Adobe subscription question.

[Apple fanboy]

But that's not a long-term solution either, it'll just be a matter of time until you need RAW support for a new camera model or LR5 stops working with the version of OS X du jour. Either you accept that you'll pay for a subscription or look for another solution. It's not a coincidence that there are alternatives to several Adobe products that have bubbled up (e. g. Serif's Affinity as a replacement for Illustrator).

I am quite happy with the buying your software outright option (whilst it's still an option). However as lots of people think it's okay to torrent software for free, Adobe (and others) have little choice but to find a different option. I like to buy everything outright (car, house, camera etc.), instead of renting. That's just the way I am. £85 for LR5 verses £10 a month. If you upgrade once a year, your still worse off. I'd rather that extra cash was in my pocket.

 

[OreoCookie]

I am quite happy with the buying your software outright option (whilst it's still an option). However as lots of people think it's okay to torrent software for free, Adobe (and others) have little choice but to find a different option. I like to buy everything outright (car, house, camera etc.), instead of renting. That's just the way I am. £85 for LR5 verses £10 a month. If you upgrade once a year, your still worse off. I'd rather that extra cash was in my pocket.

I don't think it's a reaction towards torrenting, it's a reaction to software becoming cheaper mainly. My gf paid ~$1000 for her CS4 student (!) license (she paid in Yen, I'm not sure what edu licenses cost in the US at the time). She is not eligible for a cross grade (it's CS4 for Windows, and she switched to a Mac recently). And there are legitimate competitors in various fields to Adobe software (e. g. I got my gf a copy of Serif for Christmas), and as far as I can tell none of them use a subscription service.

I understand exactly why you don't like the idea of software-as-a-subscription service, I'm just pointing out that if you choose Adobe Lightroom, you will eventually have to get a CC subscription -- there is no way around it. I'm sure you can hold out with LR5 for a while, but in the foreseeable future, you will have to switch. Honestly, it's another reason I don't want to switch to LR.

 

[Meister]

But that's not a long-term solution either, it'll just be a matter of time until you need RAW support for a new camera model or LR5 stops working with the version of OS X du jour. Either you accept that you'll pay for a subscription or look for another solution. It's not a coincidence that there are alternatives to several Adobe products that have bubbled up (e. g. Serif's Affinity as a replacement for Illustrator).

If you have a camera now and the software that works with it, that combo will work until it breaks. You only need a new version of lightroom, if you upgrade cameras all the time.

----------

I am quite happy with the buying your software outright option (whilst it's still an option). However as lots of people think it's okay to torrent software for free, Adobe (and others) have little choice but to find a different option. I like to buy everything outright (car, house, camera etc.), instead of renting. That's just the way I am. £85 for LR5 verses £10 a month. If you upgrade once a year, your still worse off. I'd rather that extra cash was in my pocket.

The greatest artits owned their equipment. They didn't rent.
Stanley Kubrick actually owned the cameras and lenses he shot his movies with, which is unheard of in the movie industry.

 

[mrex]

Adobe subscription question.

i dont understand why the software should be upgraded yearly. i have been using same ps for 7years (same camera for 8years) and lr for 2 years and not needed to upgrade them (my lr4 was upgraded to lr5 for free anyway).

 

[OreoCookie]

If you have a camera now and the software that works with it, that combo will work until it breaks. You only need a new version of lightroom, if you upgrade cameras all the time.

By the same token you can also argue you can also stick with Aperture.

 

[Meister]

By the same token you can also argue you can also stick with Aperture.

I have never used aperture but i guess you are right.

 

[mrex]

if the latest LR (you own) doesnt support your camera raw, you can always you "Adobe DNG converter" for that. and it is free.

 

[OreoCookie]

if the latest LR (you own) doesnt support your camera raw, you can always you "Adobe DNG converter" for that. and it is free.

The point is that eventually you have to upgrade, and then you have to either switch away from Lightroom or get a CC subscription.

 

[apphotography]

I have just ordered a refurb 2013 rMBP and currently do not own any Adobe software. I was planning on purchasing the $10 a month PS and LR. My only hang up is that on some forums people seem to feel that this is a ripoff and dislike the Adobe subscription model.

To me $120 a year seems great, I have no student pricing. PS alone runs hundreds of $$ and LR5 is $150. I feel like I'm missing something.

To those who don't like the subscription plan, why? I'm not trying to pick a fight either just want to make the best choice before I purchase software.

It's great. I honestly feel those who are complaining most are pissed of software pirates who are stuck with less free upgrade options. Software purchases are a business expense so they do not hurt your income. The Photography Plan offered by Adobe is excellent.

----------

i dont understand why the software should be upgraded yearly. i have been using same ps for 7years (same camera for 8years) and lr for 2 years and not needed to upgrade them (my lr4 was upgraded to lr5 for free anyway).

Because hardware and operating system changes require apps to be rewritten to take advantage of the latest technologies otherwise an app will fall behind its competitors.

