I don't think anyone is thinking that. People were hoping (in vain it seems) that Photos was going to be a viable alternative to Aperture but since the beta has been released they (we all) have been disabused of that notion.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lightroom 6
- Thread starter jms969
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry. Definitely not sarcasm. You have kind of summed up the argument I've been trying to make perfectly.Not sure if sarcasm.
Since no one on this thread has a crystal ball giving them real insight into what Photos as a base platform is going to turn into, it would be hard to suggest anyone is lying to themselves. Personally, since everything I do with a tool like Aperture/Lr sits at the end of my workflow (if I use it at all), I can afford to watch it evolve. I'm perfectly well aware that it could go nowhere, but I also know from writing them myself that the extensions paradigm is very powerful and very much not the same as round-tripping plugins that exist in today's world. Hell, extensions could be Adobe's ticket to the evil "regular consumers and soccer moms" market.
The bottom line is that you simply cannot rely onfor software, they continually disappoint
It's pretty clear Apple is all about iOS software. Even with Mac OS X, nothing will be added to it unless it relates to iOS in some way. It's a shame.
You are correct, but by the same token, we can look at Apple's prior history of handling applications and we can draw a number of assumptions.
1. The new version will lack the basic features that many people relied on.
2. It will be focused on iCloud/iOS integration vs. tools for the desktop
3. Apple will slowly add features and enhancements
Everyone's needs are different, you mentioned you're perfectly content to watch and wait, which is fine. I think most people don't like the unknown and given what we've seen apple do before and what the rich products already out there. It makes more sense for someone to embrace an alternative rather then roll the dice with apple.
As stated by others, Apple is more focused on iOS and consumers, so if there will be any improvements to Photos, I expect it to be with that in mind
Would anyone here considering buying Adobe stock?
They seem to be doing well...
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/...relations/PDFs/AdobeQ4FY14EarningsRelease.pdf
Trading at an all time high...
http://www.google.ca/finance?cid=4112
The stat that stands out in my mind, is that they more than doubled CC subscriptions last quarter from around 1.5Million to around 3.5Million which is actually still a pretty small number, which means (present company excluded) there's a lot of upside on the CC subscriptions.
They seem to be doing well...
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/...relations/PDFs/AdobeQ4FY14EarningsRelease.pdf
Trading at an all time high...
http://www.google.ca/finance?cid=4112
The stat that stands out in my mind, is that they more than doubled CC subscriptions last quarter from around 1.5Million to around 3.5Million which is actually still a pretty small number, which means (present company excluded) there's a lot of upside on the CC subscriptions.
Yeah, the Street definitely thinks Adobe has a hit, and look at the sub numbers:
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Stung-by-Steve-Jobs-remarks-Adobe-6097346.php#/0
But someone asked about PS and RAW and such. For both PS and LR the same engine, in ACR, is used. ACR/LR is what is called a PIE (sorry), a parametric image editor. PS is a destructive pixel editor by definition. It's like the old days where you'd print a couple of negatives and then cut the head off someone in one print and paste it onto the other print; voila, image editing. You have lots of undoes and some saving options and other sorts of stuff (see https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/nondestructive-editing.html; LOTS of ways), but a PIE goes way beyond that and actually stores metadata about adjustments. They are very different, although if you just do something like crop you wouldn't notice.
In a sense, the PIE evolved out of PS. In PS we had a master file, and wanted all the layers stored inside, with layers sorta being like versions, but were combined to make a whole. And when making documents you had the problem where you wanted proxies instead of the big old files, and so on. But check out http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf; it does a better job of explaining than I can.
TL;DR: PS is destructive by design, but you can work around it. RAW conversion is handled by ACR/LR, which are non-destructive PIEs by design.
Finally, DxO has a very very nice round trip workflow where you can use DxO to do some work on the RAW, but then output RAW back to LR in the form of a DNG, so doing other work is possible. See here: http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/c...-your-dxo-opticspro-10-and-lightroom-workflow
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Stung-by-Steve-Jobs-remarks-Adobe-6097346.php#/0
But someone asked about PS and RAW and such. For both PS and LR the same engine, in ACR, is used. ACR/LR is what is called a PIE (sorry), a parametric image editor. PS is a destructive pixel editor by definition. It's like the old days where you'd print a couple of negatives and then cut the head off someone in one print and paste it onto the other print; voila, image editing. You have lots of undoes and some saving options and other sorts of stuff (see https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/nondestructive-editing.html; LOTS of ways), but a PIE goes way beyond that and actually stores metadata about adjustments. They are very different, although if you just do something like crop you wouldn't notice.
In a sense, the PIE evolved out of PS. In PS we had a master file, and wanted all the layers stored inside, with layers sorta being like versions, but were combined to make a whole. And when making documents you had the problem where you wanted proxies instead of the big old files, and so on. But check out http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf; it does a better job of explaining than I can.
TL;DR: PS is destructive by design, but you can work around it. RAW conversion is handled by ACR/LR, which are non-destructive PIEs by design.
Finally, DxO has a very very nice round trip workflow where you can use DxO to do some work on the RAW, but then output RAW back to LR in the form of a DNG, so doing other work is possible. See here: http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/c...-your-dxo-opticspro-10-and-lightroom-workflow
Thank you, that is an excellent explanation, very helpful. Now I'm even more so looking forward to LR 6 with built in panoramas and HDR given that LR is actually a more advanced image editor.
