# Adobe Releases Lightroom Classic CC v7.5



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 22, 2018)

> This release of Lightroom Classic CC rolls out new features and enhancements such as Book module update, customizing pages, uploading Presets and Profiles in bulk, support for new cameras and lenses, and bug fixes.
> Book module enhancements
> New Blurb Book styles and Paper type
> In this release of Lightroom Classic CC, two new book types (Blurb Magazine and Blurb Trade Book) and a new paper type (Standard Layflat) have been introduced in the Book module.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 23, 2018)

Still no direct edit support for dual-pixel raw files though


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 23, 2018)

Need to check those book updates. I did a book recently and it was a pain. Lightroom was worse than many free tools from photolabs. Its only benefit was convenience of access to whole catalog, no need to export photos first and saving the book as a new collection but layouts and positioning were five years behind anything else in the market.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 23, 2018)

For me Lightroom has gone to the dogs. It's slow and forever freezing and requiring a restart. Its very memory hungry and each update appears to be more unstable when they are supposed to be doing bug fixes.
What's really irritating is that when you load a raw picture it comes up nice ( I assume its how Canon would see the picture) and then changes to a more duller picture. I'm not sure if the file sizes are smaller that you'd see this happening - the 5DSR photos are quite large as raw files. (It doesn't happen with Jpgs)
The book module is a bit of a dose unless its a relatively small book. The only advantage is you can save it as a PDF for free. If you are printing a book with Blurb you are better off using their software


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 23, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> What's really irritating is that when you load a raw picture it comes up nice ( I assume its how Canon would see the picture) and then changes to a more duller picture.



This isn't Lightroom's fault. When you save a RAW file on your camera it adds a very low resolution JPEG thumbnail to the raw file, which Lightroom displays *until* Lightroom generates its own thumbnail directly from the raw data. The Canon JPEG is generated using Canon's "special sauce" JPEG algorithms which punch up the colour significantly. Lightroom's default thumbnail interpretation of the RAW file is more "honest".


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 23, 2018)

I'm annoyed they didn't remove the "fans on full blast" feature.


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 23, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> What's really irritating is that when you load a raw picture it comes up nice ( I assume its how Canon would see the picture) and then changes to a more duller picture. I'm not sure if the file sizes are smaller that you'd see this happening - the 5DSR photos are quite large as raw files. (It doesn't happen with Jpgs)



That's what RAW processing is about. You loose all the default processing from camera and go with the negative (RAW file) - you need to process it to get the picture you like. The benefit is that you can get much more than default in camera processing can do, you have full control and you can get a creative look. The disadvantage is that it takes a lot of time if you do that for every single photo you take.

It means you need to figure out what your workflow is and how to quickly sort out which photos are keepers and which are not. You can still get very good fast results similar to in-camera processing. There are plenty of presets in Lightroom (you can add yours as well or buy more online) and camera profiles which can simulate a lot of what in-camera processing does for you by default. So if you don't like spending time on RAW processing you can use that for large batches while still keeping flexibility of getting back to pictures where you want to be creative and don't want to use out of the box look.

If you want the image processed by camera you need to shoot JPEG (or JPEG and RAW) with all the massive disadvantages and limitations the format brings.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 23, 2018)

Indeed - and in fact, Adobe has gone to the trouble of creating reasonable facsimiles of Canon's Picture Styles for those users who believe that Canon knows better than they do how the picture should look.


----------



## RGF (Aug 23, 2018)

too bad they did not fit auto stacking. A good HDR autostack function is needed as well as auto stacking for Pans and focus stacking


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 23, 2018)

Can you buy this is as a once off payment? No. Bye.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 23, 2018)

RGF said:


> too bad they did not fit auto stacking. A good HDR autostack function is needed as well as auto stacking for Pans and focus stacking


 
On a bright and shining day in the future cameras will have an option to mark bracketed photos for HDR processing in post (c.f. the previous DPOF button that no-one never used) and Lightroom will act on that tag. First-world problem I know, but an easy one to fix.

