I am ready to pull the plug on LR

[Patrick Connor]

I'm not saying that it's not technically possible, we just don't do it, as it destroys threads that you have usefully contributed to. 

 

You are free to walk away but your contributions are helpful as you know from the reputation you have been awarded by others. 

[anon1]

Just now, Patrick Connor said:

I'm not saying that it's not technically possible, we just don't do it, as it destroys threads that you have usefully contributed to. 

 

You are free to walk away but your contributions are helpful as you know from the reputation you have been awarded by others. 

Sure, so I think they would look less ugly if they were properly deleted so maybe that is what you can agree on as well

[ChrisChiera]

Yes, I consider Lightroom software / an application. How I pay for it, such as one time, once a year, once every couples of years, or once a month, or a base fee and then fees for features, I would certainly still consider it software/apps. How and when I pay for it I don't believe affects what it is called, but I do believe from my experience it relates to the sustainability and future of the product. Of course, some companies do the subscription model and nickel and dime everything with an app upgrades or high priced monthly costs that don't correlate to frequent updates. On the otherside, companies can charge once for each major upgrade, and are still around seemingly flourishing. But in general, subscription model is more sustainable as apps become more popular and hopefully competition will keep companies on their toes about providing value based subscriptions. 

 

I have a lot of strong negative feelings towards Adobe's history and applications, and can't wait until their a true all round alternative to Adobe. But Adobe could have not switched to subscriptions, and all those things I have a problem with would still exist and in my opinion would be even worse. But what we want and need from our applications varies greatly for all of us. 

 

Software typically stared as one time payments for a whole of reasons including that's what the market had an appetite for and what technology supported. Now consumers (in general of course not all) are willing to. In the long run, I believe most all software will go subscriptions, so eventually people will most likely need to embrace that (not like, but embrace), but at the same time, need to hold companies accountable to provide strong relative value. Here's for competition, and thankful companies like Affinity are here to keep Goliath like Adobe on their heals. Going to be an interesting next decade. 

 

[R C-R]

41 minutes ago, ChrisChiera said:

But in general, subscription model is more sustainable as apps become more popular ...

What does the popularity of apps have to do with the sustainability of the subscription model? I don't see any obvious correlation between the two.

 

You might want to review Adobe's Terms of Use carefully to make sure you understand exactly what you have agreed to. Please note this from the second paragraph (emphasis added):

Quote

These terms govern your use of our website or services such as the Creative Cloud (collectively, “Services”) and software that we include as part of the Services, including any applications, Content Files (defined below), scripts, instruction sets, and any related documentation (collectively “Software”).

 

It also might be a good idea to study the Software included as part of the Services terms as well, including but not limited to the restrictions on how many devices you most likely can activate the software on at any one time (two) & how many you can use the software on simultaneously (one). 

[ChrisChiera]

@R C-R

 

When an app is starting out, it's less popular, and will start typically with a one time entry cost to gain users (unless the devs are very forward thinking). As apps continue to grow exponentially those original low costs may not scale well, as you could go from a few hundred users to a million users, but the your staff isn't going to grow at typically at the same rate, and now you have a massive amount of users needing support, or all wanting various "must have features", and many different use cases, etc. Where is the previous pricing structure made sense before, as it grows I believe the pay once option isn't sustainable since the majority of users will be conditioned for good or bad, to expect that software to work on all future devices or software they use, and receive new features without paying anything or not enough to make good business for the company. I wouldn't be surprised if Affinity eventually went subscription based model. Starting with iOS apps first then someday MacOS. Of course they can't do that right now because they are the underdog and while their software in many respects is better than Adobe, one reason why many would consider switching is because of their hatred of the subscription model by Adobe. But would seem the way most all will go in the long run. Just like with video and music. You can certainly buy DVDs and CDs still and will for the foreseeable future, but most have moved towards the benefits of the subscription model even though some will say they don't want to rent things, since they have their own curated libraries and feel cheated that they did what they were told for so long, and now they are told they should be doing it differently.

