# Lightroom 6 will be the last non-CC product - true?



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2015)

I just read some Adobe customer was informed by their support that LR6 and Acrobat DC will be the last versions to feature the "buy" option as in "perpetual license": http://robcole.smfforfree3.com/index.php?topic=43.0

Is this true? I know that for example with PS, Adobe doesn't release any more "purchase" versions anymore. With LR CC, this would mean that they switch to a rolling release, too, i.e. frequent feature updates instead of saving up all innovations for years to make a new "version" sell.

The new hdr and esp. pano features do look like they are just the first incarnations, and I imagine there are lots of upcoming improvements in the pipeline now that LR6 has most performance problems solved.


----------



## drjlo (May 4, 2015)

I hope somebody with good sense will launch a legitimate competition to PS/LR without the forced subscription.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 4, 2015)

Well, there are other options out there and as they become more popular the better they will get. If Adobe feels that lightroom is the only option for the hobbyist/enthusiast/professional, they may be mistaken. 

It can be debated whether PS has any real competition, but I think it is clear that lightroom does have competition. 

The good news is that I expect to be able to use LR for a long time as I tend to keep my bodies for a long time.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 4, 2015)

If so, i'll probably convert the Raws from newer cameras to .dng to be supported in my LR6. When the RAW converter finally quits supporting LR6, I'll probably be using DXO's software. As for PS, my copy of CS6 is doing everything well and won't be needing upgrading into CC for sometime.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> but I think it is clear that lightroom does have competition.



If the competition (as in PhaseOne and DxO) realize LR customers could jump ship, they might update their products accordingly. When I've tried them, I found some really nice features (PhaseOne: focus peaking, DxO: PRIME nr and easy one-click one-shot "hdr"), but they're nowhere near the speed or library management of LR.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 4, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ...now that LR6 has most performance problems solved.



It does? LR5 still runs faster than LRCC for me, in spite of the hardware acceleration (for which I have a compatible GPU).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 4, 2015)

I don't think our vote on CR means anything. The marketplace will determine it.

As to options to LR, ACDSEE Ultimate 8 that my wife uses was selling for $50 last week (sale). Its quite capable, and even does layers, its color managed, has built in uploads to Facebook, Flickr, Smugmug, Zenfolio, has a easy to use print module, database, configure external editors, plug-ins, converts many file formats, it pretty much does it all so there is competition, even if its not named Adobe. Actually, it does a lot of things that Lightroom does not do

The weakness comes with NR, its not as good, imho, but you can use a external NR program, a panorama program, hdr, etcetera.

I would not say its better, but it is a alternative.


----------



## sunnyVan (May 4, 2015)

PS was never accessible to me before due to big price tag. Now I use it every other day. 

I've been using LR since version 4 and have been happy with each upgrade. For me, subscription model works out. It's simply more cost effective. 

It's surely nice to have competition to keep price in check. But I don't see myself re-learning other software. It takes dozens to hundreds of hours to become truly proficient at LR and PS.


----------



## LDS (May 4, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> I just read some Adobe customer was informed by their support that LR6 and Acrobat DC will be the last versions to feature the "buy" option as in "perpetual license": http://robcole.smfforfree3.com/index.php?topic=43.0
> 
> Is this true?



I would wait for an official announcement... LR7 won't come very soon, Adobe has some time to think about the best way (for itself) to sell LR. Guess the number of CC subscription and standalone license sold will also drive the decision.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ...now that LR6 has most performance problems solved.
> ...



There seem to be some issues, LR 6.0.1 hotfix is just out - but after some time (its a .0 version after all ) I guess LR6 will be faster for almost all ppl as it's not just the gpu, but overall optimizations in multiple areas.

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom-cc-2015-0-1-lightroom-6-0-1-update-now-available


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I'm definitely finding it slower. Some improvements are under the hood, but speed is not one of them. Turning off GPU support helped noticibly. When I'm working on large numbers of files like I've been doing for a few days, I just want to go back.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm definitely finding it slower. Some improvements are under the hood, but speed is not one of them. Turning off GPU support helped noticibly.



It probably simply depends on the speed relationship cpu/gpu. I've got a very slow cpu (2ghz dual core), but in comparison rather potent 1gb nvidia gpu in my laptop - so lr6 was like a dream come true, about 200%+ speed improvement in Library and Develop.

I guess if your cpu is very fast already, you need a monster gpu to feel any improvement esp. as the current gpu architectures still aren't designed for shared processing in a common memory model.


----------



## martti (May 5, 2015)

On my little island, the CC is not an option. It is not available. I tried so hard to get it yesterday, short of going by a proxy but I gave up.





All my efforts to buy the non-CC product ended with the CC which again ended with this announcement.
I called the helpline and they told me the problem is the 'hosts' file. I cleaned it but of no avail.
Only when I got still another Adobe account, placed it in Finland (I was born there) and went to the 'products' there in Finnish, I managed to get the upgrade. I tried to pay through PayPal but it got blocked because I was not supposed to be in Finland. So I paid with my French credit card which passed.
I have never seen an enterprise giving such a hard time for somebody trying to give them money!

The corrupted 'hosts' file seems to have something to do with a pirated version of CS5. 
They want to inactivate the pirated versions which I do understand. I do not understand that the help desk cannot give me the short instructions: 
1) sign out of your Adobe account that you used to get the free CC test run
2) make another Adobe account, no CC
3) click the 'products' and go to LR6
4) proceed until 'pay' and you will be given the possibility of the upgrade
5) launch the free version, go 'authorize' and copy and paste the ID that you (God willing) received by e-mail
6) there is a message stating that the authorized version of LR# is not found
7) you copy and paste the ID of the older version on the space provided
8) 'enter' and off you go

That was my story. Note how difficult they have made avoiding the CC -deal which is a problem for somebody like me where the deal is not available.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 5, 2015)

martti said:


> On my little island, the CC is not an option. It is not available. I tried so hard to get it yesterday, short of going by a proxy but I gave up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This whole situation is very frustrating.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm definitely finding it slower. Some improvements are under the hood, but speed is not one of them. Turning off GPU support helped noticibly.
> ...



Hmm, I'll try disabling hardware acceleration. Oh the irony if one of the features I've been looking forward to most actually hinders performance rather than helps it


----------



## Stu_bert (May 5, 2015)

LDS said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I just read some Adobe customer was informed by their support that LR6 and Acrobat DC will be the last versions to feature the "buy" option as in "perpetual license": http://robcole.smfforfree3.com/index.php?topic=43.0
> ...



When Scott Kelby did the announcement / overview, he stated that Adobe had indeed confirmed LR6 was the last non-subscription version/purchase...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> When Scott Kelby did the announcement / overview, he stated that Adobe had indeed confirmed LR6 was the last non-subscription version/purchase...



Of course they'll simply state this to frighten people into CC and then see how many hardcore/old-school customers are left flat out refusing to go with the time and accept the modern option.

If there is a considerable number left, maybe there will be a LR7 after all ... but probably in late 2016, and maybe all feature updates until then will only go into the CC version.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 5, 2015)

Ive been happy with the subscription Photoshop CC / Lightroom CC combo its no more expensive than annual updates and simple to do all the raw stuff in LR and shift to Photoshop for final tweeks. Coming from Aperture / iPhotos Ive had to learn all over again but Photos is a non-starter Apple should be ashamed of this product pretty much gift wrapped the market to Adobe. 
Capture One Pro is a good product but the library side needs a lot of work if Phase One dumped some money into it they would be a strong contender to Adobe.


----------



## Maiaibing (May 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> If there is a considerable number left, maybe there will be a LR7 after all ... but probably in late 2016, and maybe all feature updates until then will only go into the CC version.



Yes. Exactly what's going on. They already made the spreadsheet that says _exactly_ how many CC subscribers Adobe needs to close down the LR-standalone version - and are only watching the numbers tick in to see if they add up to change or not to offer CC only when next version is ready. Adobe may even time the launch of next LR version to match the timing of when they have lured enough people into CC such as myself. 

Adobe did this already with the original CC offer (buy for this special low price - and never have to pay the full price...but only if you buy before Jan 1, 2013). When too few got CC Adobe just made the "discount" price the regular price.

:


----------



## bitm2007 (May 5, 2015)

The fact that LR6 upgrades can only be purchased direct from Adobe's website, and are hidden deep with-in their menu system system, suggests to me that Adobe only reluctantly offered perpetual licences this time. I've lost count of the number of bumused Adobe forum members, that i've directed to the upgrade page on their website.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm definitely finding it slower. Some improvements are under the hood, but speed is not one of them. Turning off GPU support helped noticibly.
> ...



While I don't think of my processor as being very fast, it is a newer one. When my old PC died and I wasn't able to fix it, I bought a Dell XPS 8700 from Costco last fall for $699, it has the base processer, a Intel i7-4690 3.6 GHZ with 12 GB Memory. It had Windows 8 installed, I took the hard drive out and put in a 500GB "MSATA" SSD for programs and LR Database and a 3TB hard drive for data. I installed windows 7 Ultimate, which is still supported by Dell, so I have all the drivers. The video card is a really cheap Nvidia GT 720. I don't want to upgrade to a super fast GPU, then I get into overloading the power supply and cooling issues, I've been looking at a upgrade to a 100 watt GPU, but haven't yet decided. At least, they have a 450 Watt power supply in it, up from 350 watts in the older XPS systems, so there is some headroom for a higher powered GPU. The GT-720 takes 19 watts!!


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> At least, they have a 450 Watt power supply in it, up from 350 watts in the older XPS systems, so there is some headroom for a higher powered GPU.



Ugh, even if I decided to buy such a system the power costs would be prohibitive - that's the very reason I dumped my older desktop and switched to a powersaving laptop I can happily leave running 24/7. The only problem that it doesn't have a cpugpu combination I can switch to, so I have to leave the dedicated gpu on even if doing stuff like web browsing. 

The only time I'm really annoyed at my system's speed is when I have time pressure to get some pictures ready, otherwise more time to clean the house or watch my guinea pigs while LR renders raw data :->


----------



## dhr90 (May 5, 2015)

I'm still on lightroom 4. The main thing about 6 that tempts me is that panorama feature, but I wouldn't use that all that often so I'll wait for a special deal I think.

Lightroom CC is completely overpriced on its own so I'll stick to whatever LR I have until it no longer works or I find an alternative that works for me and is correctly priced. For an enthusiastic amateur who has strict budgets, LR CC right now is completely over priced. I don't need the full photoshop so the combined CC would be an even bigger waste of money for me.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## RGF (May 5, 2015)

Why do you say LR 6 will be the last non-CC version. I am not sure even Adobe knows.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > At least, they have a 450 Watt power supply in it, up from 350 watts in the older XPS systems, so there is some headroom for a higher powered GPU.
> ...



