Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: iSequoia on June 18, 2015, 04:40:06 pm
-
My brand new copy of Lightroom 6 (perpetual license) will not get the new Dehaze feature. Only Lightroom CC subscribers are so blessed. As much as I love Lightroom, this is robbery. If Adobe had been upfront that LR6 would not be supported I would probably have gone ahead and subscribed even though I have no use for Photoshop in the photography I do. I'm beginning to understand why so many people seem to hate Adobe. Affinity Photo is looking better by the day. -JD
-
Why are you presuming that Lightroom 6 will not be supported? This is not the issue - there is every reason to believe it will continue to be supported much as LR has always been supported in the past. You are simply missing the distinction between a subscription model and the perpetual licensing model. With the former you get updates as they are ready; with the latter you get them in a single batch at the next upgrade cycle, which could be 18 months away. That is the key advantage of the subscription model. I don't think it's appropriate to presume the latter should be converted into the former. Adobe offers both for LR and you do have the choice about which to buy.
-
Nice try Mark.
For the past 8 years that I have been using Lightroom and new features were regularly released as updates to the current version. A new version also included new features but it's was never necessary to wait for a new version. If Adobe releases a version 6.2 that includes Dehaze I'll take it all back.
-
For the past 8 years that I have been using Lightroom and new features were regularly released as updates to the current version. A new version also included new features but it's was never necessary to wait for a new version.
Actually, I think you are dis-remembering. The ONLY times that LR got more features in a dot release was if the the dot release was within the same quarter that the main release occurred. That happened with 4.1 and 5.1 as I recall. Thereafter 4.x and 5.x did not get new features only bug fixes and new cameras. But LR 6 came out in April and Adobe's quarter ended the last of May so 6.1 did not get any new features. Nor will it until LR 7 is released.
-
I'm not "trying" anything. OK, so on the perpetual license model you may need to wait at least for the next "dot release" depending on the timing as Schewe mentions. The basic point I'm making remains the same. You can expect quicker updates on the subscription model than you'll get on the perpetual license model, whatever their periodicity. That is part of the design package. It is clear that Adobe is doing all they legitimately can to steer customers into the subscription model, but I don't take that to mean they are reneging on their support obligations to those on the licensing model, as you expressed it. They could have simply discontinued perpetual licensing for LR as they have for PS. Interestingly, if you read last year's 10-K to the SEC, you will see they were expecting to actually lose money over the transition period between the two licensing models, but they offered reasons why they expect over the longer term there will be benefits to both them and the customers. Time will tell. Meanwhile I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, as the new approach at least for the photography bundle seems quite advantageous not withstanding some recent confusion created by less than obvious instructions on the upgrade options.
-
Now I have to decide if Dehaze is worth a CC subscription just 60 days after I paid $79 for a new copy of LR6 even though I don't need or want Photoshop. LR4 and LR5 did get new features on dot upgrades. Who on earth would know about the one quarter time limit? It's not the money, it's the poorly thought out business practice. Never surprise your customers in a negative way even your dumb customers. Adobe needs to be more upfront.
I have and have benefited greatly from all of Jeff and Michaels LR tutorials, good work, thanks.
-JD
-
What makes you think that Adobe is under any obligation to offer you new features once you bought their product? You bought it based on the functionality contained in the package at the time of the transaction. This is precisely the reason the subscription model exists. You want latest-and-greatest features "fresh off the press"? Go subscription. You hate subscription model? No problem, you have a choice. But you can't have the best of both worlds.
-
................ But you can't have the best of both worlds.
Ah shucks, I'm devastated :-) Don't we all yearn for the best of all worlds in our moments of unreality?
-
Sorry but I'm not trying to rip off Adobe. It's not about the money. I'd have gone ahead and subscribed and saved $79 even though I don't need or use Photoshop.
Why is everybody (here and on other forums) so touchy about this? Instead of defending their move by pointing out that I should have understood the various ambiguous statements, why not just say "sorry, we (they) could (should) have been more clear about the consequences of the choices"? We could have avoided entire thread.
-
I'm noit the least bit touchy and I doubt anyone else here is either. We have no need, incentive or interest to be. The fact is that there is SCADS of information about all this posted all over the place, including in this Forum, numerous threads since the time the subscription model came into being. Adobe also material on their website explaining how these options work, though I agree with you in some respects it could be made more accessible/crystal clear - but their main interest truth be told is converting us to subscriptions. Maybe all we're pointing out to you is that your expectations may be a bit unrealistic and had you done more research you would have probably not raised the question. But now you know.
