LR 6 and Dehaze

[BernardLanguillier]

Although I don't use LR much but somehow own a LR CC license, I agree with the OP 100%.

Releasing LR6 on Apr-21 while adding a high visibility feature in CC only less than 2 months later is a slap in the face of LR6 paying customers, plain and simple.

There is no way they could not have either delayed LR6 a bit to include this feature or made it available a bit faster. This obviously per design.

If that isn't Screaming "those who don't like the subscription model, move to another raw converter", there is never going to be a more clear signal.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Actually it's screaming, "those who don't like the purchase model because they don;t get the new stuff right away, ought to move to the subscription model".  That's exactly what Adobe wants.  And the OP proved it.  He just switched and bought into the subscription model.

[CoyoteButtes]

Notwithstanding all my griping and complaining about the CC subscription model after its introduction, when CC for photographers was subsequently released I subscribed.

No regrets.

I actually think I prefer the subscription given how fast things seem to be changing.

Perhaps we should surrender to the inevitable.

[pegelli]

Releasing LR6 on Apr-21 while adding a high visibility feature in CC only less than 2 months later is a slap in the face of LR6 paying customers, plain and simple.

Sorry, I don't feel being slapped in the face Bernard.
I have a perpetual license to LR6 (paid 75 € for it)
I don't use PS that much and my old (perpetual licensed) CS3 is doing all I need from it.
Now I don't get global dehaze and no black/white point adjustment in the masked controls until LR7.
I can live with that, I knew what I was buying when I pressed the button.

To get it I need to shell out 12 €/month, on a 18 month cycle that would be ~140 € more vs. the perpetual license.
That's a pretty steep price for a few features that are nice but not essential. I'll wait for LR7 to get them.

Maybe at some point in time the CC additional features warrant the extra cost for me, but at the moment almost tripling my use cost of Lightroom is not worth it.

Obviously if you want/need the latest photoshop in addition to Lightroom these economics no longer hold water, but for a LR only user I think this makes sense.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Releasing LR6 on Apr-21 while adding a high visibility feature in CC only less than 2 months later is a slap in the face of LR6 paying customers, plain and simple.

There is no way they could not have either delayed LR6 a bit to include this feature or made it available a bit faster. This obviously per design.

If that isn't Screaming "those who don't like the subscription model, move to another raw converter", there is never going to be a more clear signal.

Oh, it's not over yet. I spoke an LR6 perpetual license user yesterday, who was locked out of using LR6, because the application could not access Adobe over the internet since installation a couple of weeks ago. After allowing LR to 'phone home' by changing the firewall settings, LR would start again.

So how perpetual is that license? Imagine having no internet connection over an extended time on a remote location ...

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

Oh, it's not over yet. I spoke an LR6 perpetual license user yesterday, who was locked out of using LR6, because the application could not access Adobe over the internet since installation a couple of weeks ago. After allowing LR to 'phone home' by changing the firewall settings, LR would start again.

I seem to have read earlier that this could be avoided by not letting the application automatically check for updates at start-up (preferences/general.... tab), but maybe I misunderstood. Can't remember if this was on LL or another forum.

[Simon Garrett]

Adobe are not breaking any laws by nudging people to a subscription basis, even though many people (including me) would prefer a perpetual licence.  They're not breaking any laws by providing features to subscription customers first.  

They have clearly upset some people.  But since the introduced the $10 photograhy package, the price is OK for those that use LR and PS and used to upgrade both at least every other major release, and so many people (including me) have signed up.

If it were a truly competitive market, then upsetting even a minority of customers might matter.  But it isn't (competitive) and it doesn't (matter).

Sorry to be blunt, but it isn't going to change.  You might as well get over it.  

[LesPalenik]

Oh, it's not over yet. I spoke an LR6 perpetual license user yesterday, who was locked out of using LR6, because the application could not access Adobe over the internet since installation a couple of weeks ago. After allowing LR to 'phone home' by changing the firewall settings, LR would start again.

So how perpetual is that license? Imagine having no internet connection over an extended time on a remote location ...

Cheers,
Bart

I experienced recently a similar problem with LR5.
Before going on a trip, I installed a second copy of my LR disk on a laptop, entered the product key, tried it out, and when satisfied that it worked, I turned the laptop off.
Upon arriving at my destination (without an Internet access), I tried to run LR, and was asked to enter the product key again. Since I didn't bring that information with me, I was effectively locked out from the program and from using the computer for inspecting and processing my pictures. Very frustrating!

[Jack Hogan]

I actually think I prefer the subscription given how fast things seem to be changing.

[sniper]

 I seem to remember Adobe saying that Lightroom would continue to be offered as both subscription and perpetual, yet it now seems theres 2 different versions of Lightroom, the CC version with features the other version hasn't got.
 Right or wrong I can see why some customers who have just bought the "latest" perpetual version now find it isn't the latest version, and feel aggrieved.  Very bad timeing to release the newer version with feature updates so soon. To me it smacks of Adobe telling it's perpetual customers " you should have bought CC" and giving them the finger.

