# Adobe Creative Apps Go Cloud Only



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 28, 2017)

```
We missed this news from a few weeks ago, but Adobe has quietly ended the sale of the Creative Suite software. You can now only get their applications through the Adobe Creative Cloud subscription model.</p>
<p>This makes a lot of sense, as Adobe’s <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/18/adobe-raises-revenue-profit-forecasts-above-estimates-on-cloud-momentum.html">profits continue to rise</a> on the back of the subscription services.</p>
<p><strong>From Adobe:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Looking for Creative Suite 6? The latest versions of all your favorite apps like Photoshop and Illustrator are only available with a Creative Cloud membership. You’ll also get hundreds of step-by-step tutorials, built-in design templates, your own portfolio website, and more.</p>
<p>As of January 9, 2017 Creative Suite is no longer available for purchase.</p></blockquote>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Click (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*

If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to loose me as customer.



They're doing it for Lightroom, the writing was on the wall with the previous version.


----------



## Dverb (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to loose me as customer.



Looks like I will be sticking with my current version of Lightroom as long as it will continue to work...

Not a fan of the subscription model


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to loose me as customer.



Currently they are keeping Lr as a stand alone option. They know not everyone can be tied to a network connection and in not giving photographers a stand alone option. They would in fact alienate a huge portion of their customer base. There is already to many options on the market at comparable prices that offer more or less the same features in Lightroom (often times more features). So currently there is no word that they will be moving to CC only with Lr. However that could always changes in a few years. Who knows. 

Honestly I been temped a few times to move to Capture One.. I really wished Adobe would add a structure adjustment to Lr and layers FFS...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



ExodistPhotography said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to loose me as customer.
> ...



You don't need an internet connection to run Lightroom CC. As far as I've been told, the subscription model for the latest Lightroom version outsold the standalone by a fair margin.

The subscription model is also less money over the long run if you purchase year subscriptions when they go on sale. It's only $100 a year, which is a steal for what it is. You also get Photoshop included for that price.

Capture One is $300 to buy or $15/mth if you sign up for 12 months, or $25/mth quarterly commitment.

Honestly, I don't understand the aversion to subscription software such as Lightroom/Photoshop if you're going to save money.

I will say I killed my Illustrator CC subscription because it was $20/mth and I might use it twice a month. I found a capable $30 replacement.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Canon Rumors said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Click said:
> ...



That's because it's not saving money if you don't buy every release or if you buy using academic discount. 

I spent a $75 or less on LR4 and LR6, so $150 combine over nearly 3 years (maybe more, I forget when I originally got LR4). I'd have paid double at $300 using the subscription. Not to mention since I own two perpetual licenses I can use lightroom on more than 2 machines (albeit older LR4 on two).

I'm also in the crowd that if it goes subscription only I'll stick with LR6 and convert to DNG with any unsupported camera bodies or I'll move to a different software solution as I see fit.


----------



## cpeak66 (Jan 28, 2017)

The aversion to subscription model pricing is that for those of us in the long haul, we *AREN'T saving money*.

Lightroom CC is 9.99 a month, which yes, is not bad. Lightroom 6 to purchase outright is about $150 give or take.

After 12 months of paying $9.99 for CC I will have shelled out 119.88. Cheaper than standalone.
After 24 months of paying $9.99 for CC I will have shelled out 239.76. 
After 36 months its over $350 I've spent.

What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom. Nada. That doesn't sit well with me. If I've paid over 350 dollars I sure want something to show for it.

Are there upsides to CC? Yes, new features, but I'm still happily running Lightroom 5 with no issues. Thats 4 years for about $3 a month.


----------



## jprusa (Jan 28, 2017)

cpeak66 said:


> The aversion to subscription model pricing is that for those of us in the long haul, we *AREN'T saving money*.
> 
> Lightroom CC is 9.99 a month, which yes, is not bad. Lightroom 6 to purchase outright is about $150 give or take.
> 
> ...


Well you do get Photoshop too


----------



## kalmiya (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.



+1, used lightroom 4, skipped 5 (offered no interesting new features for me) and purchased 6 again.

Absolutely dislike monthly cost - especially for Photoshop which I occasionally would have liked to use ( and so far used MS-paint and gimp - but these are far from great). Last year learned about Affinity Photo for a ~40 euro once-off cost. Brilliant, purchased it the instant I learned about it - and if lightroom goes cloud, then I go affinity


----------



## AJ (Jan 28, 2017)

Must we really call them Apps? Why can't we just keep calling them Programs?


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 28, 2017)

Hi AJ. 
Absolutely, programs written by programmers. 

Cheers, Graham. 



AJ said:


> Must we really call them Apps? Why can't we just keep calling them Programs?


----------



## AJ (Jan 28, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi AJ.
> Absolutely, programs written by programmers.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.
> ...



and Apps are written by millennials?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*




Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.



Same here, both at home and at work...

I have 2 work computers.... one for email, corporate stuff, and surfing..... and a second one for the real work. For security reasons, it is not net accessible, and that means NO CLOUD! Goodbye Adobe.....


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Canon Rumors said:


> As far as I've been told, the subscription model for the latest Lightroom version outsold the standalone by a fair margin.


Likely because it's been very difficult to find how to buy it standalone.



> The subscription model is also less money over the long run if you purchase year subscriptions when they go on sale. It's only $100 a year, which is a steal for what it is. You also get Photoshop included for that price.



What if I don't want to buy every new version? What if I want to buy every second or third version because there's not enough improvement?

I'd much rather pay $140 one time to purchase a perpetual license than pay $100/year. 

For people who make a living doing photography the subscription make sense. For amateurs or people of limited means it's in insult. It also negates the option to give your old version away after an upgrade.

Sorry, you haven't come close to convincing me.


----------



## GammyKnee (Jan 28, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.



+1


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 28, 2017)

cpeak66 said:


> What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom. Nada. That doesn't sit well with me. If I've paid over 350 dollars I sure want something to show for it.



That is simply not true.

If you stop paying for CC you still keep Lightroom, in perpetuity. It stays on your drive and opens just fine. You can use the Library, Slideshow, Web, Book and Print modules, you can export any of your images either with their LR development settings (made prior to deactivation) or without. You lose the Develop and Map modules.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 28, 2017)

bye bye Adobe! "Creative" cloud ... lol. 
Kiss my a.. + a heartfelt "FU" ;D 
until I get may next cam (M5? mid 2017?) I will continue to use my LR 5.7 perpetual license. After that it will be probably back to free DPP.


----------



## Zeidora (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



kalmiya said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.
> ...



I never used LR, but switched to AP as soon as PS went CC. The sooner you rip of the Adobe bandaid, the quicker the pain is over. No regrets here.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jan 29, 2017)

You'll take my copy of CS5 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. (Only paid $120 AUS for it on a student discount. It does everything I need)


----------



## COBRASoft (Jan 29, 2017)

I have PhotoShop CC, DxO Optics Pro, Affinity and Topaz

I don't use LightRoom, I just don't like it. DxO Optics Pro is my main tool, followed by PhotoShop (export from DxO).
Affinity is great, but still has a lot of bugs. I bought it to support its development.

Topaz works in PhotoShop and Affinity.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> cpeak66 said:
> 
> 
> > What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing.
> ...





> If you stop paying for CC you...lose the Develop and Map modules.



This is close enough to true for my purposes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 29, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > cpeak66 said:
> ...



That is your opinion for your situation and that is entirely fine by me, but the statement I was replying to is entirely false. You do not lose your work and you do not lose access to your work as cpeak66 falsely stated _"What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access."_


----------



## Hill Benson (Jan 29, 2017)

Why can't they maintain both versions as options for the customer?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 29, 2017)

Hill Benson said:


> Why can't they maintain both versions as options for the customer?



Because it costs them too much money to do that. They don't want to. They are fed up trying to support legacy products. The people that endlessly berate them about their practices are not, generally, their core customers. 

They are probably praying somebody makes a similar product to LR well enough and cheaply enough that all the 'anti Adobe users' just migrate to it so they can concentrate on their core business, a corporate supplier of business software to creative professionals and companies who unanimously like the leasing model for many reasons that happen to dovetail with Adobe's need to do it.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> but the statement I was replying to is entirely false. You do not lose your work and you do not lose access to your work as cpeak66 falsely stated _"What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access."_


It depends on how you interpret the statement: I did not interpret to mean he would lose his data, but that he would lose major function of the software. My interpretation is that he was saying that putting that much money into software rental should be rent-to-own, not rent in perpetuity. By that interpretation the statement is substantially correct, though perhaps a little hyperbolic.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 29, 2017)

Ive stopped using adobe products about 2 years ago and moved on to better work flows. Never liked their subscription model and have no reason to be forced to jump on that hay ride.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 29, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > but the statement I was replying to is entirely false. You do not lose your work and you do not lose access to your work as cpeak66 falsely stated _"What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access."_
> ...



I think you are playing the "alternative facts" game on this one.

_"What do I have? Nothing. No access."_

He has _"access"_, stating he has _"No access"_ is an entire and unambiguous falsehood.

_"Nothing"_? He doesn't have _"Nothing"_, he has access to all his files within the program as he always did (obviously outside the program too). He has the ability to print his files and export them however he always did, he can make slideshows and books too. So the claim of having _"Nothing"_ is also entirely false.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Hill Benson said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't they maintain both versions as options for the customer?
> ...


Nonsense. Right now they offer the option to rent monthly or annually, with multi-year rental available. Just set the "paid-through" variable to C.E. 3000 and set a flag that no free major updates are available, just bug fixes and RAW updates. Done.



> They don't want to.


This is the real reason.



> They are fed up trying to support legacy products.


How so? They typically dropped support for prior products after about 3 years.




> The people that endlessly berate them about their practices are not, generally, their core customers.


Maybe so, but maybe they could expand their customer base and increase profit. This is the same argument we make about Canon: a certain small crowd wants Canon to cater to pros and high-end enthusiasts, while money is raked in from Rebels. Likewise, Adobe could sell a slimmer version of CS as a consumer product, and sell expensive add-ons to pros and enthusiasts. These days volume often beats margin.




> They are probably praying somebody makes a similar product to LR well enough and cheaply enough that all the 'anti Adobe users'



I really doubt this; if it's true they're insane -- no business should want competition. If they want a low-end version why not just produce LR Elements -- it worked for PS and Premier.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Not intentionally. I really did read it that way.


> _"What do I have? Nothing. No access."_
> 
> He has _"access"_, stating he has _"No access"_ is an entire and unambiguous falsehood.


No, it's hyperbole...a very common rhetorical device in a post that was clearly rhetoric.



> _"Nothing"_? He doesn't have _"Nothing"_, he has access to all his files within the program as he always did
> (obviously outside the program too). He has the ability to print his files and export them however he always did, he can make slideshows and books too. So the claim of having _"Nothing"_ is also entirely false.



Again, this is just hyperbole. Of course, I really should let the poster speak for himself.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Don Haines said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.
> ...



