Adobe Doubles the Price of Lightgroom/Photoshop Bundle

[andylynn]

Yes, we know that Adobe has stopped updating LR6, and again, there is nothing in any of this indicating that customers have agreed that their licenses will be revoked.

 

BTW, Luminar is now free for anybody who owns a Fuji lens. Another LR alternative for you.

[digitaldog]

My point is to provide facts and point out no, not EVERYONE is aware of the facts.

[Richard Williams]

Does this mean that actually it’s not the perpetual license version that’s de-licensed and actually it’s the subscription version that shipped at the same time? That would make much more sense.

I suspect that's the correct interpretation. Adobe are probably just calling it 'LIGHTROOM CLASSIC:6.0' to distinguish it from more recent versions of Lightroom CC. The perpetual licence version of LR6 wasn't called 'Classic' as far as I recall, and the letter specifically refers to 'older versions of Creative Cloud applications'. I suspect Phil has received this letter in error (maybe Adobe isn't very good at distinguishing between the perpetual licence and subscription versions when CC subscribers also have LR6). It would not be reasonable for Adobe to cancel a perpetual licence at their whim, since Phil apparently hasn't done anything to break its terms, and if they tried to pull a stunt like this I imagine they'd lose heavily if challenged in court, whatever their EULA tries to claim. But it's funny to see the usual suspects, for whom Adobe can do no wrong, defending a completely unreasonable decision Adobe quite probably hasn't even taken.

[digitaldog]

Facts never undermine. Alternative facts always do.

[digitaldog]

The only thing you’ve done is to answer one mundane fact with another. I said that LR 6 was the last version that could be purchased as a standalone with a perpetual license. You then post a link about the last perpetual license update of LR6. Yes, and?

Mundane for you, facts indeed.

[Uhooru]

I did get this yesterday from them. (doesn't apply to my prescription as I'm up to date) On a mac, right click on Read online below and open the link for the letter they've been sending out when they can't read what versions are on your computer. It says nothing about raising prices.

 

Read online

Edited May 11, 2019 by Uhooru

[bgelfand]

We have an argument over nothing.

 

The letter applies to Adobe CC Applications, not the old stand-a-lone, I got it on a disc, software Here is a link that explains it:

 

https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/13/adobe-warning-of-legal-problems-if-users-keep-using-old-versions-of-creative-cloud-apps

 

It seems Adobe used some Dolby Labs software in various CC applications.. There is a dispute over the licensing that affects older version only. If you use the older versions of the CC (subscription) product, Dolby Labs could sue you. Are they going to? Probably not, unless you are a BIG Adobe customer and they want to pressure Adobe.

 

Who does this affect? CC subscribers running on old Macs possibly. Possibly someone that relies on a function in the older versions that is not in current versions? Probably not many, if any, of the people reading this forum. And definitely not me: (I never had the subscription version of any Adobe software.)

 

Now can we discuss some non-controversial topic - religion?, politics?, which camera is better, Canon? Nikon?, or why we should all be using Linux? <GRIN>

[digitaldog]

Yup:

https://kinja.com/api/profile/getsession?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fgizmodo.com%2Fsetsession%3Fr%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fgizmodo.com%252Fadobe-warns-using-old-creative-cloud-apps-might-get-you-1834730149

[Richard Williams]

It seems Adobe used some Dolby Labs software in various CC applications.. There is a dispute over the licensing that affects older version only. If you use the older versions of the CC (subscription) product, Dolby Labs could sue you.

Adobe are probably more worried that Dolby could extract more money from them for every active CC subscriber who still has older (potentially infringing) versions of the applications installed.

[Richard Williams]

Then why have I received the letter too, since the copy I have of LR 6 is the standalone version. That I also bought and have a CC subscription with LR 7 long after I bought the standalone LR 6 should have no bearing on that.

 

Only Adobe knows the answer to that - perhaps some component of CC scans your computer (assuming you used it for both LR6 and CC) for the signatures of older software installations, and is too dumb to tell the difference between the standalone and almost identical CC versions of LR6. They only say 'you may be using', which covers them either way.

 

Adobe should take some responsibility and not push whatever licensing squabble it may have with third-party developers unto the customer if they indeed are “valued customers.”

Yes, they certainly should.

[andylynn]

Then why have I received the letter too, since the copy I have of LR 6 is the standalone version. That I also bought and have a CC subscription with LR 7 long after I bought the standalone LR 6 should have no bearing on that.

 

Adobe should take some responsibility and not push whatever licensing squabble it may have with third-party developers unto the customer if they indeed are “valued customers.”

I think the notice they sent you should have been more clear in stating whether it applies to subscription customers, standalone customers or both. You should ask customer service to clarify.

