Lightroom 6

[OreoCookie]

Very much agreed. And to add to that, to me, Adobe doesn't really have a strong growth model. It relies on a fairly narrow market segment for its photography and video products, which will only grow so fast. I would guess that a large percentage of Aperture users who have been thinking of moving to LR have done so. Other products of theirs like InDesign are more heavily utilized in a corporate environment so that growth will expand and contract as market conditions dictate. Their web dev products have a ton of fantastic competition, as was pointed out. They're not actively after the Soccer Moms and Dads, really. My opinion is that they're going to hit a wall with growing through subscription at some point and there continues to be amazing products coming along to give them a run for their money.

You pinpoint Adobe's problem. I think the terms »consumers« and »soccer moms« (which I find a tad misogynistic) are thrown out as insults, something I find quite curious. I used to perceive Adobe software as software for creatives – something Apple of old understood quite well with iMovie/Final Cut Pro, iPhoto/Aperture and Garageband/Logic Pro. Good software makes things that were hard easy (or at least easier). For a time Apple was very intent on enabling »ordinary« people to express themselves creatively, getting something that looks quite serious for what it is.

While I don't think Adobe is going anywhere soon, they'll definitely need the next big product with a growth market and it's not clear to me that they're the right company for the job.

I think one important change is the power of APIs (another point where Adobe is hamstrung by being cross-platform): nowadays, Indy developers can produce an app which covers enough of the functionality of, say, Photoshop and Illustrator (I'm thinking of Pixelmator and Affinity Designer, for instance). I'm not claiming they can replace Photoshop in every aspect, but they're more than good enough for most people. But while for Indy developers these are cash cows, they make little money for a multi-billion dollar company such as Adobe (and Apple). That's yet another reason why Adobe moves into services, because data-intensive cloud services require a lot of capital.

For people who know LR better than me, how long does one version usually last in terms of OS X support?

I'm wondering if the subscription or an outright purchase will be better, but I don't know if LR is like VMWare and Parallels that sometimes require a new purchase after two OS X updates or so.

Lightroom uses a lot of cross-platform code and relies very little on specific OS features. I expect Lightroom to work for a long time, but you won't get RAW support for new cameras.

 

[r.harris1]

You pinpoint Adobe's problem. I think the terms »consumers« and »soccer moms« (which I find a tad misogynistic) are thrown out as insults, something I find quite curious. I used to perceive Adobe software as software for creatives – something Apple of old understood quite well with iMovie/Final Cut Pro, iPhoto/Aperture and Garageband/Logic Pro. Good software makes things that were hard easy (or at least easier). For a time Apple was very intent on enabling »ordinary« people to express themselves creatively, getting something that looks quite serious for what it is.

I think one important change is the power of APIs (another point where Adobe is hamstrung by being cross-platform): nowadays, Indy developers can produce an app which covers enough of the functionality of, say, Photoshop and Illustrator (I'm thinking of Pixelmator and Affinity Designer, for instance). I'm not claiming they can replace Photoshop in every aspect, but they're more than good enough for most people. But while for Indy developers these are cash cows, they make little money for a multi-billion dollar company such as Adobe (and Apple). That's yet another reason why Adobe moves into services, because data-intensive cloud services require a lot of capital.

Lots of great points here. As a Soccer Uncle who hangs out a lot with Soccer Moms and Dads, for me, the phrase of Soccer Mom is near and dear to my heart though I am well aware that it is often used in a negative fashion here. This large audience wants great photos of their sporting/theatrical/musical children or other relations without a lot of brain damage and why shouldn't they get that?

I'm one of the few here who is bullish on Photos. It's a very clean interface, easy to use and at this early stage in the beta process, has at least a few sophisticated functions if someone wants to delve a little more deeply. It's missing a lot yes, but my DAM system sits outside of both Aperture and LR so I'm personally OK with a wait-and-see approach. If/when Apple opens up the extensions on Photos for OS X, I think there will be room for many levels to this application, from fiddlers to professionals if they haven't been frightened away by Apple. I can imagine a simple yet sophisticated non-destructive, non-roundtrip workflow with extensions provided by best of breed developers (e.g. Pixelmator) that would in my mind absolutely smoke anything in the market today. Obviously, my wishes and imagination may never meet reality , but the potential for the platform is, to me, large.

