Lightroom CC 2015.1 / 6.1 / Lightroom mobile iOS 1.5 Released

[dreed]

So less than a couple of months after 6 was released they add significant new features, some requested for years, into the CC only version. It's pretty clear where the perpetual licence holders stand now :-(

The title of this URL:
https://blogs.adobe.com/richardcurtis/?p=4657
suggests that the updates to CC are also available to 6.0->6.1

If not then someone needs to tell Adobe's Richard Curtis that he should call his blog entry "Creative Cloud 2015 – What’s new in Lightroom CC for Photographers?" because nowhere does he actually outline any improvements going into 6.1.

[ButchM]

The title of this URL:
https://blogs.adobe.com/richardcurtis/?p=4657
suggests that the updates to CC are also available to 6.0->6.1

If not then someone needs to tell Adobe's Richard Curtis that he should call his blog entry "Creative Cloud 2015 – What’s new in Lightroom CC for Photographers?" because nowhere does he actually outline any improvements going into 6.1.

To be fair ... Lr 6.0 - 6.1 perpetual license holders did receive the new camera support, new lens correction profiles and bug fixes ... but not the new features. Which is the same exact policy and method that has always been the case for Lr and perpetual licenses.

Though, the timing of this feature release so closely following the introduction of Lr CC - 6 could have been handled better IMHO.

[CatOne]

Actually, if you scroll down a bit, a new header shows up that offers a Download.

It really doesn't. I can't find any way to download LR 6.1.

The in-app updater in LR 6.0 says I'm up to date.

This is a real shit sandwich of frustration; Adobe's installer team is pretty bad, and the way they try and obfuscate the standalone product is pretty damned shameful. There was a standalone installer for 6.0 but it was a real mess to find as well.

I should not have to spend 45 minutes trying to find a way to update the software I paid for, because Adobe still continues to try and force me to upgrade something I paid for.

If there is a link to the download (like, an ACTUAL FUCKING LINK) please provide it here, not to a page that buries it like it's Jimmy Hoffa.

[David A]

The title of this URL:
https://blogs.adobe.com/richardcurtis/?p=4657
suggests that the updates to CC are also available to 6.0->6.1

If not then someone needs to tell Adobe's Richard Curtis that he should call his blog entry "Creative Cloud 2015 – What’s new in Lightroom CC for Photographers?" because nowhere does he actually outline any improvements going into 6.1.

I looked at the link. I think the title is correct. He starts out by saying that there are updates to both LR CC and LR6 but when he gets down to the point where he discusses the Dehaze and white and black settings for local adjustments, he does so below a heading in Bold print which says "New Features for Lightroom CC" so he actually states in the article that these specific features are only for LR CC. He never suggests that those features are or will be available in the perpetual licence version.

Note that he also discusses changes to Camera RAW which flow on to the perpetual licence version, and also to the iOS version of LR. I think his title is fine. He does discuss changes to both versions, and he does distinguish which features are unique to LR CC with a bold heading. I think he could have made things a little clearer by adding another bold heading after discussing the Dehaze and local adjustment changes to make it really clear that the other changes flow to both LR CC and LR 6.1 but he does list the changes to both versions and he does say clearly that the Dehaze and local adjustment features are specifically for LR CC.

[LawrenceBraunstein]

CatOne,

I feel your pain! This has become an absurd situation for users of the LR standalone version. I had the same problems as you (and so many others) but believe now to understand what the problem is and how to deal with it. First, I’m quite certain Adobe is no longer offering links to updates within major versions. Updates now function only via the updater (Help/Updates). The problem is, with LR 6.1, Adobe replaced the older ‘Application Manager’ (updater) with what they are calling the ‘Creative Cloud Desktop App’. Without this app, your older LR 6.0 Application Manager will continue to claim that you have the most recent version. This is what I did to update my LR 6.0 to 6.1 on both my workstation (Mac Pro) as well as my notebook (MacBook Pro). First I deleted Lightroom 6.0 (NOT the catalog or preferences!). Then I reinstalled Lightroom 6.0 (hopefully you still have the DMG/EXE file on hand). You’ll have to log into your Adobe account at some time during installation as well as enter your serial number. What you’ll end up with should be identical to what you had before with one very important exception...the older updater will have been replaced by the CC Desktop App. Since then I have learned that one can directly download the CC Desktop App at https://creative.adobe.com/products/creative-cloud, thereby circumventing the necessity of deleting/re-installing LR. More information about the app can be found at https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/manage-apps-services-desktop.html.