Power is expensive, and seems to vary wildly in cost.

We live out in the country and, while internet is slow, electrical power cost is low, 6.3 cents / kwh. Even so, we conserve power. I doubt if the Tesla Home Batteries will pay their way out here though.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Power is expensive, and seems to vary wildly in cost.



Around here (Germany) there are no significant local price differences as there's a common market for power, that is unless you chose to produce power yourself. As I don't have the cheapest nuclear option, saving some Watts pays for any potential tech upgrades ... 

... for example I had an actual full-fledged older computer running with Linux as a router, and now replaced it with an embedded one (MIPS with OpenWRT firmware). When running something like this 24/7 for firewalling and tor, you better watch it - which is why many people chose Intel over AMD as the idle power consumption of the latter is higher. This basically means that a well-designed software saves you money as it doesn't unnecessarily burn cpu cycles... Microsoft .net or Oracle java anyone :-> ?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Power is expensive, and seems to vary wildly in cost.
> ...



Yes, Germany has a totally different way of charging for utilities. And for living quarters as well. I think that there are advantages and disadvantages, a person just organizes their life to optimize differently.

My college roommate and I went to work at the same company in the USA when we finished University in 1966 (He is a Metallurgist). After two years, he decided to travel and see the world, and ended up living in Germany working for a steel company and married to a French Woman. 

He is not very computer literate, just enough to send e-mail, but he sends long letters explaining about the differences between the US and Germany, and confused about what he reads in the German news about US events. His wife knows more about computers and helps him. He has been retired for a few years living mostly in his second home in the French Alps but kept his apartment in Germany. He has finally decided to sell it, a hard decision. He will never move back to the US, he visits us every few years, but he fits in well there. 

Another difference that came to light recently is the medical system. His wife had a hearing implant, the same as I have been planning. In Germany, you are in a hospital for at least a week, but in the USA, the surgery is done in the doctors office, and you go home the same day. Its a totally different way of doing the same thing. I can't say that one or the other is the best way, they both work. However, I know which will cost less.


----------



## MintChocs (May 5, 2015)

It's inevitable that LR will move to a subscription based model. Anything that allows a company to control its profits cannot be ignored. At the moment it probably has more users than any other similar software packages combined and tripled, quadrupled etc so it can dictate. I would see a slow increase in subscription prices as more customers adopt this method. Once you're in it becomes harder to switch. If you have a huge collection of photos edited you're tied in to all those edits, methods of working, backing up, time invested etc.


----------



## RGF (May 6, 2015)

MintChocs said:


> It's inevitable that LR will move to a subscription based model. Anything that allows a company to control its profits cannot be ignored. At the moment it probably has more users than any other similar software packages combined and tripled, quadrupled etc so it can dictate. I would see a slow increase in subscription prices as more customers adopt this method. Once you're in it becomes harder to switch. If you have a huge collection of photos edited you're tied in to all those edits, methods of working, backing up, time invested etc.



Not sure if they will need to.

CC gives you LR and PS for $120/yr. LR 6 is $142, annual update. Plus if you want PSE add another $75.

After LR next version is announced, then no support, no ACR updates. Your new cameras are not supported. You will switch. Either for a more expensive 1 time payment or subscription. Either way you pay.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2015)

RGF said:


> CC gives you LR and PS for $120/yr. LR 6 is $142, annual update. Plus if you want PSE add another $75.



And, I ordered the 1 year cc deal from B&H for $99. I'm still waiting for it to arrive, it will add 12 months paid up subscription to CC. It was a short sale, and is back up to 120 now.


----------



## kelpdiver (May 6, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Is this true? I know that for example with PS, Adobe doesn't release any more "purchase" versions anymore. With LR CC, this would mean that they switch to a rolling release, too, i.e. frequent feature updates instead of saving up all innovations for years to make a new "version" sell.



It's funny how Adobe claimed it would be frequent updates, and yet we still saw CC 2014 and now waiting on CC 2015. IOW, nothing changed at all, but now you just hope they'll actually give you something new for your money. They dangled out that canard of GPU acceleration, just like they did with PS, and again reality has proven to be a bit short.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Another difference that came to light recently is the medical system. His wife had a hearing implant, the same as I have been planning. In Germany, you are in a hospital for at least a week, but in the USA, the surgery is done in the doctors office, and you go home the same day. Its a totally different way of doing the same thing. I can't say that one or the other is the best way, they both work. However, I know which will cost less.



:-> I guess it's time to talk ot already, so: You're right there and as a patient you have to watch out for this.

The basic problem is that after West Germany took over the GDR after the cold war, all (few) potentially positive things of the East were dismantled because the West was superior in all aspects by definition, it's a bit like North Korea in this regard. One idiotic aspect of the western medical system is that you can only be treated in a hospital when occupying a bed except for quick emergencies, or they have to send you away to a private day doctor no matter how long you have to wait there. In East Germany, both stationary and non-stationary treatments were possible in hospitals.

Happened to me recently, minor injury on the elbow, it was too bad to ignore it, but it wasn't critical either so I to wait one week for a treatment with a private doctor. I had it checked in a hospital the first night, but the only way they could have treated me is to have me lying in a bed for a few days, even though they could have done the treatment itself in a few minutes right then and there and send me home.

Plus there are currently too many hospitals for too few seriously ill patients in Germany, so they try to keep you 'round to make some profit. You'll be staring at the ceiling while they somehow manage to spread all minor treatments thin over time. But as I read, it's gotten better as the insurances are aware of this by now.


----------



## martti (May 6, 2015)

My latest legal version of PS is CS3. As the CC program is not available here, probably I get the CS5 and stay with it the rest of my life. In fact, after this experience not such thing as 'fairness' will enter in the process of getting it.
You can only squeeze one person so much.


----------



## jcarapet (May 6, 2015)

I don't like the lack of choice, but I can't argue the benefits of a continual update cycle. For me, the bundle is cheaper than yearly updates, so I won't complain. Makes it worth it to subscribe than pirate.


----------



## martti (May 6, 2015)

I do not like the idea of my computer contacting Adobe and Adobe having an application on my hard disk reportin to Adobe...OK, everybody has good intentions but still I don't like it.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 6, 2015)

> CC gives you LR and PS for $120/yr. LR 6 is $142, annual update. Plus if you want PSE add another $75.
> 
> 
> And, I ordered the 1 year cc deal from B&H for $99. I'm still waiting for it to arrive, it will add 12 months paid up subscription to CC. It was a short sale, and is back up to 120 now.



That sound's like a great deal. Now that the subscription version of Lightroom has been re-branded Lightroom CC, I'm expecting a yearly release schedule, announced at the same time as the rest of the CC application updates. If that's correct, your effectively getting Lightroom at approximately two thirds of the perpetual licence price, plus getting Photoshop CC at no additional cost.


----------



## LDS (May 6, 2015)

RGF said:


> CC gives you LR and PS for $120/yr. LR 6 is $142, annual update. Plus if you want PSE add another $75.



LR update is about 75 euro or dollars, and the update is not mandatorily annual. It took more than 12 months from LR5 to LR6, and you can update when and if you wish (even skipping versions if you don't like one). The latter is the very reason software is moving to the subscription model.

Users started to upgrade less and at larger intervals, because upgrades started to be less "mandatory" and added features less "compelling". Also, new, often expensive devices (smartphones, tablets) "distracted" people from spending in software.

It's not a new model, in the '70-'80s most Unix software (then the "pro" software) running on minis and workstations was "rented", not "sold", you had to pay yearle fees (now "subscriptions") to keep on using it.
And that was one of the reason that made the "IBM" PCs very compelling - cheaper, and you bought software and upgraded it only when you needed it.

When a product adds new compelling features quickly, upgrades are compelling and customer buy anyway. But when a product matures, improvements are often marginal and upgrades rarefy. It happened with digital cameras too, in the beginning each new product brought big improvements, now improvements may justify far less the cost of an upgrade. It happened to tablets as well (iPad sales plunged).

Just let's hope Canon don't start a subscription model for cameras and lenses too... and think what would have meant if Microsoft had forced you to "upgrade" to Vista or Window 8 when you really didn't want....


----------



## bitm2007 (May 6, 2015)

> CC gives you LR and PS for $120/yr. LR 6 is $142, annual update. Plus if you want PSE add another $75.
> 
> And, I ordered the 1 year cc deal from B&H for $99. I'm still waiting for it to arrive, it will add 12 months paid up subscription to CC. It was a short sale, and is back up to 120 now.



OK. I've just been on the US version of Adobe's website, LR6 upgrade is $79, so not as great a deal as the original quote suggested.

If the re-branded Lightroom CC, is (as I'm expecting) moved to a yearly release schedule, announced at the same time as the rest of the CC application updates, it still not a bad deal. Mr Spokane is effectively getting Photoshop CC, Lightroom Mobile and the cloud features, for an additional $20 (assuming that you wouldn't skip releases and simular deals are available in the future).


----------



## LDS (May 6, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> it still not a bad deal. Mr Spokane is effectively getting Photoshop CC, Lightroom Mobile and the cloud features, for an additional $20 (assuming that you wouldn't skip releases and simular deals are available in the future).



Sure, it's a great deal if you use both PS and LR. Far less if you don't use PS, and you can't use or don't need LR Mobile (my tablet is a Surface 2 Pro, which runs the full LR, my Window Phone won't run LR mobile) and are not at all interested in the "cloud" features, I prefer sunny, clear skies and networks.
Frankly, I like "freedom of choice". Being forced to pay for something I don't need or can't use, it's something I really don't like - especially if it fully stops working when you stop paying...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 6, 2015)

LDS said:


> Just let's hope Canon don't start a subscription model for cameras and lenses too...



Oh that's evil. Pay a yearly fee to "upgrade" the firmware of a camera/lens or the camera won't work any more. Pure evil. ;D


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 6, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> I just read some Adobe customer was informed by their support that LR6 and Acrobat DC will be the last versions to feature the "buy" option as in "perpetual license": http://robcole.smfforfree3.com/index.php?topic=43.0
> 
> Is this true? I know that for example with PS, Adobe doesn't release any more "purchase" versions anymore. With LR CC, this would mean that they switch to a rolling release, too, i.e. frequent feature updates instead of saving up all innovations for years to make a new "version" sell.
> 
> The new hdr and esp. pano features do look like they are just the first incarnations, and I imagine there are lots of upcoming improvements in the pipeline now that LR6 has most performance problems solved.



I for one hope so. That way, everyone freaking out about their "moral stance" against renting software will have to switch and then realize what an amazing deal this is.