 

[jms969]

The addition of GPU acceleration to LR 6 alone is progress. The other features are icing. They're moving their DAM forward. That's a HELL of a lot more than Apple has been able to say since 2010.

The bottom line is that you simply cannot rely on for software, they continually disappoint

 

[skaeight]

The bottom line is that you simply cannot rely on for software, they continually disappoint

Ya I agree. I just don't really get the point of the above conversation of whether or not Adobe is like Microsoft. They are in that they're both software companies, but beyond that I don't know.

Regardless, software is Adobe's business. It's in their best interest to keep developing software. Yes they have a niche - creative professionals, why isn't that enough? Why do they need explosive growth? Why do they need to try to capture soccer moms? I'm glad they don't have incentive to do that because we need someone that focuses on this market and doesn't go chasing shiny things (watches, cars, etc.). That is what focusing solely on growth because Wall Street tells you you need to gets you.

I just don't see what the alternative is. Apple isn't going to be there and there are a few other niche players (C1, DxO) and some really small utilities that could be used, but if you're serious about this Adobe is kind of the only game in town (I do agree that isn't great - Apple shouldn't have ceded this market).

I just don't know what else Apple could do to be more innovative, but not do what Apple is doing and completely change the focus of their products.

 

[maflynn]

Edit: The more I think about it, the better the analogy becomes: both companies struggle to extend beyond their existing customer base, tablets and smartphones in Microsoft's case, less professional users in Adobe's.

You may consider it a good analogy but you brought up Adobe and how it's guilty of a form of stagnation, then you moved on to Office saying that MS is doing this and not doing that.

This thread isn't about Office, and not matter how much you try to justify the use if MS as an example it doesn't fit.

You posted

Adobe's approach is letting things atrophy in different ways. Not evolving a product is also a form of stagnation

So what is Adobe atrophying? I'm using your own words, you brought up the subject that they're guilty of stagnating product.

How is Lightroom stagnating?

 

[r.harris1]

You may consider it a good analogy but you brought up Adobe and how it's guilty of a form of stagnation, then you moved on to Office saying that MS is doing this and not doing that.

This thread isn't about Office, and not matter how much you try to justify the use if MS as an example it doesn't fit.

You posted


So what is Adobe atrophying? I'm using your own words, you brought up the subject that they're guilty of stagnating product.

How is Lightroom stagnating?

I think all of this got started when we were discussing UI/UX of LR and how that was unlikely to ever really change because they are, for better or worse, now the de facto standard if someone wants an all-in-one DAM w/ decent image manipulation capabilities. Obviously, they don't technically stagnate on features since they'll add at least some minor ones each year for their major releases. They have to do that since, as was pointed out, they are a software company.

Aside from a stagnant UI/UX (most companies rarely do wholesale changes and rewrites with a notable exception being Apple) I personally think where LR as a product and really Adobe more generally has hit the wall is market growth. Catering to professionals only is all well and good, but not as good when there starts to be other players in the market. While this is just a guess, I'd say that LR isn't their cash cow. Rather, it's their hook into what is their cash cow - the creative suite proper: Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Video stuff.

I'd guess that most people who are going to make a wholesale switch to LR have done so, though there will be stragglers later. Where does the growth come from? With their creative suite, I'd say that the landscape in 5 years will have enough real competitors to wipe the floor with that product, at least for most people, and most companies for that matter. It's not clear to me that they're after new market segments. And while professionals may be happy that there's no need for them to rub shoulders with the sweaty masses and have all of that silly Dumbing Down and so forth, it's not a good way to grow your company.

Back to the Microsoft analogy. At least until the change in leadership, MS often failed to see or seek out new markets and when they finally were forced to make a move, in many cases executed poorly on the sales side. I believe a stagnation of vision is what's happening at Adobe, and until recently, was happening at Microsoft. Adobe makes some products that are ubiquitous, many of which are good, but because of competiton from other players make them increasingly less compelling.