 

[erickj]

You don't lose your work, if the subscription expires, in fact, in LR, you can keep using the app for most thing. The only module that won't work is the edit module. LR won't let you edit images if your subscription expired.

I'm looking into this subscription as well (but I'm a photo student, so may just buy the student version of Lightroom). But I'm wondering, if I buy the subscription, do I still have all of the photos on my computer? Or is everything done in the cloud. I'm confused about that, like what if I end my subscription after a year. Will the files be physically available to me on my computer? Or are they going to be on my computer but tied into the subscription and I won't be able to get to them unless I renew the subscription?

 

[mrex]

The point is that eventually you have to upgrade, and then you have to either switch away from Lightroom or get a CC subscription.

Yes, eventually you need to upgrade them. But if you buy LR5 now, what will be those reasons to upgrade it on the next year? Why cant you use it for, let say, atleast next 2-3 years?

My point is, if i can use the paid version for next few years, why on earth would i pay monthly? Even if i used it only for 2years, i would save 50%. I dont upgrade my softwares yearly. Been using same MS Office for 4years, LR for 2years (however i got the lr5 upgrade for free, but i dont have any interest or needs to upgrade it to 6.)

----------

Because hardware and operating system changes require apps to be rewritten to take advantage of the latest technologies otherwise an app will fall behind its competitors.

I was talking about end users, and why should they upgrade their software on every year...

----------

I'm looking into this subscription as well (but I'm a photo student, so may just buy the student version of Lightroom). But I'm wondering, if I buy the subscription, do I still have all of the photos on my computer? Or is everything done in the cloud. I'm confused about that, like what if I end my subscription after a year. Will the files be physically available to me on my computer? Or are they going to be on my computer but tied into the subscription and I won't be able to get to them unless I renew the subscription?

They will be on your computer. You dont need to use cloud if you dont want to.

 

[apphotography]

I was talking about end users, and why should they upgrade their software on every year.

If you were comfortable with your software and hardware being frozen at a certain point of time, features or power then you never had to upgrade. If you have a Power Mac G5 today then Adobe will give you Photoshop CS2 for free and you can keep using that, but you won't be as productive as other people.

The transition from PowerPC to Intel and then from 32 bit to 64 bit meant anyone who wanted the best performance had to upgrade. Then CS5 eliminated the memory limit so there was another upgrade to go along with people upgrading their computer with much more memory installed. That's just the nature of computing.

 

[mrex]

If you were comfortable with your software and hardware being frozen at a certain point of time, features or power then you never had to upgrade. If you have a Power Mac G5 today then Adobe will give you Photoshop CS2 for free and you can keep using that, but you won't be as productive as other people.



The transition from PowerPC to Intel and then from 32 bit to 64 bit meant anyone who wanted the best performance had to upgrade. Then CS5 eliminated the memory limit so there was another upgrade to go along with people upgrading their computer with much more memory installed. That's just the nature of computing.

Now you are talking about changes that dont happen yearly and most of people dont upgrade their computers yearly either to get the best performance. And althought they upgrade many of these softwares are still working with the new computer too atleast as good as it was earlier with the old computer.

 

[apphotography]

Now you are talking about changes that dont happen yearly and most of people dont upgrade their computers yearly either to get the best performance. And althought they upgrade many of these softwares are still working with the new computer too atleast as good as it was earlier with the old computer.

Most of those transitions did happen almost yearly. We won't see those rapid changes for a while but if people never upgraded and technology didn't keep changing companies would tank within a few years and there would be no more developers to code such complex apps.

 

[mrex]

Adobe subscription question.

Most of those transitions did happen almost yearly. We won't see those rapid changes for a while but if people never upgraded and technology didn't keep changing companies would tank within a few years and there would be no more developers to code such complex apps.

I have already supported the development by buying their softwares and dont feel i need to support companies buying stuff yearly or paying monthly.

 

[Apple fanboy]

It's great. I honestly feel those who are complaining most are pissed of software pirates who are stuck with less free upgrade options. Software purchases are a business expense so they do not hurt your income. The Photography Plan offered by Adobe is excellent.[COLOR=[/QUOTE]

As I have already stated in this thread, I don't like paying for things monthly. I'm not a business.
I've never ever had any pirate software, music or films on a computer I've owned. Can you say the same?
It's cheaper to buy outright. I don't want to pay for things over 12 month and be £40 worse off thanks.

 

[apphotography]

As I have already stated in this thread, I don't like paying for things monthly. I'm not a business.
I've never ever had any pirate software, music or films on a computer I've owned. Can you say the same?
It's cheaper to buy outright. I don't want to pay for things over 12 month and be £40 worse off thanks.

It's a business expense for self employed people too. But look what you get for it if you're serious about creative work. Each monthly payment is less than an hour's salary if you're making money from it.

If you're not making money from it I still see it as an affordable investment for education or pleasure. It's the same price as a few pints of beer or a couple of fastfood meals but those give you much less.