Here are the arguments I've heard (roughly)

1) "I shouldn't have to rent my software!!! That's crazy!!! Renting software!?!?!?"
-Why is renting software crazy to you? A company makes something, and they can decide how they want to make money off of it. You essentially do the same thing with rent, cable, Netflix, phones, utilities, etc. Why is software the one thing that you refuse to pay a monthly fee on?

2) "Adobe won't update their software anymore because they have no incentive."
-Sure they do. They are still competing with other companies and their software. Even Capture One is moving to subscription. How you sell your software doesn't effect whether or not you innovate, competing with other companies forces you to innovate. I think PS and LR have improved drastically over the last year or two.

3) "I only want Lightroom. Photoshop is stupid."
-While I don't agree, it's a valid argument. For those of you who only use LR, the CC model might be a tad more expensive. However, I'd imagine that if LR cost $300 to upgrade vs $10/month, many of you would use arguments 1 or 2 instead.


It's crazy how this is the first time Photoshop and Lightroom have been so incredibly affordable, but now people are complaining. Photoshop was essentially out of reach for anyone but professionals (unless you pirated it). Now, CC includes cloud storage, iOS and Android apps, and more - for no extra cost. Either way, I'm sure tons of people will tell me I'm an idiot for various reasons. I for one can't wait for a day when every forum is taken over by the CC subscription debate.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 6, 2015)

> And, I ordered the 1 year cc deal from B&H for $99. I'm still waiting for it to arrive, it will add 12 months paid up subscription to CC.



Interesting, I thought that i'd have to wait until my 12 months "Photography Plan" subsciption expired, before purchasing a new plan. Can anyboby confirm that, a second 12 months would be added to my existing plan, rather than running concurrently ?. My current plan was purchaed from Amazon in August.


----------



## LDS (May 6, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> 1) "I shouldn't have to rent my software!!! That's crazy!!! Renting software!?!?!?"
> -Why is renting software crazy to you? A company makes something, and they can decide how they want to make money off of it. You essentially do the same thing with rent, cable, Netflix, phones, utilities, etc. Why is software the one thing that you refuse to pay a monthly fee on?



It's no crazy and I agree any company can sell the way they like. Just, we are free of not liking it.

It's a matter of choice. I live in my own house (no rent), buy CDs still (I don't like to "rent" music from an online service, and I'm still able to play LPs bought more than thirty years ago...) - paying for utilities is different - you pay what you use, you don't "rent" the water you drink, and they are bound to provide a continuos services, they don't ask you money monthly and then deliver you water once every 12 months...

And tracking more and more "running payments" is what many people don't like. Upfront payments are simpler, you don't have to forecast what you're going to spend in the next n months. More and more subscriptions just make your life more complex, as long as you have to track more and more future expenses, expirations, renewal, etc. etc. or you may find yourself with a "service" no longer working.

For example I have a rented "cloud" server. A couple of months ago the "credit" you need to buy in advance reached zero, and the usual email warning me in advance I needed to renew it didn't arrive because of an issue on the provider side - for security reason, I avoid my credit card number to be stored by too many services I can't trust, there's been too many breaches already... The server was turned off at 10 p.m., and I was no aware until the next morning.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

LDS said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > 1) "I shouldn't have to rent my software!!! That's crazy!!! Renting software!?!?!?"
> ...


Also don't forget if adobe moved LR to CC only, they've basically lied once again to their userbase. Which means given enough time when the sheep have moved over completely to cc, that lovely 10$ deal will eventually be back at 49.99$, then it may even be 79.99$. After all you make thousands of dollars off the software, 99.99$ per month is not unreasonable... a dangerous line of thinking CC will ever give more power to the end user.

End user > Corporate. Especially when the user has virtually no where else to go with adobe.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2015)

LDS said:


> Just let's hope Canon don't start a subscription model for cameras and lenses too... and think what would have meant if Microsoft had forced you to "upgrade" to Vista or Window 8 when you really didn't want....



I'd rent a 5D MK III plus a 1D X from Canon for 9.95 a month in a flash (maybe include that too  )


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 6, 2015)

LDS said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > 1) "I shouldn't have to rent my software!!! That's crazy!!! Renting software!?!?!?"
> ...



Then do yearly payments. Other than that, I can't argue when you have an inherent belief against something.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > keithfullermusic said:
> ...



This argument doesn't really make sense. First off, they didn't lie - they said that at this time we will continue to sell LR as a standalone. They are just changing their policy - companies are allowed to change believe it or not.

The argument about the price being raised doesn't make sense at all. If they raise it to crazy numbers other companies will swoop in and take their customers - that's just how economics work. There is no difference with Adobe having the opportunity to raise their monthly fees versus raising their standalone fees.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...


Incorrect. Adobe would simply buy out the competition, like they've always done. Buying the license gives me the power to say No, I will not upgrade, you didn't do enough adobe. You can pay into CC forever and never get anything. What if you leave your industry but have to maintain those legacy files? You'll continue to pay CC just to use them.

Example: One year of LR costs almost the same as the standalone, the difference is the license doesn't drop dead after a year. You don't pay, you don't get to edit anymore the time you've put into that catalog. They did lie, because I said they lied and so will all of the Internet when they make LR CC only.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> What if you leave your industry but have to maintain those legacy files? You'll continue to pay CC just to use them.



This is the biggest misunderstanding and wrongly reported aspect of Adobe CC.

If you stop paying the subscription you still have Lightroom on your computer, it still opens and you can still view all your images in the Library module and export all your files with any adjustments you made to them in LR before you stopped paying. This functionality is never withdrawn.

What you cannot do, once you stop paying, is access the Develop module and you can't import new images.

As always all your RAW files remain where they were on your computer and they are never touched (unless you choose to touch them, which you shouldn't), indeed if you write your adjustments to XMP rather than the LR catalog the adjustments are there for any XMP honouring program to replicate and alter, you can still do anything you want with your images in whatever program you do pay for to do whatever edits you like.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I don't think a subscription model has anything to do with it. They could buy out their competition if it was standalone also. They could raise their price if it was standalone also. You could choose not to buy it whether or not it's standalone or subscription based. You're acting like monthly fees as opposed to yearly upgrades are anything different. Anyway, I've heard the arguments before, so you don't have to try and convince me.

I'll go on with my life paying $10.00/month getting multiple outstanding products, and you can go on avoiding them because you think monthly fees are the boogeyman.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > keithfullermusic said:
> ...


By all means, go ahead but don't be crying when those prices become outrageous because you support their policys that enables them to do this. But a monthly fee is NOT the same as an optional upgrade. The moment adobe raises the price back to its original 29.99 for the LR/PS, expect the price hikes to continue. 

and thank you PBD, for once again not reading before pulling a quote out of context.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Which means given enough time when the sheep have moved over completely to cc, that lovely 10$ deal will eventually be back at 49.99$, then it may even be 79.99$. After all you make thousands of dollars off the software, 99.99$ per month is not unreasonable..



Except if that happened, they'd witness a dramatic loss of customers, just as significantly fewer people would purchase a perpetual license of LR at $750, or $1200, or $1500 (same ratios). 

When they cut the price to $150 (at... version 4 maybe?), they likely saw a dramatic increase in sales.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Which means given enough time when the sheep have moved over completely to cc, that lovely 10$ deal will eventually be back at 49.99$, then it may even be 79.99$. After all you make thousands of dollars off the software, 99.99$ per month is not unreasonable..
> ...


Ah ha! But the 10$ deal is not LR by itself, it's with PS. How much is PS worth? Can they raise the price based on this? You bet your face they can and will. Can you buy them separately? Sure but then adobe could make each package more expensive on its own. So many options to squeeze more money from the users with a subscription scheme. 

Anyone who doesn't believe adobe will raise the prices is naive as any good business will eventually. However the only buffer that prevented this was the last versions price and the ability to skip the newer versions pricing. Since this could be evaporated in let's say 4 years, they could price hike to whatever they'd like. No massive exodus would occur because no other software would be as capable.


----------



## Larry (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> No massive exodus would occur because no other software would be as capable.



I wonder, are the majority of LR users amateurs or pros? Are there any stats on that?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 6, 2015)

I wonder at what point will people realize that they will not change people's opinion about this issue?

Some like it, some don't. Not much is gonna change. 

Why this need to convert?


----------



## martti (May 6, 2015)

Only that CC is not available everywhere in the world.
Can Adobe really affor not taking these people's money just because somebody has decided on a policy.
I got my LR upgrade finally when I made another Adobe Account where I said I live in Finland.
I was worried that the French credit card would not pass but it did.

Frankly, I do not get this.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> and thank you PBD, for once again not reading before pulling a quote out of context.



Er, I did read your comment, it was misleading at best and garbage at worst. And I didn't take the quote out of context, I quoted the entire sentence which is a self contained statement!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > and thank you PBD, for once again not reading before pulling a quote out of context.
> ...



Here it is below.

"Incorrect. Adobe would simply buy out the competition, like they've always done. Buying the license gives me the power to say No, I will not upgrade, you didn't do enough adobe. You can pay into CC forever and never get anything. What if you leave your industry but have to maintain those legacy files? You'll continue to pay CC just to use them.

Example: One year of LR costs almost the same as the standalone, the difference is the license doesn't drop dead after a year. *You don't pay, you don't get to edit anymore* the time you've put into that catalog. They did lie, because I said they lied and so will all of the Internet when they make LR CC only."

I appreciate your valued attempt but please, don't be Fox news.


----------



## M_S (May 6, 2015)

The subscription model sucks. Too many problems and uncertainties are attached to it. Not beeing able to use your files after you stopped paying for it is one biiiig stopper, different monthly fees another. Too easy for you to loose track on your payments. "Hey, it's just 10 $ per month, why not". Cool trick to get your money, because it seems so little first.
I urged our company not to go that route and gladly they listened. And so will I personally at home with my software.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Are you really being that obtuse?

I did not misquote you and I included your entire sentence, two in fact. That you have chosen to misdirect my reply since then is the classic Fox effect, I know, I have worked with Mr O'Reilly!

The sentence I took issue with is the one I quoted _"What if you leave your industry but have to maintain those legacy files? You'll continue to pay CC just to use them."_ This is not true, you can use your files, as edited in LR, after cancelling your subscription. You don't need to pay anything to _"maintain those legacy files"_. You can reedit those legacy files in any program that honours XMP information too.

Now you deciding to bold a section of your original post that I wasn't referring to is classic Fox. But who expects to retain the editing functionality when they are not paying? How long do you think a current OS will support the last perpetual license? Why do you think people couldn't use any XMP honouring editor to do whatever they wanted to their _"legacy files"_?