 

Not sure I see what you are getting at in regards to the TOS. As noted, whether someone calls the app I use an app, application, software, or service, doesn't bother me in the slightest. Though yes, certainly understand for legal documents language is very important for to lawyers, but as a consumer, everything I noted prior is what I find relevant to me. In that no matter what you call  the tool I use. Personally, I use apps (insert the term you prefer here), that run on my devices, offer the features I want at cost I find reasonable, and that I believe will be reliable. If I only plan to use a game for a little bit I don't care about sustainability and thus would only want to pay once, but for something I need to use for a long time, especially professionally, I would prefer to pay in a way that I know the chances of the product being around for as long as I need, whatever cost, or frequency that needs to be to be a good relative value.

 

Not sure reviewing the services legal docs you recommend would be a good use of my particular time, but am glad you have had found personal value in that. As I install software/apps/etcs, and if I try to install on a new computer beyond what the terms allows, it simply lets me know I need to deactivate a previous install, which I can do. And when first sigining up was made clear on the signup process how many devices I could install on without having to spend a life reading through all the TOS. 

 

So not sure exactly where this conversation is going, but will just say again, that I completely understand most everyone (like myself) do not want to pay more than they have to (or more than they have in the past), and many have gotten use to a certain way of things, so when that changes people will take up arms potentially understandably so. But it comes down to (for me and imagine many), cost and ownership are not the primary factor, especially for professional use. I simply want to pay whatever a reasonable amount is for an app (insert your preferred term here), on whichever payment schedule is needed to assure that the app will always work with my latest devices, and have the newest reasonable features and that it will be around for as long as I need. But for people who hate subscriptions, that's great, as you can choose to only support companies that support what you need. 

 

 

[conrad2k]

On 10/20/2017 at 7:28 AM, ChrisChiera said:

I've switched to CC a few years back so while I remember all the uproar when they made that switch, personally I"ve always been in favor of subscription models for programs I love and rely on, since while I hate spending money, I know there is a far better chance the product will be sustainable if they have renewable income to keep working on new features and support. I've used a lot of software where it's a one time fee and then don't see updates and major improvements and ends up getting abandoned or sold. 

 

However is a company is going to charge a subscription model and high priced one, they have to make certain they are best in class and still a good relative value. The problem is Lightroom and Adobe in general never leverages all of Mac's incredible hardware and software features like apps such as Affinity or PIxelmator do. Which can make us angry, since we feel cheated that we have invested into a higher price option but not getting the best. The biggest problem with Lightroom is that it forces you to use their subpar syncing which is quite over priced. They should support iCloud and third party options for professionals such as Amazon S3 or Google Cloud.

 

In the end I think a subscription model is the way to go, but that Adobe does add enough value and in the end it will be their demise as companies like Sketch, Affinity and others continue to take away marketshare. Still a long ways to go since hard for professionals to all switch, but it happened with Sketch, so will someday.

 

If I remember correctly, LR CC started the Subscription Service at about the same time as LR 6 was released.  The big reason to subscribe was said to be that subscribers would get all the new features and and upgrades continuously and seamlessly.  In that approximate 2.5 year period, the only feature that I feel that I have missed is the official de-haze filter, and even for that there is an unofficial plug-in that leverages the core Adobe tech.  Even with the Dehaze though, AP provides far more control and quality.  I simply don't think that Adobe has provided enough value since it's intro of CC.  Now they make this confusing launch of Lightroom Classic CC and Lightroom CC, dividing their market.  I have noted a new feature in LR Classic, the "Range Masking" that makes their graduated filter, and adjustment brush more useful, but it seems to be the biggest new feature since the launch of LR CC.  Not exactly a lot of value.  No, I think that from Adobe's viewpoint "CC" stands for "Cash Cow."

 

As for giving money to big companies to assure longterm stability of their product, I recall that when I was coming up in computers, people used to say, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."  It was the  big boy on the block.  Now?  not so much.  Adobe should pay heed to the past and it's customers should remember that big, publicly held corporations chase quarterly profits for their share holders, not the loyalty of their customer base.  It was less than 2 years ago that Adobe assured it's user base that they would always have a perpetually licensed version of Lightroom...

[R C-R]

40 minutes ago, ChrisChiera said:

Where is the previous pricing structure made sense before, as it grows I believe the pay once option isn't sustainable since the majority of users will be conditioned for good or bad, to expect that software to work on all future devices or software they use, and receive new features without paying anything or not enough to make good business for the company.