Jim


----------



## stevelee (Aug 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> This isn't Lightroom's fault. When you save a RAW file on your camera it adds a very low resolution JPEG thumbnail to the raw file, which Lightroom displays *until* Lightroom generates its own thumbnail directly from the raw data. The Canon JPEG is generated using Canon's "special sauce" JPEG algorithms which punch up the colour significantly. Lightroom's default thumbnail interpretation of the RAW file is more "honest".



And then you should be able to punch it up to your heart's content in LR.


----------



## oss (Aug 24, 2018)

I know this is my first post, I have been a lurker for a long time.

I am actively trying to get away from Lightroom, I have bought every version (eventually) but on my own schedule rather than theirs, nothing in this new version is relevant to me, all my Canon camera bodies are fairly old apart from the 7Dmkii and my lenses are all last generation (at least since the 70-200 f4 update ) I get nothing from the subscription currently, version 6 was ok but I would have liked to have it on more than two laptops, there is only me and I can only use one at a time but I have many laptops and it would have been nice to have it on more than two.

The main problem in trying to escape their clutches is the catalogue media management partly because it is good, I think they use SQLite as the database and a very fine database that is however I am going to use SQL Server Express and I think it will be quicker, I've already written a scanner and database schema which will automatically de-duplicate or rather show me duplicates if they exist, the scanner decomposes a file system path into its fundamental elements, I use it in other commercial applications but really want to use it for my photography as well.

My intention is to initially create a replacement for Lightroom's catalogues including all the metadata management, some of that might be hard but I'm only going to support CR2 files to start with, probably JPG and TIFF as well but no other manufacturer's proprietary formats, I'm old still working and I only have so much time on my hands 

It might never happen, I am getting old but I am also getting angry  

I looked at Luminar and I do quite like it, I found it can be launched from the command line with a filename parameter however it is a bit stupid about where it writes the .lmnr file when you save, so if I manage to build an asset manger I hope to be able to launch various editors and Luminar would be one possible candidate, the problem these days is that all of these external editors are quite heavy processes to launch, some more so than others. 

If I do this it will be Windows only at least to start with, Canon and common file formats only, it won't be commercial and it won't be on an ad stuffed website, but as I said might never happen, I've started a lot of projects over the years that I never finished 

Just angry at Adobe taking away the perpetual licence with version 7


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 24, 2018)

oss said:


> My intention is to initially create a replacement for Lightroom's catalogues including all the metadata management, some of that might be hard but I'm only going to support CR2 files to start with



Not exactly sure what are you trying to do and if it is even worth it. Most of processing of the CR2 is specific to Camera RAW / Lightroom and is not transferable to another editor. EXIF and IPTC metadata may be stored directly in CR2 files (not sure about that) so the only thing which you may want to "replace" is some library features like collections, keywording, etc. Perhaps you should first check if a new manager you want to use does not have import from Lightroom or if one is not already available from someone else.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 25, 2018)

bergstrom said:


> Can you buy this is as a once off payment? No. Bye.


Did you buy your internet or phone services as a one-off payment?

Just wondering what the difference is...


----------



## Kit. (Aug 25, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Did you buy your internet or phone services as a one-off payment?
> 
> Just wondering what the difference is...


If your internet provider goes out of business, hopefully you can still buy internet access from another one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2018)

Analogy aside there is an oft misunderstood aspect of Lightroom subscription many just don't understand. If you stop paying then the program still opens and all your images are still visible, you can still export any or all images with the edits you originally made, nothing to do with your image files is lost or inaccessible ever. Some of the modules won't open, Book, Map etc.


----------



## LDS (Aug 25, 2018)

oss said:


> I think they use SQLite as the database and a very fine database that is however I am going to use SQL Server Express and I think it will be quicker,



AFAIK SQL Server Express is limited to a 10GB database (plus other limitations) - it could be quicker or slower, depending on many factors. Adobe required also something that could work on macOS, and even Android/iOS.

Yet I would like to see LR supporting an external database and allow a catalog to be used by concurrent users - even if I'm afraid if it even happens, it will happen now in the cloud.


----------



## LDS (Aug 25, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Did you buy your internet or phone services as a one-off payment?
> Just wondering what the difference is...



