# CAPTURE ONE PRO IS NOW SUBSCRIPTION BASED TOO.



## bergstrom (Aug 23, 2019)

Just found out about this. Didn't think they would follow the Adobe rip off plan, but I guess at least the stand alone version is still available as a once off purchase.


----------



## EduPortas (Aug 23, 2019)

There's always Canon DPP.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 23, 2019)

Companies are affected by swings in sales, and very drastically. The subscription mode lets them have a more stable and predictable income from month to month. That means they can hire employees and know that paychecks can be met.

I don't see it as a rip-off at all, but some who seldom use the software can be hurt because the cost is too high. For them, there is always software that is aimed at their kind of usage. Pro level software is aimed at pro users.

Perhaps the next evolution will be priced on a per photo edited plan, 2 cents a image?


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 23, 2019)

Hi Mt Spokane. 
As per usual you have explained the case ‘for’ accurately and the against politely! 
Unfortunately for most users of most software I can see most software ending up subscription based for the cash flow reasons you state. I say unfortunately as most of us have many programs that we only use occasionally and those would not be viable for most of us to subscribe to. 
We should not be surprised as the programs we love go subscription, and do we really need a fuss about each one? 

Cheers, Graham. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Companies are affected by swings in sales, and very drastically. The subscription mode lets them have a more stable and predictable income from month to month. That means they can hire employees and know that paychecks can be met.
> 
> I don't see it as a rip-off at all, but some who seldom use the software can be hurt because the cost is too high. For them, there is always software that is aimed at their kind of usage. Pro level software is aimed at pro users.
> 
> Perhaps the next evolution will be priced on a per photo edited plan, 2 cents a image?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 23, 2019)

As a software developer I much prefer selling on subscriptions. It is much easier to manage the income and stops the need to produce these big changes to justify selling folks version 2.0. Subscriptions create a environment where software is upgraded incrementally and at a much more steady pace.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 23, 2019)

EduPortas said:


> There's always Canon DPP.


But only for Canon cameras...


----------



## gwooding (Aug 23, 2019)

This is nothing new, I don't remember exactly when they introduced the subscription option but it was a number of years ago. My biggest gripe with Capture One has been the ever increasing upgrade costs. When Capture One 12 was released it was going to cost me in the region of $180 to upgrade my 11 license. Sure 12 had some nice new features but I did not believe the cost was warranted so I didn't upgrade my license.

About a month ago I was offered a special upgrade price of around $100 which I did (at the time when 12 came out I probably would have paid up to $120). When 13 comes out in probably another month I will not pay the probable $180 to upgrade to it. Personally I am not a fan of subscription services so avoid them if possible, but I do believe they can be beneficial to many people (especially if you don't keep it always active and hence save a ton of money).

What is interesting about the Capture One subscriptions is that they (if you take into account upgrading a normal license every year) are not much cheaper than buying and upgrading the stand alone product. Then again with a stand alone license upgrading each year is really not needed.


----------



## EduPortas (Aug 23, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> But only for Canon cameras...



This is CR. Other camera brands don't matter, hehe ;]


----------



## cayenne (Aug 23, 2019)

Codebunny said:


> As a software developer I much prefer selling on subscriptions. It is much easier to manage the income and stops the need to produce these big changes to justify selling folks version 2.0. Subscriptions create a environment where software is upgraded incrementally and at a much more steady pace.



Or it just locks you in, and you have steady revenue, but really aren't obligated to do much innovation or improvements in any type of timely manner.

Unless, there are alternatives.

the good thing about this is, there seem to be viable alternatives to Adobe and now even Capture One that are still in the buy a perpetual license type software, and then the company is pretty much driven to do valid, meaningful improvements in order to entice people to upgrade.

I guess subscription is good for a company that has a product that they feel has reached the zenith of its development and there really isn't any room for improvement, eh?

cayenne


----------



## Lurker (Aug 23, 2019)

> For them, there is always software that is aimed at their kind of usage. Pro level software is aimed at pro users.