Actually, Adobe does offer stand-Alone versions for companies in that situation. Whats going away is the sale to the general public, Corporations still have pull.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Click said:
> ...



I believe it requires volume purchase. https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/packager.html


----------



## Mancubus (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Don Haines said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.
> ...



Sorry to say that but that's how the technology rolls now and it will get worse. They want everything online, and will force you to do so. Subscriptions, cloud storage, authentications, passwords. This is way more profitable for them than selling something once and having to spend resources to update it for free later. 

Also much easier to control piracy and watch your activity to be able to sell you more stuff later on.

Those who resist will be isolated from the rest of the world with outdated software and incompatible stuff. 

What will you do when that new camera you bought is incompatible with your current LR? Capture One? What happens when they decide they move to subscription only too?


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 29, 2017)

Just to tag on at the end here ... with an opinion.

We're often in the field for extended periods (months) and often with no access to the web. so, if we were forced to the Cloud, we'll not be able to process our work until we get out and get online.

In addition: I have my main photo work PC that never, ever goes online - for security reasons. It stores all my files, and I use a Hard transfer when necessary to other PC's when 'stuff' goes online ... So, in that case, our main work computer will not ever get PS once this one 'becomes obsolete" ... And, in addition, I don't like the Cloud / Rent system because it feels like we're held hostage to whatever Adobe decides to do with it now, and later as far as fees and update charges etc. That's not for us... as long as an alternative exists, subscriptions services like this will never get us ... 

I happen to like DPP, and use it often for the basic editing and crops, etc. preliminary peeks ... Then support that process with PS ... but we can support that with other programs too, and will once we lose use of PS we have now...


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 29, 2017)

jprusa said:


> cpeak66 said:
> 
> 
> > The aversion to subscription model pricing is that for those of us in the long haul, we *AREN'T saving money*.
> ...


So pay for additional bloatware which I or any Lightroom user may not be using more than once every couple of months. That sounds like an awesome f-ed up deal to me. Also when I am in Himalayas or western ghats I dont get internet connection for weeks on end, Adobe can take their CC model shove up their rear side for all I care.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jan 29, 2017)

Will Photoshop Elements continue to be offered as a stand alone? I have no need to ever update my current version (PE 12) as long as my laptop computer lasts. But if it dies I would like to buy a replacement version (unless I can use the CD to load it onto a new computer, but I have a feeling the registration code would not work to avoid piracy).


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 29, 2017)

I just bought PS Elements 15 one minute ago, just in case Adobe does this with other programs too ... it will do everything we need. It should last as long as the new PC we just bought.


----------



## Otara (Jan 29, 2017)

For LR+PS, its a good deal, in Australia anyhow. What Ive realised over time though, is that I hardly use PS now, and for LR alone, the deal isnt so great. One reason I find myself using it less is that its pretty clunky to switch, the integration isnt exactly smooth.

Im OK to stay with it for now, but its less compelling than it used to be. The market for competitors is rising as their rate of new features slows down.


----------



## heptagon (Jan 29, 2017)

You guys argue about a little money plus or minus. For professionals this amount doesn't matter. What most of you don't see is that this change is less about money but more about control. *Adobe can now can cancel your product at any time* and *you cannot continue to work* from one day to another without prior warning. 

You think this won't happen? This happened time and time again in the past when companies were acquired. Top products were dropped, services cancelled, servers shut down. 

You think nobody could acquire Adobe? Think about the competitive advantage it would bring Apple, Alphabet or Microsoft in one of their key areas if they were the only ones to offer the creative cloud. Especially since Microsoft released their new surface line, they are attacking Apple key market segments. They have plenty of money for acquisitions.


----------



## MintChocs (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.


+1
As I only update my gear every four years and LR5.7 works well, hoping LR 7 comes out (stand alone). However as more people subscribe to LR/PS subscription I feel investment in LR will go down as there is little need to improve products for subscribers. Plus once you build up your library you are basically held hostage as your edits and tagging would take too long to redo on another software.


----------



## infared (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Click said:


> If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.


They have already. There will be no more stand-alone Lightroom.
I agree. I am not signing up to tithe Adobe with my earnings. . It's absurd. There is no "real" innovation in the software any longer. Most of the changes are just changes, and some are for the worse. 
If the majority want to be sheep lead down a path to a company's financial benefit, and not theirs, then that is their choice.
There are many other choices than taking that route.


----------



## infared (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Fatalv said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > ExodistPhotography said:
> ...



I agree. I am doing the exact same thing. There is no "needed" innovation in the software...for the most part. That could change, but I have seen nothing to persuade me. Adobe is holding people hostage if they decide to buy a new camera. It's insulting. I could see a small reasonable fee for updates to stand-alone versions..but hey..this is what corporations do..it's about share-holder value...not value to you, the customer. 
Yes, converting to DNG is another couple of steps but I have just included that in my workflow, and it is becoming routine. I am not "missing out on anything "so far" and have not had to learn and trust new software.
That's because it's not saving money if you don't buy every release or if you buy using academic discount.


----------



## Diko (Jan 29, 2017)

*Main reason: ~30% year-over-year growth*

I've read a lot of things like Orangutan's statement "Because they want to"... Geee I hope, you guy work for someone, because if you manage your own business, you'll be out of work in no time.

Main reason: *~30% year-over-year growth*

Secondary: Dropping support of older versions, concentrating on cleaning bugs of incremental versions. That possibly costs a lot. Not only due to human workforce hours cut, but also as *image cleaning*, since most rant always goes to older versions issues. 

Now they'll require from you to update to the latest version. If there are issues with it. They can concentrate on gathering info on the issue and fixing it (investing more human workforce hours).

Why everyone are complaining about LR?!? With Photography you get Photoshop. The software that used to cost about $3000...

Photographers - need essentially LR - true. I guess Adobe might make a 5$ offer for LR only... if they see decline in Photographer's package... :/

Currently there are at least 2 or 3 other package that are a serious competition. So far the best LR feature still remain the catalog. Performance is better but still quite away.

And I believe *ADOBE knows exactly what they are doing*...


----------



## winglet (Jan 29, 2017)

Judging from the masses of easily available pirated copies of CC out there that bypass the activation servers completely, I'd say that there is still a high level of interest in non-subscription pricing! ;D

A market will always find it's proper price. When something is priced too high, the market will find alternatives. The sheer volume of CC hacks tells me that it isn't priced correctly. The fact that Adobe is making money on subscription pricing doesn't disprove that. The real story is the lost potential revenue/profit.

All I know is I keep a tight lid on monthly costs, which makes Adobe simply a cost to be controlled. There was a time when I would buy their software, but they haven't received a cent from me in years, nor will they ever again. It isn't about money, it's about having choice removed. I don't support that with dollars.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 29, 2017)

Pretty much the end of the world. :

And don't even get me started on AT&T buying DirecTV. That's old news too!


----------



## Quackator (Jan 29, 2017)

DPP, Capture One, Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer.

Done.

The equivalent of less than an year CC - for keeps.

No Adobe tax, no forced network connection in order 
to make the software work (and give the NSA access).

And no blackmailing with my life achievements, threatening
me with not being able to rework my imagery after dropping 
the subscription.


----------



## sulla (Jan 29, 2017)

cpeak66 said:


> What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom.


Not to be able to use the program is only one aspect. The other is, you don't have access to your data any more. All your work is basically lost if one day you stop paying for the software, unless you can convert it to some ohter format. I'm not very comfortable with this idea. Now, if I calculate 50years (I hope to live that long) of subscription for lightroom CC vs. 120 USD for a perpetual licence for LR6... I know this comparison is not fair, but not everyone desperately wants new features, some of us just want to use a good software for years and years.

Fortunately alternatives exist (both free and commercial). If Adobe keeps tightening the screws, I may take a look at them, so far, this has not been necessary...


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Canon Rumors said:


> Honestly, I don't understand the aversion to subscription software such as Lightroom/Photoshop if you're going to save money.




My aversion is due to this:

A major problem with CC is that Adobe is not making it available worldwide. It is only available in select countries. In the last 10 years I have spent lots and lots of money on Adobe software, only to find myself being abandoned by Adobe: I have been waiting for years to buy a CC subscription, but Adobe is stubbornly not making CC available in my region/country (even though the CC trial is and has always been). My raw files are no longer supported by my version of CS. 

I know of many other photographers who are in the same situation as I am. I can only surmise that Adobe has abandoned thousands and thousands of photographers worldwide (not to mention graphic designers and other artists). 

I hope that you can now understand my aversion to CC and everything Adobe. 

What makes any of you think that Adobe will not abandon or otherwise hold you hostage in the future? Don't ever forget that they have done it to me and to so many other loyal customers worldwide.

I have since been forced to move to On1 Photo Raw and to Affinity Photo. They are not yet up to the level of Adobe, but hopefully they will be soon.


----------



## colinu (Jan 29, 2017)

I was under the impression that Adobe had ceased selling CS6 products over a year ago - they certain hid the option well. 

I have CS5 suite, and am currently running LR6. The Lightroom is an upgrade from LR5 - the option was not well documented, and to top it off the upgrade was as expensive as the previous full version of LR5 IIRC. I will not be entering into a lease for life arrangement. 

IMO Photoshop, InDesign and several other products are mature - most features (aside from being able to convert raw files from newer cameras) are already there. I mostly features like Levels and Clone in Photoshop. 

Side note: it has been my experience that older programs are more easily run on the Windows OS than on OS X/MAC OS. I just checked an X86 program in Windows 10 - there are comparability options for as far back as Windows 95! Not that you are guaranteed to be able to run something that old. It has been my experience that OS X is much pickier.

I know shareholders are very happy with Adobe these days - not sure why. There is an opportunity for other companies to get their act together and aggressively compete against Adobe.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 29, 2017)

I guess I'll be keeping my version of LR for a while now.. Glad I got it when I did so I have one of the more recent versions.  however, if I end up getting a 6D ii, I might need to get something new to support the files. (or use DPP to convert to DNG, but that's clumsy.)
I admit I'm gradually accepting the subscription model idea, however, I won't be getting it as it's too expensive. I might just go to something free like Darktable I guess...
As CR posted on their original post, Adobe's profits are going *up* on the back of the subscription model. That means someone is paying more, not less - probably a lot of people.


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 29, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> however, if I end up getting a 6D ii, I might need to get something new to support the files. (or use DPP to convert to DNG, but that's clumsy.



When the 6D ii is out you might want to give the On1 Photo Raw free trial a try. 

I did and I liked it.


----------



## sulla (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> cpeak66 said:
> 
> 
> > What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom. Nada.
> ...


OK, didn't know this, this is a bit comforting. Only a bit, however, as this policy may also change at any time. Still don't like the subscription idea too much.


----------



## sulla (Jan 29, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> As CR posted on their original post, Adobe's profits are going *up* on the back of the subscription model. That means someone is paying more, not less - probably a lot of people.


And this is a truly compelling argument.


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 29, 2017)

sulla said:


> Still don't like the subscription idea too much.



Why sell you the cow when they can rent you the milk?


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 29, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Canon Rumors said:


> Honestly, I don't understand the aversion to subscription software such as Lightroom/Photoshop if you're going to save money.



