Bye, Bye Lightroom perpetual licenses .... No Lightroom 7

[schertz]

That's just the going rate for LR / PS CC for everyone. I would think students would get a better rate.

Students/educators get a discount on the entire CC package (all apps) but pay the same as everyone else for the LR/PS Photography bundle

[Alan Klein]

It's obvious Adobe doesn't care about the amateur or even the serious photographer.  If you're 25, you're going to lease a product for 40 years at $120 a year or $1200 over each ten-year period.  To edit a picture?  You need the files in the cloud?  You can buy a 2 TB drive for under $100.  Businesses and schools will make up the bulk of Adobe earnings.  Adobe will leave the one-shot photo buyer who upgrades once in a while to other manufacturers.  Pricing to buy upgrades is too low and most of the features are now available.  Really, what more are they going to do to make you spend money?  But now that your locked in, then subscription makes sense if you can write it off.  It's similar to AutoCAD for architects and engineering firms.  But those firms have to exchange plans so they all would need Autocad  software to overlay their individual work.  Not so with photos so Adobe is taking a bigger risk.  But it makes sense anyway because it's worked for PS and their other programs.  They spent years locking people into their programs.  Now they can collect royalties while sitting on their butts.  Great business if you can get it. 

[Alan Klein]

Another thing I just thought about. As your photo data base grows, you'll eventually have to buy more cloud storage.  So, Adobe will become a cloud storage service in addition to a photo editing service, all at a monthly charge, forever.  It'll be like marriage without being able to get a divorce.

[BernardLanguillier]

Another thing I just thought about. As your photo data base grows, you'll eventually have to buy more cloud storage.  So, Adobe will become a cloud storage service in addition to a photo editing service, all at a monthly charge, forever.  It'll be like marriage without being able to get a divorce.

Indeed... and 1TB is really tiny.

Would keep me alive for 2-3 months perhaps?

Cheers,
Bernard

[pegelli]

It's more complicated than that.  C1 is $300 and you get free upgrades for life.  this does not include major releases which will cost more or you can do it just like LR and go the subscription route.  I assume the 'free upgrades' are support for new cameras. 
This was not surprising to me at all.
To paraphrase what was said on the 'Coffee Corner', it's Adobe's Blog and they can moderate the way they want.  If you save all your processed work as TIFFs you can exit the subscription model any time you want without any issues.

Fortunately (for the cameras I use) the C1 licence is 1/6th of the cost you mention. If it were as high as you say I might look at it differently. For me C1 is much cheaper than LR however neither one-time cost have stopped me from buying regular updates (I've been with LR since version 1). It's mainly the "open ended" subscription model I don't like.

The way the communication was handled didn't surprise me either (based on their track record), it's just me who would have hoped for something better. Nothing major, just another bit of proof of where their priorities lie.

And yes, they can manage their blog as they want, but it's up to me to buy their products or not. The way I vote (with my feet) there is depending on what company I think they are. Currently they are not getting any more from me based on the business model they chose and the poor communication surrounding that change.

"Retracting" from LR CC by converting to TIFF's is a PIA and not without issues in my mind, I think a combination of LR6 perpetual and C1 is a much easier strategy.

[lhodaniel]

In corporate culture, anytime anything is labeled "Classic", that's code for "on the back burner until eventual replacement". Why else would Lightroom become Lightroom Classic, the connotation being "this is your grandfather's software that will be phased out...get on board with the future"? If this is not the plan, why would Adobe not continue calling Lightroom "Lightroom" and call the new one something else, even "Lightroom Cloud"? Four years ago, Adobe went subscription. Four years from now, they will probably go cloud-only. Keep your options open.

Lloyd

[john beardsworth]

Except there are reasonable solutions ... at least as compared to the current state of Lightroom CC offering ... that are the same or less expensive, in fact, some that are nearly or mostly free that don't entangle the end user in paying a monthly stipend in perpetuity.

For example, an advanced hobbyist could get by with the iOS and macOS Photos App and maybe Affinity Photo or the forthcoming Pixelmator Pro for a very significant savings that includes all your images on all your devices. Many of these options have been available for some time. Adobe is actually late to the party.