Kind of an elitist, self-aggrandizing statement and post. You basically say you don't mind the plan, it's pro software for pros. Implication is that you are a pro and anyone that doesn't like subscription software is not, they are lesser than you. I'm not convinced that is true.

I personally don't care if it's good for the company, it was bad for me. I've moved on but I miss some features of the software even though I rarely used the software.

There are a lot of reasons to want to use Adobe products including but not limited to, training, tips and tricks from Adobe, third party users and education specialists. Don't forget the features and abilities of the software itself and the third party plugins. Feature set does not equal frequency of use.

From my perspective subscription software forces all users to pay for new features that they may or may not value. It gets the masses to pay for features that may only be needed/wanted by a few users. It may force users to upgrade hardware or accept slower performance.

What would happen if Canon went to subscription hardware? If you want to use Canon hardware you have to send in a check for $1000 (or any other amount) a month. For that you can request a new 90D as soon as it's available or a 1D X or any R or M camera. At any time you can request a 400 DO II, 600 III, tilt-shift, or 180 macro. Some people might be all over that, it may be good for their business. It would be hard for many to justify getting into the Canon ecosystem.

Our reality now is the subscription is one part of the competition equation. For many it has eliminated Adobe from the list of options but that also means the features and abilities of the software are lost. What people are really saying is they like the current feature set of Adobe products and are willing to buy those features. They are also willing to pay again for new features they need or want. They just want to control their own cash flows. What is good for a business is not necessarily good for a person.

I personally don't understand why Adobe doesn't support subscription for those that value that experience and traditional licensing model for those that value that arrangement. I think what you'd find is that the subscription model would enter the death spiral.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 23, 2019)

Lurker said:


> I personally don't understand why Adobe doesn't support subscription for those that value that experience and traditional licensing model for those that value that arrangement. I think what you'd find is that the subscription model would enter the death spiral.



That is proven to be entirely false. Adobe value has done nothing but climb since moving to a subscription plan for their professional orientated software, they still have Elements etc with stand alone licenses for what they consider to be the non pro market.

But you are missing half the equation, for the professional user, who by the very definition is a company, it is much nicer/easier/cost effective to pay a modest subscription/lease that is 100% deductible in that same financial year than to find a one off $100's or $1,000's fee every two or three years that has to be written down and depreciated.

It is business software aimed at and tailored to businesses, the arrangement suits both parties, that isn't elitist, it is just a fact.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 23, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> But you are missing half the equation, for the professional user, who by the very definition is a company, it is much nicer/easier/cost effective to pay a modest subscription/lease that is 100% deductible in that same financial year than to find a one off $100's or $1,000's fee every two or three years that has to be written down and depreciated.



You don't have to depreciate over time.

I know with my company and others I know of and work with, we're not having to depreciate purchases like this over time. Granted, I'm not huge or large....but I write off 100% of my software and hardware changes every year in full.

I'm guessing it is beneficial for some companies to depreciate over time, but you don't HAVE to.

So, you buy software you can write it off in full that same year....it too is fully deductible.

C


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 23, 2019)

Even if you can do that it is a darn sight easier for a smaller company/one man band to find $10-50 a month than $2,000 as a lump sum every couple of years.


cayenne said:


> You don't have to depreciate over time.
> 
> I know with my company and others I know of and work with, we're not having to depreciate purchases like this over time. Granted, I'm not huge or large....but I write off 100% of my software and hardware changes every year in full.
> 
> ...


A lot depends on where you live and the interpretations of the EULA of the software. Most income tax jurisdictions differentiate between purchases that last/are intended to be used beyond the tax year they are purchased, so the Adobe stand alone suit for many people was considered a depreciable asset that took several tax years to write down, however I don't know of a single country that considers a monthly lease a depreciable asset, it is a lease and fully deductible in the tax year it is spent.