Because people - naturally and correctly - are worried that if the licensing software breaks down or encounters another problem you're left with having paid for something you simply cannot use.

I spent *months* with Adobe in utter, complete denial never doing anything at all to help me after I bought Adobe CC. Just to make clear: I had paid Adobe. Adobe agreed I had paid. Adobe could not get their system to allow me to activate their software - for months - with zero help in spite of call after call, mail after mail. This was not an issue with my PC or anything. 

Adobe's system simply did not allow me to activate month after month after month after month after month... while they had my money on their account all the time...

In the end Adobe gave up fixing their broken system and just gave me the full Adobe package for 2 years. It activated and installed. Still wondering what will happen when i eventually go back to Adobe CC.

What was particularly galling was all the times Adobe support lied to me (we are talking *dozens of broken promises*). 

That's why people prefer software you can manage yourself.
***

Below an excerpt from one of my countless mails to Adobe support:


On May 20, 2016
Sirai said to me that
1) My case was escalated
2) Your team would come back to me within 24-48 hours
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On May 24, 2016 
Sandeep said to me that 
1) My case was escalated 
2) Your team would come back to me "soon" 
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On June 1, 2016
Chidananda said to me that
1) My case was escalated
2) Your team would come back to me with 2 to 3 business days
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jun 8, 2016
Venkatesh said to me
1) My case was escalated again this time "to the next level"
2) Your team would come back to me within 24-48 hours
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jun 10, 2016
Sumola said to me
1) My case was escalated again this time "to the senior level"
2) Your team would come back to me within 24 hours
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jun 15, 2016
Deepak said to me
1) I would have to wait more
2) Your team would come back to me "at the earliest"
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jun 30, 2016
Manoharprasead said to me
1) The case was now with the "most" senior team
2) The case was now made a "priority"
3) Your team would come back to me "at the earliest"
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jul 12, 2016
Mayur said to me:
1) My new codes have been generated and I would recieve them with 24-48 hours
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jul 17, 2016
Chandan Kumar said to me
1) Your relevant team was working on this
2) Your team would give me the codes within 24 hours
3) The case would be escalated again
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jul 19, 2016
Bharath S said to me
1) Codes had been sent
2) The case would be escalated again
3) Your team would come back to me "at the earliest"
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jul 22, 2016
Jagadeshan said to me
1) He would "personally follow up the case"
2) That the case would be resolved "as soon as possible" and he was sure it would be solved within 24-48 hours
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On Jul 24, 2016
Prahudev said to me
1) My case was escalated
2) I would get a new email
3) My case was given a new number 0219204099
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On 5 August, 2016
Naveen GK said to me
1) He had checked and 2 redemption codes had been made for me
2) It would take a maximum of 2 business days to reach me
3) He would "personally follow up the case" with the team and definitely get it sorted
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On August 9, 2016
Shreeja said to me
1) The case was escalated
2) I would be contacted within 2 business days with the redemption codes
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I instead got a mail asking me - again - to provide you the code numbers that you already have together with copies of my purchase.

On August 11, 2016
Ravi said to me:
1) I would have my two new redemption codes within 24 hours
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

On August 13, 2016
The case file was updated:
1) The case was - again - updated to your senior support team
2) I would get a response within 2 business days
This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted.

I hate Adobe subscription software and Adobe support must be the worst in the software industry (and that's saying something for sure).


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 29, 2017)

Personally, I'm not a fan of the subscription model, am still using LR 5.7 (and PSe 13), and have no need to upgrade for the foreseeable future. Those of you who like the subscription model (because it works better in your circumstances), more power to you, as well; but relax, you'll never convince those of us who don't. It's OK.

I think Adobe had the right idea when they offered both perpetual and subscription options. Should they elect to send future versions of Lightroom to CC only, that's their prerogative, and more power to them. Their profits will rise or fall based on how the market reacts to their decision, and how they react to _that_.

I really like the Lightroom interface, with the ability to import using keywords, structure my catalog as I see fit, browse from image to image within a library with a keystroke / mouse click, use my favorite plug-ins and apply global effects. I'm sure there are alternatives out there that will work just as well for me, should the time ever come when I need to move on. I have OnOne Perfect Photo 9; haven't made the plunge for 10/Raw yet, but it looks interesting, as does Affinity Photo. In the meantime, I'm not going to lose any sleep over Adobe's business model.


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> cpeak66 said:
> 
> 
> > What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom. Nada. That doesn't sit well with me. If I've paid over 350 dollars I sure want something to show for it.
> ...



Not sure what you are trying to say here. Its a ransom..keep paying or no more editing your photos.

Who in their right mind would want a half functional piece of software when you decide to stop paying the monthly?

It is the most nonsensical argument, and I truly don't understand how it makes any sense to you.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> cpeak66 said:
> 
> 
> > What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom. Nada. That doesn't sit well with me. If I've paid over 350 dollars I sure want something to show for it.
> ...



Correct you have access to your images... for now. Is there any guarantee Adobe doesn't change the EULA at a moments notice? change the structure of the Lightroom catalog? 

If you have any photos you deem valuable you likely cannot trust a deactivated copy of LR. I know I wouldn't. For me that would mean exporting to TIFF/DNG & .xmp/etc. Luckily I have a perpetual license of LR6.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 29, 2017)

I'm surprised how many people are against the subscription model here. I'm also a little surprised how little this announcement bothers me. I suppose for my purposes, Affinity is becoming an increasingly competent editing option, and there's nothing I'm all that bothered about them adding to Lr in a future version that would make me upgrade anyway. I'll keep running Lr 6 until it no longer works by which time I'll assess what's best (to me) for replacing it.

I personally prefer to buy, rather than rent software (though I've done both), but the writing's been on the wall with regard to Adobe for some time. They have every right to choose the most profitable path, and consumers have the right to be annoyed and move to other products. Interesting that Affinity is quite the opposite - I paid a very small sum (something like £30?) for the original download, and updates are free, including the addition of substantial new features. Who knows how long that will last, however.

As for those talking on 50 year timescales, I don't think you can expect any technology option to last that long, especially proprietory services. I certainly wouldn't expect Lightroom to exist by then! Eventually I think we have to convert files to a widely-supported format and hope for the best.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2017)

Maiaibing, you've got to be pulling our legs.

I don't want to rent something that costs a fair amount and then find I don't use it enough due to time constraints. If that were not the case I'd be more positive about it even though I don't like the concept particularly.

On the other hand software that is updated constantly with some new feature can end up costing a lot if you keep purchasing the upgrades with the carrot of an upgrade being cheaper than the whole package. It seems like they never want to get everything right because they can do it bit by bit in future versions. Sucker me has upgraded when I have yet to use an older version. It's always tomorrow I'm going to have time. 

Jack


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 29, 2017)

scyrene said:


> I'm surprised how many people are against the subscription model here. I'm also a little surprised how little this announcement bothers me. I suppose for my purposes, Affinity is becoming an increasingly competent editing option, and there's nothing I'm all that bothered about them adding to Lr in a future version that would make me upgrade anyway. I'll keep running Lr 6 until it no longer works by which time I'll assess what's best (to me) for replacing it.
> 
> I personally prefer to buy, rather than rent software (though I've done both), but the writing's been on the wall with regard to Adobe for some time. They have every right to choose the most profitable path, and consumers have the right to be annoyed and move to other products. Interesting that Affinity is quite the opposite - I paid a very small sum (something like £30?) for the original download, and updates are free, including the addition of substantial new features. Who knows how long that will last, however.
> 
> As for those talking on 50 year timescales, I don't think you can expect any technology option to last that long, especially proprietory services. I certainly wouldn't expect Lightroom to exist by then! Eventually I think we have to convert files to a widely-supported format and hope for the best.



The interesting thing is that with virtual machine technology we can recreate an entire operating system and software stack in a way that's archivable. With a perpetual copy of LR6 (or any software for that matter) I could guarantee my workflow will be preserved. This will not be possible with any software that requires online validation (short of current hacks to turn off CC's validation).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 29, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > cpeak66 said:
> ...



You guys really are being ridiculous.

First off, I am not trying to 'say' anything other than correct an entirely false statement, that has since been repeated. If you stop paying you *do not* lose you images, your work, or the ability to export your files.

Secondly, anybody with an ounce of intelligence or care of their work/images has an export backup and storage strategy that doesn't rely on one program. You can store your images with sidecar files now, you can write the adjustments to the file, you can export your image to anywhere, you can export the entirety of your image collection with all adjustments to a multitude of file types.

I understand peoples reluctance to sign on to a subscription service, particularly if you are an amateur that doesn't see the value in software from a business software supplier, but I do wish these threads could try and limit their hyperbole to actual facts. 

Furthering outright inaccuracies helps nobody.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Sure, and I pointed out the truth, you have access now and there are no guarantees in the future. Is anything in that statement false?


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I understand peoples reluctance to sign on to a subscription service, particularly if you are an amateur that doesn't see the value in software from a business software supplier



It's a safe bet that most people who buy a 1D-series body and L-glass are not pros. It would be interesting to know what fraction of the Adobe CC customer base use it for purposes that are exclusively personal vs. educational vs. business vs. mixed. Adobe is not exclusively a "business" software supplier, they're a software supplier, and probably don't care who buys their products so long as they pay.


----------



## marklaing (Jan 29, 2017)

Agreed. I hate, HATE, HATE the subscription model. I'm looking at Capture One to replace Lightroom and found Luminar for the Mac, an absolutely superb little program. Not all the features of Lightroom but the subscription model works for Adobe it doesn't work for photographers. You are paying for something for the rest of your life. "Yeah but it's like only $20 a month." Sure, for 30 years. This is why you can't buy a phone outright on Verizon anymore.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If you stop paying for CC you still keep Lightroom, in perpetuity.
> ...



There are three different issues here:

1. Full use of the software: this degrades to limited use after the subscription ends.

2. Keeping original image files. Nothing here is lost when the subscription ends. Obviously, anyone with any sense would make backups anyhow.

3. Preserving work done. I had not previously heard that edits were preserved in a condition that could be moved to any other platform, I had assumed edits would be lost, and I'm not aware of a generic metadata format that would allow all LR edits to transfer. However, PBD usually does a good job researching his assertions, so I'll take his word on that.

#1 is enough to annoy me, all by itself. Suppose Canon decided that, starting with the 1DX3, they would only lease the product in a way similar to Adobe's, with reduced function when you stop paying. How do you feel?

Software companies want us to think of software as a service rather than a product. They're wrong -- it's a product that I should be able to buy once, then keep and use as long as it suits my needs.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2017)

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jan 29, 2017)

Even when you "buy" the SW instead of renting it, it still can be a subscription model in disguise. Older versions won't get the Camera Raw support for new bodies. In the case of Quicken, they simply decide to turn off functionality after three years. The subscription model is favored by SW companies since it provides a steady and reliable stream of income and they are not forced to crank out new versions on a regular schedule.

Personally, I don't like Lightroom and rarely use Photoshop. I stopped buying and relying on Adobe products a few years ago. Most of my post-processing is done in DXO Optics Pro. The only reason I use Photo$hop is to gain access to a couple of 3rd party plug-ins. PSe is a non-starter because of limited 16-bit support.