 

[OreoCookie]

Yes they have a niche - creative professionals, why isn't that enough? Why do they need explosive growth? Why do they need to try to capture soccer moms?

Isn't that obvious?
(1) Software prices have gone down significantly (thanks to the app stores), meaning less and less people are willing to pay a lot of money for it. You can see that very clearly with Adobe's pricing: Lightroom ($150) costs much less than a standalone license of Photoshop did (~$700). The subscription prices make that even cheaper, you pay $10/month, meaning you pay less for a one-year subscription of Photoshop and Lightroom than you pay for a single license of Lightroom alone. Adobe cannot completely buck market trends, and even professional software no longer costs $$$$ but just $$$. Do you think that has no consequence on Adobe's business?
(2) Adobe is strong in markets that are in decline (e. g. everything to do with print, instead of 15+ % margins the publishers used to have in the golden age, they now have trouble keeping the lights on) while on the other hand they have trouble to enter new markets (have a look at how popular Adobe's software is for creation of html5 content).

Lastly, keep in mind that even a sizable share in this sub forum are not part of the demographic you describe, because we are not creative professionals but rather people who use professional-level software.

You may consider it a good analogy but you brought up Adobe and how it's guilty of a form of stagnation, then you moved on to Office saying that MS is doing this and not doing that.

This thread isn't about Office, and not matter how much you try to justify the use if MS as an example it doesn't fit.

Can you explain to me why it doesn't fit? I brought up several specific points where I think the two companies are analogous:
- dominance in established market segments, but less success entering new market segments
- certain core markets somewhat in decline
- adoption of a subscription model
- new product lines had trouble to emerge because they weren't allowed to cannibalize existing products
- products are cross-platform

I think I've mentioned more, but these are just a few from the top of my head.

So what is Adobe atrophying?

I didn't mean to say atrophying, for Lightroom at least my choice of words isn't apt. (But it does fit other Adobe products such as anything Acrobat- and Flash-related.)

I'm using your own words, you brought up the subject that they're guilty of stagnating product.

How is Lightroom stagnating?

Here are a few Lightroom features which took a long time to arrive:
- GPU acceleration took until v6 (which still isn't out), something Aperture has had since v1 (because it is based on Core Image) -- that's almost 10 years after Aperture
- Books were added in v4 (for me books are an essential feature)
- Tethered shooting came at least two years after Aperture (not sure whether Apple added this feature with v1.5 or v2.0)
- Multimonitor support took until v2, but if I remember correctly, when I tried multimonitor support it was rudimentary in v2 (I'm not sure anymore whether it was v2 or v2 beta, though).

Here are a few features I am still waiting for:
- better file management (e. g. managed files as an option and more flexible backups)
- cloud integration baked into file organization rather than tacked on (which is also related to better file management)
- an interface overhaul (and I don't see that one coming): development of Lightroom started in 2002

Areas where Lightroom has had strong development:
- anything image editing related, Adobe could take code from Photoshop

 

[maflynn]

Can you explain to me why it doesn't fit? I brought up several specific points where I think the two companies are analogous:

This thread is about LightRoom 6, you mentioned how Adobe is stagnating some products then you went on a tangent on how Microsoft is stagnating and tried to associate that with Adobe. I mean, you initiated the subject by leveling a specific complaint about Adobe then you went to generalize your position by using Microsoft.

Here are a few Lightroom features which took a long time to arrive:
- GPU acceleration took until v6 (which still isn't out), something Aperture has had since v1 (because it is based on Core Image) -- that's almost 10 years after Aperture
- Books were added in v4 (for me books are an essential feature)
- Tethered shooting came at least two years after Aperture (not sure whether Apple added this feature with v1.5 or v2.0)
- Multimonitor support took until v2, but if I remember correctly, when I tried multimonitor support it was rudimentary in v2 (I'm not sure anymore whether it was v2 or v2 beta, though).

