Adobe Announces Cloud-Based Lightroom CC
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
That's your point of view but that's not the only point of view there is.Mikehit said:
I am not saying that companies should try to satisfy *all* their customers. That won't ever be possible. I am saying however, that companies should not take advantage of their customers in an unfair way - by having them, and the market, over years maneuvered into a situation where there really is no alternative (because you have spent hours and hours on your catalog, perfected your workflow, use features frequently that are not present in alternative software, etc., have already invested in years of subscriptions not only to use the software in the very moment, but also to be able to use the results in the future), and then suddenly force everyone to accept completely different and in this respect immoral (yes, I think there is such a thing) terms and conditions.
Upvote
0
LightroomQueen said:
Sorry, but I believe that's just a lame excuse and PR damage control. I may be a lame photographer, but software development is my successful business. The two versions are not so different (it looks the perpetual has the new features simply disabled at the UI level - as some plug-ins to enable the dehaze effect shown), and unless the way Adobe tests software is really outdated and fully manual the effort to test the two versions can't be so expensive - unless in CC the real testers are the customers themselves....
It would be also more credible if Adobe didn't its best to hide the perpetual license on its site - it was very, very difficult for unaware customers to find and buy it.
I perfectly understand the Adobe decision - just, please, don't pull our legs...
Upvote
0
yeahright said:
What advantage are Adobe taking of customers?
If you are using legacy Adobe perpetual license, you still have use of it. If you moved to CC you knew you had access to edits for only as long as you paid for the subscription. I am not sure what you are saying.
What features are not present in the new software that were in the 'old' software?
Are you saying that companies who discontinue products are acting 'immorally'? Does a camera manufacturer act immorally by stopping support for long-defunct lenses that are otherwise optically sound?
Upvote
0
LDS said:
I'm not trying to pull your leg. It's not just hiding UI bits in the program, it's all the installation/licensing/sales stuff that causes most of the complications. A huge amount of the support stuff I deal with are due to the dual licensing systems, and that's only me!
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
True but what I find distasteful here is that there seems to be little awareness or attempt to thank long-term users. For example I have paid and upgraded to every release since the first version and now I am being forced to pay the full amount every month, the same as a new user. Sure change the licensing model but why not acknowledge those long term investors who have helped get the product to where it is today.
Upvote
0
Happily I can say that because I bought LR6 perpetual in April of 2015 and bought PS CS6 on a student license back in 2011 I have saved money by not moving over to CC yet. Unfortunately for me it's just a matter of how long I can hold out on LR6 before moving over to LR classic, but for as long as I can hold off upgrading, LR6 will continue to pay dividends.
Does anyone know if in recent history Adobe has done special offers (black friday deals, etc) to move people to the cloud? Perhaps a discount on the photography plan for buying the year all at once?
Does anyone know if in recent history Adobe has done special offers (black friday deals, etc) to move people to the cloud? Perhaps a discount on the photography plan for buying the year all at once?
Upvote
0
LightroomQueen said:
I didn't mean you, I meant Adobe. I apologize for not being clear, sorry.
LightroomQueen said:
Installation, again, doesn't seem so different - after all it's the same application, although the installer may be different, true, still is a very simple installer. Having to support several platforms, and two desktop applications on each now, is far more complex and expensive.
Of course the trade-off with being able to capture user data in the cloud, and find a way to monetize that (Adobe Stock? Image processing and data mining?), is deemed advantageous - Adobe clearly thinks about some of the same revenues sources Facebook and Google have. And to make it work, you need to push users towards a cloud subscription.
Licensing/sales/etc. are not testing. Having two license model surely complicates things on both sides (and handling a subscription is more complex than handling one-off sales) - as I said I understood perfectly Adobe, no excuse needed to justify the dropping of the perpetual license - especially if they can't really stand scrutiny.
Upvote
0
LightroomQueen said:
Now there are two different versions of "Lightroom" with different features to support. That makes it so much simpler.
Upvote
0
Yes, partly I am saying just that (except, we are not talking about long-defunct products). If Canon decided they'd discontinue the EF mount and switched to a completely different mount designed so that it were impossible to design an adaptor, and if they did that not for technical reasons but solely because they wanted their customers to buy all new lenses from them, many people would be seriously pissed, and rightfully so. That would be another example for 'immoral' behavior. It might well be that in this case pressure from the market (probably people would switch to another brand of camera in this case) would prevent such a move, but I feel that pressure from the market should not be the only source of motivation for any company's policies.Mikehit said:
Upvote
0
yeahright said:
I'm totally ok with immoral behavior, as long as it didn't hurt anything small, cute, furry, or feathered in the making ;D
Just make what I want at a price I'm willing to pay, then take my money, please and thank you!
Upvote
0
Anyone finding Lightroom running any faster. I'm not. No quicker than before which was slooooow!.
My catalog may be too big regardless.
My catalog may be too big regardless.
Upvote
0
Hector1970 said:
My first empirical impression with the updated version of Lightroom Classic was that it is faster when importing and browsing through. But almost the same slow speed as before when converting CR2 files to DNG after importing. Export original size seems to be faster though. I'm using Windows core i7 machine, 64G Ram, NVIDIA 1080 GPU.
Upvote
0
"If you are interested in checking out our cloud-based mobile-first software, Lightroom CC, click on Learn More."
I think, mobile-first says it all for me. Really, no interest in a product that puts mobile first, since my mobile photos are mostly of stuff at Costco sent by text message to my wife to see if she wants it.
I think, mobile-first says it all for me. Really, no interest in a product that puts mobile first, since my mobile photos are mostly of stuff at Costco sent by text message to my wife to see if she wants it.
Upvote
0
First of all, the new range mask is AWESOME. In the past, in order to adjust exposure on just a range, I would create export, snapshot, create a second export, combine them in Photoshop, and mask them there. Now, that's so much easier to do directly in LR.
Second...
The browsing speed -- that is, time to open a 30MB CR2 with processing and have it ready to view -- is WARP SPEED compared to before, which was only a touch faster than DPP. It's essentially now instant for me.
Second...
Mikehit said:
The browsing speed -- that is, time to open a 30MB CR2 with processing and have it ready to view -- is WARP SPEED compared to before, which was only a touch faster than DPP. It's essentially now instant for me.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