-
Why is everybody (here and on other forums) so touchy about this? Instead of defending their move by pointing out that I should have understood the various ambiguous statements, why not just say "sorry, we (they) could (should) have been more clear about the consequences of the choices"? We could have avoided entire thread.
I think the reason you are getting some push back rather that a simple answer is that your original post is inflammatory. You accuse Adobe of 'robbery' for not updating your version with a new feature. Maybe it's just hyperbole on your part, but it doesn't encourage a measured response.
-
For the past 8 years that I have been using Lightroom and new features were regularly released as updates to the current version. A new version also included new features but it's was never necessary to wait for a new version.
Perhaps you need a history lesson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_Lightroom
Further, Adobe made it quite clear, as did many other sites that the perpetual license will get no new features but will get bug fixes, camera support, lens profiles. They were very clear that subscription customers would get new features. Now f you go over to DP Review, the pitchforks and axes are out for Adobe thanks to a few members there that suggest Adobe lied to them, their business is unethical etc. These folks point to the actual Adobe web pages and accuse them with their typical confusion while others who can read and comprehend English and who understood the differences in the two models are attempting to explain the facts to these simpletons. It's rather ugly.
-
I have no dog in this fight as I don't use Lightroom.
I do browse quite a few photography forums and blogs and it's clear that there are some angry LR users, particularly those who figured out (with difficulty) how to upgrade to LR6. How many these users are, and to what extent, if any, their concerns are legitimate is not the real issue. The point is Adobe pissed off some paying customers. That's never good.
I think the timing of the new version rollouts was poorly thought out and perhaps caused some additional skepticism of Adobe's motives. Roll out a new version of LR and then immediately roll out a new version of CC and say sorry LR doesn't get the newer features. If the rollouts were reversed LR would get them; do I have that right?
Allan
-
No you don't. Read above.
-
Then I guess I am one of Andrew's simpletons. LR6 perpetual DID get new features according to the Wiki article. It's just one feature, DeHaze, that got in the CC 2015 version that folks are apparently mad about.
-
Why is everybody (here and on other forums) so touchy about this? I
One problem is the issue has been beat to death a long time ago. We get it , some don't like it, many of us have no issues. Fine. But Adobe has been pretty straight forward about this. Features updates are in major releases or through CC (same thing happened with the last version and the local adjustment brush, which showed up in ACR but couldn't move to Lightroom because it was a new feature and there was no LR CC at the time.
i I'm surprised LR even is still available as a perpetual license, and to assume that will continue forever is probably a mistake. Seems at some point in time Adobe will get tired of all of this and must eliminate the perpetual license (which isn't perpetual because at some point hardware/OS upgrades will make it obsolete. Granted this may take quite a few years.
as far as deHaze and the timing, while i agree they were close together, seems the appropriate upgrade/alpha/beta test cycles are really at play here. I'm sure the feature set for LR 6 was locked down several months before the release. Engineers continued to work on features on their "bucket" list or however things are added in - aka deHaze, but the alpha/beta test for one feature is probably much simpler and much shorter, so it was pretty easy to roll out the feature. So it didn't take long to get it ready.
-
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
-
Then I guess I am one of Andrew's simpletons. LR6 perpetual DID get new features according to the Wiki article. It's just one feature, DeHaze, that got in the CC 2015 version that folks are apparently mad about.
LR6 perpetual did not get Dehaze.
https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/06/june-updates-to-cc-photography.html
June updates to CC Photography
Lightroom CC 2015.1 and Lightroom 6.1 are now available on Adobe.com. The goal of this release is to provide additional camera raw support, lens profile support and address bugs that were introduced in previous releases of Lightroom. Lightroom on iOS v1.5 is also now available.
Bug fixes, Tethered capture, new camera and lens support updates are available in both Lightroom 6 and Lightroom CC.
Lightroom CC on the desktop
Dehaze*
Many outdoor scenes have some amount of haze due to atmospheric conditions. Dehaze is a new feature for removing/adding haze and fog from pictures.
The user can control how much haze to remove by adjusting a new slider in the Effects panel in the Dehaze section. This feature can also be used in the other direction to increase the amount of haze.
Recommended Workflow – Adjust the white balance of the image before applying the Dehaze control.
Local White and Black Adjustment Sliders*
Available with all 3 local adjustment tools: Gradient Filter, Radial Filter and Local adjustment brush
Useful for fine-tuning tonality near the brightest and darkest parts of the picture. For instance, they can be used to increase the contrast of highlights.
Recommended Workflow – Make your global adjustments first and then use the local adjustments to fine tune. Use the clip warning indicator to help avoid clipping highlights and shadows.