Here are a few features I am still waiting for:
- better file management (e. g. managed files as an option and more flexible backups)
- cloud integration baked into file organization rather than tacked on (which is also related to better file management)
- an interface overhaul (and I don't see that one coming): development of Lightroom started in 2002

So your list of examples shows Adobe updating the product but not fast enough for you (though I do admit that some of those changes took too long to roll out), I don't think that equates to them stagnating Lightroom. For example, they added Books, so that's not a feature that withered on the vine. I mean we can say the same thing with Aperture and noise reduction.

You seem appear to have an axe to grind against Adobe and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you need to find a tool that best fits your needs.

Clearly LR is not the tool for you, while I dispute some of what you posted above as issues, I do agree on some of it. Regardless, its probably a waste of bandwidth and time to debate some of what you posted. We're both entrenched in our opinions. My only advise is to pick a tool that you can live with.

 

[skaeight]

Aside from a stagnant UI/UX (most companies rarely do wholesale changes and rewrites with a notable exception being Apple) I personally think where LR as a product and really Adobe more generally has hit the wall is market growth. Catering to professionals only is all well and good, but not as good when there starts to be other players in the market. While this is just a guess, I'd say that LR isn't their cash cow. Rather, it's their hook into what is their cash cow - the creative suite proper: Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Video stuff.

I'd guess that most people who are going to make a wholesale switch to LR have done so, though there will be stragglers later. Where does the growth come from? With their creative suite, I'd say that the landscape in 5 years will have enough real competitors to wipe the floor with that product, at least for most people, and most companies for that matter. It's not clear to me that they're after new market segments. And while professionals may be happy that there's no need for them to rub shoulders with the sweaty masses and have all of that silly Dumbing Down and so forth, it's not a good way to grow your company.

1. What evidence do you have that LR is financially stagnating? I've heard that the CC subscription model has been very successful for them. There is a reason why companies have been shifting to monthly fees - they have consistent income so they can better staff their company have keep the updates coming. In my opinion that appears to be what is happening - regular updates are coming.

I never would have bought Photoshop in the past, the barrier to entry was too high. There's no way I would have spent $650 and then still spent $100 on LR. $10 month? Sure I can handle that. I'm sure there are lots of people that are in the same boat as me - plus they've been advertising the Photography Suite all over the place.

The other side of this is hey now have the high end creative professionals giving them consistent money each month when in the past they had made one large purchase of the full CS suite and were very motivated to not upgrade for as long as possible because of how expensive even the upgrade is. Now Again most people that even moderately need the full suite and are doing this professionally can afford $50 / month.

2. Again why is growth required? Why can't a market of people who are paying for your product be enough? If we take this tact they will be forced to dumb down their products and turn out an Photos like program. Besides they do actually have more subsumed based products in their Elements programs.

 

[maflynn]

1. What evidence do you have that LR is financially stagnating? I've heard that the CC subscription model has been very successful for them. There is a reason why companies have been shifting to monthly fees - they have consistent income so they can better staff their company have keep the updates coming. In my opinion that appears to be what is happening - regular updates are coming.

Mature products that have limited growth potential are prime examples of why the subscription model is being embraced. I've said this before, the subscription model is not new, Enterprise software is sold solely in this manner. I may not be a fan of this, but I can see why Adobe went in that direction

I never would have bought Photoshop in the past, the barrier to entry was too high. There's no way I would have spent $650 and then still spent $100 on LR. $10 month? Sure I can handle that. I'm sure there are lots of people that are in the same boat as me - plus they've been advertising the Photography Suite all over the place.

Agreed, I have the latest and greatest version of both LR and PS. Before I was working on an old version of PS and had a newer version of LR. The ACR version difference seemed to cause headaches for me (though nothing major since I rarely need PS to touch up my photos).

2. Again why is growth required? Why can't a market of people who are paying for your product be enough? If we take this tact they will be forced to dumb down their products and turn out an Photos like program. Besides they do actually have more subsumed based products in their Elements programs.

Adobe is trying to stabilize revenue on a mature product that doesn't have great growth potential, i.e., no large segments of untapped customers.

 

[OreoCookie]

So your list of examples shows Adobe updating the product but not fast enough for you (though I do admit that some of those changes took too long to roll out), I don't think that equates to them stagnating Lightroom. For example, they added Books, so that's not a feature that withered on the vine. I mean we can say the same thing with Aperture and noise reduction.

