Lightroom 6

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Forever is a long time! 3-5 years, the typical lifespan of a PC where I work, isn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, I should have put quotes around 'forever'. Point is, as you say, 3-5 years and who knows what will run. I've owned Perpetual licenses for Photoshop since 1.0.7, didn't do me much good when as you point out, 3-5 years, the previous version either didn't serve the job as well as the newer version or as I've seen over the years, the older version simply wouldn't run without equally old hardware and OS. So again, owning a perpetual license isn't without limitations and issues and isn't all it's cracked up to be. <br /> As Marc points out, the math in terms of $$ isn't really an issue. It's all about '<em>personal freedom'</em> in software, something I could care less about. Does it work, get the job done and is the cost to benefit ratio sound? I'm no more enamored by software <em>personal freedom</em> as I am with the tea party but that's another rant.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Andrew @ 08:15pm:<br>

All good points and pretty much lays it out as to cost/benefit. However the other assessment is the risk/benifit with concern to the credit card subscription model. I can understand that people would be leery of Adobe after the hack. Some may back away from that. I figured since they've been so badly burned (and their customers) that they will be very careful with security so I accept a level of risk with this subscription model. But to me $10 a month for all fully updated versions of both LR and CSCC is a great deal. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>However the other assessment is the risk/benifit with concern to the credit card subscription model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No argument. But this is something I and I suspect others do all the time with companies providing services. For me, cell phone, landline, cable, wine club, auto renewal for AAA, etc. IOW, common practices outside subscribing to software. So I see this as an all or nothing proposal. I'd ether avoid every and all credit card subscriptions or, not concentrate on Adobe alone. AFAIK, I'm responsible for no more than $50 if the credit card is used for unauthorized purchase. </p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>Well, whether you subscribe to Adobe CC or buy stand alone software versions, the chances are that a credit card is involved. My cards offer me 100% fraud protection, that's from the first dollar. So, the vendors have gone beyond the law that says you're only responsible for the first fifty bucks. </p>

<p>I'm happy with the CC versions, but less so with Adobe's implementations via their installers. But, that's another story.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>So, the vendors have gone beyond the law that says you're only responsible for the first fifty bucks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not vendors, the (some) credit card companies. That's the <strong>max</strong> I believe and as you point out, you've got even better protection.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>As Marc points out, the math in terms of $$ isn't really an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speak for yourself! I've been using Photoshop and other Adobe products, mostly in an academic environment, for a couple of decades, and I haven't spend anything like the equivalent of 20 years worth of CC charges - e.g, I got CS3 (2007) more or less when it came out, and was happily using it until I upgraded to CS6 quite recently with a new PC. For some use cases, I'm sure CS6 (and presumably CC) is dramatically better. For our needs, the new features really aren't that compelling - I'd still be happy to use either version.</p>

<p>Many people, of course, are perfectly happy with the rental model. But it's tough luck on those of us who aren't, since Adobe offers no choice on its higher end products. I suspect making products like PS, Illustrator, and InDesign available only via CC is aimed squarely at people like me, who were formerly able to access them via a very reasonably priced bundle which we only occasionally updated. We simply weren't making enough money for Adobe, and that had to stop. Artificially re-defining a product as a 'service' is of course an excellent way of keeping the cash flowing. You probably won't be surprised to know that I don't belong to a wine club, either! Hopefully LR users will continue to be offered the choice of either model (just as MS Office users are). I assume products like Elements will retain their perpetual licences - Adobe has too much competition at the low end to get away with imposing rentals.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Speak for yourself!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am, <strong>and</strong> I'm agreeing with Marc. Obviously you've missed something I wrote eariler: <br /><em>There's always a cost to benefit ratio. It either makes sense <strong>to each</strong> or it doesn't</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many people, of course, are perfectly happy with the rental model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speak for yourself! ;-)</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Since Adobe is making a lot more money since the cloud rental plans, that means it's costing their customers cumulatively a lot more money. To argue that you save, well maybe some do, but many probably most do not. Schools (tax payers?) and companies that could get along on older versions for years now are stuck with perpetual licenses at higher cumulative costs. <br>

Fortunately for me, I only use LR so the rental option with CC doesn't make monetary sense. The incremental increase in options isn't worth the upgrade yet in any case.</p>

 

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>I am, <strong>and</strong> I'm agreeing with Marc. Obviously you've missed something I wrote eariler: <br /><em>There's always a cost to benefit ratio. It either makes sense <strong>to each</strong> or it doesn't</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I saw the cost/benefit thing, but that's just stating the obvious. You either think it's worth signing up to CC, or you don't. There are similar calculations for perpetual licences, e.g. balancing the advantages of a product that never expires against the supposed risk of compatibility problems in the 3-5 year timeframe. The latter is mostly FUD, at least on the PC. The only issues I've come across with PS in the last decade or so are that PS7 doesn't like >1TB partitions, and CS2 has some strange cursor artefacts with certain Windows display scaling settings. Things might be different on the Mac, of course.</p>

