Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: myotis on October 19, 2017, 12:58:40 pm
-
For the sake of idle speculation here is my prediction on the future of Lightroom.
Stage 1. Lightroom Classic will go away once they manage to bring across all the classic features into Lightroom CC. The same two packages will remain available, a Lightroom CC one with 1tb of cloud storage and Photographers one with Photoshop and an option to use Lightroom CC with local storage or (for additional cost) cloud storage.
Stage 2. The most crucial (as judged by Adobe) "photographer" features will be ported from Photoshop into Lightroom CC, and the Photography plan will go away. Lightroom CC, will now be available with different levels of cloud storage at a range of prices (including a no cloud storage option at £10/$10 a month). Photoshop will now only be available as a "normal" Adobe CC application at £20/$20 a month and will no longer be bundled with Lightroom. If you want Lightroom and Photoshop you will need the All Apps subscription at £50/$50 a month.
Stage 3. To rationalise pricing structure Lightroom CC will increase to £20/$20 a month to bring it in line with other Adobe single app prices. Photoshop Elements will be promoted/Developed as the low cost "all in one" option for the non enthusiast/amateur photographer. To save development costs this new version of Elements will really be Lightroom CC with "advanced" features de-activated.
As I say, just idle speculation, but I nearly posted this few weeks ago, but in that post Stage 1 was Lightroom stand alone going away, and of course this has just happened.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Very idle....and, unfortunately not worth writing nor reading 😀
-
Very idle....and, unfortunately not worth writing nor reading 😀
Sorry, there seemed to be rather a lot of speculation going on, and I did put some thought into it what I wrote, and wondered what others might think. But thanks for your comment.
Cheers,
Graham
-
You can get some thoughts, "from the horses mouth" as the saying goes, from Adobe at the link below.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/
-
You can get some thoughts, "from the horses mouth" as the saying goes, from Adobe at the link below.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/
I'm not sure if the "horses mouth" has been all that reliable in the past, not that I'm suggesting what I have say is any more reliable. But I don't think companies can really make "long term" promises as they need to adapt to the market, and Adobe have implied this in the link.
In spite of an earlier commitment to a perpetual license model for LR, they suggest in the link that they to responded to customer demands by moving away from it. And they give a similar message about LR Classic, saying they are committed to providing the Classic version, unless they decide its something customers don't want.
Which is exactly what you would expect a successful company to do. Balance what is needed to run an effective business along with producing a product that enough people want to buy, which will include steering the customer towards the product you want sell.
Cheers,
Graham
-
I'm not sure if the "horses mouth" has been all that reliable in the past, not that I'm suggesting what I have say is any more reliable. But I don't think companies can really make "long term" promises as they need to adapt to the market, and Adobe have implied this in the link.
In spite of an earlier commitment to a perpetual license model for LR, they suggest in the link that they to responded to customer demands by moving away from it. And they give a similar message about LR Classic, saying they are committed to providing the Classic version, unless they decide its something customers don't want.
Which is exactly what you would expect a successful company to do. Balance what is needed to run an effective business along with producing a product that enough people want to buy, which will include steering the customer towards the product you want sell.
Cheers,
Graham
If I remember correctly Tom Hogarty advised that there would be "a perpetual license version available for the foreseeable future". Or words to that effect.
-
If I remember correctly Tom Hogarty advised that there would be "a perpetual license version available for the foreseeable future". Or words to that effect.
I can't remember those exact words,but I also seem to remember there was more than that reassurance bouncing around. But I guess this also depends on how you interpret forseeable future, and what you personally "want" to mean. But I don't think it matters what is said, as what actually happens will depend on circumstances at the time it happens.
Cheers,
Graham
-
See this post (https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html) - "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."
So not the foreseeable future, but using a similar form of words.
-
See this post (https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html) - "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."
So not the foreseeable future, but using a similar form of words.
Since we're splitting hairs on the meaning of the word "indefinitely" let me find another hair to split in this Adobe statement:
Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.
The bolding is mine. Only one future version of Lightroom that was made available via the traditional perpetual licence (i.e. LR6), so based on Adobe using the word "versions" we could have expected this to happen at least to LR7 as well.
