Lightroom 7 announced, no more standalone license

[pearlstreet]

The LR product manager Tom Hogarty is Here Answering Your Questions on Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC and More

I'm sorry I'm being so dense about all this. Can I use both lightroom classic and lightroom cc?

[Alan Goldhammer]

The LR product manager Tom Hogarty is Here Answering Your Questions on Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC and More

Great Orwellian response, "Why did you abandon the Lightroom standalone version?
TH: Customers are overwhelmingly choosing the Creative Cloud Photography plan as the preferred way to get access to Lightroom. We’re aligning our investment with the direction our customers have signaled over the last several years."

Of course they did because Adobe rolled out new features to the subscription model rather than the stand alone one.  Maybe this is what "indefinitely" really means.

[Mark D Segal]

Great Orwellian response, "Why did you abandon the Lightroom standalone version?
TH: Customers are overwhelmingly choosing the Creative Cloud Photography plan as the preferred way to get access to Lightroom. We’re aligning our investment with the direction our customers have signaled over the last several years."

Of course they did because Adobe rolled out new features to the subscription model rather than the stand alone one.  Maybe this is what "indefinitely" really means.

Sure - their objective is to move everything into the subscription plan so they are engineering the incentives and customer responses accordingly; whether this Orwellian or Pavlovian, same deal. And whether one likes the purpose or not, with the market power they have the strategy kind of makes sense for them, don't you think?

Of course they are taking a business risk on the customer backlash and there is a fair bit of it, but I would guess still a very small fraction of their revenue base. Huge numbers would need to desert them en masse before they would feel a hit, and I kind of think this is not likely to happen, unless they stop providing value-added over the next few years while competitors do.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Sure - their objective is to move everything into the subscription plan so they are engineering the incentives and customer responses accordingly; whether this Orwellian or Pavlovian, same deal. And whether one likes the purpose or not, with the market power they have the strategy kind of makes sense for them, don't you think?

Of course they are taking a business risk on the customer backlash and there is a fair bit of it, but I would guess still a very small fraction of their revenue base. Huge numbers would need to desert them en masse before they would feel a hit, and I kind of think this is not likely to happen, unless they stop providing value-added over the next few years while competitors do.

Of course it is a small % of their overall revenue.  Had it been a critical part, one would have seen much more effort put into LR updates than has been seen.  I mentioned this yesterday, Adobe's big bucks come in from the sales of the whole creative suite of programs of which LR is just a very small part (not to those of us on LuLa but the overall graphic arts community).

[pegelli]

Great Orwellian response, "Why did you abandon the Lightroom standalone version?
TH: Customers are overwhelmingly choosing the Creative Cloud Photography plan as the preferred way to get access to Lightroom. We’re aligning our investment with the direction our customers have signaled over the last several years."

Of course they did because Adobe rolled out new features to the subscription model rather than the stand alone one.  Maybe this is what "indefinitely" really means.

Well, the perpetual licences were so damn hard to find on their website that I'm not surprised a lot of people caved in and went with the CC plan.

Now "Classic" seems to be hard to find (didn't check, I'm not interested) but I can see what he will answer in 1 or 2 years when being asked why they abandoned the "Classic" version 

So the right questions to ask about stopping perpetual licenses were:
- why did you make it so hard to find the perpetual licence version on your website, do you think that might have anything to do with the lower demand?
- why did you promise upgrades could be licenced under the perpetual model as long as you were product manager?
- why do you think not a lot of people bought the LR6 version recently, do you think it might have anything to do with the fact the product is 2 1/2 years old?
- don't you think a lot of people would buy your new LR7 with a perpetual licence today if it were available?

But I don't think you'll find those Q&A's on an Adobe Blog

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, the perpetual licences were so damn hard to find on their website that I'm not surprised a lot of people caved in and went with the CC plan.