Now, here’s where things really get gruesome. Opening up the new updater (via Help/Updates), you’ll see it says that you have ‘Lightroom CC (2015)’ installed and that it’s up-to-date! Don’t worry, you don’t have Lightroom CC (2015) installed. It’s still a perpetual license version (you can check that via Help/System Info). However, your LR 6.0 version is definitely not up-to-date. If this wasn’t weird enough for you, don’t fret, it gets even weirder. On my workstation as well my notebook, it took approximately 24 hours before the CC Desktop App indicated that an update is available! Please don’t ask me to explain. I have no idea why it took so long. In any case, after clicking the ‘install’ button and letting the updater do its thing, my version info read ‘Lightroom 6.1’! So, have patience. The LR CC Desktop App will eventually offer an update to 6.1.

Basically, the standalone version (officially called ‘Lightroom 6’) has become a persona non grata. Adobe avoids using the name as much as possible. Do you remember your old Lightroom 5? The ‘5’ was very visible in the name. No more. It’s just called ‘Lightroom’. Okay, one could make the argument that since they are now offering two versions, it’s simply easier to call the app ‘Lightroom’ without further designation. However, the fact that the Creative Cloud Desktop App calls the Lightroom 6.1 version ‘Lightroom CC (2015)’ is unnerving, at best! Concerning the missing functionality improvements in V6.1, well, Adobe did tell us they were going to do this. It really shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone. What I really object to is being treated by Adobe like a second-class customer! No one forced Adobe to continue offering the standalone version of Lightroom. It was their decision. Nevertheless, for those who have chosen to continue with their perpetual license version, every update has now turned into a nightmare. This is discrimination! If they did this with an ethnic or religious group, one could take them to court. However, we’re just customers who have chosen to use one of their products, a choice with which they are obviously not very happy. What they are doing is definitely not illegal, but it certainly is unethical! I, and many others, don’t want to be browbeaten into subscribing to the creative cloud. As long as Adobe continues to offer a standalone version of Lightroom we, as customers, should be treated just as well - with the same respect and consideration - as the CC users. It’s as simple as that.

I’m sorry this reply has turned out so long. Thank you for your patience and I hope my suggestions will be of help to you, as well as to others in the same predicament.

Best of luck,

Larry

[Mark D Segal]

Larry, if I were sitting in the Executive Suite at Adobe (totally hypothetical of course) I would make a once-and-for-all decision NOW, to discontinue perpetual licensing for LR ASAP and let those customers migrate to CC if they so choose. I think the recent experience indicates carrying the two streams is prone to more pot-holes and ill-will than it's worth. Anyone who doesn't think the LR+PS bundle at 10 bucks a month isn't worthwhile can migrate to Capture One or DxO for example, and I expect this loss of business will be the lesser of two evils for Adobe.

[Simon Garrett]

Larry,

I quite agree that Adobe is discriminating between CC customers and perpetual-licence customers, and I agree that it's not illegal.

However, I don't really think it's unethical - or rather, I don't think ethics come into it.  It's a commercial decision made by Adobe, and they've been pretty public that they are able to offer a better service to rental customers (or some such guff). 

As long as Adobe continues to offer a standalone version of Lightroom we, as customers, should be treated just as well - with the same respect and consideration - as the CC users.

I can sympathise with the sentiment, but why should Adobe treat all customers the same?  Lots of companies differentiate their product by payment type - or however they please - in order to try to persuade customers to buy products in the way they want.  Adobe has made it plain they want customers to rent not buy.  They've been nudging us that way since CC was launched, and I expect the nudge to become more of a shove as time goes on. 