I think you are quite mistaken about what the majority of users expect. If anything, it is that they expect to pay for upgrades every few years if they want to get the new features marketing departments tout as "must haves." However, more than anything else, I believe most want the choice to upgrade or not, if or when they think it is worth it to them.

 

54 minutes ago, ChrisChiera said:

Not sure I see what you are getting at in regards to the TOS.

Basically, it is that Adobe's CC subscription model puts strict & extensive restrictions on the use of their products, & that Adobe even reserves the right to disable the software remotely at any time if they think users are or are about to (!!) violate any of the TOS. Most CC users don't even seem to know what the TOS include, or that they need to read three or more densely worded legal documents very carefully just to know what they have agreed to.

[ChrisChiera]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I think you are quite mistaken about what the majority of users expect. If anything, it is that they expect to pay for upgrades every few years if they want to get the new features marketing departments tout as "must haves." However, more than anything else, I believe most want the choice to upgrade or not, if or when they think it is worth it to them.

 

Basically, it is that Adobe's CC subscription model puts strict & extensive restrictions on the use of their products, & that Adobe even reserves the right to disable the software remotely at any time if they think users are or are about to (!!) violate any of the TOS. Most CC users don't even seem to know what the TOS include, or that they need to read three or more densely worded legal documents very carefully just to know what they have agreed to.

 

Certainly possible, in which case it will be quite clear soon, as all the companies such as Adobe who are going subscription only will end up failing and go out of business or will return to the previous non subscription method because the majority of customers as you believe will not support subscriptions and they will have to change. Or if more and more continue to go to subscriptions and don't turn back, then it would seem that as I suggested the majority of people are willing to go embrace subscriptions.

 

Yes, if a person violates the TOS then the company should remove access and stop billing the customer and the customer can choose a company that has restrictions that they are okay with or a company that allows violations for TOS. The restrictions with Adobe, Microsoft office, and other apps work for me, and if they didn't I would sign up for them. I've never been considered about a company cutting off access to an app I am using because the apps make sure in general to proactively stop you from violating such as not allowing you to activate on multiple computers. And if there was an issue the company would presumably contact me to warn me of the issue since they would want to keep me as a paying customer.

 

But yes,as noted in each reply, I get why you and many don't like subscriptions and hopefully you can why I and many (while we may not love subscriptions, are okay with them for the reasons noted previously). Thanks for sharing your the reasons that apply to you on why you do not like them and while presumably you will no longer be using apps that go subscription only. Hope you have a great weekend! 

[R C-R]

13 minutes ago, ChrisChiera said:

Certainly possible, in which case it will be quite clear soon, as all the companies such as Adobe who are going subscription only will end up failing and go out of business or will return to the previous non subscription method because the majority of customers as you believe will not support subscriptions and they will have to change.

I don't think it is as simple as that. To begin with, there are not that many companies that have decided to go subscription only. Even companies with a small or shrinking user base can remain profitable for a variety of reasons & ones with a large base can fail due to mismanagement or simply investing too much in developing the wrong things. There is also the ever true business axiom that it is hard to win customer loyalty & easy to lose it.

[ChrisChiera]

Like I said glad to see your point of view on subscriptions, and that you were able to see someone else with a different view on subscriptions and great that we can all choose which companies we do and don't support with our dollars based on their products and business models. Will be interesting to see how it all works out and what model companies move to or revert back to. 

[Big_Stan]

After not finding any definite answers regarding AP developing a DAM, I called their US help line and was connected to the UK.

I talked to a very polite guy who did a magnificent job of obfuscation in not providing direct answers my questions.  When I pressed him for an answer, he finally replied.

Here is my paraphrase of his reply, He said they are thinking about it, but they have no immediate plans to deliver a DAM nor would he say if it was in the works or what was meant by immediate plans.

When I asked him why they would not just say this as a posting, his reply was classic, They did not want to say this because they didn’t want disappoint anybody.  I guess they feel that the customer cannot handle the truth.

Bottom line, do not hold your breath waiting for an AP DAM.

[O. Chevetaigne]

For what it's worth:

 

MacPhun Software has announced Luminar 2018.  (Non-subscription for Mac)

 

It includes a DAM module.