As we are seeing, the discontent arising from this forced subscription is giving rise to opportunities for new SW to enter the market. I hope those that enter will flourish.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.
> 
> I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.



I find it equally hilarious that others expect me to needlessly throw money down the drain on a monthly subscription model when my upgrade path clearly shows it's more cost effective for a perpetual license...

The reality is that every situation is different. The subscription model isn't the magical solution for all needs despite what is often rampantly pushed by so many on these forums. The subscription model is great for some and terrible for others. To say that one or the other is the end all be all solution is ludicrous.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.
> 
> I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.



This got a chuckle out of me! ;D I don't have another penny left to support my habit. 

Jack


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 29, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.
> ...



+1

Having just had our first baby Christmas eve all my disposable income is now in diapers, baby gear, and soon to be daycare  

I'm happy I have the gear and software I do without tacking anything onto the monthly budget. If anything, I'm still looking to trim the budget somehow :-\


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.



It would be nice to have the option, but not the requirement.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 29, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Maiaibing, you've got to be pulling our legs.


? Its certainly not a laughing matter to me. I spent almost 6 months getting what I paid for. Where's the joke?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.
> ...



No one is suggesting you have to buy from Adobe. One company is offering a product. You don't want to buy that product in the form they offer it. That's fine. 

But, complaining about it makes as much sense as a certain other perennial participant on this forum who consistently whines and moans and calls Canon "stupid" simply because they aren't offering a product in exactly the format he desires.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

JMZawodny said:


> Older versions won't get the Camera Raw support for new bodies.


That's OK. When I get a new body I'll get a new version of LR. Or maybe I'll use a raw converter.



> The subscription model is favored by SW companies since it provides a steady and reliable stream of income and they are not forced to crank out new versions on a regular schedule.


Which makes it bad for consumers: we keep paying for the same features and the company feels no urgency to create useful improvements.



> the discontent arising from this forced subscription is giving rise to opportunities for new SW to enter the market. I hope those that enter will flourish.



I certainly hope so.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> No one is suggesting you have to buy from Adobe. One company is offering a product. You don't want to buy that product in the form they offer it. That's fine.


Yup.



> But, complaining about it makes as much sense as a certain other perennial participant on this forum who consistently whines and moans and calls Canon "stupid" simply because they aren't offering a product in exactly the format he desires.



Huge difference: many of us accept that the subscription model works great for many people, just not for us. We further observe that it would take nearly zero effort to make a perpetual license option available. With hardware, decisions have to be made regarding R&D, tooling, support, price, etc. With software, there's almost zero effort needed to make both options available. Count me among those looking for alternatives: if there is no standalone LR7 I'll run with LR6 as long as I can and then switch to a non-Adobe product.


----------



## Mr. Shakes (Jan 29, 2017)

My biggest beef with Adobe PhotoShop & LR is that they have abandoned the real "Help Files" for vapid videos that seem to function more for the Marketing Department than the customer base.

The main reason I would dump Adobe would be for an alternative that has really good Help Files (and also supports the NIK Collection).


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.



I don't own $10,000-$20,000 of equipment.


----------



## Fatalv (Jan 29, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Correct, which is why I stated I'd run LR6 until forced to switch.

I'm totally fine with Adobe doing whatever Adobe wants to do. They are a business. By designed they could care less about me or any other user for that matter. They answer to shareholders which means profit trumps making the majority of users happy. As long as they make enough users happy to sustain profits that's all they likely care about.

This is a forum, voicing opinions is large part of that, even if it is a dissenting opinion. I'm not calling Adobe 'stupid' like the member in question  My objection was the blanket statement made by CR that subscription software saves you money. That statement is largely false. It may save for some but it doesn't for everyone.


----------



## Botts (Jan 29, 2017)

Perpetual licensing was costing Adobe huge cash in piracy. I'm not surprised they are switching to the subscription model.

The photographer subscription option is likely attracted a huge number of hobbyists who couldn't afford the initial cash outlay, but ignore the minimal monthly payments hitting their card.

I have also found since switching to CC, I'm always up to date on features, and it feels like there's updates every 6 months. Previously, I was always a year or two behind on CS.

I still export my final images to a non-proprietary format, typically TIFF, and burn them to 100GB BD-Rs, so I'm not worried about losing access if I ever unsubscribe to CC.


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 29, 2017)

Come to think of it, almost anything that you can rent, you can also choose to buy. 

You can rent a house, but you can also choose to buy one.
You can rent/lease a car, but you can also choose to buy one. 
You can rent a movie, but you can also choose to buy the thing and watch it anytime you wish. The same holds true for music.

This list can go on and on. 

However, I can't think of many things that you can rent but that you can't buy. Except of course Adobe CC.

This is probably why most of us instinctively get the feeling that we were taken to the cleaners by Adobe.


----------



## testthewest (Jan 29, 2017)

What's absolutely adorable in this forum is the high amount of big buissness "understanders".

So Adobe is making more money! Great, *we* should be happy! I guess if Adobe raises the sub fee, we also should be thankful, because Adobe makes more money! If they delete all your files from their Cloud, we should be happy, because it lowers their server costs! /s

I get it. You are either on Adobe payroll or completely brainwashed. There is no logical reason for any customer to be happy about Adobe raking in more money for the same products as always, *BECAUSE IT IS OUR F***ING MONEY!!!*

I want to see Adobe make less money, because this means they take less from us. If they try to increase their drain, then we as customers should complain, otherwise they will raise their prices further. And we also should leave them if they continue. If LR because a mandatory sub, I'm out (well, I stay with my paid LR 6 until it stops working).


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 29, 2017)

Mr. Shakes said:


> My biggest beef with Adobe PhotoShop & LR is that they have abandoned the real "Help Files" for vapid videos that seem to function more for the Marketing Department than the customer base.



https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/archive.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/archive.html


----------



## unfocused (Jan 29, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> ...I'm not calling Adobe 'stupid' like the member in question  My objection was the blanket statement made by CR that subscription software saves you money. That statement is largely false. It may save for some but it doesn't for everyone.



Fair enough.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 29, 2017)

testthewest said:


> I get it. You are either on Adobe payroll or completely brainwashed. There is no logical reason for any customer to be happy about Adobe raking in more money for the same products as always, *BECAUSE IT IS OUR F***ING MONEY!!!*



No. It means some people are happy with the subscritption model some aren't. You clearly aren't. No-one is _making _you buy anything. And if you don't buy it, then any discussion about 'its my money' is irrelevant. If you do buy it then stop whining about a choice you made freely.




testthewest said:


> I want to see Adobe make less money, because this means they take less from us. If they try to increase their drain, then we as customers should complain, otherwise they will raise their prices further. And we also should leave them if they continue. If LR because a mandatory sub, I'm out (well, I stay with my paid LR 6 until it stops working).



The only way they take less money is if you refuse to buy the cloud version and don't upgrade the perpetual license. 
Your choice. 
I find it fascinating that you want them to make less money which only reduces the product quality and development. You can always buy Photoshop Elements...


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 29, 2017)

Fatalv said:


> My objection was the blanket statement made by CR that subscription software saves you money. That statement is largely false. It may save for some but it doesn't for everyone.



I think the cost was initially priced on the assumption that Photoshop users upgraded every X months so they took the total cost and divided it by X months. In other words the overall costs was not significantly different but the cashflow enabled them to have a perpetual development and upgrade.
The price dropped a wee bit after that and has not gone up again so my assumption is that there is maybe a small saving but not significant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 29, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I understand peoples reluctance to sign on to a subscription service, particularly if you are an amateur that doesn't see the value in software from a business software supplier
> ...



No, they have repeatedly called themselves a business software supplier, it isn't my epithet, it is the one they call themselves. They have taken drastic and short to mid term costly measures to themselves (which they were at a point of having to do anyway or go bankrupt) to commit to better serve those business users. Almost without exception the flak they get is not from their core business, business and creatives professionals.



Orangutan said:


> 3. Preserving work done. I had not previously heard that edits were preserved in a condition that could be moved to any other platform, I had assumed edits would be lost, and I'm not aware of a generic metadata format that would allow all LR edits to transfer. However, PBD usually does a good job researching his assertions, so I'll take his word on that.



To be clear, I am not saying with a deactivated LR program you can export your edits in a sidecar in a form that another editor can read the specific adjustments to be able to readjust a specific slider. I am saying you have the choice to export your file in both a lossless 'RAW' format that either includes your edits or does not. This preserves your work and the original and gives access to both even after you stop the subscription.



Mr. Shakes said:


> My biggest beef with Adobe PhotoShop & LR is that they have abandoned the real "Help Files" for vapid videos that seem to function more for the Marketing Department than the customer base.



100% agree with that!



Botts said:


> Perpetual licensing was costing Adobe huge cash in piracy. I'm not surprised they are switching to the subscription model.



Piracy is just as rife now and it is just aa easy to get pirated fully functional CC as it was to get CS or PS before it. The main reason Adobe were forced into the subscription model was cashflow.



Stichus III said:


> Come to think of it, almost anything that you can rent, you can also choose to buy.
> 
> You can rent a house, but you can also choose to buy one.
> You can rent/lease a car, but you can also choose to buy one.
> ...



I agree, so do an ever growing percentage of people in lower age groups, though renting and leasing are different things, they are close. 

Very few people ever 'buy' their house, they mortgage it, which is effectively a lease purchase. Over 25% of private new auto sales are now leases. The majority of phone contracts are leases...



testthewest said:


> What's absolutely adorable in this forum is the high amount of big buissness "understanders".
> 
> So Adobe is making more money! Great, *we* should be happy! I guess if Adobe raises the sub fee, we also should be thankful, because Adobe makes more money! If they delete all your files from their Cloud, we should be happy, because it lowers their server costs! /s
> 
> ...



You are conflating understanding, with being complicit. The fact that I understand why Adobe do what they do is separate from my personal feelings about what they do! I liked the old idea of owning something, but that was mitigated somewhat by the constant hassle of keeping OS and programs and cameras aligned. I don't like the idea that my editing days will come to an end, but they will, everybody's do, so I am not worrying about it now. When the time comes I'll do whatever needs to be done, thought the truth is my work has little value to anybody and in 10-20-30 years will have even less.

However, as a business user the lease/subscription model is vastly preferable to my business, and my, cashflow.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing, you've got to be pulling our legs.
> ...



No you misunderstand. It's not a joke, it's simply hard to believe but if true it's a sad indictment on Adobe.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 29, 2017)

Mr. Shakes said:


> My biggest beef with Adobe PhotoShop & LR is that they have abandoned the real "Help Files" for vapid videos that seem to function more for the Marketing Department than the customer base.
> 
> The main reason I would dump Adobe would be for an alternative that has really good Help Files (and also supports the NIK Collection).



FWIW, I just paste my photo into NIK and go from there. Don't have Adobe.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 29, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing, you've got to be pulling our legs.
> ...



If I recall, you bought the Cloud version through Amazon?
If so then it may not be much consolation but I read recently that Amazon bought a batch load of licenses from Adobe then they lost the details so Adobe cancelled them and supplied Amazon with new licences. Some idiot at Amazon then found the previous lot and sent out a lots of licences that by that time had been cancelled. 