Let's be clear: Adobe are providing a commercial service.  They don't owe us anything except to honour their contractual obligations to us as customers, and to obey the laws of the countries in which they operate.  In a competitive market, if we don't like the product, we go somewhere else.  What's that?  There's virtually no competition?  Well, that's just our bad luck.  Welcome to the world of oligopoly. 

It's not that I like what Adobe is doing; I subscribe to CC, but I'd rather have a perpetual licence.  But I think trying to make this a moral or ethical issue is unrealistic - and won't achieve anything.  As my mother in law used to say: "Might as well save your breath to cool your porridge."

[LawrenceBraunstein]

Simon,

When I wrote that all customers should be treated with the same respect and consideration, I wasn’t referring to the functionality differences between the two Lightroom versions.  This we all knew about and, as you mentioned, is common practice among many companies.  I was referring more to the nonsensical difficulties Adobe places upon perpetual license users (for example, having no visible links to the standalone version, making the whole updating process unnecessarily difficult, etc.) just to receive what is rightfully theirs. I can accept the disparity between the two versions (and wait until LR 7.0 is released). What I can not accept, however, is the childish way Adobe is trying to ‘nudge’ us (it’s more like a shove!) in the direction of the creative cloud.

Mark,

I tend to agree with you. Adobe is handling this double LR fiasco very poorly. If they can’t do it any better than perhaps it would be best for them to just offer their applications in the CC version. I wouldn’t be happy about it (I’ve used LR since version 1.0), but I could accept the decision. However (and I address this not only to you, but to all the forum members living in the States), if I could subscribe to the CC for $10 a month, I probably would. Living in Germany as I do, the same subscription costs me nearly $15 a month! If I’m not mistaken, in other parts of the world like Australia or New Zealand, the monthly costs are even higher. Not even Apple has such international price discrepancies, and they’re dealing with hardware which needs to be shipped halfway around the world. Adding to the 50% hike in price for members of the EU is the lack of financial flexibility a subscription offers if times get difficult. Until recently, one could always, if need be, skip a new version or update at a later date when one is on better financial footing. This option simply doesn’t exist any more; at least, not if one still needs the use of the develop module (and who doesn’t?). What I’m trying to say, Mark, is that there are many important reasons why one would prefer a perpetual license to CC. Quite often the decision is a tightly calculated financial one. Of course, Adobe has the right to charge what they want, as I have the right to buy what I can afford. But as long as the standalone version is being offered, we shouldn’t be forced to do backwards somersaults just to get a hold of it or update it to its latest version. Or, as you suggested, simply stop offering it!

Thank you both for responding! I respect your positions and, quite truthfully, I wish I could afford a subscription to the creative cloud. Maybe someday...?

All the best,

Larry

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Larry,

There should not be price discrimination in the range of 50%, but we need to recognize that exchange rates fluctuate in both directions all the time so there will always be some discrepancy - companies need to set a pricing policy that endures for a reasonable time period. I live in Canada and we have experienced about a 25% devaluation versus the USD in the recent months, so what used to cost me about 11 CAD is now costing 15. But that increase amounts to about 50 dollars per year. Every time I go to the supermarket the bill is no less than that because inflation of food costs has been remarkable here over the past year, partly for the same reason. So what to say. The software isn't cherries, but I use it daily and the photos will last a very long time.

I agree with you about the issue of people possibly needing to get off the subscription train and from the very outset of CC, on this Forum, I have recommended over and over again that Adobe should develop an "exit strategy" which allows users to retain the full functionality of their latest rented version indefinitely, even if they need to pay a one-time fee for the privilege of what would become a perpetual license on exit. There may need to be some designing to make this option viable, but in principle I think it would give a lot of customers comfort.

[Simon Garrett]

Point taken Larry.

The poor mechanism for updating the stand-alone version: I'd taken that as incompetence on Adobe's part, rather than a deliberate attempt to make it difficult.  That might be wrong.  