[bgelfand]

Then why have I received the letter too, since the copy I have of LR 6 is the standalone version. That I also bought and have a CC subscription with LR 7 long after I bought the standalone LR 6 should have no bearing on that.

 

Adobe should take some responsibility and not push whatever licensing squabble it may have with third-party developers unto the customer if they indeed are “valued customers.”

 

 

First, I am not a lawyer, so ...as best I understand it

 

Adobe licensed certain software from Dolby Labs and included it in programs in the CC suite.

 

Adobe and Dolby now disagree about how much Adobe must pay Dolby for the use of the Dolby software. The disagreement is in court. If Adobe looses the case, their license for the Dolby software is invalid (unless they pay Dolby considerably more money) and therefore your license for the Dolby software is invalid. If you use the Dolby software as part of the CC suite, Dolby may sue you as the user (since the Adobe license is invalid, so is your license through Adobe) as well as Adobe. Welcome to the wonderful world of contract law.

 

When you subscribed to CC you also have access to Lightroom 6 as well as 7 through CC. That is the version of Lightroom - Lightroom 6 through your CC subscription - that you may not use without the risk of being sued by Dolby and the reason you received the letter. There is no problem with the stand-a-lone version, that license of the Dolby software is paid for, by Adobe, and valid. I assume Adobe has written their own software to perform the tasks of the Dolby software in the latest releases of the CC version.

 

Now, Mac's are junk, real people use only Linux and program in C or assembler. <Huge Grin>

[digitaldog]

This seems a lot about nothing. It only affects CC (subscription users). Updates are free, part of the subscription. Adobe wants you to update to avoid the Dolby stuff.

The other question is, did/can Adobe cease the older software to run? Seems they can't and are telling customers who demand using the old product that they may be liable but can or does Dolby have any clue this is happening? Seems not. So while Adobe has warned some folks who refuse to update their products, there's not much either they or Dolby can do. Hence the warning. From the article I provided:

 

"Some users are getting messages from Adobe warning they could be at “risk of potential claims of infringement by third parties” should they continue to use outdated versions of their apps."

 

So some users could be at risk. Some users should consider just updating their software. I see nothing that states this is a Mac only issue FWIW. If issue is even the right word to be using here.

[Ed_Ingold]

Corporate uses with multiple use licenses are most at risk. Among other factors is the risk that a disgruntled employee will turn you in for a reward (or revenge). If you keep using old versions as an individual, don't irritate your significant other.

[paddler4]

Victoria Brampton has posted that this is much ado about nothing--that Adobe has not increased its price but is simply sounding out whether the market will want a more expensive plan with more storage. See https://mailchi.mp/lightroomqueen/lightroom-in-the-news-is-it-as-bad-as-it-sounds?e=ac82632817.

 

This makes sense to me, as I have received nothing indicating a price increase, and the web clearly showed the old price when I checked.

[digitaldog]

LOL. And the market answered with a definite NO and f$ck you to Adobe’s “testing” a doubling in price for extra storage nobody is asking for.

Assumptions are like a**holes, everyone has one. :eek:The facts, as expressed by multiple experts including Victoria is this is a a big nothing. Speaking for everyone and an entire market is utter silliness and a sign that the absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.

Facts from Adobe below. It's an official Adobe statement. It may not be true but ONLY Adobe and their inside group of employees working on this testing know the truth and everything else is assumptions from people on the outside. That one can purchase the plan today for $9.99 and on all the days the test was running and that should make this all moot. But some people have far too much time on their hands to bitch/moan than do something constructive or learn how to use Adobe or Adobe competitors software. ;)

 

http://digitaldog.net/files/RackMultipart20190507-750-1tpo8yi-Untitled.jpg

[digitaldog]

WTF? Can you be any more meek about it? Being swayed by the response after all the backlash because it's an "official" response? LOL and GTFOOH. Do you work for Adobe? You probably would welcome Adobe if they were going to take and kill your dog, "digital dog."

 

To answer your question which is absurd: NO! Let me help you if I can:

meek

/mēk/

 

adjective 1.quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.

 

WTF: No.

 

The official reply is at least official and not a huge pile of assumptions and patting on the back that bitching about something was a cause of effect.

Non experts, amateurs or, maybe just folk who have a no concoct about Adobe products ranting and assuming, hmmm?

Doesn't matter who works for Adobe or who has been a beta and alpha for them for decades; facts are facts, assumptions are assumptions. The facts are twofold:

1. The test on line didn't make any difference whatsoever and even when the test was going, people COULD absolutely purchase the $9.99 plan as they can today. I don't predict the future.

2. The email from Adobe about CC updating due to a legal issue is equally a non issue. Update. Don't; doesn’t matter. It was a recommendation.

[digitaldog]

It should be pretty obvious by now to anyone reading objectively that you're just an Adobe fanboy. Not to be taken too seriously on the matter.