Could you buy the Internet or a phone network? Yet some people prefer to buy an house instead of renting it. 


That's the difference.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 25, 2018)

LDS said:


> Could you buy the Internet or a phone network? Yet some people prefer to buy an house instead of renting it.
> 
> 
> That's the difference.


And thats the point, for some people it is smarter to buy, for others it is smarter to rent, one isn't 'right' and the other 'wrong' and people shouldn't criticize people that think a different path from theirs is wrong.

They also shouldn't criticize companies that choose to become rental agents, if it suits you sign up, if it doesn't don't.


----------



## oss (Aug 28, 2018)

LDS said:


> AFAIK SQL Server Express is limited to a 10GB database (plus other limitations) - it could be quicker or slower, depending on many factors. Adobe required also something that could work on macOS, and even Android/iOS.
> Yet I would like to see LR supporting an external database and allow a catalog to be used by concurrent users - even if I'm afraid if it even happens, it will happen now in the cloud.



You can get a hell of a lot of file data (which is tiny) stored in 10GB, say you allocated 10,000 bytes per file (far too much) then you can manage 100,000 files in around 1GB (I'm not going to work out the GiB values )

In reality I am talking about a fully normalised database (I've built it already) which reduces the space requirement by a huge amount, a couple of thousand bytes should be able to accommodate a description of any file probably including the key EXIF data I want to record plus tagging and descriptions and so on.

I'm only building this for myself, if it proves useful to others that will be a bonus.


----------



## oss (Aug 28, 2018)

Ladislav said:


> Not exactly sure what are you trying to do and if it is even worth it. Most of processing of the CR2 is specific to Camera RAW / Lightroom and is not transferable to another editor. EXIF and IPTC metadata may be stored directly in CR2 files (not sure about that) so the only thing which you may want to "replace" is some library features like collections, keywording, etc. Perhaps you should first check if a new manager you want to use does not have import from Lightroom or if one is not already available from someone else.



I want to build a catalogue manager that supports multiple image editors, I like Lightroom's develop module but the bit that matters to me is the catalogue, I could put up with XMP sidecar files from an external editor as long as I could easily tie them to the CR2's somehow so location and naming matter to me, I don't care about which editor people choose, for me it might be Luminar, I quite liked it but as long as I can see a picture in my catalogue and launch it in one or another editor then I am going to be happy.

I am not attempting to retain my existing edit history (I have earlier Lightroom editions for that) and I am not attempting to provide a processing preview of the images.

As I said I am just building it for myself, it might seem petty just to save £9.98 a month but I only use Lightroom maybe three times a year and usually I would have stuck with a version for maybe two or three generations, so I would have been happy to pay £120 every couple of years but not every year.

I made the mistake of trying out the CC version so I have about three catalogues with a lot adjustments and I would have to redo that editing in another editor but I have 15 years of other images that I would like to nicely index and the other media managers I have tried are not as nice as Lightroom.

As a developer I am all behind the don't reinvent the wheel principle, I totally agree, but everything I have looked at so far is basically little more than a file system browser, no contextual search features and as a database developer I will have fun doing it my own way


----------



## Durf (Aug 28, 2018)

oss said:


> I want to build a catalogue manager that supports multiple image editors, I like Lightroom's develop module but the bit that matters to me is the catalogue, I could put up with XMP sidecar files from an external editor as long as I could easily tie them to the CR2's somehow so location and naming matter to me, I don't care about which editor people choose, for me it might be Luminar, I quite liked it but as long as I can see a picture in my catalogue and launch it in one or another editor then I am going to be happy.
> 
> I am not attempting to retain my existing edit history (I have earlier Lightroom editions for that) and I am not attempting to provide a processing preview of the images.
> 
> ...



Isn't adobe bridge free? I don't use it but heard its a good file manager....


----------



## stevelee (Aug 28, 2018)

I really like Bridge. I import pictures to my computer into folders by date. Then I'll put the folders into a bigger folder by name of trip or subject matter. For example, I have a folder named "Hawaii" that contains all the photo folders from the dates I was there. Thus the organization is in place almost immediately after I import the photos. My system might not work for somebody who shoots hundreds of weddings a year, but it works for me and fits how I think much better than dealing with Lightroom's database.