There will always be workarounds to those that want them for whatever route they take, booting old OS's, pirated CC licenses, "educational" discounted copies etc etc. But for all the worlds problems, Adobe bashing for $9.99 for the two best photo applications on the planet, seems weak.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


You are some piece of work and I enjoy seeing you become bent out of shape over such a little thing. 

An unedited RAW that I can't no longer edit because a old client may need it, my thousands of hours of work in the program, and the entire scheme behind for what is a money grab. Yes, LR would be useless to maintain my catalog if I can't edit. To move to another program doesn't change that LR would be a paper weight to maintain those legacy files.

I find your argument weak to give adobe power instead of the end user and I'm not the only professional to do so.

https://damnuglyphotography.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/why-we-all-must-fight-adobe-and-stop-the-creative-cloud/

Please, read before you post.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

And how is that movement working for you and Brad?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/02/28/why-is-adobe-stock-up-so-much/


----------



## M_S (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


nice article and definitly +1


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> And how is that movement working for you and Brad?
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2014/02/28/why-is-adobe-stock-up-so-much/


And how about this?
http://wedesignstudios.com/adobe-creative-cloud-still-sucks/

Your response only shows how much of a money grab exclusive CC is and does nothing for the end user.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Incorrect. Adobe would simply buy out the competition, like they've always done.



No they wouldn't, not anymore - purchases by a market leader are observed with intense scrutiny in the European Union, and Adobe is a prime candidate (as Microsoft is done having a monopoly) for market regulation.

If Adobe is would be about to reach a dominant position (as in: total world domination), they'll get into huge trouble, I imagine they're quite happy as is being the market leader with some obscure companies (DxO, PhaseOne, ACDSee) trailing far behind to prove there's still competition.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect. Adobe would simply buy out the competition, like they've always done.
> ...


None of those pose a threat now but when one does, adobe will buy them and leave the other obscure softwares as "competition".


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> None of those pose a threat now but when one does, adobe will buy them and leave the other obscure softwares as "competition".



We'll see, but one thing in favor of the European comission is that they've gotten better not be be lead by the nose by global enterprises when it comes to monopolies and market regulation. If there are any assets in the EU involved, they are rather observant - but I don't know if there would be any leverage concerning above companies.

Concerning the US, I have no idea if there's anyone stopping companies like Adobe (or Google, for that matter) monopolizing key markets in the digital age.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And how is that movement working for you and Brad?
> ...




Don't just read things that support your personal thinking, read about why changes are made. For instance, Adobe had two major issues in 2012, first, investors severely undervalued the company because of erratic revenue streams based on inconsistent major releases, and second, users were annoyed at Adobe for slow updates and holding new features back for those big new model releases. The subscription model negated both of these problems. Make no mistake, Adobe were in serious trouble and could very easily have been bought by Google or the like for comparatively little, do you think we would have been in a better place if that had happened?

Adobe estimated they would create less revenue until at least fiscal year 2016, how, exactly, that can be called a "money grab" I don't know, but then uninformed hyperbole is the way of the world nowadays rather than informed knowledge. 

http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/older-2013-software-news/the-financial-side-of-the.html

No amount of bitching is going to change their commitment to the subscription model, calling them names and accusing them of all kinds of tyranny is pointless and mostly inaccurate and does nothing for photographers seeking informed knowledge. If you want to work a different system then all power to you, tell us what it is, list the pros and cons and move on.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Wow, you sure have been drinking heavy on the Adobe kool-aid and it's been affecting the usual reasonable person inside. 

Users may have complained about slow updates but they are far overshadowed by the massive CC gripes. It's not even a comparison and in the end, many users didn't buy those updates they made because it wasn't enough. Thus they make it all subscription and drop the users. Was my 699$ purchase of CS6 not enough money adobe? Nor was my purchase of LR? No, they need all the money for any little effort they put in CC. 

As I shown, I'm not the only person who can see through adobe's lipsticked pig they call CC. You continue to post links that reinforce my point that adobe solely made exclusive CC for their profit, not to better the user. Why not have a system for a locked version of CC after a period of time? They won't because the moment the time comes, users will stop paying into the system.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 7, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> You continue to post links that reinforce my point that adobe solely made exclusive CC for their profit



well.... yah. It's a for-profit business.


----------



## martti (May 7, 2015)

_"There will always be workarounds to those that want them for whatever route they take, booting old OS's, pirated CC licenses, "educational" discounted copies etc etc. But for all the worlds problems, Adobe bashing for $9.99 for the two best photo applications on the planet, seems weak."_

As long as there are so many people in so many countries that are not included in the CC program, those workarounds will be many.


----------



## emko (May 7, 2015)

yup get people on Lightroom CC and then they can fire most of the coders and release only a few features a year vs working hard on the next Lightroom version like they have been.

Think about it before CC they had to come up with features that would get people excited to UPGRADE from previous version of Photoshop with CC they don't have to do anything anymore.

This is and was done for PROFIT nothing else, they could make CC where you can after x months of payment point keep the version or pay for a version but they would never do this.

for example they can say 499$ for Photoshop 2015 so you get the version of 2015 for 699$ etc and pay for the next years version if you want etc but this would go against PROFIT so never gonna happen.


----------



## martti (May 7, 2015)

It seems that I go to .dng so I can keep using my old CS3 with the Sony a6000.
Until now, I have not understood why people use .dng. Now I do.
An I will recorrupt the 'hosts' file just to be obnoxious.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 7, 2015)

emko said:


> yup get people on Lightroom CC and then they can fire most of the coders and release only a few features a year vs working hard on the next Lightroom version like they have been.
> 
> Think about it before CC they had to come up with features that would get people excited to UPGRADE from previous version of Photoshop with CC they don't have to do anything anymore.
> 
> ...



I hate to break it to you, but everything every corporation does is for profit. Before Adobe did the CC model, they still did everything for profit. Their issue was that they weren't making as much as they could, so they found a better way.

I think a lot of people here don't understand cash flow, and more importantly free cash flow. Many profitable businesses go under because of a lack of cash. They are often times highly profitable, but don't have the cash on hand to pay for things. I'm not saying Adobe was in dire straits, but their investors certainly weren't happy with their model. If you don't keep your investors happy, you don't stay on top for long. Now, they've solved that issue, and their stock price has reflected that.

This is one of those win-win situations for people, but some people will never accept it (sort of like people who deny global warming). Instead of paying $600 for PS and $150 for LR every year, you are paying $120. On top of that, you are getting cloud storage, fonts, mobile apps, and more. Do you understand that you will get over 6 years of the photographer's bundle for the same price as one PS and one LR update? Even if you only upgraded once every 2 or 3 years this is still well worth it.

Also, what sort of innovations are you expecting from Adobe? Do you want PS and LR to take your pictures for you? Do you want them to edit them then sell them for you?

I realize that this is a futile effort for many. The newest argument that I've heard echoed here is "I'm right because other photographers think I'm right also." Well OK then. I can't argue that point. Go use Capture One and Gimp.


----------



## martti (May 7, 2015)

Keith Fuller: _Also, what sort of innovations are you expecting from Adobe? Do you want PS and LR to take your pictures for you? Do you want them to edit them then sell them for you?_

...and cook a dinner and wash my socks! YES!


----------



## coldsweat (May 7, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > yup get people on Lightroom CC and then they can fire most of the coders and release only a few features a year vs working hard on the next Lightroom version like they have been.
> ...


You're spot on & one thing I have been impressed with since Adobe moved to the subscription model is the frequency of updates - I did think they would do as little updating as possible, however it seems like the opposite has happened with meaningful software upgrades (with new features) happening just as, if not even more regularly than when it was the previous bi-annual upgrade cycle.


----------



## martti (May 7, 2015)

Actually they are just curious to see what is on your hard disk and they use the CC to sniff around there.
All your emails will be on Adoge Forums!


----------



## GmwDarkroom (May 7, 2015)

martti said:


> Actually they are just curious to see what is on your hard disk and they use the CC to sniff around there.
> All your emails will be on Adoge Forums!


Don't forget the Human Centipede experiments. They're partnering with Apple.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 7, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > yup get people on Lightroom CC and then they can fire most of the coders and release only a few features a year vs working hard on the next Lightroom version like they have been.
> ...


Your assuming adobe won't raise the prices every year and in 4 years I'm willing to wager that they will raise the price. Especially if they make LR CC only, how can you trust them to keep the $10 price forever? I doubt it and since the only thing that matters is the pocketbook, expect the price hike.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Your assuming adobe won't raise the prices every year and in 4 years I'm willing to wager that they will raise the price. Especially if they make LR CC only, how can you trust them to keep the $10 price forever? I doubt it and since the only thing that matters is the pocketbook, expect the price hike.



Nobody but the simplest fool doesn't expect the price to go up, of course it will go up at some point, and each time it does there will be naysayers similar to you bleating about how a multi-billion dollar corporation isn't in it for the poor artist!

Fortunately most of Adobe's customers live in the real world, back in the days of making art with paintbrushes and canvas nobody bleated that when they stopped buying paint they couldn't paint anymore, where did this sense of entitlement come from? First world problems! 

Any professional that can't afford $9.99 a month or a similar equivalent, isn't the kind of professional I would be interested in hiring, as for the amateurs, compared to the cost of cameras and L lenses $9.99 or an equivalent, is a pretty small sum to spend on a hobby when put in the context of other monthly expenses like mobile phones, cable TV, internet etc.

But hey, it isn't my head you keep banging against this brick wall, have at it, it is kinda funny watching.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 7, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Your assuming adobe won't raise the prices every year and in 4 years I'm willing to wager that they will raise the price. Especially if they make LR CC only, how can you trust them to keep the $10 price forever? I doubt it and since the only thing that matters is the pocketbook, expect the price hike.



Why would anyone assume that a price won't ever change? Although the subscription-based services I use have not yet (longest standing = virus/security suite), I certainly don't expect them to stay the same for ever. Nor would I expect standalone products to always come in at a fixed price point. 

Maybe LR7 comes in at 500 dollars. Maybe LR7 doesn't come in a perpetual form at all. Maybe CC comes in at 20 dollars / month. Maybe they stop providing DNG converters. 

If you never plan to get new gear, then purchasing the standalone license gives you the most independence. If you do plan to get new gear which is unsupported by your existing license, you make a value decision based on what they're offering that does. If you don't like the price or don't like the model, you still hold the ultimate trump card: the decision to take your money elsewhere.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Your assuming adobe won't raise the prices every year and in 4 years I'm willing to wager that they will raise the price. Especially if they make LR CC only, how can you trust them to keep the $10 price forever? I doubt it and since the only thing that matters is the pocketbook, expect the price hike.
> ...