Sure, not changing fast enough is a form of stagnation. And you'd be right about Aperture (we have had threads on this). Apple's decision to kill Aperture is the worst form of stagnation in fact But I fear that with less competition, Adobe may get even slower at adopting important features. Looking at the competition to Adobe software in other areas (from software vendors other than Apple), it seems to me that they are past their peak –*a fact that makes me wary about getting into their ecosystem now.

You seem appear to have an axe to grind against Adobe and that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion and you need to find a tool that best fits your needs.

I think you misunderstand, I don't have an axe to grind against Adobe, Apple or anyone else. If my unhappiness about the whole DAM software market situation shines through, yeah, you're spot on here. But Apple and Adobe aren't sports teams, and I'm not a rabid fan of either of them. The better you know something, the sharper your criticism should be –*just for your own sake so that you can let the vendor know what features you're missing. If you prefer Lightroom, the most scathing criticism should come from people like you. I haven't made my list of criticism for Apple here, because this thread is about Lightroom and also this has been thoroughly debated in other threads (I detailed the weaknesses of Apple's current approach here).

To me, the most glaring pain point is library management: juggling assets between different libraries is a pain, and none of the DAM software on the market today (including Aperture, of course) delivers here. And it seems to be that Adobe is not focussing on this aspect – at least not that I can see.

I, for one, will try LR6 when it comes out in order to decide whether to switch to it or not. I hope the GPU acceleration fixes the performance issues some people have had on retina Macs (as I'm typing on a MacBook Pro). I'm not sure I will get used to the interface, but since it is the market leader it'd be foolish not to try it before making the decision.

2. Again why is growth required? Why can't a market of people who are paying for your product be enough? If we take this tact they will be forced to dumb down their products and turn out an Photos like program. Besides they do actually have more subsumed based products in their Elements programs.

(1) Average software prices have seen a steep decline.
(2) Several key markets for Adobe software are in decline (e. g. the print industry).
(3) Adobe has had a hard time getting into new markets.
(4) Adobe's transition to a subscription model has had a mixed reaction in the community, there are some people who staunchly oppose it.

IMO they're doing the right thing by going to a subscription + services model, but it's also a good point in time for people to abandon Adobe software. I know many freelance designers who are still working on CS4, CS5 or CS6 and have no immediate plans to upgrade. I was thinking about getting my gf (who is a graphic designer) an Adobe subscription so that she could use Illustrator (there are no cross-grades for her CS4 Windows license), but my designer friends suggested Affinity Designer instead.

Oh, and as a company you shouldn't wait until you can see a trend in the financials, you should transition before so that you have an income to tide you over.

 

[r.harris1]

1. What evidence do you have that LR is financially stagnating?

None - that's why I peppered my statements with "If I had to guess" and "I think" sorts of stuff.

I've heard that the CC subscription model has been very successful for them. There is a reason why companies have been shifting to monthly fees - they have consistent income so they can better staff their company have keep the updates coming. In my opinion that appears to be what is happening - regular updates are coming.

Regular updates are indeed coming, you are correct. Adobe has done a great job of flattening out the dips and spikes of their income graph.

I never would have bought Photoshop in the past, the barrier to entry was too high. There's no way I would have spent $650 and then still spent $100 on LR. $10 month? Sure I can handle that. I'm sure there are lots of people that are in the same boat as me - plus they've been advertising the Photography Suite all over the place.

Absolutely. For me, I have the full CC and it makes perfect sense for me. And the photography suite is a great deal too, I think.

The other side of this is hey now have the high end creative professionals giving them consistent money each month when in the past they had made one large purchase of the full CS suite and were very motivated to not upgrade for as long as possible because of how expensive even the upgrade is. Now Again most people that even moderately need the full suite and are doing this professionally can afford $50 / month.

No argument here.

2. Again why is growth required? Why can't a market of people who are paying for your product be enough? If we take this tact they will be forced to dumb down their products and turn out an Photos like program. Besides they do actually have more subsumed based products in their Elements programs.