So Adobe does need to get a move on and show up at that party, even if it doesn't arrive first.

What surprises me is that they've chosen not to play to their strengths with LRCC. Maybe they believe their strong suit is Adobe Camera Raw and they don't need to do much beyond strapping another new UI onto it. But given their status at the top end of image editing, I find it hard to believe that they have released LRCC in such a feature-incomplete state, unable to print or send as email, and with such limited metadata / organisation features. Hey, we're giving you Sensei AI - you you don't need all that meta - what did you call it? Fine, but did you know that LRCC's search doesn't work if you're offline? All this oversimplification wouldn't seem so odd if they were launching LRCC as "Lightroom for Dummies", but their press release says "built for professionals and enthusiasts". It's as if one part of Adobe knows their strengths, but the other has only had the resources / time to release something way below what one would expect.

John

[Jonathan Cross]

Just caught up with this.  To say I am disappointed is an understatement.  I have just been on the UK Adobe website and it seems LR will cost just under £10 a month or £120 per year.  I have LR6 standalone and am happy.  I do not want to go to the cloud as I want to keep my images on my hard drives (with backups and archives) not keep them somewhere else that I do not know and wonder if someone else could use them without my permission.  I do not trust that they will not disappear or that there will not be a password problem that renders them inaccessible.
 
As far as I am concerned LR is a mature product and I just want it to be updated to ensure that if I change my camera body, LR will read the RAW files.  £120 per year for that, no way.  I will keep LR6 until I get a new body and then think what to do. 

I resent a major supplier trying to manipulate the market like this.  The nightmare scenario is that in the future we could have to pay a subscription to view/print even jpegs and tiffs.  Perhaps we should return to hard copy and there could be a future after all for slides, negatives and prints!

Jonathan

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Another thing I just thought about. As your photo data base grows, you'll eventually have to buy more cloud storage.  So, Adobe will become a cloud storage service in addition to a photo editing service, all at a monthly charge, forever.  It'll be like marriage without being able to get a divorce.

You've got it, that's their model, it was already obvious when they first went subscription. It's similar to how McDonald's changed, from selling fast-food to 'selling' franchise agreements with land/locations.

Cheers,
Bart

[john beardsworth]

It's similar to how McDonald's changed, from selling fast-food to 'selling' franchise agreements with land/locations.

I'm not a fan of subscription-limited software, but it's nothing like that at all - that's just prejudiced nonsense.

John

[IanSeward]

Just caught up with this.  To say I am disappointed is an understatement.  I have just been on the UK Adobe website and it seems LR will cost just under £10 a month or £120 per year.  I have LR6 standalone and am happy.  I do not want to go to the cloud as I want to keep my images on my hard drives (with backups and archives) not keep them somewhere else that I do not know and wonder if someone else could use them without my permission.  I do not trust that they will not disappear or that there will not be a password problem that renders them inaccessible.
 
As far as I am concerned LR is a mature product and I just want it to be updated to ensure that if I change my camera body, LR will read the RAW files.  £120 per year for that, no way.  I will keep LR6 until I get a new body and then think what to do. 

I resent a major supplier trying to manipulate the market like this.  The nightmare scenario is that in the future we could have to pay a subscription to view/print even jpegs and tiffs.  Perhaps we should return to hard copy and there could be a future after all for slides, negatives and prints!

Jonathan

I think this quote by Richard Butler (DPRevue) needs serious consideration:

In my look back at my excitement surrounding the development and launch of Lightroom v1.0, I said I felt that the subscription model "runs counter to the longevity benefit of building a database around my images". I stand by that.

Ian

[john beardsworth]

I think this quote by Richard Butler (DPRevue) needs serious consideration:

In my look back at my excitement surrounding the development and launch of Lightroom v1.0, I said I felt that the subscription model "runs counter to the longevity benefit of building a database around my images". I stand by that.

I don't think it's worth quoting something without citing the exact source, Ian, when the quote doesn't make sense. v1.0 never had a subscription model, and I'm not sure it was ever suggested.

I would agree it's risky to accept a subscription model that disables the database after the end of the subscription, but Adobe don't offer that model.