* Please note that these features are not available in the standalone version of Lightroom 6.1.
-
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
Someone once wrote about the exorbitant costs of college tuition in the US, something to the effect that "going to college is a raw deal; the only worse deal is not going to college."
So it may be said of Adobe, subscription is a raw deal; the only worse deal is not subscribing.
-
I'm not "trying" anything. OK, so on the perpetual license model you may need to wait at least for the next "dot release" depending on the timing as Schewe mentions. The basic point I'm making remains the same. You can expect quicker updates on the subscription model than you'll get on the perpetual license model, whatever their periodicity. That is part of the design package. It is clear that Adobe is doing all they legitimately can to steer customers into the subscription model, but I don't take that to mean they are reneging on their support obligations to those on the licensing model, as you expressed it. They could have simply discontinued perpetual licensing for LR as they have for PS. Interestingly, if you read last year's 10-K to the SEC, you will see they were expecting to actually lose money over the transition period between the two licensing models, but they offered reasons why they expect over the longer term there will be benefits to both them and the customers. Time will tell. Meanwhile I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, as the new approach at least for the photography bundle seems quite advantageous not withstanding some recent confusion created by less than obvious instructions on the upgrade options.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
I actually think I prefer the subscription given how fast things seem to be changing.
:)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
...............
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
Well Bernard, of course the fact that you use alternative applications that you think deliver better IQ indicates that at least for now there is no compulsion to buy a subscription from Adobe - and at present Adobe offers the "perpetual license" option for LR. I would not be the least bit surprised however to see it discontinued sooner than later - the current kind of confusion and debate amongst the clientele cannot be helpful to them. But I wonder how long it will take the competitors to latch onto the commercial benefits (to them) of the subscription approach and in fact down the road there will be no option and we will have no choice but to "get with the program" - literally. Look at what is happening with Microsoft Office for example. I'm thinking this is the future of software vending in general so perhaps we will just need to grin and bear it.
-
Hello Mark,
You may be right, but I believe that companies successful in the long run are the ones delivering value to their customers while providing a pleasing business experience through their various touch points.
I don't feel that Adobe is doing such a great job on the second point.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't feel that Adobe is doing such a great job on the second point.
No disagreement here...but rather than attributing this to an evil conspiracy, I really think it's incompetence and a lack of understanding of the photographic marketplace. Approaching it from this perspective is different than thinking Adobe is evil.
-
No disagreement here...but rather than attributing this to an evil conspiracy, I really think it's incompetence and a lack of understanding of the photographic marketplace. Approaching it from this perspective is different than thinking Adobe is evil.
Jeff,
I don't see Adobe as evil. I just dislike some of the business decisions they have taken recently.
I wouldn't bother writing this if I didn't like working in PS.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't see Adobe as evil. I just dislike some of the business decisions they have taken recently.
Well just realize that Dehaze was not a conspiracy to get users to adopt LR CC 2015.1, ok? The engineers did the best they could but couldn't get it done for LR 6.1 time line due to development (technical) issues (not some evil conspiracy).
It does nothing useful to expand or extend conspiracy theories...conspiracy implies an advanced plot which simply, Adobe is neither interested in nor capable of doing.
-
Well just realize that Dehaze was not a conspiracy to get users to adopt LR CC 2015.1, ok? The engineers did the best they could but couldn't get it done for LR 6.1 time line due to development (technical) issues (not some evil conspiracy).
It does nothing useful to expand or extend conspiracy theories...conspiracy implies an advanced plot which simply, Adobe is neither interested in nor capable of doing.
Jeff,
I don't doubt you word.
Then nothing should prevent them from releasing the capability for LR6 as a point release, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Then nothing should prevent them from releasing the capability for LR6 as a point release, right?
Well, yes...sadly Adobe's quarter ended end of May and that was the cutoff for adding Dehaze to LR 6.1.
Going back to the reason that new features can't be added to an application AFTER the end of the quarter that the major release is released, that's why LR 6.1 can't get Dehaze...sucks, but that's the way it is. Revenue Recognition...it's a matter of accounting.
Mid June was after the end of Adobe's quarter that ended end on May. So, no new features (like it or not).
And no, it wasn't an Adobe conspiracy...it was less that optimal timing.
So, LR 2015.1 gets Dehaze (and Blacks/Whites in local) and LR 6.1 doesn't.
Sucks...but not a conspiracy, it's just unfortunate timing (seriously, no conspiracy involved).
I know some people want to blame Adobe and attribute this to a conspiracy to force people toward a subscription license, but Adobe seriously doesn't have the skills to do this. All they are trying to do is advance their offerings...with the subscription licenses, that's easy. New features get added as they become available. With LR 6.x, you won't get the new features till the next major version, LR 7.