Your very simple minded response is amusing as in the same context you say of course a price hike is expected, then you compare the current $10 arrangement as an example. I find twisting you into a knot easier each time you type out a response. Please keep lulling yourselves on the Adobe kool-aid as it will inevitably make it worse for ALL artists.

It's also naive to quote pricing for 4-6 years like Keith did so when they will go up.


----------



## martti (May 7, 2015)

GmwDarkroom: _Don't forget the Human Centipede experiments. They're partnering with Apple.
_

You must die now.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 7, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



We are all naive idiots if we don't hate Adobe apparently - and for some reason we really enjoy kool-aid...


----------



## RGF (May 7, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Yes the price will go up. But by how much? I don't think Adobe will double or triple prices in the 3-5 year time frame (though I could be wrong, I was once wrong, back in 1963 or was it 65?). 

But seriously adobe knows that they are vulnerable and need to expand market share by (1) adding new features and (2) keep prices competitive. With the large number of plugs ins, etc. there is competition and if Adobe stumbles the vultures will come and they will be hurt.

Look at how hard it was for Netflix to raise prices by $1.

Now how easy do you think it will be for Adobe to double or triple their prices and stop customers from defecting???


----------



## RLPhoto (May 7, 2015)

Considering the original pricing was 19.99$, it's safe to assume it will rise at minimum to that price. Given adobe 4-6 years worth of minor tweaks and more "cloud" features they could easily justify 29.99/month. It may even convince users the 50$/month package would be more economical. The main issue is leaving this power to adobe by not allowing a set version of CC after a number of years or the perpetual, gives them so much room to nickel and dime. Don't forget that the prices above are for purchasing a year ahead and not the actual month to month pricing for temporary users, which is much higher. 

Netflix has competition from hulu, amazon, etc... which are big enough to deal it a blow. Adobe really has no major competition for a 2D editor like PS, or even AE. It will be worse for the video guys who previous projects won't open with version changes as it's already happened in CC or plug-ins that worked, no longer do.

CC alongside the perpetual license model worked well for the users and allowed for either a choice. Choice is good, and if adobe wanted to streamline releases, CC would be the best way to have one version of any software, and they could allow a perpetual for a user to buy a fixed version in time. No more CS suites and choice for the end user.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 8, 2015)

RGF said:


> Yes the price will go up. But by how much? I don't think Adobe will double or triple prices in the 3-5 year time frame (though I could be wrong, I was once wrong, back in 1963 or was it 65?).
> 
> But seriously adobe knows that they are vulnerable and need to expand market share by (1) adding new features and (2) keep prices competitive. With the large number of plugs ins, etc. there is competition and if Adobe stumbles the vultures will come and they will be hurt.
> 
> ...



You are naive and have been drinking too much kool-aid. Trust me when I say this, because I can see the future, and there are other people out there who agree with me.


----------



## RGF (May 8, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the price will go up. But by how much? I don't think Adobe will double or triple prices in the 3-5 year time frame (though I could be wrong, I was once wrong, back in 1963 or was it 65?).
> ...



Are all your "friends" members of the "flat earth society" ;D


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 8, 2015)

RGF said:


> Are all your "friends" members of the "flat earth society" ;D



Well yeah, aren't all of yours?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 8, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Are all your "friends" members of the "flat earth society" ;D
> ...


I guess you guys are in the minority on CR on this poll anyway.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 8, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> I guess you guys are in the minority on CR on this poll anyway.



That, and the fact that the poll questions are a bit leading. A better poll would be, "Are you OK with Adobe's new subscription policy?" or "Does Adobe's subscription policy bother you enough to leave them?" And the choices would be a simple "Yes," or "No."


----------



## RLPhoto (May 8, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you guys are in the minority on CR on this poll anyway.
> ...


Even better, "Is adobe ditching perpetual licencing good for the end user?" Yes or No.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 8, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Even better, "Is adobe ditching perpetual licencing good for the end user?" Yes or No.



The only thing that Adobe could do to satisfy you would be not not only give you the software for free, but have daily mind-blowing updates, and find you jobs.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 8, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Even better, "Is adobe ditching perpetual licencing good for the end user?" Yes or No.
> ...


It's funny you mention mind-blowing updates and finding jobs, because that's precisely what Adobe promised in CC and Behance. It looks like the updates were minor and behance is small thus far.


----------



## RGF (May 8, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Are all your "friends" members of the "flat earth society" ;D
> ...



No most of mine are members of "man will never fly" society


----------



## privatebydesign (May 8, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you guys are in the minority on CR on this poll anyway.
> ...



I think the question isn't bad, it is who is being asked. I always find it comical that people will spend >$3,000 on a camera, and another $1,700 for a _"crop camera backup with built in extender"_ plus many $1,000's on lenses, but will baulk at $9.99 a month for software, how many of the respondents ever actually paid full retail price for their LR *and* PS perpetual licenses anyway? I'd wager very few, even fewer are the core commercial users Adobe actually care most about because wrapped up in all this angst is the oft overlooked fact that Adobe software is predominantly targeted for creative *professionals*, that so many amateurs like and want it is a bonus but those amateurs are not their core business. 

I actually applaud Adobe for adjusting their pricing to reflect that segment that they had seemed happy to abandon. Maybe it is the kool-aid, but in a world filled with corporate don't give a craps like Time Warner and AT&T I find it reassuring that Adobe did alter it's pricing downwards and has accepted they made a misstep for that non core group of users.

But that isn't jingoistic enough for most here and I am sure I will be accused of being a shill, or naive, or just not understanding the fact that Adobe are actually blood sucking zombies sent to drain every last drop of creative juices from anybody that owns a camera.

Oh well............ ;D


----------



## dak723 (May 8, 2015)

Companies have gone to monthly subscriptions to make money. Plain and simple. As we have all seen with cameras, the upgrades are minor and a person could happily keep a camera for years - skipping the next newer version. Upgrades in computer software are in the same boat. Upgrades are the cash cow and if there is really no reason to upgrade, then the cash needs to be generated in another way. Bingo - you need to subscribe! I prefer to be one who decides when I want to upgrade and when I want to spend the money. If I am not given that choice - then I would boycott the companies who try to force that decision on me. If others would do the same, then perhaps companies will end their subscription policies and return the decision to you - the consumer.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 8, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Companies have gone to monthly subscriptions to make money. Plain and simple. As we have all seen with cameras, the upgrades are minor and a person could happily keep a camera for years - skipping the next newer version. Upgrades in computer software are in the same boat. Upgrades are the cash cow and if there is really no reason to upgrade, then the cash needs to be generated in another way. Bingo - you need to subscribe! I prefer to be one who decides when I want to upgrade and when I want to spend the money. If I am not given that choice - then I would boycott the companies who try to force that decision on me. If others would do the same, then perhaps companies will end their subscription policies and return the decision to you - the consumer.



You still have the decision, subscribe, or not, Adobe don't care if you find alternatives, they really don't, they expect you to, and will be happy for you to.

Of course Adobe have moved to subscription to make money, but they are not gouging like so many other monthly paid subscriptions. They expect to make less money for years but felt they needed to do this for their own survival. Customer revenue is only one side of this decision, market value is the far bigger issue that has been dealt with, Adobe couldn't have made any other decision given their intermittent revenue stream and the fact that the company was so devalued it was in danger of being asset stripped.

So answer me this, how much better do you think you would be served if Google had bought Adobe when they were undervalued and held a lot of very valuable IP? Do you think Yahoo, Google or Facebook would have given a damn about amateur photographers if they were asset stripping a devalued Adobe? 

Or answer this, name another software company that provides a fully supported entirely free program (DNG convertor) that enables you to use your old software with your new hardware without ever giving them a penny?


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > And how is that movement working for you and Brad?
> ...



Not fighting. Not debating. Just want to know why you say this. The 'nothing' bit.


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2015)

This thread read somewhat like how my aunts behave when they meet for Sunday lunch. Good fun I must say.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 9, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Even better, "Is adobe ditching perpetual licencing good for the end user?" Yes or No.



What a _ridiculous_ construct. 

That _you_ don't like CC is clear - but don't assume that you can yoke your prejudices to some imaginary majority body of opinion that "Software As A Service" is inherently a bad thing.

The simple fact is that there's _no such thing_ as a blanket yes/no to your meaningless question: just to whether it's a good thing for _this_ end user...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 9, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> It's funny you mention mind-blowing updates and finding jobs, because that's precisely what Adobe promised in CC



More made-up hyperbole: where's the link to Adobe promising "mind-blowing" updates, or anything remotely capable of being construed that way?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 9, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> I find twisting you into a knot easier each time you type out a response.



_Man_ you're fooling (only) yourself if you think you're even coming second (out of two in the competition) in this intellectual battle.

It's actually getting embarrassing to read what you're writing - made-up half-truths and complete distortions of what many of us know to be the facts. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist religious zealot.

Or this guy (you're the one on the right).


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I find twisting you into a knot easier each time you type out a response.
> ...


Great job at making yourself look like the zealot and not actually make a solid argument. In fact it's the blind trust into this corporate entity that makes many here believe that adobe always has the end user in the best interest. Instead, my viewpoint is more similar to this gentleman's thoughts on the right. Your video will reflect yourself.

https://youtu.be/SUqwbWONeeg


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


If you read my previous comments, CC alongside the perpetual allowed the users who couldn't afford to pay for the full version a way to use the software and the perpetual gave the user the choice and the power to skip updates if they paid the heavy price of owning it. 

I think moving to CC as the only version would streamline having a CS and a CC version of the same software, to provide updates. What I don't agree on, especially with adobe's power in the market, is stripping that users choice to skip the updates by paying the full price. To provide a buy-out option after owning CC a period of years would be the best option, especially with LR more than PS.

What this enables adobe to do is the ability to slow down innovation, raise pricing due to little competition, and strip the options for the user who has to leave the industry they work in but need to continue editing/maintaining those old files. No new work but their old work.

So in my comment about adobe going Exclusive CC, is only in the benefit of adobe. It doesn't help the end user anymore than it was before but shifts massive amounts of power to adobe.


----------



## Orangutan (May 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> > Your response only shows how much of a money grab exclusive CC is and does nothing for the end user.
> 
> 
> 
> Not fighting. Not debating. Just want to know why you say this. The 'nothing' bit.



"Nothing" is an exaggeration.