[pegelli]

I experienced recently a similar problem with LR5.
Before going on a trip, I installed a second copy of my LR disk on a laptop, entered the product key, tried it out, and when satisfied that it worked, I turned the laptop off.
Upon arriving at my destination (without an Internet access), I tried to run LR, and was asked to enter the product key again. Since I didn't bring that information with me, I was effectively locked out from the program and from using the computer for inspecting and processing my pictures. Very frustrating!

If it was a first time install on that laptop didn't you get the 30 days trial period w/o a license key?

[Mark D Segal]

That's really old news.  Adobe has made huge profits from their CC leasing model and their stock has soared as a result.  They made a brilliant business move.  People were not going to keep buying or upgrading especially at the prices they used to charge.  Now, with CC,  they locked in huge numbers of people who continue to pay, and pay,  for minor upgrades to keep them thinking they're actually getting something terrific.    De-gazing is really just tossing out a bone.  Before, with new editions, they had to make real changes.  Now they can do less at less engineering cost, raising profits even more.  Only enough changes to justify people to continue to rent the leasing model.

Yes Alan, I went to school too and I can read dates on reports as well as the latest stock tickers. My intent probably bypassed you, but to clarify for avoidance of doubt - I was reporting on the company's own expectations at about the time of the CC roll out to set the strategic move they were making in context, so much to say that it was a long-term strategic perspective and not the kind of conspiracy some people impute to it be - unless of course companies making more money over the longer term is a conspiracy. That they are doing much better than expected over the shorter-term speaks for their business acumen and the fact that the market is accepting it - because it remains the best game in town. You saw the data about relative use of LR in the Wiki Andrew referenced? And what happened to Aperture, which pre-existed LR - discontinued. Of course outsiders like you and me will not see the data on their engineering and QC budget to support your contention that they are offering less and less for the money they are making - recall we don't have a clue what they are spending on improvements under the hood, setting aside for a moment the new features that are immediately visible; but using LR6.x, I already see improved performance for a number of the pre-existing tools, so obviously money was being paid to engineers and QC people to make that happen. The new business model gives them a much more assured cash flow to continue working on what is already a quite mature application. Adobe has a long term strategic perspective and they know that over time competition can turn their applications into an Aperture if they don't continue to provide value for money. Are you getting less value for money using CC than you were upgrading "perpetual" licenses? If you really think they aren't delivering any value-added that you like or need, you can always revert to your last perpetual licensed versions and stick with them forever after. Like many others, I too had some initial apprehensions about the CC model (and I would still like to see them offer an exit option allowing us to preserve the functionality of the last version we "rented"), but I think if you were to do a statistically valid canvas today, you would find the user community broadly supportive.

[Mark D Segal]

My point here is Adobe had a choice: they could have made all their customers happy but they chose not to.

I can see if 6 months, one year down the road they offer a new feature the CC customers get it, the others don't. But two months? Come on.

Allan

The timing between the two has nothing to do with it. Different business models, different tracks, each driven by its own parameters.

[Mark D Segal]

Although I don't use LR much but somehow own a LR CC license, I agree with the OP 100%.

Releasing LR6 on Apr-21 while adding a high visibility feature in CC only less than 2 months later is a slap in the face of LR6 paying customers, plain and simple.

There is no way they could not have either delayed LR6 a bit to include this feature or made it available a bit faster. This obviously per design.

If that isn't Screaming "those who don't like the subscription model, move to another raw converter", there is never going to be a more clear signal.

Cheers,
Bernard

There is no screaming (was I sitting up at night waiting for DeHaze? - let's get real - brings back the old paradigm from Economic History 100 - "supply creates it's own demand" - a characterization of Say's Law, Jean-Baptiste Say, French 1803, and I believe still a fundamental driver of commerce world wide). But quite apart from that, yes clearly, they intend to get as much of the customer base onto CC as they can. As I said before, I am surprised they still maintain a perpetual license for LR, and if they are hit with enough ill-will over it I can see them discontinuing it sooner rather than later.

Now Bernard, let's say we dislike the CC model enough to leave it - what raw converter do you propose we adopt that has the same kind of relatively seamless integration with Photoshop, has all the functionality of both applications LR+PS, and for an annual cost of about USD 120/year? Capture One or DxO may be nipping at its heels but it would be interesting to see comparative market share between these three packages.

[Mark D Segal]

Sorry, I don't feel being slapped in the face Bernard.
I have a perpetual license to LR6 (paid 75 € for it)
I don't use PS that much and my old (perpetual licensed) CS3 is doing all I need from it.
Now I don't get global dehaze and no black/white point adjustment in the masked controls until LR7.
I can live with that, I knew what I was buying when I pressed the button.