It should be pretty obvious by now to anyone reading objectively that you're just a fact denier and troll who's agenda here is to show him/herself off as an anti Adobe fanboy and provider of FUD. Not to be taken too seriously on the matter. Since nothing you've posted about Adobe is anything but opinions based on assumptions.

[digitaldog]

Yes, except for all of those who were funneled into and bought the $19.99 plan as part of Adobe's A/B testing.

You mean stupid consumers who accepted something at face value they didn't have to? I know, from some posting here, there are a few stupid people who believe, incorrectly, that the only way to purchase the plan is through Adobe. They were not funneled, they didn't do their due diligence as consumers. Poor babies.

Of course, facts about how one can easily cancel the subscription and repurchase it will fall on the deaf ears of such stupid consumers but the facts are here:

How to cancel your Adobe Creative Cloud plan or membership

If you cancel within 14 days of your order, you will receive a full refund.

[andylynn]

So, Adobe’s official story is that they’re testing whether they can get away with doubling the price. Assuming that we give Adobe the benefit of the doubt, and I don’t see why we wouldn’t, all the Adobe subscribers on here should be thanking Phil S, J. Cristina, et al, because if Adobe does not end up doubling the price on you it’s because of the backlash against the idea that they helped promote. If Adobe does double the price, you should all be pretty mad at the apologists who are trying to enable them.

[andylynn]

You're clinching at straws here. This topic isn't about the fact that you can cancel your Abobe Creative Cloud Plan.

 

It's about Adobe's non-existent principles as a company.

But that’s ok, because they’re only out to prey on “stupid” people, right?

[digitaldog]

You're clinching at straws here. This topic isn't about the fact that you can cancel your Abobe Creative Cloud Plan.

It's about Adobe's nonexisting principles as a company.

I'm not clinching at anything. You're welcome to your opinion about Adobe's principles. You're not entitled to your own alternative facts. And you're not the one person here in charge of telling others what the topic is about.

You don't like Adobe's principles, don't buy their products.

I don't like Hobby Lobby due to their principles; I don't shop there. I also don't waste time and bandwidth bitching about them in web forums. It takes away valuable time working on actual hobbies! Maybe you should work on your photography instead of complaining about a company who's software you don't use. :p

Stupid is as stupid does!

 

[digitaldog]

And which “alternative facts” would those be?

You can start with post #83.

I’ve already said before that I’m not contesting the facts (that Adobe has this written into their user agreements, or that Adobe officially says this or that about the price doubling, etc.)

And yet, your post today, #83....

You can’t acknowledge this because apparently, you’re just another fanboy, an ideologue, a zombie.

That you have to resort to silly, juvenile insults It should be pretty obvious by now to anyone reading objectively that you're just a fact denier and troll who's agenda here is to show him/herself off as an anti Adobe fanboy and provider of FUD. Not to be taken too seriously on the matter.

[Dieter Schaefer]

that one can purchase the plan today for $9.99 and on all the days the test was running

even when the test was going, people COULD absolutely purchase the $9.99 plan

The 20GB plan (LR and PS together) was not available as an option on the purchasing page when that strange test was running (yes, I did look) - the only option was the $20 1TB one (and a $10 LR only with 1TB). No one knew that a test was being conducted but anyone coming to purchase a CC plan was tricked into believing that the only options were $10/1TB LR or $20/PS/LR/1TB - maybe the 20GB option was hiding somewhere on the adobe website (in the same manner that sometimes made it near impossible to find the LR6 standalone version); it certainly was not among the purchasing options on the same page. Strange way to run a "test" IMHO. If one wants to find out if the customer wants a $20/1TB/LR/PS option in addition to a $10/20GB/LR/PS option, why not offer them both at the same time and see what the outcome will be?

[digitaldog]

Uhm, a post that points out that it’s pretty much a consensus - and not an “alternative fact” - among many paying photographers that Adobe is a necessary evil that they’ve been putting up with but don’t have to any longer, especially not when considering all of Adobo’s recent antics and the free market response of competitors.

It appears you don't understand what a consensus is any more than what Meek means. It's a consensus because you believe it is; an opinion not a fact. If only you could manage to speak for yourself and have the courage of your own convictions instead of having to add others, a consensus who you have no idea of their individual opines. Sad. But as I said, the absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.

Yes, it's well established you're I’m an anti- Adobe fanboy, BFD. That you have to lump a consensus to your own opinions shows at to me, your inability to accept other's don't agree. But your agenda is to waste time complaining about a company who's products you don't use. To people who do use the products.

What do you hope to accomplish? Other than turning this into CWOBaT (colossal waste of bandwidth and time)? Why not spends some of your limited time putting something of value (IF possible), here:

8755118 | photo.net