CC does have benefits both ways, here's how I see it from the photographer's perspective:

Pro: 
* Budgetable monthly outlay rather than large purchase to save for
* Frequent minor updates, no need to wait 18 or 36 months for major revisions: when Adobe is ready to release the feature you get it
* Platform flexibility

Con:
* Monthly fee is not guaranteed to stay low
* Subscription takes the pressure off Adobe to innovate: with large-scale lock-in, their revenues are tied only loosely to their innovations. With a perpetual license, each new release must entice a bunch of users to upgrade. Subscription model places subscribers in a disadvantageous position: with a perpetual license, software owners could delay purchase of a new version until it had enough features or low enough price to warrant the purchase. A software owner could even skip new versions entirely (I skipped from CS3 to CS6)
* Creates a "lock-in" mindset. Admittedly, this is a user-side problem, but I know people who would start looking at cheaper alternatives when it was time to think about an expensive new version of PS.

My conclusion is simple: if you're a pro who makes a living on photography or graphic design or publication, CC is a very good deal, and you should probably do it. If you're an amateur with a modest photo budget, or a part-time pro, it's a thumb-in-the-eye. If Adobe had offered both license models (even if the Perp. license model was slightly hobbled, as for LR6) I would have had few if any objections.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 9, 2015)

sanj said:


> This thread read somewhat like how my aunts behave when they meet for Sunday lunch. Good fun I must say.



I agree. So far it's been relatively civil but fun - just wait a few pages...


----------



## JohanL (May 9, 2015)

Our daughter has a media company with a number of graphic artists and animators, and she subscribes to the full CC Creative Suite including the Cloud. This suits her very well as she has offices in various locations in different cities where she or some of her personnel needs to work from. Quite a busy set-up. Being a subscriber is better for her, she gets a tax benefit, has access through the cloud to all their work in progress and even allows access to some clients. The software is perpetually up to date and the final cost of ownership is advantageous. She also does the same with the Microsoft OS and Office Suite.

I on the other hand spend up to five or six weeks at a time in the field with wildlife, landscapes and travel. To me her system will not work. In the field I do not have internet access and need to be able to do some tasks whilst out there. So yes I now have LR 6 standalone and it works for me.

The PS with LR subscription package is overkill for me and should I have use for PS I may consider the subscription, as I think it is really a very good deal for both applications. Should LR CC work in the field without an internet connection, it could possibly also have been a solution.

Unfortunately Adobe's products were originally designed for graphic artists where one file was imported and worked on at a time, so the import thing was carried over to LR as well. Adobe products need a sub-economy of authors and teachers to make their products usable to the uninitiated. The same sub-economy of authors and teachers were unfortunately used to spec the LR roadmap, naturally they would not go for something that would make their endeavours obsolete. A great pity, it could have been better if it was more user friendly and made for the photographer without the great number of years of Adobe product exposure.

Somewhere in digital antiquity I started my RAW software experience with RawShooter Premium and when Adobe bought them out, I got a free upgrade to the first LR and have had every iteration since. Don't tell anybody, but I also use ACDSee Pro Ultimate and it is becoming very close to what LR can do in terms of utility and quality, just so much easier to use and no "import", it just does all that stuff in the background, like having a good Adobe Bridge as a Library module. Then it is overall faster and even has layers, but no HDR or Panos yet.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2015)

Is everyone here aware that Adobe offers the Photographers CC bundle? It's $9.99 a month, Lightroom CC, Photoshop CC, online cloud storage and all the other standard features that come with any CC membership. You also get the mobile versions of each app.

I've been doing the Adobe Photographers CC bundle for over two years now. The price is not going up. It's very cost effective (one to two cups of coffee a month, or a meal out a month...give up one of those, you covered it (and you'll probably eat healthier those days as well!)) No...it's CHEAP! 

As a photographer, we are the only special group Adobe has so far recognized. I think everyone should take advantage of that. I used to spend about $1200 every couple of years upgrading my Adobe Design CS license. I used to use three programs...LR, PS, and AI. I haven't had the need for AI in a couple years, so LR and PS are all I need. Instead of effectively spending $600 a year for the CS license, or worse, $350 a year just for a Photoshop CS license, I spend $120 a year now, for both of the programs I make very heavy use of. That is a significant drop in cost. 

Spending $50 a month isn't really an option for everyone. It certainly isn't for a lot of freelance artists, photographers or classical artists. I think Adobe delivered what everyone was asking for originally when CC first hit...a $3-5 per month price for key products. As someone who knows some freelance artists, I hope and expect Adobe to offer an "Artists CC" bundle soon, that includes PS and AI or something like that for $9.99 a month. I'm sure they could offer other packages, say PS and PR for photovideographers.


----------



## Orangutan (May 9, 2015)

jrista said:


> I used to spend about $1200 every couple of years upgrading my Adobe Design CS license.



This is one of the key points: for those who frequently skip versions (half and whole versions) the arithmetic doesn't work out the same. I went from CS3 to CS6, skipping the costs of CS4 and CS5 entirely. If I don't need any features introduced in the last n years, why should I pay for them? More to the point, why should I pay for new features UNTIL I need them.

See my previous post in this thread for more thoughts.


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 9, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I used to spend about $1200 every couple of years upgrading my Adobe Design CS license.
> ...



I understand your point, but lets say you waited three years to update, that would be $360 of CC. It would still be half the price of updating the standalone version.


----------



## Orangutan (May 10, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I don't understand your arithmetic: $360 will cover three years of LR + PS. The upgrades for these two products were about $200 and $80 respectively, for a total of $280. If it had been the entire CS suite, it would have been $30 x 36 = $1080, and I believe the upgrade price for CS 6 D&W Premium was about 40% the full version, or about $760.

This assumes the monthly CC license does not increase faster than perpetual licenses prices would have, a proposition of which I'm not convinced. Furthermore, I could have chosen to wait longer than three years to upgrade and, even if the cost were a wash, it does not address the other issues I brought up here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26237.msg518483#msg518483

Please tell me if there are errors in my data or arithmetic.


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > > Your response only shows how much of a money grab exclusive CC is and does nothing for the end user.
> ...



I would say that your Con "Subscription takes the pressure off Adobe to innovate" does not match reality. Look at the Photoshop Feature Set comparison here:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/versions.html

CC has had quite a few new features and significant improvements to existing features. For example, the resize tool is a lot better, has iterative bicubic upsampling which I wrote about many years ago as being at least as good, if not superior to, other advanced upscaling technqiues like S-spline, Fractal scaling, etc. The new Smart Sharpen has a nicer layout and some new features. Small things, but I've appreciated them as they've come. There are bigger features as well...the ability to apply ACR as a filter to smart object layers, for example, is AWESOME.

In the last year, Photoshop has had a significant number of updates:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features.html

Support for 3D printing. Extended 3D features. Full multi-touch support for touch-capable devices (something I appreciate when I'm out and about with my laptop, since I went full Windows 8.1 it is second nature now to just touch the screen when it's the easiest way to activate something or change something or scale or zoom.) 

And that is just Photoshop CC. Lightroom CC received quite a batch of updates as well. Personally, I see no evidence that innovation has stifled under the CC "regime". On the contrary, its almost annoying how frequently Adobe seems to push out updates, requiring me to wrap up my work and close out the programs to actually get them (I tend to leave LR and PS open continually on my desktop, which never shuts down and never reboots.)

I also believe the whole entire creation of CC itself, and the subscription model, opened a huge door for other companies to swoop in and fill in the holes for those who simply and absolutely refuse to ever pay a subscription. There are such (seems your one of them! ;P), and some of the products are actually fairly compelling. I installed this on my Mac a couple months ago:

http://www.pixelmator.com/mac/

It doesn't do everything Photoshop does (I actually don't think there is ANYTHING that does all that Photoshop does), but for certain things, it's really nice, simple, clean. For more classical artists, it's awesome. And it's thirty bucks! There are a number of other alternatives, ranging in price from free to around a hundred bucks or so. 

Regarding lock-in. So long as you save to industry standard formats, like TIFF, then this is simply not true. Your locked in only if you want to use Adobe's products, however if you keep your files in standard formats, then you are NOT locked in. You can move to alternative products that support standard formats if and whenever you please. For that matter, PSD is a pretty compatible format, and by default Photoshop saves PSD with maximum compatibility for support in older versions of the program. Your paying for the right to use a program, not for the right to use your data. That is also evident in the fact that you have 100% access to your online CC account and everything stored within it whether your current on your subscription or not. I wouldn't call that lock in. 

Finally, regarding subscription price. We live in a worldwide economy that is built on perpetual inflation. Whether it's 2% a year or 6% a year, whether it's the USD or some foreign currency, inflation is a simple fact of modern currency. The subscription prices will not stay as they are, however counter to that, they will not rise unreasonably fast (i.e. faster than the rate of inflation would generally allow), nor will they rise beyond what the market will bear. Adobe knows this, just as every other producer knows it. If Adobe tries to gouge their customers, they will lose their customers in droves. Many will simply drop CC and stick with existing CS licenses, or will purchase a CS6 license. Others will use like PixelMator or other similar products.

Adobe will increase their subscription fees as fits the model and the market. They won't stay the same forever, but neither will they suddenly increase beyond means. Adobe doesn't want to lose customers...every one is a stream of continual revenue...they want to keep as many as they can. 

Adobe doesn't have their customers locked in...and there are alternatives (some of which are very compelling, although mostly for MacOS X rather than Windows these days)...so it isn't like Adobe has some kind of universal monopoly where they can totally push their customers around, simmer on innovation, and suck their customers dry with excessive fees. That simply is not the situation. It may not be a situation you like, and if that's the case, get CS6! It's still there, still available for purchase:

http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html

As Adobe promised it would be (BTW, it's as easy as searching for "CS6" in their advanced search to find that page...anyone who tells you it is impossible to find the CS6 license page is BSing.)


----------



## Orangutan (May 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> I would say that your Con "Subscription takes the pressure off Adobe to innovate" does not match reality. Look at the Photoshop Feature Set comparison here:
> 
> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/versions.html
> 
> ...


Of course there's no way to verify either way. I could make the unsupportable guess that they've kept some of these on the shelf to roll out the first few years of CC to build acceptance, but that would just be crazy talk. 



> I also believe the whole entire creation of CC itself, and the subscription model, opened a huge door for other companies to swoop in and fill in the holes for those who simply and absolutely refuse to ever pay a subscription


I agree with you there. I'll buy LR6 and keep using PS6 until I can't, but I hope there will be competition in the next few years.



> Regarding lock-in. So long as you save to industry standard formats,


I don't mean classic data lock-in, I mean a mindset that's locked-in because It'sTooMuchTroubleToFindADifferentProgramSoI'llWaitAnotherMonthAndAfterAllIt'sJust30DollarsMoreI'llThinkAboutItNextMonth. 

That kind of lock-in. If I'm staring down the barrel of an $800 purchase in a few months, it's motivation to start looking for alternatives. $30 -- not so much.