Growth is required when you have competition in the market place, which they increasingly have. Right now Adobe is the king of the hill but competition, a lot of it quite good, will begin to erode that hill and if they hit a long period of flat or even declining growth, they'll need to shift their focus (or at least broaden it). True, LR fits the need best right now for people who want a one-size-fits-all approach to DAM w/ some image manipulation. I have it of course, and I continue to open it regularly to work with its features. My approach to DAM sits outside of both Aperture and LR so their's no compelling reason for me move to LR. I know others like me too.

If the market of people willing to pay for the product grows faster than those who want other perhaps better alternatives, then they'll be fine. I personally wouldn't bet on it. That doesn't mean they need to "dumb down" (whatever that really means) LR, it just means exploring other markets and providing other tools.

As an aside, I don't have anything particularly against LR, I just really don't like its UI/UX and I don't see their approach ever changing. And there are plenty of people who either like it or who are used to it so I'm likely in the minority, so Adobe doesn't have to worry about little ol' me .

EDIT: As far as the topic (LR6), it looks to be a very capable upgrade, and certainly great to finally see the GPU stuff.

 

[skaeight]

None - that's why I peppered my statements with "If I had to guess" and "I think" sorts of stuff.



Regular updates are indeed coming, you are correct. Adobe has done a great job of flattening out the dips and spikes of their income graph.



Absolutely. For me, I have the full CC and it makes perfect sense for me. And the photography suite is a great deal too, I think.



No argument here.



Growth is required when you have competition in the market place, which they increasingly have. Right now Adobe is the king of the hill but competition, a lot of it quite good, will begin to erode that hill and if they hit a long period of flat or even declining growth, they'll need to shift their focus (or at least broaden it). True, LR fits the need best right now for people who want a one-size-fits-all approach to DAM w/ some image manipulation. I have it of course, and I continue to open it regularly to work with its features. My approach to DAM sits outside of both Aperture and LR so their's no compelling reason for me move to LR. I know others like me too.

If the market of people willing to pay for the product grows faster than those who want other perhaps better alternatives, then they'll be fine. I personally wouldn't bet on it. That doesn't mean they need to "dumb down" (whatever that really means) LR, it just means exploring other markets and providing other tools.

As an aside, I don't have anything particularly against LR, I just really don't like its UI/UX and I don't see their approach ever changing. And there are plenty of people who either like it or who are used to it so I'm likely in the minority, so Adobe doesn't have to worry about little ol' me .

EDIT: As far as the topic (LR6), it looks to be a very capable upgrade, and certainly great to finally see the GPU stuff.

Ya I agree with a lot of that, we actually seem to be pretty much on the same page.

I think Afinity may truly be adobes biggest competition very soon. I really hope they consider a LR / Aperture like product next. If that happens it can only be good for everyone. Well all have another likely cheaper alternative and Adobe will have some additional completion that will drive them to innovate.

In the meantime, LR is by far the best option and I am happy with their level of progression when looking at the upcoming rumored release and the history of the product.

Something to consider here though is that LR hasn't had any real fierce completion in 5 years - Aperture 3 was released in 2010. Since then it's been point releases which just fixed things and added support for new OSs and OS level features. Adobe has in essence competing with a ghost or the possibility that Apple would release something (although I'm sure they had better insight into Apples actual intentions than the public did).

So I don't know that were actually losing much from the LR completion angle with Apertures demise. We've seen how they operate without any completion for the past 5 years and honestly it's not bad.

 

[v3rlon]

...

2. Again why is growth required? Why can't a market of people who are paying for your product be enough? If we take this tact they will be forced to dumb down their products and turn out an Photos like program. Besides they do actually have more subsumed based products in their Elements programs.

Growth is always required. The price of Gasoline, bread, and a ticket to the movies went up. Adobe employees want raises or they find better jobs. So, you have to make more money next year than you did last year.

Niche professionals paying $700 for software isn't where the money is.
It is those 'soccer moms' that elitists like to dog so much paying $70. Volume sales almost always wins.