The fault was with Amazon, not Adobe. Amazon should have rectified it.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Jan 29, 2017)

Hopefully, the strategists at Apple are reading this thread, and will suggest to bring Aperture back. It still works, but for how long? My bias is toward Aperture because I learned it first.

Now, I am a mere monthly serf to Adobe, and the LR?PS package does meet my needs as my proficiency expands. 

However, under the little known Truth on Rumors Sites postulate, I admit that I did hedge my bets by acquiring modest positions in both Apple and Adobe.


----------



## kaswindell (Jan 29, 2017)

Well, I don't use Photoshop and I guess now I never will as I am in the "no subscription ever" camp. Why?
1) I started with LR4 right before LR5 was introduced, and am now on LR6 but in the future I don't have to upgrade if I don't want to. This forces Adobe to keep improving the product if they want more money from me.
2) If I don't want to upgrade I still have what I have already paid for. With subscription you lose everything if you don't want to keep paying.

If I have to I will look at alternatives. LR is good but it still has warts.


----------



## IglooEater (Jan 30, 2017)

kaswindell said:


> Well, I don't use Photoshop and I guess now I never will as I am in the "no subscription ever" camp. Why?
> 1) I started with LR4 right before LR5 was introduced, and am now on LR6 but in the future I don't have to upgrade if I don't want to. This forces Adobe to keep improving the product if they want more money from me.
> 2) If I don't want to upgrade I still have what I have already paid for. With subscription you lose everything if you don't want to keep paying.
> 
> If I have to I will look at alternatives. LR is good but it still has warts.



I share your dislike for a subscription model. However if I understand correctly, if you unsubscribe, you don't actually lose everything- you keep the Library module in LR. So you can still view/print/publish your images, you just can't edit them.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> I share your dislike for a subscription model. However if I understand correctly, if you unsubscribe, you don't actually lose everything- you keep the Library module in LR. So you can still view/print/publish your images, you just can't edit them.



But all the edits ever made to image files are not accessible any longer, only final images. No way to go back and undo/change something in the recipes. To me this pretty much means losing the countless of hours I invested into those edits.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 30, 2017)

Mr. Shakes said:


> My biggest beef with Adobe PhotoShop & LR is that they have abandoned the real "Help Files" for vapid videos that seem to function more for the Marketing Department than the customer base.
> 
> The main reason I would dump Adobe would be for an alternative that has really good Help Files (and also supports the NIK Collection).



I don't think I've accessed the help files for any application in at least 10 years. If I have a question, I do a web search. In the vast majority of instances, someone has already had the same question and posted it, and someone else has had the answer, and posted that. Usually, several times over. The answers are usually more specific, more accurate and / or more detailed than anything in the Help resources, local or online.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...


It was Adobe's broken cloud system. The new codes were from B&H. My old license was Amazon.

A extremely frustrating fact was that at any point of time Adobe could simply manually have extended my CC license - I've had this done before, support can do this while you speak to them in the phone. But Adobe would rather find the fault in their could system.

Below is just one of over two dozen support encounters chat/phone. They are very alike after the first few weeks. After this again *nothing happens *. It will be October before Adobe gives me the software I paid for. Adobe support can never fix the issue with the Adobe Cloud system.

Imagine yourself suffering this for months without end while Adobe has your money and blankly refuses to do what you perfectly well know they can do in less than two minutes flat. Why they never followed up in 24-48 hours as they promised me so many, many, many times in chats and on the phone is beyond me.

Excerpt (personal stuff deleted). The codes we are talking about are two new codes they have promised to generate to replace the ones not working (these Adobe CC codes will in fact not work even when I finally get them sometime early October):

"info: Thank you for your patience.

While you wait, you can try our community forums, where experts are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to answer your questions. 

You can also chat with Adobe experts live on Twitch. See our schedule for Ask the Experts LIVE, and get "How To" video live streams, ask questions, and learn new skills!
info: You are now chatting with Naveen GK. 
Please don’t close the chat window or browser tab since it will end our chat session.
Naveen GK: Hello! Welcome to Adobe Customer Service.
Naveen GK: Hi X
Naveen GK: I understand that you would like to know the update on escalated case. Is that right?
X: No, I want the 2 new codes you have generated and which I have not received yet.
X: Please upload the codes to the case file so I can use them.
Naveen GK: Let me check and help you with that.
Naveen GK: May I place this chat on hold for a minute or two, while I check the information for you?
X: OK
info: Your chat transcript will be sent to [email protected] at the end of your chat.
Naveen GK: I'm sorry,X. It's taking time please allow me few more minutes.
X: OK
Naveen GK: Thank you for waiting
Naveen GK: I did check with the escalated case and see that our relevant team is still working on this issue.
Naveen GK: However, I've re-escalated the case with high priority, they'll check and get back to you within 2 business days
X: No - this is not acceptable. 
X: On May 20, 2016 Sirai said to me that 1) My case was escalated 2) Your team would come back to me within 24-48 hours This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On May 24, 2016 Sandeep said to me that 1) My case was escalated 2) Your team would come back to me "soon" This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On June 1, 2016 Chidananda said to me that 1) My case was escalated 2) Your team would come back to me with 2 to 3 business days This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jun 8, 2016 Venkatesh said to me 1) My case was escalated again this time "to the next level" 2) Your team would come back to me within 24-48 hours This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jun 10, 2016 Sumola said to me 1) My case was escalated again this time "to the senior level" 2) Your team would come back to me within 24 hours This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jun 15, 2016 Deepak said to me 1) I would have to wait more 2) Your team would come back to me "at the earliest" This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jun 30, 2016 Manoharprasead said to me 1) The case was now with the "most" senior team 2) The case was now made a "priority" 3) Your team would come back to me "at the earliest" This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jul 12, 2016 Mayur said to me: 1) My new codes have been generated and I would recieve them with 24-48 hours This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jul 17, 2016 Chandan Kumar said to me 1) Your relevant team was working on this 2) Your team would give me the codes within 24 hours 3) The case would be escalated again This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jul 19, 2016 Bharath S said to me 1) Codes had been sent 2) The case would be escalated again 3) Your team would come back to me "at the earliest" This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jul 22, 2016 Jagadeshan said to me 1) He would "personally follow up the case" 2) That the case would be resolved "as soon as possible" and he was sure it would be solved within 24-48 hours This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. On Jul 24, 2016 Prahudev said to me 1) My case was escalated 2) I would get a new email 3) My case was given a new number 0219xxxxxx This was a lie. Nothing happened. I was never contacted. 
X: Give me the codes I paid for months ago.
Naveen GK: X, I certainly understand your concern. Since the redemption code is given by our relevant team, I have re-escalated the case with high priority. 
Naveen GK: You'll receive a confirmation email regarding 2 Redemption code as soon as possible.
X: Why should I believe you when Adopbe Support already lies to me 12 times before?
X: Please give me the codes you have already told me where generated and sent to me.
Naveen GK: Please stay online, X
X: OK
Naveen GK: X, I did check with our next level department and see that the request has been raised to generate 2 Redemption codes for you.
Naveen GK: However, it takes maximum of 2 business days for us to hear back from the relevant team
Naveen GK: Once we hear back, we'll send you a confirmation email and also our relevant team will send you an automated email once the Redemption codes are generated.
Naveen GK: I would appreciate your patience with this regard.
Naveen GK: I'm sorry that this issue is taking longer than expected to fix the issue
X: Sorry. I have been told the same before too many times. I cannot believe you
X: Let me suggest you drop the codes and just simply update my account with 24 months of subscription. I have paid for this and you have been given the proof.
X: Accounting can do this easily.
X: Problem solved.
X: Back in May you promised a follow-up within 24-48 hours. I am still waiting!
X: This is not solving anything it is only making it worse.
Naveen GK: I understand this can be frustrating.
Naveen GK: As I informed the request to generate 2 Redemption codes has already sent and it takes few hours to generate the redemption codes.
Naveen GK: However, I'll follow up the case with our relevant team to get back to you with the redemption code as soon as possible
X: We both know this will never happen.
X: Look at the list above.
X: Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again I was lied to.
X: It is not fair and it is not reasonable.
Naveen GK: X, I'm sorry that our relevant is taking longer time to provide you with the redemption codes.
Naveen GK: I've sent the request again to provide you the new Redemption code and it is currently in process.
Naveen GK: I personally follow up the case and make sure our relevant team will get back to you with the new redemption codes as early as possible
X: I expect to get two codes. I have paid for 24 months subcription.
Naveen GK: Yes, the request is raised for 2 new Redemption codes
X: Why am I never contacted as you promise?
Naveen GK: Our relevant team works offline, since they were working on your issue, they couldn't send you the confirmation email on the update on Redemption codes.
Naveen GK: Now, I've sent an email to our relevant team with your case number to provide the new Redemption codes via email and you'll receive it at the earliest
X: OK - but I trust you will follow this up as promised to make sure the case is handled and that I am contacted.
Naveen GK: Thank you, X
Naveen GK: I definitely will make sure that it gets sorted
Naveen GK: Do you have anymore questions for me, X?
X: Bye"

But of course Adobe support again does nothing. Nothing at all. Like all others Naveen GK never comes back to me. It will be late October before Adobe support finally admits defeat and I redeem two codes for the full Adobe package.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Canon Rumors said:


> ...............
> 
> You don't need an internet connection to run Lightroom CC. As far as I've been told, the subscription model for the latest Lightroom version outsold the standalone by a fair margin.



Well YES and NO.. You do in fact need to have an internet connection. However if you subscribe to the yearly plan and not on a monthly plan (yearly you still can pay monthly).. You can continue to use Lightroom and all its features for up to 99 days without having to sign in to your adobe internet account. Monthly subscribers have like 30 days only before they have to.

That said, if at any point you decide you do not want or need the subscription anymore. You can still use Adobe Lightrooms library module to its full entirety. Only the develop module is disabled. Thus no one has to worry about not being able to access their files if they no longer use Lr..




> The subscription model is also less money over the long run if you purchase year subscriptions when they go on sale. It's only $100 a year, which is a steal for what it is. You also get Photoshop included for that price.
> 
> Capture One is $300 to buy or $15/mth if you sign up for 12 months, or $25/mth quarterly commitment.
> 
> ...



I am perfectly fine with the subscription services since I am the type of person who always wants the latest tools. It ends up being cheaper for me all around. 

As far as Capture One. I like the tools, could care less the price. I make month with my photography, $15 bucks is not even worth thinking about. Only amateurs are going to complain about the price and subscription services.


