Luke_Miller
Established
C1 has a subscription option. No guarantee a perpetual licence version will always be available.
Lightroom Stand Alone Dies
- Thread starter MaxElmar
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 84
- Views 9K
C1 has a subscription option. No guarantee a perpetual licence version will always be available.
jsrockit
Moderator
This is the route I'll go once I have to. I'll use 6 for now... but if I start using an unsupported camera, I'll go with this option. They used to update LR every year anyway... so instead of $99 upgrade, it will be like $120 a year IIRC.
willie_901
Veteran
I was unaware of Adobe's US-centric payment policies. Shame on them for not being more flexible.
I pay all my bills automatically using a credit card. Card activity is automatically monitored in real time by via text message from the bank. It is also monitored manually by me using the Mint app. I monitor individual invoicing as well via email or postal mail.
All of this takes less time and effort than a decade ago when I mailed checks on a monthly basis.
Credit card fraud and over-charges are rare but either the bank or I caught them. I have always been promptly protected for any losses. I realize laws in other countries might increase customer risk. In the US, debit cards are riskier than credit cards in terms of fraud protection.
willie_901
Veteran
People and businesses vote with their pocketbooks. If the subscription model did not add value, Adobe's earnings would have declined and so would their stock price.
Of course, we have a choice. We can stop using Adobe products. Many excellent alternatives exist and many photographers use them. People switch computer operating systems. They switch smartphone platforms. These can be more disruptive than switching post-production workflow.
Decades ago I spent more on hobby-related magazine subscriptions than I do on Adobe CC for photographers. I honestly prefer the subscription model because I always upgraded LR versions anyway.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I use a debit card almost exclusively. I have a credit card but use it ONLY for renting cars when I travel, since the automobile rental world makes using anything else (including cash!) nearly impossible. My debit card is on file with other companies for their monthly subscription services. I've paid for all my Adobe products with it too. So whatever Adobe's policy differences might be for other parts of the world I don't know, but at least for me here in the USA my debit card works just fine.
I have absolutely zero interest in buying a new camera of any kind that would require me to upgrade Lightroom because of camera compatibility. There are no features that I need beyond what I already have either. On that basis, I could use my perpetual license LR6 from now to the end of time on my current Mac mini and MacBook Air systems.
And if I did, well, I've arranged my entire image processing system around the principle that it serves me, not I serve it. If the next version of Lightroom isn't to my liking, I can choose anything else and just swap to it without any pain. I've been organizing my data and workflow with this concept in mind since 2006, when I first moved to Lightroom from Photoshop.
So there's absolutely nothing that Adobe has or will do that will bother me, or surprise me. They're in it for their own good, like every business is or ought to be, and if they make a lot of people happy along the way, well, good on them. They've made me happy most of the time and pissed me off at others; they've always made their profit so they're a success as far as I'm concerned.
In truth, the way the laws of ownership work, the fact that you pay for CC in monthly installments changes very little. You always only rented the software anyway, it was simply a matter of whether it had a fixed total lump sum price for the privilege of using it or whether that price was extracted from you in small monthly injections continuously. Happily, they're giving additional services back for that monthly injection, so it's not entirely a bad thing. If I need/want it.
G
froyd
Veteran
But isn't it true that with the subscriptions system, paying the lump sum of $120 still only gets you one year of use? I went from LR4 to 6 only recently. I used it for slightly over 3 years, that's $360 in the current price scheme.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I organize my work in a similar manner. I output the images I deem worthy of printing as tifs in designated folders by portfolio so if LR or PS were discontinued or I decided to shift to other software, I wouldn't have a problem. I was initially upset with Adobe's subscription model, but quickly got over it and see its benefits. The monthly subscription fee is the equivalent of a couple of cups of coffee, so not worth worrying about. If you don't like Adobe's business practices, don't use their products. It's that simple. Lots of alternatives out there. Whining about it won't make you a better photographer.