Now "Classic" seems to be hard to find (didn't check, I'm not interested) but I can see what he will answer in 1 or 2 years when being asked why they abandoned the "Classic" version 

So the right questions to ask about stopping perpetual licenses were:
- why did you make it so hard to find the perpetual licence version on your website, do you think that might have anything to do with the lower demand?
- why did you promise upgrades could be licenced under the perpetual model as long as you were product manager?
- why do you think not a lot of people bought the LR6 version recently, do you think it might have anything to do with the fact the product is 2 1/2 years old?
- don't you think a lot of people would buy your new LR7 with a perpetual licence today if it were available?

But I don't think you'll find those Q&A's on an Adobe Blog

Exactly right.  Had it not been for some astute LuLa members I would still be looking at the LR6 upgrade!!!!

[john beardsworth]

I'm sorry I'm being so dense about all this. Can I use both lightroom classic and lightroom cc?

You can do, if you want. But I wouldn't suggest using both - just too confusing. If you're a "Classic" user, ie traditional Lightroom, "Lightroom CC" (LRCC) misses so much that I see little benefit in switching.

One way to think of LRCC is as a version of Lightroom Mobile that runs on PC/Mac. Its features aren't much different - dust spots, and the country/state/city/location metadata fields. You can already import raw files into LRM on your iPad, and the originals will sync up to Adobe's cloud. LRCC is the same. So maybe you could have LRCC as if it is LRM on your laptop, import new pics into LRCC on the laptop, and they would then appear in "Classic" on your main computer.

Hope that helps.

[pearlstreet]

That did help, thanks John.

[jrsforums]

Great Orwellian response, "Why did you abandon the Lightroom standalone version?
TH: Customers are overwhelmingly choosing the Creative Cloud Photography plan as the preferred way to get access to Lightroom. We’re aligning our investment with the direction our customers have signaled over the last several years."

Of course they did because Adobe rolled out new features to the subscription model rather than the stand alone one.  Maybe this is what "indefinitely" really means.

Help me understand how you expect Adobe, or any company, to justify development expense for new features/function and maintenance on a product (LR6) which produces no additional revenue?

[Rhossydd]

Help me understand how you expect Adobe, or any company, to justify development expense for new features/function and maintenance on a product (LR6) which produces no additional revenue?

Lots of us were happy and  ready to pay for an upgrade that would generate revenue ,but they've chosen not to take it. Their loss.

[pegelli]

Help me understand how you expect Adobe, or any company, to justify development expense for new features/function and maintenance on a product (LR6) which produces no additional revenue?

Sell it as LR7, ~75€ per upgrade licence, double that for a new licence.
Same model as before. Doesn't take much R&D and resources, LR 6 was just the same as the LR CC version at the time, only with a few features missing from the UI.
I know why they stopped it, because if they only convert 1/4 of the old LR6 users they make more money in the end. So they can lose 3/4 of their "standalone" base and still come out ahead. 

[jrsforums]

Sell it as LR7, ~75€ per upgrade licence, double that for a new licence.
Same model as before. Doesn't take much R&D and resources, LR 6 was just the same as the LR CC version at the time, only with a few features missing from the UI.
I know why they stopped it, because if they only convert 1/4 of the old LR6 users they make more money in the end. So they can lose 3/4 of their "standalone" base and still come out ahead.

Sounds like a reasonable business decision to me.

[pegelli]

Sounds like a reasonable business decision to me.

Oh yes, a very reasonable business decision, but as a customer belonging to the 3/4 group it sucks. However since I thought this would happen anyway one day I've got my plan to deal with it thought out and ready to implement. And it does not involve going to the subscription model 

[hogloff]

Oh yes, a very reasonable business decision, but as a customer belonging to the 3/4 group it sucks. However since I thought this would happen anyway one day I've got my plan to deal with it thought out and ready to implement. And it does not involve going to the subscription model 

What's your plan and what's the cost of implementing the plan including possibly less features and large learning curves...and too boot, loss of all those edits you've done in LR all these years.

Personally I'd look at all costs before deciding to move. I know you seem to be very angry with Adobe right now...but who do you think will really lose in the end?

[ButchM]

What's your plan and what's the cost of implementing the plan including possibly less features and large learning curves...and too boot, loss of all those edits you've done in LR all these years.