----------



## Untitled (Jan 30, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I don't understand why any company would want less customers. I've no idea how you know, who Adobe do or don't want as customers, but I don't believe their intention is to restrict the user base. I'm a freelancer, a 'creative professional'. I've used PS for about 20 years. I currently own PS and Illustrator CS6 and don't ever plan to move to CC. Most printers and CNC companies have always asked me for Illustrator files saved out as Illustrator 8, or less. Besides, I already have enough direct debits for my phone, internet, studio rent, etc... I think it's the creative freelancer that Adobe are rejecting most with this model. As a user, I've seen very little reason to upgrade because of features, since version 7, but have always done so, when funds have allowed. Which is the real point here. By purchasing my software, I control my cash flow. But tying users into a subscription only system, means that Adobe have continual access to our cash flows. I've invested heavily, in learning to use my software tools and will continue to use what I already have for as long as possible.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

Untitled said:


> I don't understand why any company would want less customers. I've no idea how you know, who Adobe do or don't want as customers, but I don't believe their intention is to restrict the user base. I'm a freelancer, a 'creative professional'. I've used PS for about 20 years. I currently own PS and Illustrator CS6 and don't ever plan to move to CC. Most printers and CNC companies have always asked me for Illustrator files saved out as Illustrator 8, or less. Besides, I already have enough direct debits for my phone, internet, studio rent, etc... I think it's the creative freelancer that Adobe are rejecting most with this model. As a user, I've seen very little reason to upgrade because of features, since version 7, but have always done so, when funds have allowed. Which is the real point here. By purchasing my software, I control my cash flow. But tying users into a subscription only system, means that Adobe have continual access to our cash flows. I've invested heavily, in learning to use my software tools and will continue to use what I already have for as long as possible.



+100 ... exactly!


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

Untitled said:


> Most printers and CNC companies have always asked me for Illustrator files saved out as Illustrator 8, or less.



And that is precisely how Adobe has come to this market position - Adobe has become a default application across clients and suppliers and to some extent can use the strength that gives it to decide how it wants to run its business. 
As you say you have direct debits for phone, internet and studio etc, so is one for CC really that much problem? It sounds to me like you are not so much objecting to the cost but how that money is collected. At some point have to make the decision as to whether you follow your sense of principle and move to a different (non-subscription) platform, or whether the simplicity of complying with requests from 'printers and CNC companies' makes it worthwhile to go with Adobe. My guess is you will go with the latter (as so many do). 
This is pretty similar to the Apple-Microsoft duopoly. I know many people who have PC for business because so many other businesses use it, but have Apple at home because they prefer its interface.

If you think other companies are not looking at Adobe and asking 'can we do the same thing' then you are badly mistaken. Some will decide that they can mop up the Adobe malcontents, others will decide their customer base does not make it viable.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Jan 30, 2017)

Untitled said:


> Most printers and CNC companies have always asked me for Illustrator files saved out as Illustrator 8, or less. Besides, I already have enough direct debits for my phone, internet, studio rent, etc...



As someone who worked as a Engineer in one of those CNC (Machinist) companies. You would likely flip out at the cost of using Solidworks 3D CAD software and the hardware it takes to run it really well.. 

If you can not afford $120 a year for both Lr and Ps. Something tells me your not a working photographer or you simply have no idea how to manage your finances. $120 a year plus tax is chump change.


----------



## winglet (Jan 30, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> If you can not afford $120 a year for both Lr and Ps. Something tells me your not a working photographer or you simply have no idea how to manage your finances. $120 a year plus tax is chump change.



I have pm'ed you my Paypal address, please send me your chump change at your convenience, I'll take it since it's worth so little to you hahaha!

I read Maiaibing's experience and had to wince a bit in amused empathy. After living in Dubai for 10 years, I know exactly the excruciating frustration of dealing with subcontinent-based "support". Completely, utterly, 100% useless. Biggest time-wasters on the planet. That Adobe contracts their support to places such as these are only another reason to not give them a dime.

But I am a little offended at the comment about being able to afford $15-20,000 of gear and then not wanting to pay a subscription for software. I mean, I think my gear is worth closer to $60,000! 

But I own all of it. I don't rent it. My choice.

Thank god for clever people who know how to easily bypass software restrictions.


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 30, 2017)

What are options to migrate from Lightroom to something else? I can import whole my library of RAW files in another product but how can I import all adjustments I made in Lightroom which are stored in Lightroom database or probably XMP files?


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> What are options to migrate from Lightroom to something else? I can import whole my library of RAW files in another product but how can I import all adjustments I made in Lightroom which are stored in Lightroom database or probably XMP files?



You are asking another application to read the LR sidecar file to know what adjustments you have made in LR. That would be the responsibility of the other program you want to open it in, not Adobe/LR. Expecting LR to make it compatible is not reasonable.

If you make adjustments in LR and you export as TIFF or DNG, and you move to OnOne, then OnOne will be able to open the TIFF file but it will be the file after LR has made the adjustments not the original raw file. 
You can apply the keywords to the file when you export it but that is about it. 

If the file in LR is complete then save it as a jpeg and keep the raw file if you want to do something different in the future.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 30, 2017)

*Adobe Cloud Isn't Cloud; It's DRM*

This is perhaps too fine a point to make in the midst of the discussion of whether or not it is appropriate to push people to the subscription model. I just wanted to clarify to some who appear not to understand:

1 - While Adobe calls it the "Creative Cloud," those applications do not live on the cloud, and your running the programs does not constitute you using the "cloud." These are programs you stick on your computer, like we've done for decades, and the digital rights management (DRM) system that give the program permission to open is run very partially off of the cloud. 
2- Adobe somewhat brilliantly coopted the term "cloud" so as to suggest additional value it was going to offer in exchange for a different pricing system, just at the time "cloud" hype was at its maximum. DRM is a term loathed universally, but it is actually the technology that Adobe re-introduced. 

Some other points...
3- There are some computers that are deliberately not connected to the net, and these are problematical (there is a work-around) for using the new system. This is not, however, because the programs are run off of the cloud. I've been caught up in this briefly while traveling, and the programs told me I had about a month to reconnect to the web before they stopped fully working. 
4- I happen to find the Adobe Cloud offerings a pretty good value for the money, and don't begrudge them charging me $20 a month for the programs I use. If it were actually on the cloud, I probably wouldn't use it.
5- The reason for moving to the subscription model is two-fold for Adobe. A) It would like to even out revenues and not have revenues dependent on a release schedule that encourages shoddy, over-quick releases. B) It wants to be able to charge us more money over time, and more creatively, perhaps more incrementally and in more discriminating manners. This is working beautifully for Adobe, which is not only doing better than ever financially, but is showing more revenue than ever from its software division, even as software is a decreasing portion of its revenues.
6- Adobe is likely to continue to dominate the creative industry for the near term, as one might argue there are good alternatives to Lightroom or even Photoshop, but no program has integrated links to layout, video editing, sound editing and the dozen other programs that Adobe offers. The investment in time and money to create a competitor - while the reward would be very large - is simply too much. If one could recruit the engineering team to do so, it would take an 8-figure investment and minimally 2-3 years to produce something worthwhile. Likely more. In that amount of time, Adobe would have the ability to reconfigure its revenue streams so as to make its offering cheap enough to ensure that a competitive investment would never pay off.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Cloud Isn't Cloud; It's DRM*



[email protected] said:


> ...no program has integrated links to layout, video editing, sound editing and the dozen other programs that Adobe offers. The investment in time and money to create a competitor - while the reward would be very large - is simply too much. If one could recruit the engineering team to do so, it would take an 8-figure investment and minimally 2-3 years to produce something worthwhile. Likely more. In that amount of time, Adobe would have the ability to reconfigure its revenue streams so as to make its offering cheap enough to ensure that a competitive investment would never pay off.



That is the key thing. Adobe has created an integrated publishing package that does far more than just photography. Adobe is not interested in 'just photography' and is looking at the best (and most profitable) way to deliver their products to a far wider 'creative market' than us. We are a relatively small part of their market.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

I do not use Photoshop or any other Adobe "creative" App. I once purchased a perptual license for Photoshop, but de-installed it, since it had the most convoluted, un-intuitive user interface of any software I've come across in along time. So for me it is Lightroom only - no problems with the user interface on that one. 

Why does Adobe not offer a subscription at 1.99 or 2.99 / month for LR only? I still don't like to rent software but might at least consider the rental scheme then. Forced rental package with PS? No way! 

If @privatebydesign claims, "Adobe does not want [hobbyist] customers like me", I would like to say to Adobe vice versa: many folks like myself do not need Photoshop, do not use Photoshop, do not want to pay for it! So why no "Lightroom only" subscription, Adobe?


----------



## Stichus III (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Cloud Isn't Cloud; It's DRM*

The argument that if you don’t like Adobe, then you should not use Adobe products, is flawed. 

This as the argument conveniently ignores the fact that: 

(1) there is still no credible competitor to Adobe Photoshop and 

(2) Adobe –after finding itself in a de facto monopoly- drastically changed its business model on its long time clients. And please note that we are talking about the same long time clients that helped Adobe create the commanding market position it currently has. Gee, thanks Adobe! 

Affinity Photo is good, but not ready for prime time. I know. I own it. 

The bottom line is that the argument that if you don’t like Adobe, then you should not use Adobe products, misses the mark.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I do not use Photoshop or any other Adobe "creative" App. I once purchased a perptual license for Photoshop, but de-installed it, since it had the most convoluted, un-intuitive user interface of any software I've come across in along time. So for me it is Lightroom only - no problems with the user interface on that one.
> 
> Why does Adobe not offer a subscription at 1.99 or 2.99 / month for LR only? I still don't like to rent software but might at least consider the rental scheme then. Forced rental package with PS? No way!
> 
> If @privatebydesign claims, "Adobe does not want [hobbyist] customers like me", I would like to say to Adobe vice versa: many folks like myself do not need Photoshop, do not use Photoshop, do not want to pay for it! So why no "Lightroom only" subscription, Adobe?



Probably because Adobe is running a business. 3 bucks a month for the kind of staff they maintain is likely unsustainable. I think of the photography subscription as basically giving LR for free to PS subscribers. 

Why doesn't canon offer kit lens pricing on lenses sold individually?


----------



## nvettese (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



ExodistPhotography said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to loose me as customer.
> ...



I will not be updating to the next version of Lightroom, and it bothers me. Adobe's practices have been unfriendly to the user, and that is not what I am looking for. If I spend thousands of dollars, and I fall into an area where I can't afford the subscription, but need to work, where would that leave me? 

I am looking at the new OnOne Raw as well as the CaptureOne applications to see which would be better for me. I think that we need to look at options, and I would love for Canon Rumors to put together an UnBiased review/comparison of the RAW Programs so that the readers can make informed decisions. I know where I am headed, but there may be others who don't know.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



nvettese said:


> Adobe's practices have been unfriendly to the user,



Not to me, they haven't, nor to countless thousands of others. I have PS at a cost I can justify without spending hundreds of pounds up front. 
If you don't like what they are doing (for whatever reason) then that is a different matter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2017)

Untitled said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



If you don't make a profit on them they are not customers, they are a business liability. Total number of customers is not everything!

As far as Adobe are concerned people who won't pay $9.99 a month are liabilities. Sure the standalone market might amount to a few million dollars, but Adobe are clearly not interested in those few million dollars, I am not saying they are right or wrong I am just pointing out the obvious facts.



nvettese said:


> Adobe's practices have been unfriendly to the user, and that is not what I am looking for. If I spend thousands of dollars, and I fall into an area where I can't afford the subscription, but need to work, where would that leave me?



Get over it! Adobe don't see you as an important market sector, neither do Lamborghini or Cartier. 

Adobe see themselves as suppliers of commercial software to businesses and creative professionals, if you can't afford $9.99 then they don't consider you a creative professional.

But for their actual core users, businesses, the subscription pricing is vastly preferred, it has cashflow and tax advantages a license purchase does not have.