MaxElmar
Well-known
Agree with most of this except "Obviously, many customers prefer the subscription-license model." It's equally possible - perhaps more likely - that a smaller body of customers is paying substantially more for the use of Adobe's software. And I think that is by design.
Along the same lines - I do not believe Godfrey's assertion that the subscription model is "cheaper." I think for most customers it was a massive price increase - disguised as small change in payment method.
I believe this because I know my employer - a massive Adobe customer with perhaps a thousand or more Adobe licenses - refused to purchase licenses under the subscription model until Adobe relented on pricing back to something a lot closer to the old model. It took about 2.5 years - and I'm pretty sure it wasn't my employer who blinked.
None of this is intended to cast any aspersions on Adobe or their business model. They are absolutely free to charge whatever they like for their product. And make whatever payment arrangements they wish. More profits? Good for them. I think it was a good business decision - fewer customers - skewed towards professionals - that pay a lot more for the product.
nightfly
Well-known
You are discounting that for much of Adobe's market, professional graphic designers, there really isn't a substitute and that there is a network effect, if your clients and vendors use Adobe, you sorta have to also.
Professional Users aren't jumping to Paintshop Pro or Corel Draw (although Sketch has kicked Adobe's ass, I don't know anyone using XD).
As a hobbyist you can use whatever you want, as a business you have to use what everyone else is using (see Microsoft) even if you don't really like the product or way it is sold.
Adobe makes very good software, but I think it's a mistake to think that people have voted with their pocket books that they like subscription models for software.
Technically there is a choice but practically not so much.
Professional Users aren't jumping to Paintshop Pro or Corel Draw (although Sketch has kicked Adobe's ass, I don't know anyone using XD).
As a hobbyist you can use whatever you want, as a business you have to use what everyone else is using (see Microsoft) even if you don't really like the product or way it is sold.
Adobe makes very good software, but I think it's a mistake to think that people have voted with their pocket books that they like subscription models for software.
Technically there is a choice but practically not so much.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, absolutely true. Subscription payments presume both ongoing ongoing need and use of the software, ongoing desire for updates and improvement. That's why it's worth buying a subscription if you are actually using the software on an ongoing basis, and not worth it if you don't.
Let's say you were in a heavy period of use and subscribed to LR CC. You incorporated and rendered ten thousand photos over the course of a year, while all that time you had all of LR and Photoshop at your disposal to facilitate that effort. Your finished, rendered works ... however many projects or clients that might be ... cost you a total of $120 in subscription fees.
Now, your work turns a different direction and you stop paying for the subscription. IF you've exported all your finished work to fully finished, baked in image files, well, you don't need Lightroom or Photoshop to display and view those photos. There are dozens of free tools that do that, and most come with any computer you're likely to use today. So you save your LR catalog and your original file repository and put it aside, you view, organize, and share your photos in your choice of image viewing tools.
However, if your photography work picks up again, you just re-up with your subscription, reactivate your LR and PS installation, download the latest updated LR and PS additions, and keep going with the work. Whatever you get through doing that has been updated for whatever OS changes, etc, have happened during your hiatus.
There's not much of a downside to it, in my view. It might cost a little more if you only use the software once in a while.
G
PKR
Veteran
In the past few years, I've been at small events where Adobe executives were present and sometimes responsible for the event (I was working).
In listening to conversations with Adobe people voicing their opinion of their customers: They want control of all media rights (photos, videos) to anything that enters their web system. They aren't there yet. They want to own/control any techniques that customers have (invented) for using their products, and monetize these in the future.
In short, they are no different than Mark Zuckerberg when he said:
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/Facebo...al-Networking-privacy-security,news-6794.html
(Edit: After thinking about this, I remembered another of their business plans: To get experienced PS LR users to provide "unpaid" customer support for their products via the "web community model". Experienced users, often pros, would be put into "talk groups" where they would exchange techniques for using various PS LR tools. After this grouping became a successful meeting place, unexperienced members would be given access (paid) to the archived knowledge base. In development of this plan, the experienced user group would be leveraged into providing (unknowingly?) customer support for new users who paid to have access to the pro user group. It's just business.)