<p>Not sure what you mean by repeating 'speak for yourself!' - do you disagree that many people are happy with the rental model? I thought you believed they were?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Not sure what you mean by repeating 'speak for yourself!' - do you disagree that many people are happy with the rental model? I thought you believed they were?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm happy, I will not speculate and speak for others. Just as I will not speculate that Adobe making more money is simply due to the so called cloud rental plans. It's possible, but I have no direct knowledge, haven’t seen their books and so on. </p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>Schools (tax payers?) and companies that could get along on older versions for years now are stuck with perpetual licenses at higher cumulative costs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Our pattern of use is a case in point (we are mostly charitably funded). That copy of CS3 DS I mentioned was run for about 7 years, and cost us the equivalent of the 1 year CC pricing that Adobe is offering our institution.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Adobe has educational pricing, always have. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't change the math Marc points out. There's always a cost to benefit ratio. It either makes sense to each or it doesn't. <br />Photoshop CS5 or LR6, if you stick with a perpetual license it's yours forever true. But can you run it forever? Are you wiling to dedicate a circa 2015 machine when in 2018, it's very possible that software will not run?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This is a Mac users perspective. The "math" will be much different for people like Richard that are on Windows that are accustomed to using software and hardware in harmony for much longer than what Apple has historically provided.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>This is a Mac users perspective. The "math" will be much different for people like Richard that are on Windows that are accustomed to using software and hardware in harmony for much longer than what Apple has historically provided.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, a good reason to for own a Mac, good to know. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Since Adobe is making a lot more money since the cloud rental plans, that means it's costing their customers cumulatively a lot more money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> ?. Wouldn't this be the case if they had the same amount of customers? The do not. Furthermore, Adobe is costing me less money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just as I will not speculate that Adobe making more money is simply due to the so called cloud rental plans. It's possible, but I have no direct knowledge, haven’t seen their books and so on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> You don't need to see their books. If you're a shareholder, or interested in their annual reports, they are indeed making a lot more money since CC was introduced. Their stock price has also doubled since the introduction.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>Adobe has educational pricing, always have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes - naturally we use the academic pricing available to our institution, formerly for CS and now for CC (which is different to the personal student/teacher pricing that can only be used for installations on privately owned machines).</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You don't need to see their books. If you're a shareholder, or interested in their annual reports, they are indeed making a lot more money since CC was introduced. Their stock price has doubled since the introduction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not disputing that, I'm suggesting I have no idea if that's solely attributed to subscription alone. For example, perhaps they've cut down hugely on software piracy. Perhaps better management etc. Yes, it's entirely possible it's due in some or large part due to subscriptions. But if you read from the folks who spit blood over this new model a few years ago, you'd think Adobe's profits would drop, not go the other way. So if this new model is so awful, could it be their customers are eating up the subscription plan, they love the new products? I don't know, I'm not going to speculate. I'm not a shareholder and if you are and have such information, please share it. Not that it will make my decision about the subscription change, I need the products. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>OK, a good reason to for own a Mac, good to know.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>*sigh*. I still wonder why Apple has nearly lost 100% of the desktop publishing, photographic, graphics, video editing, and movie industry in the last 15 years to Windows? But maybe you're right and only getting 3-5 years of software/hardware harmony on a Mac vs the 14 years on Windows XP is a good thing...<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, it's entirely possible it's due in some or large part due to subscriptions. But if you read from the folks who spit blood over this new model a few years ago, you'd think Adobe's profits would drop, not go the other way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think this split blood is mostly from a few angry customers and voicing it on dark dusty corners of the internet in forums like this. It would be dangerous to take this small sample and come up with any conclusions. If you were instead out there on social media once in awhile and involved/engaged with this new wave of "$10/mnth Adobe" photographers that has our Fb groups and G+ communities explode in popularity these last couple years, it would be evident that Adobe is doing very well with new users to CC.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So if this new model is so awful, could it be their customers are eating up the subscription plan, they love the new products?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One Fb group I belong to (https://www.facebook.com/groups/pshopandlightroom/) has 100,000 members. It was around 9,000 members before CC came along. Everyday it is filled with new people that are tickled pink of having pro software for $10/mnth. Ps is so common now, it's no longer pro software.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know, I'm not going to speculate. I'm not a shareholder and if you are and have such information, please share it. Not that it will make my decision about the subscription change, I need the products.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The pdf's I get are the same ones that are hosted publicly; Google it if you're keen. It will also fill in your blanks in regards to the other areas Adobe is reaching and making profits. <br>

<br>

</p>

[Carl Stone]

<p>My bad. When I said "vendors" earlier. I was referring to the banks and CC companies that issue the cards. They have gone beyond the federal requirement. </p>