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



nvettese said:


> I am looking at the new OnOne Raw as well as the CaptureOne applications to see which would be better for me. I think that we need to look at options, and I would love for Canon Rumors to put together an UnBiased review/comparison of the RAW Programs so that the readers can make informed decisions. I know where I am headed, but there may be others who don't know.



Does such a thing as an unbiased review exist anywhere? Like Adobe, both CaptureOne and OnOne offer 30-day trials of their full-featured software. Potential users can download, install and run these programs through their paces for a month, to see which works best for them.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> But for their actual core users, businesses, the subscription pricing is vastly preferred, it has cashflow and tax advantages a license purchase does not have.



Yes. And nobody would have ANY issue at all and there would be no discussion, if Adobe ALSO offered a rental program. The issue is them ONLY offering rental program, which is NOT advantageous for many of their customers.


----------



## StatisticsRule (Jan 30, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> If you don't make a profit on them they are not customers, they are a business liability. Total number of customers is not everything!
> ...
> Get over it! Adobe don't see you as an important market sector, neither do Lamborghini or Cartier.



Perhaps what you are saying is true. For whatever reason, they have decided this is the way to go. Short-term advantage (i.e. $$$) is not always the best long-term strategy though. In 2008, Internet Explorer had 70% of the browser usage. Today, it is much less (~20% if we stick only with desktop computers). Losing customers takes time and although short-term profits can mask a problem, it can't hide it forever.

The cloud is a euphemism for saying that computer development has transitioned from emerging to mature. My computer and software has not been the bottleneck for several years. Funny thing is that we are so accustomed to rapid computer changes that we actually want to give companies our money so we can have the latest hype. In reality, there is no reason why we should have to update our computer hardware or software. 

The transition from rapid development to mature technology is going to be difficult, and companies such as Adobe are making their stand. Renting is attractive because it makes the owners rich. I personally think their cloud-only policy will make them about as popular as car rental agencies. They exist, and many people like them for short-term use, but very few people want them for long-term needs. Alienating long-term users is the strategy many software companies are taking today, but as the next generation of users become accustomed to computer stagnation, I think the strategy is a long-term loss for both the company and the consumer.

Only time will tell if I am correct. In the mean time, I refuse to rent software because it does not fit my long-term needs. So like many others on this forum, I will slowly become accustomed to their competitor's software. This isn't the first time a software product has let me down (I am looking at you, Internet Explorer), and I doubt it will be the last.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Yes. And nobody would have ANY issue at all and there would be no discussion, if Adobe ALSO offered a rental program. The issue is them ONLY offering rental program, which is NOT advantageous for many of their customers.



Companies don't work in terms of 'many' - they work in terms of percentages of clients. People like you and I are small fry in the bigger picture of their suite of 11 (?) modules - they are the target of the CC model and they are also ones who pay the rent.

If you want to see how insignificantly small your opposing views are:

http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html

8 million rising by almost 1million a quarter. ]
Yeah, customers really hate this subscription model don't they. Adobe have really slit their own throat haven't they. 

Is this another of your '[Company] is ******* and the only way to survive it so keep me as a customer' posts?
YAWN!


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

StatisticsRule said:


> I personally think their cloud-only policy will make them about as popular as car rental agencies.



See my post above :

And car rental agencies are doing just fine as far as I can tell.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Is this another of your '[Company] is ******* and the only way to survive it so keep me as a customer' posts?
> YAWN!



funny, that you mention this! Actually I do think Adobe is *******. The ill will they created with "CC subscription only" will cost them dearly, even when currently millions are joining their program for lack of suitable alternatives. About as popular as the infamous Adobe Flash player.


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 30, 2017)

Those folks above - a few - comment on an inability to afford the $9.99 a month ... It's unlikely that's true with anyone that opposes the "subscription" programs. It's more the matter of Adobe holding you at its mercy ... Look at the other subscription programs, like monthly Verizon ... Verizon raises rates often, and has poor customer service unless you go directly into a corporate store, and even then it's tough to get an issue fixed. it cares ONLY about volume, and for every customer it pisses off, it gains another one thru some new offer and begins rotating customer acquisition - get one, lose one, bank the revenue.

But more to the point - I personally can afford this easily, but why should I ? We much prefer having the programs with us, always. Frequently, we have no web access for extended periods, and that's only one issue. If this program becomes inaccessible to my work product, we have no clue how it will affect it once the access disappears - we only know what Adobe tells us ... and we have no wish to continuously contact a non-responsive CS and spend hours getting no effective results ... 

Maybe Adobe feels like Lamborghini or Cartier, as mentioned above - well, if they don't care for small-volume customers that dislike being held hostage for a monthly premium, then we'll go find another program that works just as well ... 

Many companies are moving to the "gimme a piece of your earnings" every month for life. For some reason, that bothers me. Personally, we like to buy things, not 'rent or lease', because in the long run we become the victims of company failures and higher costs ... but more of a problem is the inability to control our work product for more than a month at a time.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Is this another of your '[Company] is ******* and the only way to survive it so keep me as a customer' posts?
> ...



Pre-CC the CS package was costing hundreds and for as long as I have been doing digital photography (back to 2006) people were predicting the demise of Adobe with its totally unreasonable pricing and the rise of alternative programs. And they are still predicting the demise of Adobe with its totally unreasonable way they treat their customers. 
10 years ago, people were predicting the fall of Microsoft with their corporate, pompous know-best attitude. And look what happened - up came Apple with their...corporate, pompous know-best attitude. And of course Linux which was going to sweep all before it because everyone really is a computer programmer, aren't they?

To repeat a point you seem to want to ignore, the CC approach is actually a good thing for companies who are the significant market for Adobe whereas you are whittling on about individual photographers. 

Every company rises and falls but as and when Adobe does it will not be because of the CC model. It will be because they do not offer the functionality and interface the people like best. So predicting the fall of a company is not really rocket-science, nor is it some wonderful prescience. It is a fairly decent bet. 

If you want to impress me, can you say when the CC will 'cost them dearly'? When they will enter 'doom'?


----------



## SkynetTX (Jan 30, 2017)

Most of the softwares are getting worse with every new version since cloud and other technologies appeared. WinXP seems to be the best now, Win7 is terrible, Win8 is even more terrible, Win10 is a piece of ... Firefox 2 was the best browser ever, FF3 was kind of acceptable, FF4+ is terrible and FF10+ (or so) is not a browser anymore.
Adobe softwares are also a piece of crap. I've never used them before and I won't use them after they become cloud only. By the way, photographers do not need any adobe software. In my opinion photography is mainly about the documentation of a moment and/or subject. If you change your photo a much in PS or LR it won't be a "document" anymore. Therefore you don't need a camera, just these crap softwares.
And before I forget it: cloud is not safe! Adobe uses you private data mainly without your permission. Accounts can be hacked, passwords can be stolen and so your data. Are you sure you want this? The decision is yours.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 30, 2017)

*Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only*



Dverb said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to loose me as customer.
> ...



I am on LR5. I might need to go ahead and do LR6....I still do not wan to RENT my software.

As for PS and Designer, well, I'm finding the Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer to be very close competitors. The engine is faster in AP than PS....and it has about 98% of the functionality that I can tell...it has 100% of what I need so far, with a stand alone license and so far all the updates have been free.

cayenne


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> To repeat a point you seem to want to ignore, the CC approach is actually a good thing for companies who are the significant market for Adobe...



Not picking on you, and I agree with most everything you are saying, but this statement (and similar statements from others) is not correct.

Adobe relies very heavily on small businesses and individual creators. That is their base. Sure, major media companies use Creative Cloud programs, but so do millions upon millions of creative individuals: graphic designers, photographers, artists, small video producers, web developers and designers, etc. etc. The vast majority of these users are people like myself – sole proprietors with few if any other employees. 

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that Adobe could lose 50% of their large corporate customers and still survive, but losing 50% of their small business and sole proprietorships would be devastating.

It's not that Adobe doesn't care about these customers, but they have a core responsibility to their stockholders as well and for the company to survive, the Creative Cloud model helped them overcome some specific challenges and by all accounts it's working quite well.

Now, as I said, I'm not disagreeing with your major point or the points made by others, but I did want to make sure everyone understands that the core business for Adobe remains small creative entrepreneurs and one way they serve this market is by offering us the opportunity to obtain the exact same software at $50/month that is available to multinational companies, so that small businesses have the same tools at their fingertips.


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 30, 2017)

Adobe more than likely will survive - it's the independent photographers that will quit using it eventually - either due to the 'worry' about Cloud security, or just the fact it 'may' not always be accessible or economic ... But that's not the high income model for Adobe - so it will take what makes its stockholders the most money ...

Remember Amazon? The Indie Writer's dream - and it kicked off Amazon with no other products and the Indie book revenue built it. Eventually, Amazon moved into other product sales. Now, it's one of the largest retailers in the world. What happened to the Indie Writers that financially built Amazon?

Left in the dust - Amazon no longer cares about Indie Writers ... indies are now small potatoes for the Amazon sales model - and Indies now produce peanuts in income for the Amazon giant - how quickly a large company forgets once it achieves the 'monster status' and packages its assets as stock.

Adobe has decided the independent photographers have become irrelevant. In fact, i doubt Adobe even thinks about independents at all.


----------



## StatisticsRule (Jan 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> StatisticsRule said:
> 
> 
> > I personally think their cloud-only policy will make them about as popular as car rental agencies.
> ...



I agree with you. Some car rental agencies are doing fine.

Likewise, some car dealerships also are doing fine. For whatever reasons they have in mind, Adobe is quitting the dealership and dropping all those paying customers who want long-term ownership. There is a place for both markets and as these posts show, there is demand for both markets. 

Like I said, I personally think the strategy is a long-term loss for the consumer. For those who care about companies, I also think it is a long-term loss for Adobe as well. Only time will tell if I am correct though.


----------



## cayenne (Jan 30, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. *My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month *for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.
> 
> I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.



I'd be b*tching about that too if my $10K-$20K of equipment was fully operational ONLY on the condition I kept paying Canon a monthly rental fee.


----------



## testthewest (Jan 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > I get it. You are either on Adobe payroll or completely brainwashed. There is no logical reason for any customer to be happy about Adobe raking in more money for the same products as always, *BECAUSE IT IS OUR F***ING MONEY!!!*
> ...



That's not what I said or meant. I said: There are people in this very forum that argue that because it makes Adobe money it is a good thing *and*we should be happy about that. It isn't about subscriping or buying, it is about the costs. It is about people that berate the complains of others, because big buissness seemingly isn't making enough money.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 30, 2017)

testthewest said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > testthewest said:
> ...



I don't think anyone has said people should be happy about the decision. It's more a case of, like it or lump it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 30, 2017)

scyrene said:


> testthewest said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Pretty much. It's a pricing model. For some (i.e. those who stay current), it makes it more cost effective. For others (those who stick with a version number for an extended period), it may make it less cost effective.

In either case, the consumer can opt to walk away if it is a bad deal.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 30, 2017)

I have Lr on disc and Ps on disc. I wonder how long it will be before Adobe sends out a malware to inactivate current owners' programs.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 30, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> Adobe softwares are also a piece of crap. I've never used them before and I won't use them after they become cloud only. By the way, photographers do not need any adobe software. In my opinion photography is mainly about the documentation of a moment and/or subject. If you change your photo a much in PS or LR it won't be a "document" anymore. Therefore you don't need a camera, just these crap softwares.
