is fantastic. I've forgotten about Photoshop for many years. Just buy it.
The icons...so this is what the future looks like under Steve Lemay?!
All these companies can go to hell with their subscription traps.
Cool, just don't send me your project files in email attachments.
OT: ...protecting their privacy. LOL (wrong playbook triggered writing this)
> [...] to make Apple Creator Studio an exciting subscription suite to empower creators of all disciplines while protecting their privacy.
Pages, Numbers and Keynote are the first apps I bin whenever I'm setting up a new Mac. Would people actually pay money for them?
Keynote is so much better for presentations that PowerPoint it's not even funny. But if you're not doing presentations, I can understand dumping it. I do like to have Pages because it means I don't have to bother with Word's annoying ribbon interface and Copilot AI when I'm writing...though sounds like that may be changing?
Keynote is completely underrated, likely because people assume it's just a Powerpoint clone, but it's more like a highly templated motion graphics app with a UI that steers people into using it as Powerpoint replacement.
So not only is it a far quicker way to make a PPT than using Powerpoint. I also see it used for making presentation videos, interactive PDFs and even animated GIFs/HTML5 animations.
The number of motion graphics marketing videos I see which are actually just Keynote files exported to video is impressive.
That’s kind of funny you mention “quicker way to make a PPT.” Everyone at my company had been asking me how I make my presentations look so good. I’m no designer; I’m a lowly engineer. But I do them in Keynote and export them to PowerPoint, which is half the battle!
(Sadly, my work laptop is Windows. So I create them on my personal laptop then migrate to PPT and do my best to fix up the fonts on Windows.)
I'd forgotten Pages and Numbers existed, but Keynote is worth paying for if it means that I don't have to use PowerPoint.
Numbers is brilliant simply because of independent freely-movable tables
It looks so much better than the grid enforced by Excel.
Yeah Numbers wins, when going back to Excel I miss it. It’s not as powerful though.
I put up with Numbers awful pivot table mechanics (why do they have to be manually updated?) because it genuinely allows you to create nice information displays with your tables.
I have a numbers file for my personal finances and it is so nice having some tables at the top with mortgage info and then details below. It makes running what-ifs super easy. Charts in excel and GSheets just kinda float over your content awkwardly.
> Would people actually pay money for them?
Why would someone need to buy them, they only run on macOS and macOS hardware comes with it by default, doesn't it?
I absolutely would. I've used them for years, alongside MS Office on Windows and Libre Office on Linux, and while they lack a few features they're not ones I've ever needed and the UI and ease of use is far superior to Office. Especially Pages is a pleasure to work with compared with Word.
I use Pages once a month for an invoice :)
Not sure why tbh, my other invoices are done in LibreOffice.
I paid for Numbers way back when it was a paid app. I have simple needs, and I much preferred the smooth inertial scrolling compared to running Excel in a VM (which was what I was doing before).
They want you to pay money for premium AI features in those apps, which is worse.
The apps themselves are fine IMO.
Does anyone use these apps?
How long until the option to buy-once for this software goes away? I am not a fan of this trend.
You will (soon) own nothing and be happy.
That's great if you need everything. If you need one of them, not so much.
You can buy the individual tools, if you want.
I'm curious how many people actually use all this stuff themselves. It seems like an extreme niche, and more often than not will have people paying for apps they will never use.
Maybe I'm old skool... but for the last 30+ years I've been using a combination of photoshop, illustrator, FCP, after effects (back when it was CoSA...), some audio editing and mixing in quite a bit of code as well. While others on my team specialize in one or two domains, I've managed to keep my skills in many.
Back in the day I was considered a 'MultiMedia' creative. I don't even know what to call myself these days.
That’s a great deal
So can i use this to purge the liquid metal from MacOS 26 ?
You got Liquid Metal? I'm stuck with Liquid Glass :-(
liquid metal / glass whats the difference its all shiny and amorphous.
Multiple thoughts on this:
1.0 Creating a software bundle is the expected play by a company that keeps trying to grow their subscription revenue, but lots of creators are fed up paying an arm and a leg for software they'll never own that they need to do their job. Canva turned a lot of heads and got new people into Affinity just by making it free, I would have liked to see Apple lead with the same pitch rather than make just another bundle.
2.0 I feel like this is a u-turn on what made buying Apple hardware so great. You paid a pretty penny for the hardware but you would get high quality software with more care and attention paid to it than their competitors. This has changed in recent years, with many of the iWork products languishing with only minor updates as the market has evolved towards simplified cloud-based tools. Although there's still free functionality and the subscription provides a more affordable way to get into their pro tools, I fear the free versions will become second-class.