> Finally, regarding subscription price. We live in a worldwide economy that is built on perpetual inflation. Whether it's 2% a year or 6% a year, whether it's the USD or some foreign currency, inflation is a simple fact of modern currency. The subscription prices will not stay as they are, however counter to that, they will not rise unreasonably fast (i.e. faster than the rate of inflation would generally allow), nor will they rise beyond what the market will bear.


Of course prices don't stay stagnant, but there's market feedback in a bunch of CSn owners holding back their purchases of CS(n+1); that's the measure of what "the market will bear." 



> If Adobe tries to gouge their customers, they will lose their customers in droves.


It won't be sudden, it'll be gradual. It won't be in droves either, but in trickles as people dither over whether $45/month is too much or if the cutoff is $50. If it's a perpetual purchase I"ll just wait 9 months until CS(n.5) comes out and get that...or wait for CS(n+1)



> Adobe doesn't have their customers locked in...and there are alternatives (some of which are very compelling, although mostly for MacOS X rather than Windows these days)


I'd like to hear about that, but I'm a Windows (and sometimes Linux) guy: what's out there to challenge PS? Corel purportedly has a decent product. GIMP is just a few clues away from being competitive, but so far nothing that has all the baseline needs met: raw file support, 16- and 32-bit channels, color management. It's been a while since I've tried GIMP, maybe it's better now.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> If Adobe had offered both license models (even if the Perp. license model was slightly hobbled, as for LR6) I would have had few if any objections.



I imagine - apart from business/profit considerations - this wouldn't work with the rolling release model with frequent minor updates. Can you imagine the public outcry when there's a new camera model added to LR CC, but not to LR6 (but w/o LR7 being in sight)? With significantly better noise reduction or a major feature improvement of the now bare-bones pano only for CC?

From a pr point of view, it's more clever for Adobe to cut this whole debate and drop the whole legacy perpetual licensing model and be done with it. Even now every thread mentioning an Adobe products ends up in flamewars, they won't want to have this conflict situation indefinitely.

Not that I necessarily agree, but it stands to reason: With the competition like the LR-clone "ACDsee Pro" getting "good enough", Adobe probably figures that they'll loose the casual photog bunch anyway to less expensive software sooner or later. They won't lose sleep over the people still using LR4 but thinking about an upgrade eventually (or not). There's no long-term real gain of directing their whole sales policy towards a customer base that never was Adobe's core group anyway.


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that your Con "Subscription takes the pressure off Adobe to innovate" does not match reality. Look at the Photoshop Feature Set comparison here:
> ...



No way to verify what either way? I have a CC subscription. Anyone who does can attest to the fact that the feature updates to PS CC are indeed real. You could verify it yourself by getting a subscription, which, BTW, starts out as a trial. I don't quite understand where the notion that Adobe is lying about the innovation or frequency of updates comes from...



Orangutan said:


> > I also believe the whole entire creation of CC itself, and the subscription model, opened a huge door for other companies to swoop in and fill in the holes for those who simply and absolutely refuse to ever pay a subscription
> 
> 
> I agree with you there. I'll buy LR6 and keep using PS6 until I can't, but I hope there will be competition in the next few years.



I don't think anyone will ever compete head to head with CC. Adobe has FAR too much functionality integrated into their suite of programs. Something like PixelMator can be a replacement for a couple specific types of artists, and photographers to some degree, but it isn't a replacement for PS. You would have to find a suite of programs, or a diversity of programs, each costing $30-$150, to fully cover the bases that Adobe has covered. It's not impossible...but, when you throw in the individual costs for each program, it adds up pretty quick.



Orangutan said:


> > Regarding lock-in. So long as you save to industry standard formats,
> 
> 
> I don't mean classic data lock-in, I mean a mindset that's locked-in because It'sTooMuchTroubleToFindADifferentProgramSoI'llWaitAnotherMonthAndAfterAllIt'sJust30DollarsMoreI'llThinkAboutItNextMonth.
> ...



Sorry, invalid. That has nothing to do with Adobe. That has to do with the individual. If the individual is too lazy to find an alternative, that's 100% their own problem. You cannot assign blame for that to Adobe. 

And what $800? There is no $800 purchase, in a few months, or ever. It's either $10/mo or $50/mo. That's it. It may not be a perpetual licence, but that monthly fee guarantees you perpetual and immediate updates.

Sorry, I think this whole entire "lock-in" argument is...well...bogus. 



Orangutan said:


> > Finally, regarding subscription price. We live in a worldwide economy that is built on perpetual inflation. Whether it's 2% a year or 6% a year, whether it's the USD or some foreign currency, inflation is a simple fact of modern currency. The subscription prices will not stay as they are, however counter to that, they will not rise unreasonably fast (i.e. faster than the rate of inflation would generally allow), nor will they rise beyond what the market will bear.
> 
> 
> Of course prices don't stay stagnant, but there's market feedback in a bunch of CSn owners holding back their purchases of CS(n+1); that's the measure of what "the market will bear."



And yet, those owners holding back haven't caused fees to drop or the subscription model to change. At this point, I don't think those holding back have enough collective mass to cause anything to change. Adobe added a new CC tier for photographers, and may well add more in the future, but the full cloud fee has remained the same. It's been the same for years now, and the products keep getting better, there are more of them, that work on more devices than ever. 



Orangutan said:


> > If Adobe tries to gouge their customers, they will lose their customers in droves.
> 
> 
> It won't be sudden, it'll be gradual. It won't be in droves either, but in trickles as people dither over whether $45/month is too much or if the cutoff is $50. If it's a perpetual purchase I"ll just wait 9 months until CS(n.5) comes out and get that...or wait for CS(n+1)



It will be gradual because it will follow inflation and market demand. It won't be gradual because Adobe intends to suck their customers dry or has any other purposeful malicious intent. The price has remained static since CC was first announced. That was, what, 2013? Couple years now. In that time, inflation has been low, and at times we've bordered on deflation (but never actually deflated.) Inflation seems like it's going to pick up. Job rates have picked up. If/when people start growing their income, and if/when inflation kicks back up to "normal" levels of say 3-4 percent, I think we'll eventually see a slow, periodic climb in the CC monthly fees. Probably for the full CC suite. Not so sure about the smaller suites...the Photographer CC bundle will probably stay at $9.99 for a good long time, because I truly don't see people paying more for it any time in the foreseeable future. Some years down the road, if inflation does kick in and keeps going, it might rise to $12.99 or $14.99. I don't think either price is egregious. By that point in time, we could well be paying $10 for a cup of Starbucks.

Still, I don't see that as some insidious monopolistic "charge our customers as much as we can" mentality that so many seem to fear. It's simply the natural course. In an economy of perpetual inflation, all prices inflate over time. Again, I don't quite understand the mentality that always assigns malicious intent to companies like Adobe. They are in business to make money. How they choose to make that money is up to them, and so far, the move to a subscription model hasn't resulted in their bankruptcy, so it seems the bulk of their customers don't mind the shift. The same thing has happened with Microsoft Office, it's going to happen with Windows when 10 hits. It's happened with most enterprise level servers and software (everything is moving to the cloud, and corporations seem to be loving it, the whole entire thing is picking up more and more steam as time goes on.) Outside of small and relatively limited apps for mobile devices, and smaller apps for desktops, I think the whole entire software ecosystem for larger products will be on some kind of subscription model eventually. I truly believe that is more of a cash flow thing than a malicious thing.



Orangutan said:


> > Adobe doesn't have their customers locked in...and there are alternatives (some of which are very compelling, although mostly for MacOS X rather than Windows these days)
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear about that, but I'm a Windows (and sometimes Linux) guy: what's out there to challenge PS? Corel purportedly has a decent product. GIMP is just a few clues away from being competitive, but so far nothing that has all the baseline needs met: raw file support, 16- and 32-bit channels, color management. It's been a while since I've tried GIMP, maybe it's better now.



GIMP hasn't really gotten better. If you dig around Apple's software stores, you'll find some interesting products. Again, nothing that competes with Adobe products head to head. But you can find a range of programs that do a lot of what Adobe products do, for pretty cheap. Some work on MacOS X, others are iOS apps. Some are geared towards photographers, some are geared more towards classical artists (digital painters and the like.) There is PaintShop Pro from Corel. It's decent...probably one of the best competitors to Photoshop next to PixelMator (which is pretty capable in and of itself...but it doesn't have the same kind of proofing, printing, 3D or 3D printing capabilities, to name a few big ones.) 

Windows doesn't have many other options besides Adobe and Corel. Those are the main ones. There are some apps that have shown up for Windows 8.1 that cover some of the ground that iOS artist and photographer apps do. Not really sure why, but the clever app creators with great graphic design and UI skills seem to be sticking to iOS. Neither Android nor Windows seem to get any of the really well designed apps, which is a bummer. Hopefully, Windows 10 with it's much more flexible UI layout libraries will bring more of the better app designers over, and Windows will get some of those alternatives.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2015)

The original pricing was 19.99/month, and later on was made to be 9.99/month for PS/LR. So adobe did respond in a way, but to gain the user base into CC. Given a few years, the features they add will mean will make their previous .psd files incompatible with CS6. Which given that lots of users still save in this format due to better layer management and ease of editing, it would be more trouble to save to a .Tiff. There is disadvantages to saving to .tiff that some users may not want. I know of one company who does vehicle wraps who's entire work flow is in .psb.

https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1331836

Which means they would be tied to CC because they couldn't edit the file in CS6. Similar to me opening a .psd, with a clipping layer applied to a group from a cs6 file in CS3 PS. This also means it's more trouble than what's it's worth and will pay whatever fee adobe taxes. The situation will only get worse the further we get from CS6 and Adobe knows this. Right now, CS6 is only one upgrade cycle old, and tons of users would skip one cycle. How about another 2 years? And another 2 years? It's a compounding effect to leave CS6 and to CC. A smart gamble adobe will win.

You could say those features in the new CC were canned features. Jrista is a user who did buy every version regularly and could find use in them for him. I don't see anything that would benefit me in these updates. What isn't cool, is adobe telling me I have to pay for these updates I see minor regardless. Jrista is best served using CC and I would be best served in CS. Adobe stripped the choice to better it's pocketbook.

I will definitely wager against anyone here, in the next 4 years, you'll see a price hike across all of adobe's CC products individually and in the package deals. If it becomes true, we can resurrect this discussion about CC for the end user. If it proves false, I will subscribe to CC, alas to my hatred of the thought of it.

@marsu Adobe still does major updates like when they announced a major CC update at adobemax in 2014. So most users would want to buy-out their license at those times and not with the smaller rolling updates. Plus, the main gripe is having a exit plan and someone leaving the industry could buy-out that version so they can edit their old work. They could careless about new features but they do need to work on the old stuff.