Across the board monthly leasing has advantages for businesses that do not translate well to non professional/business environments.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2019)

cayenne said:


> You don't have to depreciate over time.
> 
> I know with my company and others I know of and work with, we're not having to depreciate purchases like this over time. Granted, I'm not huge or large....but I write off 100% of my software and hardware changes every year in full.
> 
> ...



The problem with that is that you are depleting your cash reserves with upfront costs. It's basic business 101 that you should conserve your cash. Leasing is popular with businesses not just because of the tax benefits, but because it also avoids having to make and possibly finance major purchases up front.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 23, 2019)

unfocused said:


> The problem with that is that you are depleting your cash reserves with upfront costs. It's basic business 101 that you should conserve your cash. Leasing is popular with businesses not just because of the tax benefits, but because it also avoids having to make and possibly finance major purchases up front.


Exactly. That is what so many of the people who complain about the Adobe subscription model just don't seem to get, the software and the way to pay for it are both focused on business users, not part time or hobbyist users.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 23, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Exactly. That is what so many of the people who complain about the Adobe subscription model just don't seem to get, the software and the way to pay for it are both focused on business users, not part time or hobbyist users.


It also has made it difficult for those who made illegal copies, so people have had to pay.

I do wish there was a model for infrequent users, but to do that might be too difficult and easy to hack. I don't think people would want Adobe checking each photo. Perhaps there could be a model where you prepay by the hour for usage. I don't think they believe that there is much demand for something like that.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 23, 2019)

Lurker said:


> Kind of an elitist, self-aggrandizing statement and post.


No, it's just market economy, the point where the supply and the demand currently meet.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 23, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It also has made it difficult for those who made illegal copies, so people have had to pay.
> 
> I do wish there was a model for infrequent users, but to do that might be too difficult and easy to hack. I don't think people would want Adobe checking each photo. Perhaps there could be a model where you prepay by the hour for usage. I don't think they believe that there is much demand for something like that.


No, it is easier to download an illegal copy than it is to register an account, give Adobe your CC details (which they have proven to be insecure with), make sure your ISP aligns with what they believe it should be given your address (can't have people paying a few cents less because they live in another country), receive confirmation email, then activate. 

It is way way easier to get that pirated copy even of CC.

I agree it would be nice if there was an infrequent user option, but you can see the arguments on that, would it be running time or number of images, people would moan about both!


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 23, 2019)

I don't mind subscribing if it was at a lower price, all i want is lr classic, ps and camera raw. nothing else. no 20terabites of cloud space or whatever. just those 3 things.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 23, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> I don't mind subscribing if it was at a lower price, all i want is lr classic, ps and camera raw. nothing else. no 20terabites of cloud space or whatever. just those 3 things.


How is $7.99 a month not a fair price for those three and ignore the 'free' 20GB, I do.


----------



## bergstrom (Aug 24, 2019)

well I'm paying 12,99?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2019)

Like most things, you have to be smart about it. Once or twice a year Adobe and or B&H/Adorama/whoever do a special offer, you can buy as many years as you want ahead of time and it doesn't matter if your renewal is due then it just starts when your renewal starts. 

This year B&H had a $25 credit against anything else, that brought my regular $9.99 per month down to $7.90 per month, and who doesn't spend $25 at B&H during a lifetime?


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 24, 2019)

Hi pbd. 
My guess on who, would be somewhere around 90-95% of the photographers in the world allowing for some overseas sales as they will ship overseas! 
This involves making a huge, HUGE I SAY assumption that photographers are spread evenly throughout the population of the world, and this is just to make the maths simple enough to bother replying to this question!   
It is very easy to forget that the huge USA only account for around 4.4 to 4.5% of the population of this fair planet! 
Whether Adobe would honour the overseas purchase of the offer is highly doubtful! 

Cheers, Graham. 
Ps, this is just in fun, feel free to pick holes in my argument or to burn this heretic at the stake! I have thick skin, bring plenty of lighter fluid! 



privatebydesign said:


> and who doesn't spend $25 at B&H during a lifetime?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2019)

Good points Graham, but we were talking US$ so there was an obvious, if unreasonable, limitation/assumption in the question. 