After being exposed to these people and their view of the "idiots who trust us", I've quit updating any Adobe products, except Adobe Reader, which is free and necessary for my work.
Just my two cents.
pkr
In listening to conversations with Adobe people voicing their opinion of their customers: They want control of all media rights (photos, videos) to anything that enters their web system. They aren't there yet. They want to own/control any techniques that customers have (invented) for using their products, and monetize these in the future.
In short, they are no different than Mark Zuckerberg when he said:
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/Facebo...al-Networking-privacy-security,news-6794.html
(Edit: After thinking about this, I remembered another of their business plans: To get experienced PS LR users to provide "unpaid" customer support for their products via the "web community model". Experienced users, often pros, would be put into "talk groups" where they would exchange techniques for using various PS LR tools. After this grouping became a successful meeting place, unexperienced members would be given access (paid) to the archived knowledge base. In development of this plan, the experienced user group would be leveraged into providing (unknowingly?) customer support for new users who paid to have access to the pro user group. It's just business.)
After being exposed to these people and their view of the "idiots who trust us", I've quit updating any Adobe products, except Adobe Reader, which is free and necessary for my work.
Just my two cents.
pkr
MaxElmar
Well-known
It is true now, maybe you could save a few dollars with the "insy-outsy" - but it won't be very long before Adobe decides any interruption in its cash flow is unacceptable. Cable companies figured this game out a long time ago. Disincentives will follow. Soon the $9.95 special rate will be "for new subscribers only." Soon the push (special pricing) will be only towards the online version - where your work will truly be captive. If you think my cable company analogy is excessive, you're not really paying attention to the 21st century. PKR is right on the money. We've seen this movie before...
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Seriously, given the alternatives available, I am sure everyone can find a solution that best fits his needs.
PKR
Veteran
These are business people who care about money and their stockholders .. simple. I've worked with cut throat bankers (annual report photography) who had more interest in their customers than the Adobe Execs. I met. Others in these events, were Execs. from Apple, MS, Fed-x, UPS, EBay, Sales Force, a bunch of international bankers, etc. The only people, more openly greedy and less caring about their customers than the Adobe people (in my opinion), were the people from EBay.
It seems your experience in the business world is much different than mine?
Citation:
"Adobe, you promised: “future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely”
Read more: https://photorumors.com/2017/10/18/...erpetual-licenses-indefinitely/#ixzz4w5d2xx5q
x
Godfrey
somewhat colored
PKR
Veteran
Lots, C1, Photo Mechanic, etc. The Knoll bros can't be happy with what their company became.
Edit: I'm wrong, Tom says it's cool.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from...-good-for-engineers-says-creator-of-photoshop
Bob Michaels
nobody special
There is a easy way to love Adobe as a company while using their products. Simply become an investor in Adobe by buying some of the stock along with paying for their products, either buying or renting. Adobe stock is up 654% in the last eight years. Don't stand on the side and gripe about Adobe only being interested in making profits for their shareholders. Be one of them.
As a user, I am not happy at all with their subscription based pricing model.
As someone who owns a tiny tiny piece of Adobe, I love their new subscription based pricing model.
As a user, I am not happy at all with their subscription based pricing model.
As someone who owns a tiny tiny piece of Adobe, I love their new subscription based pricing model.
stompyq
Well-known
I moved to capture one from adobe earlier this year anticipating this. No regrets. The DAM side is not as refined as lightroom but the raw development is better (at least for me). No regrets
willie_901
Veteran
What you describe is an aspect of value-added product pricing. If working with clients and collaborators pays the bills and enables you to grow your business, there is value. You pay a premium for that value.
For hobbyists, the value proposition primarily involves personal convenience rather than compatibility with others. Hobbies are supposed to be fun. Switching to a new post-production platform is not fun.
Photoshop CC adds values too. If one is a skilled PS user then the role of LR could be different compared to somebody like me who only uses PD under severe duress.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