However, poor updating and incompetent handling of installation and user authentication is not restricted to the stand-alone software.  CC customers have experienced pretty mixed service since CC was launched about 2 and half years ago.  Difficulties in managing accounts and payments, difficulty in downloading and installing CC software, updates that trash your installation, half-baked updates with parts missing...  You only have to go on the Adobe CC and downloading/installation forums to read the problems people have had.  It's gradually getting better, but even this last upgrade was bungled, with updates not working properly for the first day.  It's still far from smooth and seamless.  

For example, when I subscribed to CC I had to spend several hours over 2 or 3 days on the phone and chat sessions with Adobe people to sort out my Adobe account.  Updates don't always work, and sometimes you have to remove all Adobe apps and re-install - no joke with my download speed.  This last one was also botched: The Photoshop CC 2015 downloads at first did not include ACR 9.1, and the separate ACR 9.1 download was faulty.  By the time I'd got back to a working installation, that was another 6 hours of my life I won't see again.  

It would be charitable to describe Adobe's software management and user account management as any better than mediocre.  But I tend to put that down to screw-ups rather than conspiracy on Adobe's part.  No one could be that malicious.  

[LawrenceBraunstein]

I think we all agree; work needs to be done over at Adobe. Yes, I am aware that many CC users are having extensive problems with downloading, installing, etc. The stories are sometimes quite harrowing, including your own! Perhaps it really is more a problem of incompetence than one of intention. Concerning Adobe’s ‘exit strategy’, Mark, it really is a shame you’re not sitting in that ‘Executive Suite’. I find your idea of a one-time payment for what would basically become a perpetual license version upon ending one’s subscription a very good one. I certainly would be much more willing to subscribe if I knew I wouldn’t be locked out of the develop module if I needed, for financial reasons, to unsubscribe. Good Idea!

Larry

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Larry - I need that Executive Suite like I need two holes in my head - but "if only they would listen" !! :-)

[ButchM]

Perhaps it really is more a problem of incompetence than one of intention. Concerning Adobe’s ‘exit strategy’, Mark, it really is a shame you’re not sitting in that ‘Executive Suite’. I find your idea of a one-time payment for what would basically become a perpetual license version upon ending one’s subscription a very good one. I certainly would be much more willing to subscribe if I knew I wouldn’t be locked out of the develop module if I needed, for financial reasons, to unsubscribe. Good Idea!

Larry

I've been a staunch proponent of the full exit strategy since the introduction of, CC. Though, to Adobe's credit, they did offer limited exit options with Lr CC in v5.5. I do agree that a buyout exit with full functionality would be awesome. If they would have introduced CC with a reasonable buy-out exit already outlined ... I would have signed up for the $50 per month whole enchilada package at once. Now, it would take a bit more encouragement to get me to do so.

It is also my opinion that those who currently occupy the Executive Suite at Adobe, Inc. are indeed the weakest link in the chain. It is not only their responsibility, but also their duty to not only keep their corporation profitable, but to do so with an even hand. If Adobe is going to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription, they should offer equally available and easily recognizable access to updates for both. While they may wish to favor and further promote one model over the other from a sales and marketing standpoint, once they take the customer's money for a product, they shouldn't play favorites for supporting that purchase.

If systems put in place don't meet expectations or fail to perform as intended, it is up to these supervisory executives to not only demand they be remedied, but follow through on changes to be implemented to correct those issues. After all, isn't that why they get those bonuses and stock options?

[chez]

I've been a staunch proponent of the full exit strategy since the introduction of, CC. Though, to Adobe's credit, they did offer limited exit options with Lr CC in v5.5. I do agree that a buyout exit with full functionality would be awesome. If they would have introduced CC with a reasonable buy-out exit already outlined ... I would have signed up for the $50 per month whole enchilada package at once. Now, it would take a bit more encouragement to get me to do so.

It is also my opinion that those who currently occupy the Executive Suite at Adobe, Inc. are indeed the weakest link in the chain. It is not only their responsibility, but also their duty to not only keep their corporation profitable, but to do so with an even hand. If Adobe is going to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription, they should offer equally available and easily recognizable access to updates for both. While they may wish to favor and further promote one model over the other from a sales and marketing standpoint, once they take the customer's money for a product, they shouldn't play favorites for supporting that purchase.