2.1 The same has happened to their stance on advertising as well, with the App Store getting ads and Maps being next in line to get them too. Microsoft and Google are still much worse than Apple in this regard, but I thought they would hold out for much longer than cave to growing pressures to grow revenue.
3.0 I'm not a fan of putting generative AI as a selling point in a product called "creator studio". Many artists are against the usage for various reasons, and Apple has a long history of aligning themselves with creative individuals. Seems like a misunderstanding of what their audience would want.
4.0 No Garageband or iMovie feels like they've abandoned them. Which is a shame for tools that have started so many creator's careers. There's still a need for simplified tools for creators early in their careers or with simpler needs, something that CapCut has shown.
5.0 There's still gaps in their bundle. There's no software for UI design. I could see Apple acquiring Sketch, they would just need to reach feature parity with Figma. There's lots of organizations getting squeezed by Figma's enterprise contracts, and most product designers I know are already on Macs. There's also no drawing or animation software. I could see them acquiring the team behind Procreate and Procreate Dreams to fill it. That software already sells iPads, many artists have gotten their start with digital art with it. Another gap is publishing, although they could probably add functionality to Pages or buy Swift Publisher.
6.0 Who is this for? Every organization under the sun already pays for Office 365, and I've never known a designer who's used Pixelmator for their day to day work. Affinity felt like a much more compelling alternative to Adobe, and anyone with simple enough needs to use these tools is probably already using web-based tools on their Windows laptop. I suppose hobbyists, but I'm not sure if a subscription is compelling for them.
Agreed.
I feel like if you were to be content with those tools, you wouldn't really want to pay for them. I guess the argument is getting access to Final Cut and Logic for cheap, but there are pro software of the same quality accessible for free or close to it (usually people get starter DAW licenses from buying hardware, and DaVinci has free stuff).
Apple is losing the plot on so many levels. If they want to make their stuff subscription, they really need to make it much better than it is at the moment.
> "come together in a single SUBSCRIPTION"
Ummm ... no, thank you.
Bad move Apple. Bad move.
lol, what a money grab.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Another subscription slop?
Fuck Apple I’m done with all their rent seeking and shit lock-in. Broken CLI tools. Hello Asahi Linux and x64 FreeBSD.
Alternative title: "Apple slaps subscription model on existing apps"
Except that isn’t an alternative title, unless you want to lie by omission thus being wrong.
“Apple offers new option for subscription in addition to existing one-time purchase optinos” might be an alternative though, and reduce the number of cynically inane comments from people that apparently didn’t RTFA before commenting.
God fucking damn not you too, Apple. Adobe isn't a role model to emulate. I hate Adobe's practices. The whole world hates Adobe's practices. I want to pay for a thing with my money and then use it without worrying about ongoing costs, the UI changing, features breaking, or shit being shoved down my throat because some seedy PM wants a raise.
EDIT: I know you can still buy the software... but for how long?
RTFA, you can still buy them for a one-time purchase on the App Store
For now...
You can. They are offering both options.
Is this replacing the one-time purchase of these apps on macOS?
Doesn't sound like it > Alternatively, users can also choose to purchase the Mac versions of Final Cut Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage individually as a one-time purchase on the Mac App Store.5
No, fta:
> Alternatively, users can also choose to purchase the Mac versions of Final Cut Pro, Pixelmator Pro, Logic Pro, Motion, Compressor, and MainStage individually as a one-time purchase on the Mac App Store.
And here's the ruining of Pixelmator Pro everyone was waiting for. I paid one time 20 euros for it (discounted). And I would gladly pay again even full price for a new major version.
I don't want yet another subscription.
I see that they can still be bought (for now) but I wonder how long that will last.
Pixelmator Pro is upgraded a couple of times under Apple's wings, and this thing is not being ruined.
You'll still be able to buy it if you want. All apps are still can be bought. It's in the text.
Apple surprised me nicely there.
One-time purchase versions are still available. For Pixelmator Pro it's $49.99 on the App Store
That's not very reassuring.
For now.
I think this is a huge mistake at least as far as the office software goes. One of the key advantages to Pages.app and friends is that they are pre-installed and free on MacOS. This will just drive people to M365 and Google Docs.
Pages and other iWork apps will remain free. The premium features are for curated images and templates, and AI assisted document creation. If you don't care for those features, you will not be affected by the change.
Good thing they remain free and pre installed. As per the article.