I could go on to say Adobe income by area is around 60% in 'the Americas', EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) accounts for a mere 28% and Asia a paltry 14% but we'd just be nitpicking by that point 



https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/investor-relations/pdfs/31218102/ctNM39oQzle4.pdf


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2019)

Didn't Lightroom / Photoshop cost a few hundred dollars as stand alone programs? I think I remember they did. To me, $9.99 a month is a deal with free updates too. We're talking $120 a year. Heck, I spend about $7 a week on coffee (Make my own.). I don't understand why people say Adobe is ripping people off. I should stop drinking coffee and my $8 bottle of wine every two weeks. Now that is pissing my money away.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 24, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It also has made it difficult for those who made illegal copies, so people have had to pay.
> 
> I do wish there was a model for infrequent users, but to do that might be too difficult and easy to hack. I don't think people would want Adobe checking each photo. Perhaps there could be a model where you prepay by the hour for usage. I don't think they believe that there is much demand for something like that.



From what I've read and am to understand, CC was cracked pretty quickly after it came out and it is still fairly easy to get a cracked copy of Adobe products if you want to go that route....


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2019)

cayenne said:


> From what I've read and am to understand, CC was cracked pretty quickly after it came out and it is still fairly easy to get a cracked copy of Adobe products if you want to go that route....


I remember buying a copy of Photoshop on eBay 10 years ago because the price was so low. Think I paid over $100. It didn't come in a box, but the disk looked original. I was able to register it too. I guess it was probably a pirated disk.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 24, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I remember buying a copy of Photoshop on eBay 10 years ago because the price was so low. Think I paid over $100. It didn't come in a box, but the disk looked original. I was able to register it too. I guess it was probably a pirated disk.




I can understand folks doing this, especially if just starting out, broke college student, etc.....but when you get out and get a 'real job' I think it best to pay for what you get.

Pirated software often drives paying users, I mean that's one real reason MS Windows gained such a stronghold from the early days.

But in the mean time, I still have a problem with "renting" my software and I've expressed that countless times here before.

Right now, I'm having plenty of fun using alternates to Adobe like:

On1 RAW in lieu or Lightroom
Affinity Photo in lieu of Photoshop
Davinci Resolve and Fusion in lieu of Premier and After Effects (I'm still just new and learning these, I also like FCPX tho).

So far I've found these to be quite sufficient for my photo/video needs.

I'm also dabbling around with:

Affinity Designer and Affinity Publisher as I'm able to find time. I like that they're not on the rental merry go round.....and I'm seeing with both Affinity and now even with new releases of On1, that they are coming up with great ways to have their application interconnect and interact more and more, much like Adobe products do.

I think everyone should be happy that Adobe has competition....as that it is always good to have alternates...AND should help to keep Adobe on its toes and push them to keep innovating at least a little bit.

My $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 24, 2019)

cayenne said:


> From what I've read and am to understand, CC was cracked pretty quickly after it came out and it is still fairly easy to get a cracked copy of Adobe products if you want to go that route....


Adobe used exactly the same 'phone home' protocol pre and post CC, it was 'cracked' within a couple of days of release.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2019)

cayenne said:


> I can understand folks doing this, especially if just starting out, broke college student, etc.....but when you get out and get a 'real job' I think it best to pay for what you get.
> 
> Pirated software often drives paying users, I mean that's one real reason MS Windows gained such a stronghold from the early days.
> 
> ...


Everyone has their preference. I never thought about my copy being pirated. I guess somebody could have got it in a deal from one of the big camera outlets with a purchase and didn't need it. Who knows? Had I suspected it was pirated, I would not have bought, job or no job. Just not how I roll.

Still, I don't know why people say Adobe is ripping people off. There are choices other than Adobe, like you said. One never owns software anyway. It is licensed to people, in most cases.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 25, 2019)

To afford Lightroom/Photoshop, I just gave up half-and-half in my coffee, which saves me $14 a month (and some cholesterol).


----------