It's not that big of a deal, really. Many folks made such a move when Apple abandoned Aperture and the world did not end. I, for one, would never turn down buying a new car of another brand because I would have to re-learn button/knob/lever placement and action or the nuances of a new vehicle. Otherwise we would all still be driving a Model T.

The day you avoid learning, exploring new opportunities is the day you really set yourself up for failure. One should never put all their eggs in one basket just because the basket is currently the most popular.

[pegelli]

What's your plan and what's the cost of implementing the plan including possibly less features and large learning curves...and too boot, loss of all those edits you've done in LR all these years.

Personally I'd look at all costs before deciding to move. I know you seem to be very angry with Adobe right now...but who do you think will really lose in the end?

First of all I'm not angry with Adobe, as I mention it's a reasonable business decision and one I saw coming. I just like to call them out on all the marketing bullshit (and lies) around the change. If they would just say "we make more money this way" and cut the crap I would believe them and agree with them. The rest is just hogwash and in my mind undermines their credibility.

My plan is to keep using LR6.12 or 6.13 as well as C1, both of which are on my computer and used and both licences are fully paid up. Some images are easier to edit in LR, some easier in C1, which is why I use both. In case I get a camera that is no longer supported by LR6 I'll convert the raw files to dng and keep using them that way in LR6. They even mention that as an option on the Adobe website.

I'm not too worried about missing out on features, most of the features I missed because I didn't subscribe to LRCC and went standalone LR6 are in my eyes not worth the money I would have paid more with the subscription.

So this move by Adobe actually saved me the 75€ I would have paid for an upgrade to LR7 standalone. I've paid those update fees every time since LR1 about 1 or 2 weeks after the new version came out and I guess that if it was possible I would have done it again.

[jrsforums]

It's not that big of a deal, really. Many folks made such a move when Apple abandoned Aperture and the world did not end. I, for one, would never turn down buying a new car of another brand because I would have to re-learn button/knob/lever placement and action or the nuances of a new vehicle. Otherwise we would all still be driving a Model T.

The day you avoid learning, exploring new opportunities is the day you really set yourself up for failure. One should never put all their eggs in one basket just because the basket is currently the most popular.

Apple abandoned Aperture users.  Adobe has not abandoned LR users.  Just asking them to pay fair share.

I think it is a fair question to ask you your plan, costs, and effort.  Without stating it you are just mad and complaining about Adobe not allowing you to get a cheap upgrade. All the LR CC users have been paying monthly for the function that is now being provided.  What would not be fair is for them to offer it to others for $0.10 on the $1.

[hogloff]

It's not that big of a deal, really. Many folks made such a move when Apple abandoned Aperture and the world did not end. I, for one, would never turn down buying a new car of another brand because I would have to re-learn button/knob/lever placement and action or the nuances of a new vehicle. Otherwise we would all still be driving a Model T.

The day you avoid learning, exploring new opportunities is the day you really set yourself up for failure. One should never put all their eggs in one basket just because the basket is currently the most popular.

I look at it differently. I'm comfortable using LR / PS for my processing...am very used to the tools and very productive. Why do I want to change and use my time and energy on something that ain't broken when I can spend time and energy on other things.

As far as cars go, I don't buy a car until I need a new one. I don't look at the specs of new cars, don't drive by the lots with my tounge dangling and surely don't waste my time test driving the new cars. All those things are just a waste of time...like downloading something like C1 Pro and playing with it when I'm happy with LR / PS.

[pegelli]

Apple abandoned Aperture users.  Adobe has not abandoned LR users.  Just asking them to pay fair share.

I think it is a fair question to ask you your plan, costs, and effort.  Without stating it you are just mad and complaining about Adobe not allowing you to get a cheap upgrade. All the LR CC users have been paying monthly for the function that is now being provided.  What would not be fair is for them to offer it to others for $0.10 on the $1.

It's actually $0.25 on the $1 and for the people who paid that it's the cost of being an early adopter.

Camera's are also more expensive at introduction then 1 or 2 years down the road. Is lowering prices over time an unfair business practice of Canon (or Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Olympus/.....) vs. the people who paid full price at the introduction? 

[Christopher]

And still now psb support or larger file support......


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk