OK I admit it, I don't get it. You've got the best photo editing software on the planet with Lightroom and Photoshop CC and you guys are looking for alternatives?
Well ... how would this all work if there were only one option for cameras, lenses, flash, printers, computers, etc., etc., etc. .... Would we be better off if there was only Canon, or only Nikon? Who benefits more from the lack of a viable competitor? ... The virtual monopolistic software developer ... or their customers? Once everyone is locked in to a subscription plan, don't you think you would benefit from a competitor to keep Adobe engineers on their toes driving them to innovate faster and further and to force the executives to keep prices reasonable? Celebrating a temporary, affordable monthly stipend may not be wise for the long haul ... for once you board the train and there are no other options to complete your journey via other means ... who suffers most from a lack of competition?
The most popular does not always equate with being the "best." While Ps and Lr do some things extremely well, there are areas where they really may not be the "best" options ... if they were, how do you explain the thriving plugin industry? ... Also there are a few other areas in PS and Lr where there are dismal failures. You only have to look at them with open eyes to see where the flaws may be. Adobe is by no means pure perfection.
Does anyone remember shooting Kodachrome at $15-20 a crack and for only 36 exposures and you had to wait maybe a week to 10 days to see your results. Please! You were spending more than that in chemistry, film and paper.
Yes, I remember that era all too well ... and your example is exactly why I was ecstatic when Kodak made E-6 chemicals readily available so we did not have to be chained to their Kodachrome lab and could turn around Ektachrome or Fujichrome in under an hour. Viable options benefit everyone and are liberating for the marketplace. Opportunity, such as the one that Adobe presented to their competition on May 6 opened the door for some folks who firmly believed there was no such opening to attract customers away from the "best" ... I for one hope they do venture forth in a meaningful way.
I guess you're not that interested in getting the best from your images. Seriously, $10 a month and you cry fowel. Give me a break.
Give your heads a shake. People spend more than $10 a month on coffee. Everyone had the chance (and still does) to develop something equal to or better than either LR or PS, but they haven't.
For me it isn't, nor has it ever been, about the price ... but whether the investment of that price will enhance my
bottom line. That is the rule I apply to any purchase I make for my business. Photoshop CC does not have one new feature or enhancement that would contribute to the cause. Yet Adobe has set up a structure that not only insists I reward them for their efforts, they also place a set-in-stone expiration date on the deal. It's about much more than the price of entry alone. Adobe no longer wishes to be rewarded based upon merit, but for time in service. That is a recipe for complacency that is only exacerbated in the absence of a legitimate competitor. In that case we all lose.
You guys have lost it.
I'm not quite sure about that ... Wouldn't it make more sense to have options? ... Would you show up to a paid job with only one camera, one lens, one flash, one memory card? Or do you keep some redundant backup options handy in case of trouble? ... Why shouldn't we do that with our software solutions as well? Wouldn't that be the intelligent method of conducting business? Or is it more wise to advise your fellow photographers to "shake their head" and board the bus like lemmings?