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

[IanSeward]

EXACTLY

If the direction of travel, to cloud is not obvious by now then...

Remember when Tom Hogarty said "there will always be a perpetual version of LR".

I moved to C1Pro when they announced LRCC, as it was obvious what was going to happen.  Even when the LR product manager Mr Hogarty was denying it.

Everyone is free to use whatever software they like, they just should not be surprised by what Adobe are doing.

Ian

[Mark D Segal]

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.

Alan, please, let us not conflate fact with speculation. I have been on their photography plan since it started and seen a continuous flow of new features that perform remarkably well, improvements to existing features as well as certain efficiency improvements, notwithstanding some temporary technical glitches I have not hesitated to evaluate and write about in some depth. I reject conspiracy theories and idle speculation; I'd prefer to play by the evidence, so let's just see what happens over the coming years. This field is becoming increasingly competitive, a good thing for us consumers, and because of this, if I were a betting man (which I am not) I strongly suspect they will not just sit back and collect royalties. If they do that, they will go the way of other rentiers of yesteryear - one doesn't remain a passive Lord in the Castle for very long these days, but now I'm speculating, so I'll leave it at that. 

[Jonathan Cross]

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?

Yes that's the problem with digital.  Will it be possible to read jpegs, tiffs and raws in 40 years?  If it is not possible then our recorded visual history will have disappeared.  If a Betamax video surfaces now can it be viewed anymore?

Jonathan

[john beardsworth]

If the direction of travel, to cloud is not obvious by now then...

Remember when Tom Hogarty said "there will always be a perpetual version of LR".

I moved to C1Pro when they announced LRCC, as it was obvious what was going to happen.  Even when the LR product manager Mr Hogarty was denying it.

Everyone is free to use whatever software they like, they just should not be surprised by what Adobe are doing.

Ian

If you do, your memory is playing tricks. He (carefully?) used the word "indefinitely", which doesn't mean the same thing.

Anyway, it's hard to claim to have been misled if you never believed "always" in the first place.

[Alan Klein]

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?

LR is a mature product.  What do you expect them to give you over a ten year period that's worth $1200 or 1200 Euros?   If you include PS with 1TB cloud, the price goes to $20 a month, double, or $2400 in  ten years.  If you need more cloud as you photo library grows, the price goes even higher.  Adobe's become as cloud service.  Maybe they'll cover my washer and drier for another $30.

 The only reason this works for them is because they got you locked into a product.  From the users' end, it makes no point to pay monthly forever other than it's too expensive or complicated to switch.  That's the name of the game. It has nothing to do with advantages to the customer.  It's all about a business plan and corporate profits.  The customer gains little while paying a lot more for the same product. 

[Rhossydd]

I have been on their photography plan since it started and seen a continuous flow of new features

Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read there's very little of significance between LR6 and CC, just a few minor additions and tweaks.

LR6 is a great program that'll I'll continue to use for as long as I can. It's disappointing that it's now going to be set in stone and not developed further, but it's fine for me now and I've no particular intention to buy a newer camera that won't be supported.
I would have spent more on upgrades, but now I won't have to. I think that's a win here.

[Alan Klein]

If the direction of travel, to cloud is not obvious by now then...

Remember when Tom Hogarty said "there will always be a perpetual version of LR".

I moved to C1Pro when they announced LRCC, as it was obvious what was going to happen.  Even when the LR product manager Mr Hogarty was denying it.

Everyone is free to use whatever software they like, they just should not be surprised by what Adobe are doing.

Ian

Of course they had this in their plans all along.  But now they got gobs of clients already in CC making it more difficult for them to change products. 

[Alan Klein]

Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read there's very little of significance between LR6 and CC, just a few minor additions and tweaks.

LR6 is a great program that'll I'll continue to use for as long as I can. It's disappointing that it's now going to be set in stone and not developed further, but it's fine for me now and I've no particular intention to buy a newer camera that won't be supported.
I would have spent more on upgrades, but now I won't have to. I think that's a win here.

Many new features are really glitz that you use once and don't use again.  Do you really need to replace your cell phone every two years?  I still can't hear the guy speaking at the other end.  And can your Facebook friends really see the difference in your photos?

LR is a mature product.  If you can't edit with it, then the original OOC shot is probably too poor to bother with. 

[Rhossydd]

Yes that's the problem with digital.  Will it be possible to read jpegs, tiffs and raws in 40 years?

TIFF and JPG will certainly be readable for an extremely long time. I'm also now sure that support for most RAW formats will be available too.There is a critical mass of these files now that makes support inevitable. Whilst the data is regularly archived from media to media, it's possible to keep it accesible. I'm sure many of us have some old data that would have started once on a floppy and has been repeatedly transferred and is still accessible on contemporary media.
Look back at format support in document files and it's pretty universal.

If a Betamax video surfaces now can it be viewed anymore?

Yes, at the moment, but that's a different proposition.
Magnetic media is in a continuous slow state of decay, is difficult to copy and is reliant on it's mechanical construction to be playable. Then you have to have mechanical playback machines that have a limited life, playback heads simply wear out after enough tape has passed over them and there's few spare parts now.
It's already got to the point that there's more recorded 1" video material in storage in the UK than there is head life of the machines to play them back.

[hogloff]

LR is a mature product.  What do you expect them to give you over a ten year period that's worth $1200 or 1200 Euros?   If you include PS with 1TB cloud, the price goes to $20 a month, double, or $2400 in  ten years.  If you need more cloud as you photo library grows, the price goes even higher.  Adobe's become as cloud service.  Maybe they'll cover my washer and drier for another $30.