-
You're splitting hairs, not me. I'm just quoting the form of words that Hogarty adopted, and insisting the word means what it means, not what some people imagine it means.
-
You're splitting hairs, not me. I'm just quoting the form of words that Hogarty adopted, and insisting the word means what it means, not what some people imagine it means.
No, I know, you're never splitting hairs, or at least never admitting you do ;)
-
You're splitting hairs, not me. I'm just quoting the form of words that Hogarty adopted, and insisting the word means what it means, not what some people imagine it means.
Are you taking it to mean an "undefined" period of time rather than the commoner interpretation of it meaning "forever"?
Cheers,
Graham
-
Are you taking it to mean an "undefined" period of time rather than the commoner interpretation of it meaning "forever"?
Yes. But it is obviously a carefully-chosen word, providing the same sort of wiggle room as when politicians say they have no plans to do xyz. I don't think anyone really believed he meant forever, did they?
-
I don't think anyone really believed he meant forever, did they?
I do think a lot of people hoped (or expected) the use of the term would mean longer than it actually did.
Most people know that nothing is forever, but stopping after one major release feels a bit quick.
-
Yes. But it is obviously a carefully-chosen word, providing the same sort of wiggle room as when politicians say they have no plans to do xyz. I don't think anyone really believed he meant forever, did they?
I think, as I mentioned earlier we interpret things to suit the moment, I suspect while no one thought it meant forever, many assumed it meant "long enough for it to be available while I want it"
But actually, I don't really think it matters, as the wriggle room is always. "that is what we thought then" but now "we are responding to what the majority of our customers say they want now".
And on balance being able to change your mind on things as you gain understanding and experience, is a good thing, so I'm not sure I would even call it wriggle room. Unless initially phrased to deliberately mislead, and that is difficult to judge.
Cheers,
Graham
-
Perhaps "we are responding to what the majority of our customers say they want now" is a mixture of truth and smokescreen. It's no wonder people were buying the subscription version when Adobe made it so hard to find the alternative.
But yes, when facts change you change your mind.
John
-
I do think a lot of people hoped (or expected) the use of the term would mean longer than it actually did.
Most people know that nothing is forever, but stopping after one major release feels a bit quick.
Me too.
I wonder if they will still sell 6 perpetual after the end of the year, available indefinitely....
-
Perhaps "we are responding to what the majority of our customers say they want now" is a mixture of truth and smokescreen. It's no wonder people were buying the subscription version when Adobe made it so hard to find the alternative.
But yes, when facts change you change your mind.
John
Fully agree on your first point John, however I didn't change my mind. I saw it coming and my exit strategy was ready (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121083.msg1006265#msg1006265). Implemetation is easy (do nothing/spend nothing). All cameras my current brand sells are in LR 6.12 and even camera upgrades (like LR features upgrades) are nice but non-essential for me. I hope I won't buy a new camera that is not supported by 6.13 for a long time, and even then I could sweat out a couple of years by converting to dng's. In case that ever becomes unpractical I'll look at my options then, nothing to worry about today since my crystal ball isn't clear enough to see what the best option is 5-7 years from now.
-
Perhaps "we are responding to what the majority of our customers say they want now" is a mixture of truth and smokescreen.
Yes, I think there will always be an obvious smokescreen component to that type of phrase in that it will always have an unsaid, but should be assumed "and what we think is best for our business"
Which, while not necessarily good for an individual customer, is still good for the majority of customers, as the majority probably want Adobe to survive and continue providing them with software they are used to using.
Graham
-
Do we really need to resort to the exact same conversation on LR no matter what the original topic of the thread is? Enough about how Mr. Hogarty phrased his statement about the perpectual version of LR...let's try to move past this now rather than ruining every single thread about LR by derailing.
-
Are you taking it to mean an "undefined" period of time rather than the commoner interpretation of it meaning "forever"?
Cheers,
Graham
Indefinitely
adjective
1.
not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited:
an indefinite number.
2.
not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact:
an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.
-
Indefinitely
adjective
1.
not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited:
an indefinite number.
2.
not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact:
an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.
Or, if you want a more succinct definition from the OED
"For an unlimited or unspecified period of time."
but most people still interpret as "forever" rather than "unspecified"
Graham
-
Do we really need to resort to the exact same conversation on LR no matter what the original topic of the thread is?