If systems put in place don't meet expectations or fail to perform as intended, it is up to these supervisory executives to not only demand they be remedied, but follow through on changes to be implemented to correct those issues. After all, isn't that why they get those bonuses and stock options?

Butch...can you point out where Adobe did not live up to what they said they would regarding LR perpetual and LR CC? I've always believed the perpetual copy of LR would not get updates in functionality until the next major release while the CC version would get them as they are developed. Is this not your understanding?

I'd like to understand what Adobe failed to perform as intended.

[ButchM]

Butch...can you point out where Adobe did not live up to what they said they would regarding LR perpetual and LR CC? I've always believed the perpetual copy of LR would not get updates in functionality until the next major release while the CC version would get them as they are developed. Is this not your understanding?

I'd like to understand what Adobe failed to perform as intended.

Read further upstream in this and other threads where perpetual license holders have had difficulties ... mostly by Adobe's design of their current web site ... to find manual downloads for their apps and their subsequent support updates. Place some attention on Larry's and CatOne's plight in easily finding a manual download for v6.1.

My comment you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with feature updates ... only support updates. If you think that was what I was referring to, you inferred incorrectly.

[chez]

Read further upstream in this and other threads where perpetual license holders have had difficulties ... mostly by Adobe's design of their current web site ... to find manual downloads for their apps and their subsequent support updates. Place some attention on Larry's and CatOne's plight in easily finding a manual download for v6.1.

My comment you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with feature updates ... only support updates. If you think that was what I was referring to, you inferred incorrectly.

I don't think Adobe is out purposely targeting the perpetual license holders. There have been just as many CC upgrade problems...just read all the different threads.

So, I don't see any evidence that Adobebis out to make life hard for the perpetual users. I see them offering new features for CC features which is exactly what they said they would do.

[CatOne]

I don't think Adobe is out purposely targeting the perpetual license holders. There have been just as many CC upgrade problems...just read all the different threads.

So, I don't see any evidence that Adobebis out to make life hard for the perpetual users. I see them offering new features for CC features which is exactly what they said they would do.

Well, if they're not going out of their way to make life hard for perpetual users, then they're flat-out incompetent. There is discussion of a Lightroom 6.1, but I've seen no evidence that such a thing exists. The in-app updater for Lightroom 6.0 says there is no update, and the download link is just a circle jerk of circular links.

And their installers are such pieces of shit, every time I run it Adobe plops Creative Cloud on my system.

[Simon Garrett]

Well, if they're not going out of their way to make life hard for perpetual users, then they're flat-out incompetent...

And their installers are...

...are rather a pile of poo, I agree.

Nearly 3 years after Adobe launched CC, software installation and update, and user management systems, are still seriously wanting.  And now LR has been integrated into CC, the stand-alone version seems to have been messed up, too.

[chez]

...are rather a pile of poo, I agree.

Nearly 3 years after Adobe launched CC, software installation and update, and user management systems, are still seriously wanting.  And now LR has been integrated into CC, the stand-alone version seems to have been messed up, too.

That's exactly my point...their installers / updaters are useless...for both the perpetual licenses and the CC licenses. Adobe is not purposely making the perpetual upgrade hard...it is equally as confusing and hard on the CC side.

No big plan by Adobe to make the LR perpetual user experience awful so they would move onto CC. The way Adobe will entice users to CC is by providing some functionality in the CC version years ahead of when they release it into the perpetual license version.

[ButchM]

That's exactly my point...their installers / updaters are useless...for both the perpetual licenses and the CC licenses. Adobe is not purposely making the perpetual upgrade hard...it is equally as confusing and hard on the CC side.

No big plan by Adobe to make the LR perpetual user experience awful so they would move onto CC. The way Adobe will entice users to CC is by providing some functionality in the CC version years ahead of when they release it into the perpetual license version.

So it a matter of equal opportunity incompetence?