In Bridge, then, I see thumbnails of all of my photos for a day on the screen, and in traveling dates correspond to locations.

I think anybody can download and use Bridge, but its real usefulness is how well it works with Photoshop with ACR, and I guess Lightroom. For panoramas and HDR, it works better for me than the equivalent directly in Photoshop. I open multiple pictures in filmstrip mode, and use the almost-hidden little menu above the thumbnails to trigger the combination. After the screen to allow some tweaking of the process, it creates a new dmg file that you then can work on in ACR and then transfer the result to Photoshop. Maybe some of that can work with third party apps, but I've had no reason to try.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2018)

Durf said:


> Isn't adobe bridge free? I don't use it but heard its a good file manager....


Bridge is 'free' only with select Adobe products, like Photoshop.

The thing I find most useful about Bridge is it's ability to 'see' a lot more file types than Lightroom, I sometimes output print files to pdf and then Lightroom becomes useless whereas Bridge keeps everything neat.


----------



## Durf (Aug 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Bridge is 'free' only with select Adobe products, like Photoshop.
> 
> The thing I find most useful about Bridge is it's ability to 'see' a lot more file types than Lightroom, I sometimes output print files to pdf and then Lightroom becomes useless whereas Bridge keeps everything neat.



I may be wrong, but, its my understanding that Adobe Bridge is free regardless if you own or subscribe to any other Adobe products such as Lightroom/Photoshop, etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2018)

Durf said:


> I may be wrong, but, its my understanding that Adobe Bridge is free regardless if you own or subscribe to any other Adobe products such as Lightroom/Photoshop, etc.


You are correct, I was wrong and going on the old way. I don't know when it changed but the ability to download it and use it is now absolutely free, you just need to register with Adobe but that can be a throwaway address.


----------



## Durf (Aug 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> You are correct, I was wrong and going on the old way. I don't know when it changed but the ability to download it and use it is now absolutely free, you just need to register with Adobe but that can be a throwaway address.



I'm gonna take a good look at it tonight when I get home from work; I'm using ON1 as a stand alone editor now and it's working pretty good for me but it doesn't have a good DAM system. 
If I was going to use Bridge I'd still have to use ON1 for moving things around and totally would have to do some other testing with Bridge to see how ON1's sidecar files react.....


----------



## oss (Aug 28, 2018)

Durf said:


> Isn't adobe bridge free? I don't use it but heard its a good file manager....



A catalogue manger and a file manager are two different things.

I must confess I have only indirectly used Adobe Bridge.


----------



## LDS (Aug 28, 2018)

oss said:


> You can get a hell of a lot of file data (which is tiny) stored in 10GB



Still, it's an hard limit you may hit. There are people who have LR catalogs larger than 10GB. You may store less data than LR, true.


----------



## oss (Aug 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Bridge is 'free' only with select Adobe products, like Photoshop.
> 
> The thing I find most useful about Bridge is it's ability to 'see' a lot more file types than Lightroom, I sometimes output print files to pdf and then Lightroom becomes useless whereas Bridge keeps everything neat.



Interesting, so my posting here is not just a throwaway, thanks I will try to learn from this and I'll look into Bridge in more detail.


----------



## LDS (Aug 28, 2018)

stevelee said:


> I import pictures to my computer into folders by date. Then I'll put the folders into a bigger folder by name of trip or subject matter.



That's what (smart) collection are for in LR. The advantage is you can have the same photo in more than one collection, regardless of their organization on disk, and you can add/remove them at will without ever moving the photos on disk once imported, which simplify backups. Smart collection "automatically updates" because their are based on search criteria.

The disadvantage is it works in LR only, thus if you also use other tools is less useful, although you can easily open the folder where the photo is from LR.


----------



## oss (Aug 28, 2018)

LDS said:


> Still, it's an hard limit you may hit. There are people who have LR catalogs larger than 10GB. You may store less data than LR, true.


Seriously?

My god Lightroom must be really inefficient, catalogues and catalogues + files are a different thing, I have 50 Gb worth of files in one catalogue but the database is tiny, if the catalogue file database is that large it is surely seriously fragmented?