This shouldn't coma as a surprise...
-
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
Shoe on the other foot. Customers made a choice and the one's that chose the CC route get features when they are available while the one's that chose the perpetual route must wait for those features until the next major release.
Now wouldn't the CC people be pissed off if the perpetual release got the same features at the same time...when the CC people are paying every month for these new features to be available before the perpetual licenses.
-
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
Software is a funny thing...it is very hard to accurately predict when a feature will be ready for prime time. Managing a release is very much a decision between a release date and the features that go into the release.
We have no idea exactly what if any issues existed with the dehaze feature when Adobe decided to release LR6. Who knows, maybe it was still very unstable and the decision was made that Adobe could not wait any longer in releasing LR6.
Did we all not already complain how long it was taking Adobe to get LR6 out the door. I believe there were numerous discussions on the already delayed release of LR6.
-
Did we all not already complain how long it was taking Adobe to get LR6 out the door. I believe there were numerous discussions on the already delayed release of LR6.
"We" excludes "me". I could care less when they are ready with a new version. But when they release it, it should be ready for prime time, properly tested for both download and operational functionality.
-
New features get added as they become available. With LR 6.x, you won't get the new features till the next major version, LR 7.
This shouldn't coma as a surprise...
Well, it does and this is where your arguments stop to be logical Jeff.
I can fully understand that they wanted to release LR6 on time and that dehaze was not ready in that time frame.
But there is absolutely nothing preventing them from adding the feature in LR6.2 next week now that it is ready for integration within LR CC.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, it does and this is where your arguments stop to be logical Jeff.
I can fully understand that they wanted to release LR6 on time and that dehaze was not ready in that time frame.
But there is absolutely nothing preventing them from adding the feature in LR6.2 next week now that it is ready for integration within LR CC.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, the whole point is that there is no program and no particular compulsion for them to keep these applications in tandem.You buy perpetual you wait the 18 month update cycle. You buy CC you get updates as ready. Make your choice and you get what you bought into.
-
I think the CC solution is great for those who continually need updated features. Pros, advanced amateurs, etc. But for the average photographer, those bells and whistles aren't needed or certainly not as often. They need a good program that allows them to pursue a photo hobby. They need something for their vacation and family shots. I know a lot of these people in my 55+ photo club. And some of them have really expensive equipment. Cost is not an issue. But they wouldn't know a black point from a clone tool. Most of these features are beyond their capability anyway. But they'll buy Adobe products because of their reputation. And then use them only for cropping, printing and posting on the Facebook. The idea they need both LR and PS and also regularly updated is beyond their needs by a long shot.
When these photographers look at renting, their wives moan at the additional expense. They'd rather go to a restaurant. The seemingly cheap $10 a month grows to $1200 in ten years. That could buy a lot of camera equipment. And eating out! I think for these people and those under 55, and they make up a huge number of people, LR in its current configuration is more than they need. I think Adobe realized this when they implemented CC. That's why they have Elements and so far continue to license LR, providing updates and revisions accordingly. So make your choice.
-
Well, it does and this is where your arguments stop to be logical Jeff.
I can fully understand that they wanted to release LR6 on time and that dehaze was not ready in that time frame.
But there is absolutely nothing preventing them from adding the feature in LR6.2 next week now that it is ready for integration within LR CC.
Cheers,
Bernard
But that is exactly what LR CC offers that your perpetual license does not...continuous feature release. Your perpetual license is behaving like it used to with an 18-24 month update cycle where another major release would be expected with added functionality.
-
But I wonder how long it will take the competitors to latch onto the commercial benefits (to them) of the subscription approach and in fact down the road there will be no option and we will have no choice but to "get with the program" - literally. Look at what is happening with Microsoft Office for example ...
Even better, why not look at CaptureOne - buyers option to either subscribe or perpetual licence, both options plainly visible - no confusion. I see no commercial benefit to PhaseOne in changing their structure - in fact they've explicitly stated there will be no change.
Thanks for reminding me about Microsoft Office, I'd forgotten it existed - Apache OpenOffice being a very credible alternative.
-
But there is absolutely nothing preventing them from adding the feature in LR6.2 next week now that it is ready for integration within LR CC.
