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

[Alan Klein]

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.

Betamax and data encryption is what sometimes happens when companies get too cute trying to lock in their customers.  On the other hand, we have Windows and Apple and now Adobe.  So it does work.  Thirty years ago in my business, I sold service on fire alarm system in commercial office buildings.  These were proprietary systems that only my company could maintain.  I kept the monthly service charge as high as I could get but lower than the point where it paid for the building owner to replace the system.  So what Adobe is doing is nothing new.  But it has nothing to do with concern for the customer, only maximizing profits. 

[ButchM]

So Adobe does need to get a move on and show up at that party, even if it doesn't arrive first.

John

My point was, arriving late to the party puts Adobe far behind in attracting those photographers who already have a well-established 'images on all their devices' method that costs them much less or even zero. It would seem to me that growth in that segment needs more than a half-ready solution.

[john beardsworth]

My point was, arriving late to the party puts Adobe far behind in attracting those photographers who already have a well-established 'images on all their devices' method that costs them much less or even zero. It would seem to me that growth in that segment needs more than a half-ready solution.

Which is roughly what my second paragraph said.

[jrsforums]

My point was, arriving late to the party puts Adobe far behind in attracting those photographers who already have a well-established 'images on all their devices' method that costs them much less or even zero. It would seem to me that growth in that segment needs more than a half-ready solution.

I think we need to use care in discussing the offerings, of which there are 3:

* For photographers that want an all-in-one plan that offers the full benefits of the Light room CC service plus the transformative power of Photoshop, the Creative Cloud Photography plan with 1 TB includes Light room CC, Light room for mobile and web, Photoshop CC, Adobe Spark with premium features, Adobe Portfolio, and 1 TB of cloud storage ($19.99/month, but available at $14.99/month for the first year for existing Creative Cloud Photography customers).

*Light room CC has also been added to the existing Creative Cloud Photography plan with an additional 20 GB of storage to help users get started on the new service. This plan remains at $9.99/month and includes Light room CC, Light room for mobile and web, Light room Classic, Photoshop CC, Adobe Spark with premium features, Adobe Portfolio, and 20 GB of cloud storage. Creative Cloud All Apps members also have access to the new Light room CC service.

*The all-new Lightroom CC plan addresses the needs of photographers who want a cloud-based photography service for editing, organizing, storing and sharing their photos from wherever they are, and includes Light room CC, Light room for mobile and web, Adobe Spark with premium features, Adobe Portfolio, and 1 TB of cloud storage ($9.99/month).

I believe the new LR Cc plan is intended to go after the people you are talking about.  How Adobe attracts them, a month is Co per able for 1TB storage, so the software is essentially “free”.

While talking price, I was happily surprised that the existing price did not change.

[ihv]

This is interesting, by Thom Hogan (http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/digital-photography-softwar/lightroom-fragments.html).
I'd add what concerns Adobe it seems there is no certainty.

"I'm worried a bit about Lightroom CC. Clearly Adobe, Apple, and Google all want us to store our photos on their server and run their software on those images from any device (in the case of Apple, any iOS or Mac device). The implication in Lightroom CC is that someday Lightroom Classic CC is not the priority at Adobe. It might not happen for a long time, but I can see Adobe shifting emphasis on new abilities from Classic CC to CC at some point, in order to consolidate their position in the cloud.

You can see this already on Adobe's site. Go ahead, try to find details on Lightroom Classic CC. The "Lightroom" product position takes you to Lightroom CC ;~). Moreover, everywhere you can get to a Lightroom Classic CC page on the site, you'll see "the future of photography...Lightroom CC" and be offered to learn more, which takes you to the Lightroom CC pages and information. The Adobe press releases all mostly identify Lightroom CC as the big takeaway. "

[john beardsworth]

You can see this already on Adobe's site. Go ahead, try to find details on Lightroom Classic CC. The "Lightroom" product position takes you to Lightroom CC ;~). Moreover, everywhere you can get to a Lightroom Classic CC page on the site, you'll see "the future of photography...Lightroom CC" and be offered to learn more, which takes you to the Lightroom CC pages and information."

He's right. On the Lightroom home page it's all about "Lightroom CC", and you have to know you are looking for the Photography Plan. When you go to the Photography Plan page it's also all about "Lightroom CC" and only at the bottom is a "The Creative Cloud Photography plan also includes Lightroom Classic CC for desktop-focused editing."

If Adobe want to make people nervous, they're going about it the right way!