[Alskoj]

That's just the going rate for LR / PS CC for everyone. I would think students would get a better rate.

Yep, you're right.  I guess students get a good break, though, when buying "All Apps" - $20 vs. $50.

[Mark D Segal]

.................. while sitting on their butts.  ....................

Except that's not what they're doing.

Let's not conflate the marketing issue with the engineering side. Seriously good people are working hard, brilliantly and earnestly on the latter, improving the application with every release notwithstanding the occasional screw-ups that do happen and do get resolved.

[Mark D Segal]

In corporate culture, anytime anything is labeled "Classic", that's code for "on the back burner until eventual replacement". Why else would Lightroom become Lightroom Classic, ...............

Lloyd

When a company introduces a sister product that has many similarities to the original product some renaming is necessary to avoid confusion. I have a different take on the word "Classic". To me it means "what was there before". And things that are "classic" in this sense can have long-term staying power, like classical music for those who appreciate it. "Classic" gives me comfort that my computer-based application has a recognized place in the repertoire and it is here to stay. I don't need cloud-based photo editing or storage and even if circumstances changed and I were to find it useful,  I wouldn't think it safe/reliable to grow dependent on it. The day Adobe rips out the "Classic" version, I'll be looking for viable alternatives.

[john beardsworth]

I perfectly understand why "Classic" rings alarm bells, and "Pro" might have sent out a more positive message.

But don't forget that while "Classic" is infamous thanks to Coca Cola, it was "New Coke" that went down the drain and "Classic" that is still around.

John

[Mark D Segal]

I perfectly understand why "Classic" rings alarm bells, and "Pro" might have sent out a more positive message.

But don't forget that while "Classic" is infamous thanks to Coca Cola, it was "New Coke" that went down the drain and "Classic" that is still around.

John

EXACTLY

[hogloff]

Sad, really" I’ve invested 10years into Lightroom, purchasing upgrades each time, even teaching it at the College level. But I’m not about to invest the next 20+ years into perpetual CC licensing. Adobe can kiss my a**!

Why? Since you paid for all LR updates...doesn't the subscription just make this easier?

[hogloff]

It's obvious Adobe doesn't care about the amateur or even the serious photographer.  If you're 25, you're going to lease a product for 40 years at $120 a year or $1200 over each ten-year period.  To edit a picture?  You need the files in the cloud?  You can buy a 2 TB drive for under $100.  Businesses and schools will make up the bulk of Adobe earnings.  Adobe will leave the one-shot photo buyer who upgrades once in a while to other manufacturers.  Pricing to buy upgrades is too low and most of the features are now available.  Really, what more are they going to do to make you spend money?  But now that your locked in, then subscription makes sense if you can write it off.  It's similar to AutoCAD for architects and engineering firms.  But those firms have to exchange plans so they all would need Autocad  software to overlay their individual work.  Not so with photos so Adobe is taking a bigger risk.  But it makes sense anyway because it's worked for PS and their other programs.  They spent years locking people into their programs.  Now they can collect royalties while sitting on their butts.  Great business if you can get it.

Yes...and isn't it nice that the service might be available for all those years. Switch over to another tool and watch them go away after 5 years. How many tools out there have just disappeared...Aperture being one. How much will it cost you to switch your entire image base from a proprietary system once they decide to turn off the lights. Do you really think all these wannabe upstarts will be around in 5 years, let alone 40?

[Alan Klein]

Except that's not what they're doing.

Let's not conflate the marketing issue with the engineering side. Seriously good people are working hard, brilliantly and earnestly on the latter, improving the application with every release notwithstanding the occasional screw-ups that do happen and do get resolved.

Adobe had to make real changes to get us to buy an upgrade.  You weren't going to shell out extra money for small incremental changes.  So they had to invest in software that really made a difference.  Once you're on a monthly plan, and they have your charge card on file, you've forgotten about the monthly charge and really don't think of better editing software.  Adobe just has to make small changes to make it seem like they're doing something and to keep up with other editing programs.  Their R&D may be in other areas but not much in editing.  They'll sit on their butts collecting dividends.