<p>As for Adobe making more money now, how do we know that it's not the result of a larger customer base? I know that they're getting less rom me, and frankly I hope they make trillions. </p>

<p>The term perpetual license is misleading.The software will eventually stop functioning if versions are not kept up to date with OSen etc, so there is nothing perpetual about a stand alone version. </p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>No argument. But this is something I and I suspect others do all the time with companies providing services.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep.</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>This is a Mac users perspective. The "math" will be much different for people like Richard that are on Windows that are accustomed to using software and hardware in harmony for much longer than what Apple has historically provided.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know Eric. That hasn't been my experience, but then I last used windows for personal work back in 2006. I use to replace those computers about every 1 1/2 years, and I'm getting 3-5 on my macs. I was always fiddling with my computers, drivers, AV etc. Its like the difference between driving let say a BMW boxer and a Triumph. You ever see a Triumph MC driver at a stop light not reaching down and fiddling with the carb or something? :)</p>

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>The term perpetual license is misleading.The software will eventually stop functioning if versions are not kept up to date with OSen etc, so there is nothing perpetual about a stand alone version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone expects their perpetually licensed software to be running when the Heat Death of the Universe comes around. But it's worth mentioning that MS still lists versions of PS as far back as 5.5 (1999) as compatible with the latest version of Windows (8.1) and even the Technical Preview of the next version (10). If you install a current 32-bit version of Windows, you can even run DOS software from a decade earlier - WordPerfect still has its fans. Mac people probably have different expectations about long-term compatibility - the Mac, after all, has had three entirely different architectures since the Windows 95 era. The downside of Windows systems used to be the sort of flakiness that Barry mentions. But that pretty much went away with Windows 7 back in 2009, leaving us with a solid, dependable system that basically Just Works. Now the only fuss is about the silly interface changes introduced with Windows 8, which MS is busily reverting for Windows 10 (which, I suspect, will still run PS 5.5!).</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know Eric. That hasn't been my experience, but then I last used windows for personal work back in 2006. I use to replace those computers about every 1 1/2 years, and I'm getting 3-5 on my macs. I was always fiddling with my computers, drivers, AV etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes, Windows is sold on crappy hardware alright. But hardware longevity and fiddling with Windows wasn't gist of my post though, Barry. But rather backwards and forwards compatibility with hardware and software was what Richard and myself was pointing out. Richard said: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd be surprised if a 2015 PC couldn't run mainstream 2018 software, and astonished if a 2018 PC couldn't run 2015 software. Incompatibilities tend to be exaggerated. We once had Windows 7 working well on a machine that shipped with Windows 2000. I've run CS2 and even PS7 (from 2002) on current Windows 7 and 8 PCs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because of this harmony, Windows users are purchasing less hardware and software and therefore the math is different compared to the Mac camp. For instance, Windows XP ran for 14 years and you can still load it onto any machine you buy today. My "internet" computer is 10 years old and has had Windows XP, Windows 7 and now Windows 8. It will also get a free bump to Windows 10 later this year. This same computer is also running Lr. If my memory doesn't fail me at the moment, it started out with Lr 2 but regardless, it is now running Lr5 so I can do the odd bit of jpg juggling that I need with websites/FTP. What ten year old Mac can take its original os as well as Yosemite? Can a 10 year old Mac load and run Lr 2 through to version Lr5? Our Windows machines can and is what Richard was pointing out when explaining the shortcomings of the "rental" model. He'd prefer to purchase dvd's and I appreciate his position.<br>

<br>

Do you think that the $2600 it cost for the CS6 set of 5 dvds has a different value to a Windows user when you know your hardware will more than likely accept it for ten plus years? Would I spend $4500 on a Mac Pro today when Craigslist is littered with gorgeous, but useless, G5's?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Got it Eric. Probably cause the core of windows OS is still based on DOS? One of the maddening things is the 255 or so, character limit for naming files where the name of the file is the whole file path. I have had to learn kluges to get around that sometime. Yes the backward compatibility of Windows is both a strength, and a weakness. For mac the main cut-off line for running old vs newer programs is really the dividing line from when they moved from Power PC cores to Intel i think about 2007. So really, you should be able to run anything from today back to 2007, assuming you have adequate ram. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Windows XP ran for 14 years and you can still load it onto any machine you buy today.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's more to this than simply the OS. For example the system requirements for LR6 according to Adobe is:</p>

<ul>

<li>Intel® or AMD processor with 64-bit support (Win)</li>

<li>Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support (Mac)</li>

</ul>

<p>You may have an older OS fine, but without the newer hardware, 64-bit support, it ain't going to run. <br>

You purchase that perpetual license for LR6, you better keep using that hardware as LR7 <em>may</em> run fine with an older OS but not without newer hardware or vise versa. </p>