To get it I need to shell out 12 €/month, on a 18 month cycle that would be ~140 € more vs. the perpetual license.
That's a pretty steep price for a few features that are nice but not essential. I'll wait for LR7 to get them.

Maybe at some point in time the CC additional features warrant the extra cost for me, but at the moment almost tripling my use cost of Lightroom is not worth it.

Obviously if you want/need the latest photoshop in addition to Lightroom these economics no longer hold water, but for a LR only user I think this makes sense.

If you are only using LR, and assuming there will be an LR7 and assuming the relative pricing will remain the same, this thinking makes sense. But looking at the market more broadly I suspect most users do appreciate having the 800 lb. gorilla sitting there behind LR if they need or want to do things with images - conveniently - that LR simply doesn't have the capability to implement. Speaking for me as a sample of one, I don't use PS very much any longer given how good and capable LR has become, but when I need it I'm glad to have it, including the functional improvements that gradually get rolled-in. 

[digitaldog]

Actually it's screaming, "those who don't like the purchase model because they don;t get the new stuff right away, ought to move to the subscription model".  That's exactly what Adobe wants.  And the OP proved it.  He just switched and bought into the subscription model.

Exactly, it's the carrot to subscribe. The stick is waiting for the next perpetual release cycle, not dot release. It's amazing how many posts about this have shown up the last couple of years and yet it's clear and makes sense. If the carrot isn't appetizing, don't bite.

[digitaldog]

I spoke an LR6 perpetual license user yesterday, who was locked out of using LR6, because the application could not access Adobe over the internet since installation a couple of weeks ago.

Considering when LR6 was released and considering it only has to phone once every 99 days, that's difficult to accept at face value.
FWIW, locked out, when it happens is Develop and Maps. The rest of the modules will continue to work.

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi Mark,

As far as I am concerned, I stopped using LR years ago except for the DNG files of my Betterlight back. This was not driven by a concern with their business model, more because I was getting nicer conversions with other converters.

Nowadays, I use a combination of C1, DxO and Iridient Developper.

Now I understand that LR does offer a more streamlined workflow for commercial shooters. I am not denying that it is best in class in some ways, but not in terms of image quality in my book.

I would hate to have no choice but to work with the products of a company forcing me to adopt a way of buying their products I dislike. It is obviously a matter of principle, the 10 US$ per months are a lot cheaper (probably 5 times) than what I was happily giving away to Adobe with my full edition package every 18 months till then.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fdisilvestro]

My point here is Adobe had a choice: they could have made all their customers happy but they chose not to.

I can see if 6 months, one year down the road they offer a new feature the CC customers get it, the others don't. But two months? Come on.

Allan

Adobe, as any other company, is interested in making its shareholders happy. Making all customers happy is not possible.

In case somebody has not understand the message, Adobe wants to get rid of the perpetual licence model and even if they keep the perpetual model for LR, they make it in a way that it is convoluted.

The fact that they released the updates to the CC just after a few weeks of the launch of the perpetual licence model is (IMHO) actually on purpose, to make those who bouthg the perpetual licence think again before purchasing the perpetual licence next time there is a major version upgrade. Yes, Adobe might lose those customers, but I'm sure it is a risk they have considered.

If you like the licence model or not is a personal decision, which is perfectly fine, but I don't see any unfair practice from Adobe. Those who bought the perpetual licence did it based on what was offered at the time and had the option to try it before buying.

[Schewe]

The fact that they released the updates to the CC just after a few weeks of the launch of the perpetual licence model is (IMHO) actually on purpose, to make those who bouthg the perpetual licence think again before purchasing the perpetual licence next time there is a major version upgrade. Yes, Adobe might lose those customers, but I'm sure it is a risk they have considered.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I kinda know the facts. LR CC/6 was released in late April 2015. The feature set and UI were locked about a month before the remaining builds for beta testers were bug squashing. I know when the builds that had the new features arrived, it was actually a week AFTER Kev and I taped the CC/6 video update. That was May 18th. So, if you factor in the timing of beta-RC builds we're looking at 3 months (which in engineering terms is a pretty short time). Dehaze wasn't even named Dehaze until the Memorial Day weekend. The LR cc 2015.1/6.1 updates were released the nite of June 15th.

Was it too bad that Dehaze and Blacks/Whites didn't make it into the perpetual license? Yep. Was it a conspiracy by Adobe to get people to go subscription? Nope...honestly, Adobe isn't that smart. The engineers work till their tongues hand out and try to put stuff in ASAP. Knowing the genesis of Dehaze (first shown at Adobe MAX as a "technology preview") it took many months to actually get the code to work inside of a product and months after that for testing and release.

While people who are predisposed to hate Adobe and the subscription licenses see this as a great conspiracy, in reality it's simply a matter of timing. If engineering could have gotten Dehaze done and released before the end of Adobe's quarter (end of May) Dehaze could have been in LR 6.1. But sadly the engineers couldn't get it done in time.