 

[kenoh]

The point is that eventually you have to upgrade, and then you have to either switch away from Lightroom or get a CC subscription.

Or by then they have come full circle and gone back to perpetual licensing. Then we upgrade to the best fit on balance to our needs at the time.

Best to wait, upgrade when you need to, not when they want you to.

 

[Apple fanboy]

It's a business expense for self employed people too. But look what you get for it if you're serious about creative work. Each monthly payment is less than an hour's salary if you're making money from it.

If you're not making money from it I still see it as an affordable investment for education or pleasure. It's the same price as a few pints of beer or a couple of fastfood meals but those give you much less.

I can easily afford it. Just would rather have the option to buy outright like we do now. Of course give it a few years and you may find your £10 monthly fee looks more like £25. By then people will be committed and will keep on paying.

 

[mrex]

Adobe subscription question.

The problem in this thread is that there are two groups of people who are talking the same thing but from their own point of view - home users and people who make money by selling their work.

For a people, who sells his work, this 10dollars plan is a great deal. The person is using lr and ps to make money.
For a home user mostly needing only lr this isnt a good deal.

 

[Apple fanboy]

The problem in this thread is that there are two groups of people who are talking the same thing but from their own point of view - home users and people who make money by selling their work.

For a people, who sells his work, this 10dollars plan is a great deal. The person is using lr and ps to make money.
For a home user mostly needing only lr this isnt a good deal.

Very true. If I was after PS, it would be a good deal, but I don't. I'm happy with LR, and my Nik, Macphun and DXO plugins. I have Pixelmator as well, but haven't really done much with it.

 

[OreoCookie]

Or by then they have come full circle and gone back to perpetual licensing. Then we upgrade to the best fit on balance to our needs at the time.

Maybe hell has frozen over by then, too

Best to wait, upgrade when you need to, not when they want you to.

Adobe sees their software differently: they want to sell it like a service (think gmail, internet or cable TV). When you open gmail or facebook, you don't have a choice which version you get, you get whatever Google or Facebook decide is the right version. And a slow update cycle can seriously harm progress (ask Microsoft about that).

Personally, I'm not as religious in my refusal to get Lightroom because I'd have to get a subscription. Especially considering that the subscription prices aren't much more expensive than buying a shrink wrapped version -- with the assumption that you upgrade regularly. Microsoft is going in the same direction with Office, and I wouldn't be surprised if other companies do the same. It's just that us old people are used to different business models (e. g. do you get upgrade pricing with cars? ). And again, don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that I support Adobe's move, my gf had to move away from their products because of their customer-unfriendly policies.

Yes, eventually you need to upgrade them. But if you buy LR5 now, what will be those reasons to upgrade it on the next year? Why cant you use it for, let say, atleast next 2-3 years?

Sure, you can stave off getting a subscription, but you're just staving off the inevitable -- which is the point of my argument.

 

[Meister]

The point is that eventually you have to upgrade, and then you have to either switch away from Lightroom or get a CC subscription.

Why do you have to upgrade?
DSLRs in 2015 are now better than any 35mm analog one.
What makes you think they have to buy a new camera every few years?

 

[OreoCookie]

For a people, who sells his work, this 10dollars plan is a great deal. The person is using lr and ps to make money.
For a home user mostly needing only lr this isnt a good deal.

I disagree, it mostly has to do with the fact that software prices have declined a lot: I paid €200 for my Aperture 2.0 license, enough to cover a two-year CC subscription -- and I'm a hobbyist (meaning I make no money from photography). My gf paid ~$1000 for her student edition of CS4 (not sure which edition) -- which is about two-and-a-half years worth of a subscription at full price. You're right that if you think of it as a business expense, it is much easier to justify it as a professional -- especially given the shift in the thinking of what is and isn't expensive for a software license.

Why do you have to upgrade?
DSLRs in 2015 are now better than any 35mm analog one.
What makes you think they have to buy a new camera every few years?

There are plenty of reasons to upgrade: Maybe the new version of OS X that came with your new computer won't work with Lightroom anymore (my gf's trusty Intuous is no longer fully supported under 10.10). Maybe you're craving new feature A that Lightroom 7 sports. Maybe your camera gets stolen and you have to replace it. Or it gets splashed by a wave and the salt water fries your electronics (this is how I killed my D80). It's quite easy to come up with a number of reasons why you need to/want to upgrade. Especially if you rely on computers (hardware and software) for your business, I find it quite naive to just expect things to keep on working.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Adobe sees their software differently: they want to sell it like a service (think gmail, internet or cable TV). When you open gmail or facebook, you don't have a choice which version you get, you get whatever Google or Facebook decide is the right version. And a slow update cycle can seriously harm progress (ask Microsoft about that).

That is different from CC though. Adobe doesn't push versions on users the way Facebook or Google does. People subscribing to CC can use CS6, CC or CC2014 and updates aren't automatic.