----------



## Orangutan (May 10, 2015)

jrista said:


> .



Hmmm, either I didn't write clearly or you were reading too quickly.




> No way to verify what either way? I have a CC subscription. Anyone who does can attest to the fact


I was not referring to the innovations, I was referring to when they were developed. They could have been held back from CS6 to make available in the planned CC in order to create the very appearance you just described. That assertion can't be verified.




> Sorry, invalid. That has nothing to do with Adobe. That has to do with the individual. If the individual is too lazy to find an alternative, that's 100% their own problem. You cannot assign blame for that to Adobe.


I thought I was clear about that in the previous post: it's not Adobe's "fault," it's just clever marketing. There's nothing evil at all, but it does reduce pressure to produce innovations on a deadline. I'm not saying that CC will stagnate, I'm merely saying that when a vendor must produce something that a large fraction of its base will drop big $$ on, there is a clear and obvious motivation. When it's an issue of tending the herd the pressure diminishes. (BTW, I don't mean "herd" in the denigrating sense, just in the sense that they're part of the group)




> And what $800? There is no $800 purchase, in a few months, or ever.


Again, I thought I'd been clear: $800 was the hypothetical upgrade cost in a perpetual-license world. An $800 (hypothetical) outlay has a larger effect on the mind than 16 months at $30.



> And yet, those owners holding back haven't caused fees to drop or the subscription model to change. At this point, I don't think those holding back have enough collective mass to cause anything to change.


You're probably right, except maybe in the LR segment. Adobe did make a few adjustments: wasn't the initial subscription price $50/month and $30 just promotional? That's a huge drop from $50 to $30, so in some sense it already has had an effect. As you point out, the real test will be competition: now that CC is set, the door is wide open to competition.



> It will be gradual because it will follow inflation and market demand. It won't be gradual because Adobe intends to suck their customers dry or has any other purposeful malicious intent. The price has remained static since CC was first announced.


Not malicious -- they're a for-profit business (like Canon!) and are free to choose their marketing strategy. As I mentioned, the price has effectively dropped since the original announcement.



> Still, I don't see that as some insidious monopolistic "charge our customers as much as we can" mentality that so many seem to fear.


No more so than any other company. I just don't like the model for my purposes, and will look for alternatives.



> I truly believe that is more of a cash flow thing than a malicious thing.


Yes, I think they're trying to stabilize revenue, rather than have spikes and troughs.

I was clear in several previous posts on this subject, for pros who use these products frequently, especially those who make money with them, it's a good deal. It's for the more moderate users that this is a bad deal.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Plus, the main gripe is having a exit plan and someone leaving the industry could buy-out that version so they can edit their old work.



Hmmyes, I agree there - an option to buy out with the current version frozen and support stopped (whatever the price, even if it is rather prohibitive) would calm the waves and stop people being blackmailed into paying forever or losing access to their work. I wonder how much this option was discussed by Adobe and why they decided against it - is there any such precedent with subscription software?


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 10, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> The original pricing was 19.99/month, and later on was made to be 9.99/month for PS/LR. So adobe did respond in a way, but to gain the user base into CC.


LR3 cost 300 dollars. LR4 cost 150 dollars. One could argue they did so to gain the user base. But even after Aperture evaporated, we didn't see them crank the price back up. Will they? Maybe, maybe not. 

I understand the desire to insulate oneself from future price increases, but you seem to think that Adobe has malicious intent. Perhaps my view is colored by the fact that much of the software I use professionally is and has always been subscription based, and I haven't been subject to massive price increases.

Either way, as stated earlier, you are the ultimate arbiter of what's good for you. Adobe can employ whatever pricing model it wants to, and you can opt in or opt out. It's not a big deal. At least there is no indication that they'll stop offering LR entirely in favor of a flimsy product like Apple Photos.


----------



## Orangutan (May 10, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Either way, as stated earlier, you are the ultimate arbiter of what's good for you. Adobe can employ whatever pricing model it wants to, and you can opt in or opt out. It's not a big deal. At least there is no indication that they'll stop offering LR entirely in favor of a flimsy product like Apple Photos.


I just wish there were more competition in this market space.


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > This thread read somewhat like how my aunts behave when they meet for Sunday lunch. Good fun I must say.
> ...



Again exactly like my aunts. First few glasses it is civil.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2015)

sanj said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Yeah, it's quite disappointing so far - and I did my best to give some cues about the modern licensing scheme in the poll :-> ... nothing has been discovered yet that is able to beat dynamic range


----------



## keithfullermusic (May 10, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> is there any such precedent with subscription software?



Most academic software has been like this for as long as I can remember. SPSS is the big one, but there are TONS that are only subscription-based.


----------



## Orangutan (May 10, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > is there any such precedent with subscription software?
> ...


SPSS, though clearly the leader, has some legitimate competition. Also, academic software is typically licensed by the academic institution, not by an individual. Academic institutions have a greater range of options with which to address their needs.


----------



## sanj (May 10, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, as stated earlier, you are the ultimate arbiter of what's good for you. Adobe can employ whatever pricing model it wants to, and you can opt in or opt out. It's not a big deal. At least there is no indication that they'll stop offering LR entirely in favor of a flimsy product like Apple Photos.
> ...



That is the key. I am a firm believer in market leveling things out. Note: I am not against CC or for it. Just know market levels things out.


----------



## martti (May 10, 2015)

No matter what I think about the CC deal, I cannot get it where I live.
For the very little that I use Photoshop, I will probably save some of my stuff as .dng so that my legal version of CS3 can open them.
Probably I will eventually pirate the latest version of CS5. Or on my voyages abroad, maybe I make still another identity in a country where the CC is legally available. As I already learned, the zone system is not as waterproof as they say.

Eventually, I am sure, the markets will squeeze a CS6 DVD out of Adobe.
The situation where it does not exist is against the rules of the modern economy.
If you have a product and the market, eventually the two will meet.


----------



## Orangutan (May 10, 2015)

sanj said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


The question is how long it takes for it to level out. This is one of my favorite quotes about the market leveling out: "In the long run we are all dead." 

Of course, my photographic needs are of little consequence in the scale of global affairs.


----------



## slclick (May 10, 2015)

Blurgh!

I just upgraded from 5 to 6 and cannot see any noticeable feature that applies to my uses. HDR? Facial Recog? Panos? No need.

Oh well, I've spent $79 on worse things in the past.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2015)

slclick said:


> I just upgraded from 5 to 6 and cannot see any noticeable feature that applies to my uses. HDR? Facial Recog? Panos? No need.



LR6 has some nice tunings under the hood such as the enhanced heal detection and enhanced mask editing (for radial and linear gradients). If you do a lot of local editing, this might be "worth it" alone and is an enhancement to the core ACR.



keithfullermusic said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > is there any such precedent with subscription software?
> ...



I (intended ) to ask about precedents of a "buy-out" option to subscription software, i.e. pay a large amount of $$$ money once and get to use the current version forever w/o updates or support.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, the main gripe is having a exit plan and someone leaving the industry could buy-out that version so they can edit their old work.
> ...


One thing for sure is that every complaint against adobe CC would be halted by this provision. It would at minimum cost as much as a CS release would, so 699$ for PS (possibly 999$ for extended PS) and the 149$ for a LR buy-out. 

Then adobe could provide all the updates they'd like, one version to worry about and 99% of users would rather stick to the CC monthly plan that doesn't have the heavy Adobe buy-out tax and get updates. 

The reasons they didn't do this, is they don't want perpetuals to exist. Why don't they want them to exist? That's the large dilemma and the source of this very very interesting thread. Adobe is quite dividing on CR but I concur wholeheartedly, it doesn't hold a candle to talking dynamic range. 

I'd like to add this current point, why on earth are the international prices whacky with Europe paying so much more and Australia paying more and some countries completely left out? Also, why is the month to month plan much more pricey than buying the year? It should be the same price for both as its the same software, why this extra tax? And that's for both the 20$ and 50$ packages.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 11, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> It would at minimum cost as much as a CS release would, so 699$ for PS (possibly 999$ for extended PS) and the 149$ for a LR buy-out.



That would contradict the purpose, if they want to push subscription while leaving a residual buy out option it'd be much higher than the old purchase prices, say $500 for LR so after 4-5 years you'll be lower than (current) monthly payment.



RLPhoto said:


> The reasons they didn't do this, is they don't want perpetuals to exist. Why don't they want them to exist? That's the large dilemma and the source of this very very interesting thread.



It really is interesting from a business policy point of view if it wouldn't always end up in flamewars. My guess remains that apart from the obvious - (1/3) steady income to show to investors - is that (2/3) they just don't want to prolong this very discussion forever but rather be done with it and force customers to decide one way or the other. And of course...



RLPhoto said:


> I'd like to add this current point, why on earth are the international prices whacky with Europe paying so much more and Australia paying more and some countries completely left out?



Talking of the top of my hat, they grab what they can (or not). Reportedly, it vastly differs how open ppl are to buying software before - um - resorting to other means of using it. Look at Microsoft in China, they put out special prices and even software versions just to stop counterfeiting and piracy and even seem to have limited success with it.

On the other hand in Germany most of Adobe's core target audience will pay money no matter what, plus if (if!) you can manage as a creative pro over hear you're bound to earn a lot of $$$ so software licenses are included in the budget.

The main difference with subscription (3/3): There's way less motivation to loook for alternative means instead of paying if it's about $10 than $1000, no matter the total cost, it's about psychology of the number.



RLPhoto said:


> Also, why is the month to month plan much more pricey than buying the year?



But that's standard procedure, the longer contract costing less like with insurances? Not that Adobe would require it, but longer term means more secure profits and less paper pushing for the company.


----------



## RGF (May 11, 2015)

I (intended ) to ask about precedents of a "buy-out" option to subscription software, i.e. pay a large amount of $$$ money once and get to use the current version forever w/o updates or support.
[/quote]

i like this option. Not sure if Adobe would do this, because it increased the risk of pirated software.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 11, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> My conclusion is simple: if you're a pro who makes a living on photography or graphic design or publication, CC is a very good deal, and you should probably do it. If you're an amateur with a modest photo budget, or a part-time pro, it's a thumb-in-the-eye. If Adobe had offered both license models (even if the Perp. license model was slightly hobbled, as for LR6) I would have had few if any objections.



That's how I feel about it. The needs/desires of a professional and an amateur/hobbyist photographer are often different. What works better for one may not work better for the other.


----------



## martti (May 11, 2015)

What if they are planning to soup up the PS Elements a bit with layers and masks and sell it to a price?
Adobe's current product line has nothing between the 'hatchback' and the '18-wheeler' when in fact more and more customes are positioned in the between segment.


----------