My history may be a little hazy, but I remember that Adobe, along with most other software companies, saved big new features for paid, major upgrades. Dot releases were maintenance and bug fixes. The new features were the reason people were willing to upgrade and people upgrading paid for the development of new features. (There's a feature/version chart for Lightroom here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_Lightroom))
When the subscription model came out, a major selling point was that they would now be free to offer new features as they were developed rather than using them to sell major releases. I can see no reason why Adobe would include new features in dot releases for non-subscribers even if they could. By opting for a perpetual license, you are essentially saying, "I don't want to fund new development as it happens, I'll wait and buy the new version when there's enough features to justify the cost." You seem to want the main benefit of subscribing without the cost and to me that's an unreasonable expectation.
-
It is often said that men differ from boys only in the price of their toys. I think I see here a lot of whining kids who want to have their cake (perpetual license) and eat it too (continuous updates) ;)
-
But there is absolutely nothing preventing them from adding the feature in LR6.2 next week now that it is ready for integration within LR CC.
What part of Adobe can't add new features for a perpetually licensed product after the end of the quarter in which the product shipped? This was all covered to death when CC was launched...due to the way Adobe does revenue recognition for perpetual and subscription, only subscription software can get new features. To change their accounting would be monumental and require re-accounting and restating earning results from back to when LR first shipped. Very unlikely...
Dehaze will come when LR 7 ships...that and any/all of the other incremental features added to LR CC. And if the timing is right, any new features that come after ship but before the end of the quarter that LR 7 shipped.
I know people don't like this...personally, I don't either but I understand it and accept it. I started using the subscription model starting with CS6...I find it useful to get new features when they are ready instead of waiting till some arbitrary release date.
-
What part of Adobe can't add new features for a perpetually licensed product after the end of the quarter in which the product shipped? This was all covered to death when CC was launched...due to the way Adobe does revenue recognition for perpetual and subscription, only subscription software can get new features. To change their accounting would be monumental and require re-accounting and restating earning results from back to when LR first shipped. Very unlikely...
Dehaze will come when LR 7 ships...that and any/all of the other incremental features added to LR CC. And if the timing is right, any new features that come after ship but before the end of the quarter that LR 7 shipped.
I know people don't like this...personally, I don't either but I understand it and accept it. I started using the subscription model starting with CS6...I find it useful to get new features when they are ready instead of waiting till some arbitrary release date.
I dont personally like it either, but Im over it, and cant for my purposes see any reason to upgrade to LR6 (after LR3,4,5) let alone get the CC "as they come" upgraded feature set, at this stage. Others will be different. Worth remembering that advertising/marketing is the art of making people unhappy with their current lot (camera, software, body image, car, kitchen etc etc). Best to zone out of it and concentrate on the joy/(and business for the pros out there) of photgraphy.
-
Just bend over like all the lemmings who like lease-ware and you get the newest goodies.
Fwiw, perpetual-ware has been released as app-ware (or apps) in cellnet-land and much cheap and better too. Adobe stockholders and CEO's (Who probably never use Adobe stuff anyway.) are praying us old school lemmings will stay in internet-land and pay them "forever." Much like the Italian mafia's insurance motto of: "Buy insurance forever, or we'll bust this place up."
Looking at all the appware out there in cellnet-land, and some of it is quite good a very cheap, the days of floppy-disk desktop/laptop era internet-ware may be shorter lived than Adobe thinks with their subscription-based Cloud-based stuff that is not that user friendly with huge image files and subsequent data charges in cell-net land with these high megapixel cameras/phones.
What parent is going to sign on for their kids to load Adobe's LR onto their phone and pay for a Cloud usage forever subscription? They can find other stuff out there that does that editing stuff cheaper, better (i.e. Google's Snapspeed), and often for free too (i.e. Snapspeed again).
Of course there are always the "I must have the newest stuff" lemmings who sign on for this crap. Shame to admit I've done it too - twice. The car lease was a disaster loss.
Personally, if us old-school lemmings didn't sign onto this new "pay forever scheme," we might not only have cheaper software that we can use forever (or until our desktop/laptop dies), but more creative and current editions too. The appware and cellnet market is proof of that.
SG
-
You don't like it - fine - that's your opinion and you're entitled to it; but stop insulting other people who see merit in it. Most of this Forum's members are mature adults who like to think of it as a serious forum for intellectually engaging discussion.
-
Crude insults directed at people that hold a different opinions to you does not prove how clever you are. It does prove that you are intolerant rude and obnoxious. It also adds nothing to a discussion of the tools available to people serious about image processing.
-
Crude insults directed at people that hold a different opinions to you does not prove how clever you are. It does prove that you are intolerant rude and obnoxious. It also adds nothing to a discussion of the tools available to people serious about image processing.
So...who are you talking to?
-
So...who are you talking to?
Just some guy
-
Just some guy
Brilliant! ;D