I think you are confusing the combination of the image files and the database as opposed to the database, the images are not stored in the SQLite database that Lightroom uses.

The only data in the SQLite database is the file metadata, adjustments and the location of the physcial .CR2 the file itself is not actually stored in the database.

It should never grow out of control even with hundreds of thousands of images in a single catalogue, however lightroom does slow down terribly when you get significant numbers of files in the
database say 20,000 or 40,000 I have that many and there is no good reason for that being slow on a modern database, I mean these are tiny numbers there is no reason for it to be that slow.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> The thing I find most useful about Bridge is it's ability to 'see' a lot more file types than Lightroom, I sometimes output print files to pdf and then Lightroom becomes useless whereas Bridge keeps everything neat.



+1

I add to this that I like the sort function, the ability to use it in full screen view and with the left right toggle quickly star, or delete a file while looking at a pic that fills the screen.


----------



## oss (Aug 28, 2018)

LDS said:


> That's what (smart) collection are for in LR. The advantage is you can have the same photo in more than one collection, regardless of their organization on disk, and you can add/remove them at will without ever moving the photos on disk once imported, which simplify backups. Smart collection "automatically updates" because their are based on search criteria.
> 
> The disadvantage is it works in LR only, thus if you also use other tools is less useful, although you can easily open the folder where the photo is from LR.



A collection of any kind is just a set of file pointers grouped by a key value, you can add any criteria you like in terms of building a collection it's a trivial exercise in database programming but we pay Adobe and many others fortune for this.

I sound more aggressive than I should I am not getting at anyone even Adobe, just stating that I think they could have engineered it better, to be honest they could probably have done a better job even with SQLite because it is a damn good wee database.

I'll come back when I have something to show  or maybe not because I'm a lazy old fart 

I love Canon Rumors though  and will keep reading!


----------



## Durf (Aug 28, 2018)

Nope; Bridge won't work for me....if it could read ON1's sidecars it would be perfect!
(it's perfect for Adobe products though)


----------



## Frodo (Aug 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Analogy aside there is an oft misunderstood aspect of Lightroom subscription many just don't understand. If you stop paying then the program still opens and all your images are still visible, you can still export any or all images with the edits you originally made, nothing to do with your image files is lost or inaccessible ever. Some of the modules won't open, Book, Map etc.


Hey Private
If I move to CC and keep LR 6, and then later drop CC, what happens to functionaility if I go back to LR6? Can I add the CC catalog to the LR6 catalog? Do I have access to CC edits? Or do I have to reimport all the CC images?
Thanks


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2018)

Frodo said:


> Hey Private
> If I move to CC and keep LR 6, and then later drop CC, what happens to functionaility if I go back to LR6? Can I add the CC catalog to the LR6 catalog? Do I have access to CC edits? Or do I have to reimport all the CC images?
> Thanks


As I understand it, and I'd email Adobe for a definitive answer, the CC library can't be used/read by LR6 so you'd have to export your CC edits and reimport them into LR6. Also, obviously, any feature that wasn't available in LR6 but was in CC you wouldn't have any further control of.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2018)

Durf said:


> Nope; Bridge won't work for me....if it could read ON1's sidecars it would be perfect!
> (it's perfect for Adobe products though)


Bridge just reads and writes to open source XMP files, PS and LR give you the option to write changes to the image file or XMP (for PS) or the Library or XMP (for LR). 

Doesn't ON1 give you the option to write to XMP?


----------



## Durf (Aug 29, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Bridge just reads and writes to open source XMP files, PS and LR give you the option to write changes to the image file or XMP (for PS) or the Library or XMP (for LR).
> 
> Doesn't ON1 give you the option to write to XMP?



Yes, Bridge will read the meta data but not the ON1 edit record....I'd have to save all my edits in ON1 as tiff's or dng's etc for Bridge to let me see what my ON1 processed images look like.


----------



## LDS (Aug 29, 2018)

oss said:


> Seriously?
> I think you are confusing the combination of the image files and the database as opposed to the database, the images are not stored in the SQLite database that Lightroom uses.