Yes... Yes, we do.
Well, truth be told, on my end I don't know which conversations are in which thread anymore. They've all kind of melded. ;D
-
Lightroom "Classic" won't go away for a long, long time. Or if it does, it will be because CC will merge with it. Too many people take too many pictures to be able to sync them all in the cloud. Perhaps a solution that allows primary local storage and selected syncing will work.
As for the Photoshop/Lightroom prediction, I don't think so. They are fundamentally different programs. LR is a parametric editor and not a pixel editor. It completely lacks the ability to do many of the things you can do in Photoshop and I don't see any movement to change that.
-
Lightroom "Classic" won't go away for a long, long time. Or if it does, it will be because CC will merge with it. Too many people take too many pictures to be able to sync them all in the cloud. Perhaps a solution that allows primary local storage and selected syncing will work.
As for the Photoshop/Lightroom prediction, I don't think so. They are fundamentally different programs. LR is a parametric editor and not a pixel editor. It completely lacks the ability to do many of the things you can do in Photoshop and I don't see any movement to change that.
I did say that Lightroom classic would only go away after Lightroom CC had all its features and gave a choice of online or local storage. If you look at what Apple did, with FCP and the iWorks suite, they needed to rebuild these product to make them suitable for a cloud based future (or that's what they said) but they couldn't initially port all of the old features over to the new products, with disastrous consequences for the sales of FCP. Adobe have taken a different approach and running the old product alongside the new, for now.
I am assuming that LRCC will catch up, and it doesn't make much sense to sell two identical programs. And I also suspect Adobe will develop new LRCC features that people will want, which will not be added to Classic because its older design won't allow them to be easily added, encouraging a move to the newer product.
Two aspects about Photoshop. The first is that it seems to be getting used less and less by the majority of photographers as LR has added features. Nothing scientific in this assessment, but over the last couple of years I have picked up on more and more photographers saying they rarely go into photoshop now a days, or they don't use it at all. One of the complaints about the subscription model, from some, has been paying for PS when they only use LR.
The second point is about photographers getting a better deal than other Adobe customers. If I was an amateur film maker I would need to pay the full one app sub for Premiere Pro, so why should photographers get a special deal. I suspect its because amateur and professional photographers make up such a large customer base, but it still comes across as an odd pricing structure, and may be considered unfair by other Adobe customers.
But If you look at the current number of photographer plan users, I wonder how many would be happy enough with an enhanced LR only, and how many would cough up the extra to pay the normal single Adobe App price to get PS (probably bundled with LR), and how many would stop using Adobe all together because of it.
My guess is that most would carry on with an LR only sub, a small number would accept doubling their sub to get PS and LR (still a better deal than other Adobe users get), and a tiny number would leave Adobe products behind (but where would they go, Affinity Photo?). Overall increasing Adobe income, as at least some of us would be paying more than we are now.
I just can't see this special half price deal for photographers lasting, and that the people who still feel the need for PS, will just have to pay the extra to get it. Many of the "must have" and professional PS users are probably already on the all apps subscription, so I suspect, in terms of Adobe customers a tiny number are in the must have LR and PS category, and the majority will probably pay the extra.
That's my reasoning anyway, and as I don't use LR, I am anticipating the day coming when I will need to pay the full £20 a month for PS, rather than the £10 a month I do now, or I may become one of the small minority, who at that stage, might move to Affinity Photo.
Cheers,
Graham
-
The second point is about photographers getting a better deal than other Adobe customers. If I was an amateur film maker I would need to pay the full one app sub for Premiere Pro, so why should photographers get a special deal. I suspect its because amateur and professional photographers make up such a large customer base, but it still comes across as an odd pricing structure, and may be considered unfair by other Adobe customers.
Well, considering you admittedly don't even use Lightroom, your speculation isn't even idea speculation...it's completely misinformed speculation.
You think photographers make up a large percent of Adobe's customer base? You would be wrong. At the height of the Creative Suite, photographers made up less than 10% of Adobe's customer base. Now that Lightroom has stolen even more photographers from the "Suite" products (including Photoshop) photographers are prolly even a lower %.