Pinnacle Video bought Avid.
Volkswagen bought Bugatti AND Audi AND Lamborghini.
Autodesk bought Maya AND Softimage
Ford bought Lincoln, Jaguar, and Aston Martin

Again and again, volume trumps niche professionals for dollars. There are engineers and programmers who love the software, but a niche market will not keep the lights on. Once you run out of experts, you have to appeal to everyone else somehow.

 

[mrex]

I expect Lightroom to work for a long time, but you won't get RAW support for new cameras.

while the plugin is not updated, adobe offers a free dng converter though.

 

[OreoCookie]

while the plugin is not updated, adobe offers a free dng converter though.

You can also use Apple's RAW converter and import a .tif file. But that's not how Lightroom is meant to be used. Honestly, I just keep my software up to date and don't fret about whether or not to update once I've decided on the usefulness of an app.

 

[FredT2]

while the plugin is not updated, adobe offers a free dng converter though.

But then that opens up a whole new big bucket of worms...

 

[skaeight]

Growth is always required. The price of Gasoline, bread, and a ticket to the movies went up. Adobe employees want raises or they find better jobs. So, you have to make more money next year than you did last year.

Niche professionals paying $700 for software isn't where the money is.
It is those 'soccer moms' that elitists like to dog so much paying $70. Volume sales almost always wins.

Pinnacle Video bought Avid.
Volkswagen bought Bugatti AND Audi AND Lamborghini.
Autodesk bought Maya AND Softimage
Ford bought Lincoln, Jaguar, and Aston Martin

Again and again, volume trumps niche professionals for dollars. There are engineers and programmers who love the software, but a niche market will not keep the lights on. Once you run out of experts, hyou have to appeal to everyone else somehow.

Good thing they're not charging $700 for their software anymore. It's sad that society inevitably leads to homoginazation because of our financial systems, but that is a much larger conversation.

I'm still scratching my head how a thread that is discussing an upcoming release of Adobe software lead to Adobe is doomed.

 

[576316]

HDR and Panorama right inside of Lightroom with no need for Photoshop? All my prayers just got answered, I've been asking for those features for as long as I can remember. Now I have no need to enter a dumb subscription for Photoshop for just two tools!

Unbelievably excited. That source is quoting March 9th which is blisteringly close!

 

[skaeight]

HDR and Panorama right inside of Lightroom with no need for Photoshop? All my prayers just got answered, I've been asking for those features for as long as I can remember. Now I have no need to enter a dumb subscription for Photoshop for just two tools!

Unbelievably excited. That source is quoting March 9th which is blisteringly close!

They're DOOMED!!!

 

[576316]

They're DOOMED!!!

Elaborate.

 

[skaeight]

Elaborate.

Sorry. You're new to the thread. Read up a little bit. For some reason there's been a debate about the viability of Adobe, but you've kind of illustrated my point that they are moving the product forward and are giving people things that they want.

 

[monokakata]

Pinnacle Video bought Avid.

Actually, Avid bought Pinnacle, presumably so as to have a presence in the consumer space. Then they sold it, I believe to Corel.

 

[skaeight]

Actually, Avid bought Pinnacle, presumably so as to have a presence in the consumer space. Then they sold it, I believe to Corel.

Interesting....

Ya that would appear to be the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnacle_Systems

Pinnacle was subsequently acquired by American company Avid Technology in August 2005. Avid subsequently sold Pinnacle products to Corel Corporation in July 2012.[1]

 

[576316]

Sorry. You're new to the thread. Read up a little bit. For some reason there's been a debate about the viability of Adobe, but you've kind of illustrated my point that they are moving the product forward and are giving people things that they want.

I know a bunch of people were talking about Adobe facing financial issues or whatever, but I don't see how that affects me getting a piece of already written software in my hands. Adobe can do what it likes, just give me Lightroom 6 at a one-time price.

Anyone is lying to themselves if they think this new Photos app is going to wipe the floor with existing, industry leading RAW converters. Photos is gonna be a way to view your photos and share to photo stream whilst also making use of basic editing tools, it is in no way going to be a complete replacement for Aperture...which some people used professionally. It's clear Apple are trying to steer clear of the professional market and they'd rather play straight into the hands of regular consumers. Just look at the Mac Pro, how long are you guys gonna have to wait until they update that again?