 The only reason this works for them is because they got you locked into a product.  From the users' end, it makes no point to pay monthly forever other than it's too expensive or complicated to switch.  That's the name of the game. It has nothing to do with advantages to the customer.  It's all about a business plan and corporate profits.  The customer gains little while paying a lot more for the same product.

You didn't answer my question. You are looking at this 40 year timeframe. Do you believe the wannabees will be there with you for 40 years, or would you need to switch maybe 10 times to different products in those 40 years, moving your 40 years of images ( if even possible ) to these new applications. What in your mind is the cost of moving from one application to another, learning new processes and possibly not being as productive.

[john beardsworth]

Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read there's very little of significance between LR6 and CC, just a few minor additions and tweaks.

Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View aren't minor.

[Mark D Segal]

 The only reason this works for them is because they got you locked into a product.  From the users' end, it makes no point to pay monthly forever other than it's too expensive or complicated to switch.  That's the name of the game. It has nothing to do with advantages to the customer.  It's all about a business plan and corporate profits.  The customer gains little while paying a lot more for the same product.

Nope. You are not locked in to a product. There are options now and there will be options in the future. Maybe inconvenient and a bit messy to switch, but that's different from being locked in.

Whether one is paying "a lot more" is circumstantial - for some people yes, for others no, it depends what you use. But it's just not true that the product is the same. Each version has new features, improvements to existing features and some performance enhancements.

[Mark D Segal]

Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read ...........

Yes really. Don't just read. Use. For example, the new selection tools in LR7 should be very useful. Dehaze and Upright have been great additions to previous versions. The changes made to the performance of the existing tool set with the upgrade of process versions have been beneficial. All that said, I'm waiting a few weeks for the dust to settle before updating, as I've learned from past experience that early adopters do face some teething risks.

[Rhossydd]

Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View aren't minor.

YMMV

I've tried dehaze (it can be added via presets) and it seems to just make things a bit contrasty almost like localised clarity, not really much use at all.

Boundary warp ? never needed that.

Guided Upright ? the existing tools work OK, but the auto functions like level/auto/full never seem to really get it right.

Reference view ? again, not something I can see having any need for.

Sorry John, but these additions really are just minor niche bits.

[Mark D Segal]

Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View aren't minor.

Correct. They are extremely useful.

[jrsforums]

Yes that's the problem with digital.  Will it be possible to read jpegs, tiffs and raws in 40 years?  If it is not possible then our recorded visual history will have disappeared.  If a Betamax video surfaces now can it be viewed anymore?

Jonathan

Unfortunately, that’s a bad analogy.  Reading jpegs, tiffs, raws are not dependent on physical devices.  The software to read and interpret them is available in many similar, but different forms (programs).  One can expect these forms to survive as long as people use, and pay, for them (Pay being a key word for all those who are trying to get it for free).

The only problem with Betamax not surviving is the copy encryption.  Without it, the data would have been easy to move to surviving devices shush as VHS, DVD, etc.

[Alan Klein]

You didn't answer my question. You are looking at this 40 year timeframe. Do you believe the wannabees will be there with you for 40 years, or would you need to switch maybe 10 times to different products in those 40 years, moving your 40 years of images ( if even possible ) to these new applications. What in your mind is the cost of moving from one application to another, learning new processes and possibly not being as productive.

For the pro who can't be bothered with the relatively small cost to do business, CC makes sense.  But for the amateur, it's a lot of money for little product.  One thing that might be interesting is what other manufacturers might do in the future.  They too could use a rental/cloud plan, but at less cost than Adobe.  That would keep Adobe's price down.   It might get interesting actually to see what happens with competition.  Different companies could offer more cloud space for your other data.  Editing itself is going to be fairly standard, like a bar of soap.  All car manufacturers have pretty much the same features although there's always those who will or need to get additional power.  But for the average driver or photographer, most editing programs will do the job.  It's not worth $1200 or $2400 every ten years. 

[Alan Klein]

YMMV

I've tried dehaze (it can be added via presets) and it seems to just make things a bit contrasty almost like localised clarity, not really much use at all.

Boundary warp ? never needed that.

Guided Upright ? the existing tools work OK, but the auto functions like level/auto/full never seem to really get it right.

Reference view ? again, not something I can see having any need for.

Sorry John, but these additions really are just minor niche bits.

Glitz.

[Mark D Segal]

YMMV

I've tried dehaze (it can be added via presets) and it seems to just make things a bit contrasty almost like localised clarity, not really much use at all.

Boundary warp ? never needed that.

Guided Upright ? the existing tools work OK, but the auto functions like level/auto/full never seem to really get it right.

Reference view ? again, not something I can see having any need for.

Sorry John, but these additions really are just minor niche bits.

They are not minor niche bits. Sometimes the Auto Upright tools work very well, sometimes not. Then you use the Guided Upright which is excellent. For the kind of work I do it has saved countless trips to Photoshop. And Dehaze, if you know how and when to use it, is a wonderful tool, especially in conjunction with other tools, it's a superb addition to an already very capable tool set.

[jrsforums]

If you do, your memory is playing tricks. He (carefully?) used the word "indefinitely", which doesn't mean the same thing.

Anyway, it's hard to claim to have been misled if you never believed "always" in the first place.

+1 Fully agree John.  The business forces around providing a perpetual license, which brings in little revenue yet continues to drain $$s and resources to support, will just not work, except as a necessary transition period.