No. It looks that depends on, besides how many images you have - which aren't in the database, nor the previews-, which data are recorded and stored inside the daabase - i.e. the change history, keywords, collections, etc. etc. If you perform a lot of editing in LR you'll have more data per image then someone who performs minimal edits only.

I just checked one of my catalogue and with about 7.500 images is already over 1GB, and it doesn't shrink after maintenance.

The fact is with artificially limited database engines some heavy users could hit the limits - and you can't really ask them to buy an expensive database engine if they wish to keep on working., so I can't really blame Adobe choice of SQLite, lightweight and powerful enough for single user needs.


----------



## oss (Aug 29, 2018)

LDS said:


> No. It looks that depends on, besides how many images you have - which aren't in the database, nor the previews-, which data are recorded and stored inside the daabase - i.e. the change history, keywords, collections, etc. etc. If you perform a lot of editing in LR you'll have more data per image then someone who performs minimal edits only.
> 
> I just checked one of my catalogue and with about 7.500 images is already over 1GB, and it doesn't shrink after maintenance.
> 
> The fact is with artificially limited database engines some heavy users could hit the limits - and you can't really ask them to buy an expensive database engine if they wish to keep on working., so I can't really blame Adobe choice of SQLite, lightweight and powerful enough for single user needs.



Fair enough but I won't be storing edits in the database, just locations, metadata, collections and tags, edits will have to be stored in the manner chosen by the developers of each editor.

I'm just a solo developer I'm writing a catalogue manager for organising and finding my images, I'm not writing an editor, it is extremely likely that Adobe employed and employ a fair sized team to build and maintain Lightroom. I am a professional software developer and currently work on and maintain a large ERP system designed for a specific vertical market, database sizing is part of the job and in my opinion SQL Server Express will be perfect for what I want to achieve, plus this will be non commercial I'm not asking anyone to buy it. And yes SQLite is really good it is a great wee database. 

For info I just checked my main photo drive and the largest .lrcat file I have is 215 MB that's out of about 96 lrcat files most of which are the lrcat files for earlier Lightroom versions.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 30, 2018)

Kit. said:


> If your internet provider goes out of business, hopefully you can still buy internet access from another one.


And you can always move to another raw converter - nobody is _inextricably locked in_ to Lr, and most of the competition provide Lr database import tools.

I did it myself - and I'm fine with the idea of "renting" Lr. I just wasn't using it, because frankly there are far better converters out there. So I cancelled.

I didn't feel the need to make a _Cause célèbre _out of it, though.

But that's not the point. If people are OK _in principle _with internet (or phone) access _as a service_ - or household water, gas and electricity provision (and we are) - it baffles me why paying for Lr on a subscription basis is seen as such a sin against God. We "rent" tons of stuff. Why should being presented with only the option of renting Lr, be taken so _personally? _

If people don't like it, don't do it - but for pity's sake I wish they would _stop yammering on about it..._


----------



## oss (Aug 31, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> And you can always move to another raw converter - nobody is _inextricably locked in_ to Lr, and most of the competition provide Lr database import tools.
> 
> I did it myself - and I'm fine with the idea of "renting" Lr. I just wasn't using it, because frankly there are far better converters out there. So I cancelled.
> 
> ...



It's price vs usage, you said it yourself, I rent a flat, and a house in another country, the internet in two countries and loads of other things but most of these I use all the time so I get something for my money, for me Lightroom gets used a few times a year and I love Lightroom but the rent is too steep for what I get from it.

Not the end of the world but I would like some more control over the price.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 31, 2018)

oss said:


> It's price vs usage,.



And many people think that LightRoom _and _PhotoShop for the price of a bottle of wine a month is the bargain of the century - but it's almost a heresy, it would appear, for anyone's personal cost/benefit analysis to favour that outcome.

The hatred some people have for Adobe over their pricing/licencing decisions is utterly irrational, not least because (typical of fundamentalists and zealots everywhere), only a "price vs usage" decision that comes down firmly _against_ the rental model, is apparently acceptable.

_And they do their ranting while happily paying for their internet access in exactly the same way..._


----------