John

[Mark D Segal]

You can see this already on Adobe's site. Go ahead, try to find details on Lightroom Classic CC. The "Lightroom" product position takes you to Lightroom CC ;~). Moreover, everywhere you can get to a Lightroom Classic CC page on the site, you'll see "the future of photography...Lightroom CC" and be offered to learn more, which takes you to the Lightroom CC pages and information. The Adobe press releases all mostly identify Lightroom CC as the big takeaway. "

Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

[jrsforums]

Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

I am with you Mark.  It is what I meant when I said I did not know how they would attract the new users, which they need to.

If the new CC significantly increases revenue and “classic” revenues drop, then we might have cause for concern.

[pegelli]

Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

Well, I see an analogy with the perpetual licence. Very hard to find on their website when LR6 came out and now at the next incarnation it's gone.
I don't think it's an isolated incident, it's obvious what Adobe thinks the fate of "classic" is, they just haven't told us yet but reading between the line it seems clear to me.

[Alan Klein]

Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

It has nothing to do with the release of a new [product.  The purchase plan for LR for desktop has always been hard to find on their web page and marginalized since PS and LR CC came out years ago.  It's not something new that happened because LR is now a CC product by itself.   Also,  "Classic" will be a dead product with no support and no new sales in a few years.  My guess is they'll keep Elements for amateur editors.  They might even add the cloud for Elements as well.

[Alan Klein]

Well, I see an analogy with the perpetual licence. Very hard to find on their website when LR6 came out and now at the next incarnation it's gone.
I don't think it's an isolated incident, it's obvious what Adobe thinks the fate of "classic" is, they just haven't told us yet but reading between the line it seems clear to me.

Hey Pieter, we finally agree on something. 

[Mark D Segal]

it's obvious what Adobe thinks the fate of "classic" is, they just haven't told us yet but reading between the line it seems clear to me.

I don't think it's obvious and it's not clear to me because I have no inside knowledge of what they are planning to do; but I expect that "classic" will be here for a long time to come. If they discontinue it in an effort to force me onto "cloud computing", it's goodbye Lightroom.

[Mark D Segal]

Also,  "Classic" will be a dead product with no support and no new sales in a few years. 

You have absolutely no way of knowing this unless a senior executive of Adobe told you so, which I highly doubt.

[jrsforums]

It has nothing to do with the release of a new [product.  The purchase plan for LR for desktop has always been hard to find on their web page and marginalized since PS and LR CC came out years ago.  It's not something new that happened because LR is now a CC product by itself.   Also,  "Classic" will be a dead product with no support and no new sales in a few years.  My guess is they'll keep Elements for amateur editors.  They might even add the cloud for Elements as well.

As LR CC is currently designed, I think there are few current LR/PS user would be happy with the lack of control over the physical organization of the data base.  Where LR first came out in beta, there was a similar organization, which was changed due to the vocal complaints of the testers.

Many people use LR/PS as their base, while using DxO, CP1, and other tools.  I doubt the new CC will support that, not the intended audiences interested in it.

The current  Classic will survive based on licenses.  I suggest Adobe will continue efforts of enhancements so that the “cash cow” is not killed.

[Alan Klein]

You have absolutely no way of knowing this unless a senior executive of Adobe told you so, which I highly doubt.

Well that's my opinion.   It's based on the fact that you have to be Sherlock Holmes to find the LR licensed product on their web page for the last four years.

[adias]

...  Thirty years ago in my business, I sold service on fire alarm system in commercial office buildings.  These were proprietary systems that only my company could maintain.  I kept the monthly service charge as high as I could get but lower than the point where it paid for the building owner to replace the system.  So what Adobe is doing is nothing new.  But it has nothing to do with concern for the customer, only maximizing profits.

Fascinating! What was good and fine for you is now evil for others?

I have news for you... the business of business is to make money for its shareholders. At least in free, frowing economies.

[Mark D Segal]

Well that's my opinion.   It's based on the fact that you have to be Sherlock Holmes to find the LR licensed product on their web page for the last four years.

Pretty slim basis for a conviction.

[pegelli]

Hey Pieter, we finally agree on something. 

Feels great Alan

[pegelli]

You have absolutely no way of knowing this unless a senior executive of Adobe told you so, which I highly doubt.

Nobody knows, every statement on the future of "LR classic" is speculation. Only if Tom Hogarty said it will stay "indefinitely" I would be doubtfull and it's my speculation that the fact it's hard to find on the website is a sign (like it was with perpetual licences).

[Mark D Segal]

Nobody knows, every statement on the future of "LR classic" is speculation. Only if Tom Hogarty said it will stay "indefinitely" I would be doubtfull and it's my speculation that the fact it's hard to find on the website is a sign (like it was with perpetual licences).

I think Adobe's position is pretty clearly stated here: Hogarty