Photographers don't like to be told that they aren't really all that important, but they really aren't that important anymore...Photographs and photo imagery is widely available for nearly no money–heck even Adobe will sell you stock images right from within their software...
Yet there are more images captured each day than the day before and eventually, cream rises to the top–good photographers can still scrape by with their vision and art...but just barely.
Lightroom "Classic" fill the rich of a desktop based image database system. Lightroom CC works for a multi-devise cloud based system. Will they merge? Don't know...depends on external factors that we don't control–like will there be seriously high speed networks everywhere on earth? If so, I would be happy to move to the cloud. But 36mp Nikon captures and 80mp IQ180 raw captures don't work well on a cloud based system.
Feel free to speculate all you want...but so far, you are pretty far off on your expectations.
-
Well, considering you admittedly don't even use Lightroom, your speculation isn't even idea speculation...it's completely misinformed speculation.
You think photographers make up a large percent of Adobe's customer base? You would be wrong. At the height of the Creative Suite, photographers made up less than 10% of Adobe's customer base. Now that Lightroom has stolen even more photographers from the "Suite" products (including Photoshop) photographers are prolly even a lower %.
Photographers don't like to be told that they aren't really all that important, but they really aren't that important anymore...Photographs and photo imagery is widely available for nearly no money–heck even Adobe will sell you stock images right from within their software...
Yet there are more images captured each day than the day before and eventually, cream rises to the top–good photographers can still scrape by with their vision and art...but just barely.
Lightroom "Classic" fill the rich of a desktop based image database system. Lightroom CC works for a multi-devise cloud based system. Will they merge? Don't know...depends on external factors that we don't control–like will there be seriously high speed networks everywhere on earth? If so, I would be happy to move to the cloud. But 36mp Nikon captures and 80mp IQ180 raw captures don't work well on a cloud based system.
Feel free to speculate all you want...but so far, you are pretty far off on your expectations.
My speculation about the large number of photographers amongst Adobe customers was just trying to understand why photographers seemed to get a better deal than other Adobe customers in terms of pricing. A better deal, that I speculated wouldn't continue. If less than 10% of Adobe customers are photographers, for me, this just reinforces my speculation, as there seems to be even less reason to give photographers such a good deal.
I'm not sure how the availability of high speed networks will affect LRCC merging with LR Classic. If you can't or don't want to use the cloud features, then you just use it with, the inherited from Classic, local storage only feature.
As an aside, I'm also not sure why my speculation is "completely misinformed" and why me not using Lightroom has any bearing on me being able to speculate on this (I have used LR from version 1 all the way through to 6, used LR and C1 together for many years, but only C1 for the last couple of years, having said that I have spent today playing with my newly installed copy of Classic, but I still can't see why this is relevant).
I of course hope I am wrong as I don't especially want to pay £20 a month for PS. Maybe you could reassure me by explaining why I am so far off with my expectations. Though I think expectations is a rather strong word, serious possibility is probably a better description.
But, thanks for responding as it was to get some feedback why this might not happen that prompted the post.
Cheers,
Graham
-
The reason the photographer’s bundle was priced at that price was because that’s what Thomas thought should be...not kidding :-)
-
The reason the photographer’s bundle was priced at that price was because that’s what Thomas thought should be...not kidding :-)
OK, thanks. That solves that puzzle, my speculations are entirely based on how you would normally expect businesses to price and manage products, and I had assumed that the special low price for photographers was based on economic reasons. This "random" element, assuming its still influencing adobe's future plans, really does mean anything might happen.
Cheers,
Graham
-
just trying to understand why photographers seemed to get a better deal than other Adobe customers in terms of pricing.
They're pretty much the only Adobe customers that aren't serious businesses, so are a more price sensitive market.
I think they were surprised are how easy it was to tie so many people into subscriptions.
-
They're pretty much the only Adobe customers that aren't serious businesses, so are a more price sensitive market.
I think they were surprised are how easy it was to tie so many people into subscriptions.
Well, that was the main reason why I assumed that photographers had to make up a large proportion of customers, i.e. the income lost by the lower pricing was compensated by the large volume of sales. But it seems this may not be the case.
Cheers,
Graham