> And before I forget it: cloud is not safe! Adobe uses you private data mainly without your permission. Accounts can be hacked, passwords can be stolen and so your data. Are you sure you want this? The decision is yours.



So you've never used Adobe but you know it is a piece of crap? And you don;t need PS/LR anyway.
So tell me how do you convert raw data to a viewable image?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > Adobe softwares are also a piece of crap. I've never used them before and I won't use them after they become cloud only. By the way, photographers do not need any adobe software. In my opinion photography is mainly about the documentation of a moment and/or subject. If you change your photo a much in PS or LR it won't be a "document" anymore. Therefore you don't need a camera, just these crap softwares.
> ...



Oh, oh, here we go - isn't expecting logic and reasoning a little much. 

Jack


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 31, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > Adobe softwares are also a piece of crap. I've never used them before and I won't use them after they become cloud only. By the way, photographers do not need any adobe software. In my opinion photography is mainly about the documentation of a moment and/or subject. If you change your photo a much in PS or LR it won't be a "document" anymore. Therefore you don't need a camera, just these crap softwares.
> ...



That's just one of the ridiculous parts of the post. Adobe uses private data *without permission*? Prove that and you'll make a class action attorney very happy.


----------



## Untitled (Jan 31, 2017)

ExodistPhotography said:


> Untitled said:
> 
> 
> > Most printers and CNC companies have always asked me for Illustrator files saved out as Illustrator 8, or less. Besides, I already have enough direct debits for my phone, internet, studio rent, etc...
> ...



It's funny, how entering a discussion like this, can easily become a discussion about the person posting a comment.

Well, you're quite right. I'm not a working photographer, but I do use photography in my work. I'm also no accountant, but I'm far from financially inept either. Interesting how you speak of "chump change" and clueless financial management in the same breath.

I use Adobe PS and illustrator, as I said previously, version CS6 of both. Upgraded about 5 years ago and they still function perfectly well on my Mac. With no pressing reason to upgrade my OS, I anticipate using them for quite some time to come. Currently it would cost £17.15 per App per month to use via the CC, which is £411.60 per year. In the same period, at today's price, I would have paid Adobe £2 058.00 just to be able to use, not own, updated versions of both programs.

At the end of the day, it's not even the cost. It's the choice. I want to choose whether or not the features in the software are worth my money, not allow the vendor to do that for me. Plus, if my current set up lasts another 5 years, I'll have saved myself another two thousand pounds.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 31, 2017)

Untitled said:


> At the end of the day, it's not even the cost. It's the choice. I want to choose whether or not the features in the software are worth my money, not allow the vendor to do that for me.



+1 ... exactly!

Leasing has advantages - mainly for Adobe themselves but also for many corporate clients [recurring cost vs. investment] and for all those who do believe, Adobe will always keep them "up to date" and that those updates are all "worthwhile".

Perpetual license is advantageous to many other clients. 

Adobe should offer both options, it would not be difficult to do, since it is purely electronic delivery in both instances. Not doing so will definitely cost them user base. Whether or not that is a good thing for Adobe remains to be seen. I do not think so.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 31, 2017)

Untitled said:


> ExodistPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Untitled said:
> ...



+1 There have been some very rude and silly comments. I use Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and the few features of Acrobat Pro (and find them all clunky and not intuitive). There is no need to use PS as a RAW converter as DPP is always up-to-date and DxO is better (for me anyway because of PRIME) and cheap to upgrade every couple of years. CS6 will work fine for me until it becomes incompatible with Mac OS. Then, I'll choose a non-cloud package. There is an English saying (from a poem by Kipling): He who pays the Danegeld will never get rid of the Dane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 31, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > What are options to migrate from Lightroom to something else? I can import whole my library of RAW files in another product but how can I import all adjustments I made in Lightroom which are stored in Lightroom database or probably XMP files?
> ...



I do not expect LR to make it compatible with other apps. I'm asking which apps can import full set of adjustments I made in LR because if answer is none, the idea about leaving LR and moving on to other app is pointless to me. I don't want to keep TIFF / jpeg and RAW. I want to keep RAW and adjustments and export version I want to use when I need it.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 31, 2017)

Ladislav said:


> I do not expect LR to make it compatible with other apps. I'm asking which apps can import full set of adjustments I made in LR because if answer is none, the idea about leaving LR and moving on to other app is pointless to me. I don't want to keep TIFF / jpeg and RAW. I want to keep RAW and adjustments and export version I want to use when I need it.



I have been tempted to move away from LR myself and have the same reservations. I'm sure if Adobe hacked you off enough you would swallow your pride and make JPEGs of them  And this, of course is where Adobe have their claws in us - is it worth the hassle of converting files etc?
I'm happy enough at the moment to keep with them.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 31, 2017)

Where do I begin. 
Firstly I was an Apple Aperture user until Apple effectively dumped Aperture. It was intuitive to use and "worked" but I & others like me were not important to Apple who gave us the awful trash "Photos". 
So I moved onto LR5 which took some getting used too, was less intuitive than Aperture and I needed to use Photoshop to do finishing which was two programs rather than one as before which hogs more hard drive space and uses more memory. Then Adobe decided we should move to "the cloud" so OK I signed up to the photography bundle of LR CC & Photoshop CC, sure its not expensive by comparison to outright purchase if Adobe do major upgrades per annum but the fact is just like Windows the bulk of what you get is what you already had. I find running in the background Adobe uses too much of our memory and takes time on a M/C with 8GB memory to open up (its fine on my new MacBook Pro with 16gb but slow on my 2015 iMac with 8gb). 
Ive never found Photoshop to be intuitive, its complex and as a result I try and do most of my editing in LR CC only using Photoshop for specialist (to me) actions. Sure they have loads of tutorials but holding down a job, being a Father, DIY around the house etc. means I don't have bundles of time to look at tutorials for something that should be obvious but isn't. 

I'm sure many of you love Photoshop and can wiz around it easily but any software that needs book upon book or tutorial after tutorial to master fails in its first premise which is to be user friendly were not all blest with photographic memories or hours to master something that is where Aperture beat Adobe into a cocked hat. 

So Adobe maybe richer from subscription but I'm not sure the user is.


----------



## K (Feb 4, 2017)

I see it two ways....


First, I've always felt going back to the 1990's that if they made it something reasonable, like $10 a month - everyone would get it and stop pirating and they would make up the loss selling for $699 just for PS through the volume of new users.

The users get legit copies. Clean, virus free. Up to date always. All the newest features. No hassle downloading pirated versions and dealing with the nonsense and uncertainty that goes with it. No weird crashes or glitches because of it being hacked. And no fear and paranoia about getting busted. Official Adobe Support too!!!

When it is on sale, I've seen it as low as $89.95 for 12 months. That's ridiculously low and a good value. How much is your time worth? Do you really want to bother with pirated crap that has keygens or hacked DLL and other files infested with undocumented (aka, virus software doesn't catch) trojans and backdoors?

Of course, not everyone pirates software. But to the value statement, - if photography is your life, this cost is literally nothing. You get the best software suite ever, that allows the most creativity and capability ever. All for retail, non-sale price of $120 a year. That's dirt cheap


Photoshop is a considerably more mature product than LR. They do different things, but PS is so solid in what it is meant to do that buying a copy outright means that unless you need a specific revolutionary tool that comes out in the future, an older version will serve many, many years. I have an older version of PS, it's capabilities are beyond my skill level I cannot harness its power. New versions have better tools that are a bit smarter to save TIME, but they are not revolutionary. 

For LR, it's all about camera support, bug fixes and new features that actually make a difference. I would say that LR is mighty close to becoming a mature product. But it isn't yet. So there's still some reason to upgrade. There's still some workflow and features needed, performance improvement and much more.

Which brings it to my second view, there are a lot of people out there who so long as LR supports their camera -- they are fine using what it has for the life of that body. And some folks do not upgrade bodies for 5+ years. Buying a copy of LR that works with your camera and does everything you need for your photo development needs is a better value. $150 could last as many as 5 to 8 years! The subscription model is too expensive for these folks. These aren't the consumers who need to keep up with the Jones's. They don't want to be tied down to a subscription. And if they hang up the hobby or career for a few years, they can go back in and have full functionality without signing another 1 year subscription. Some folks just don't care for all the latest bells and whistles. They also want something permanent for their money.

Now LR + PS is a good value, but not every photographer wants or uses PS. I barely ever use PS. I'm not into heavy editing of photos. If LR can't do it, then I'm doing too much to the image. That's just my style. 

LR only users who fit the above profile are going to be hurt by subscription only unless Adobe makes it LR only subscription (no PS) for say, $2 a month or something really low. These folks are going to have to pay more, or stop using it or just be happy with the very last stand-alone version of LR.

***

Adobe is making a killing using this method. They are making it up in volume. I personally know many people who never paid for a copy of their Adobe software and used Adobe for more than a decade - who are now subscribers. Now Adobe is making money off of them, because Adobe respected market forces. The market shows that at $10 a month, only kids, students and /or non-serious users bother downloading a pirate copy. These folks aren't using it for anything commercial. If anything, Adobe still wins because all these 14 year olds on torrent sites are learning their product and not a competitors. This keeps Adobe on top. Who cares if they use it for their Instagram, their memes or their websites. If you're making money, you don't have time to fool around with the pirate stuff. And a year subscription is paid with a single quick portrait session easily. The people still pirating it are people who would NEVER buy it under any circumstances. They just don't care enough. They don't have a value for it even if they still want it. There's no getting money from them, the best you can do is deny use. Which has failed since the beginning. Rather than fight this endless cat and mouse game, Adobe is instead bringing in all the willing customers who are willing to pay something. This is a smart move.


Start ups are also now customers. Prior to this, start up artists and photographers simply did not have thousands to spend on the Adobe suite. All the tiny studios and shops - many of them were running pirate software. I started in this world back in 1993. Over the years I've talked to a lot of people and seen a lot. Just reporting what I see. Many were using illegal copies. Now, with the low cost subscription - there's just no reason to do it, and they've all become customers.

Adobe has seriously cut into the 'pirate' market of non-payers and converted them to subscribers by bringing the cost down so low they are challenging the INCONVENIENCE ....

For Non-Pirates, they also brought in many subscribers who were people who neither pirated the software, nor bought it outright. These folks couldn't afford it or were using inferior programs from others. They brought in tons of people under the Adobe roof who could not before but always wanted to.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 6, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> And before I forget it: cloud is not safe! Adobe uses you private data mainly without your permission. Accounts can be hacked, passwords can be stolen and so your data. Are you sure you want this? The decision is yours.



Adobe accounts were already hacked. Surely its never going to happen again - I mean so soon after. I hope? :-X


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 6, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > And before I forget it: cloud is not safe! Adobe uses you private data mainly without your permission. Accounts can be hacked, passwords can be stolen and so your data. Are you sure you want this? The decision is yours.
> ...



I honestly had to wonder who I was giving my Credit card info to when I bought LR. You could get a free copy of LR by downoading the trial, advancing your computers date a few years, then installing and correcting the date. I know someone who ran a copy that way. I assume their payment system is more secure, but as our dear Neuro say, "ASSumptions are dangerous."


----------