Sadly, as large as those numbers sound, they are mere rounding errors when compared to Apple's millions and millions of customers.
I'm not sure you can compare Apples to Adobes though.
So I'm assuming you don't think Adobe is a good investment? Looking at their market cap and P/E ratio, I would tend to agree, but looking at their growth rate, it's interesting.
I'm not sure you can compare Apples to Adobes though.
So I'm assuming you don't think Adobe is a good investment? Looking at their market cap and P/E ratio, I would tend to agree, but looking at their growth rate, it's interesting.
Yeah, geez, Apple is the largest cap US company from time to time; the Exxon of info tech. Doesn't mean you couldn't have doubled YOUR money with Adobe stock recently.
Anyone here an actual investor who tries to time the market re software releases? I know Apple did a dip with 10.10.1.
I don't think we should let arguments involving the stock market taint the discussion, the performance of a company's stock is not representative of the performance of a company. More importantly than stock price, Adobe is making money right now which means it can keep the lights on and pay developers.I'm not sure you can compare Apples to Adobes though.
So I'm assuming you don't think Adobe is a good investment? Looking at their market cap and P/E ratio, I would tend to agree, but looking at their growth rate, it's interesting.
I'm not sure you can compare Apples to Adobes though.
So I'm assuming you don't think Adobe is a good investment? Looking at their market cap and P/E ratio, I would tend to agree, but looking at their growth rate, it's interesting.
The interesting number to me is net-new CC subscribers. 644k this quarter vs 500-ish the previous quarter. That's pretty decent growth quarter over quarter. It will be interesting to see when that starts to level out what they respond with.
I'm not trying to taint the discussion but genuinely interested in their finances. Besides, what is "this" discussion anyway? It seems "this" discussion had pretty much gone off the rails before I raised this aspect of it.
I think they are very healthy. Regardless of my personal disdain for their user interface design, I admire them as a company.
Yeah... but their total CC subscribers is still low. Meaning lots of room for growth.
What caused me to start pondering this in the first place was the results of my poll in another thread, where about 75% of Aperture Users have switched to Lightroom. We also use their products without even thinking about alternatives at work. They pretty much have the creative software market locked up and moving to a recurring revenue stream is a smart move in a world filled with 99-cent apps.
My only concern looking at their numbers is that they are trading at an insane multiple which likely implies the upside is exhausted and I've missed out on this one.
[MOD NOTE]
Putting on my moderator hat.
This thread is about Lightroom 6, and while there are some latitude on how the conversation organically transforms, lets have any adobe financial discussions in a different thread, i.e., lets get back on topic of Lightroom 6 and not adobe's financial results.
OK.
I'm wondering, as a LR perpetual license holder, whether there will be incentives for me to jump to the Photography subscription. I already have PS through CS6, so that would be a plus. I could get LR Mobile, but I demo'd that and prefer Photosmith hands down.
I don't want to get into YA sub vs perpetual argument, so let's not. I just wanna know if there are other perks to the sub I'm not considering.
I think you hit on them - that and continued free upgrades of both products. Oh and a whole 2 GB of creative cloud storage!
I think you hit on them - that and continued free upgrades of both products. Oh and a whole 2 GB of creative cloud storage!
If you LIKE LR and Have PS through CS6, the incentive to get a subscription seems minimal. You have LR, and PS from CS6.
In about 2 weeks, Adobe releases LR6 for ~$130. You can get the subscription for 1 year for ~$120. If you think Adobe is dropping an update on LR every year, it seems like a pretty good deal. I do not think that will be the case.
How does your current PS hold up to the subscription version? Are there features you feel you need? For $120, you get a year of latest Photoshop and an update to LR that is pretty substantial. When is the next substantial update to Photoshop coming?
Your choices are
Change nothing. Use current LR and PS CS 6 till the wheels come off.
Buy LR, Keep using PS CS6 for $130
Buy LR, Buy some other photo editor (Pixelmatr, Affinity) $130 + learning curve.
Subscribe to LR+PS for $10 a month for $120 for the next year. If an update comes to PS, you get it. If you quit paying, you get it in the shorts.
From this math, with you having CS6 already, buying LR outright looks good. Adobe will probably not throw another big update at LR in 13 months. Even if CS7 photoshop comes along, will you need that? Bear in mind that the longer it takes to come out, the less use you would get from it.
That is pure math with no opinion on owning your software versus subscription or questions of Adobe getting hacked again as I see it.
Have LR for years....had PS and deleted it years ago...did not need it and hated the UI. Would never do a subscription with PS included.
Use LR and Perfect Photo Suite for 99%. Learning curve for PPS is not step at all...about like any LR plugin.
Use LR and Perfect Photo Suite for 99%. Learning curve for PPS is not step at all...about like any LR plugin.
I don't think we'll see an annual update to LR, though we may see some updates to PS. I think the main advantage to the subscription is that you get both PS and LR, for as long as you want to pay the subscription.
I can see myself with the boxed version of LR6 but if I do that, I lose out on PS, since that will stop working for me. While I've not had to use PS much, lately it is there just in case.
I'm not trying to make a case for the subscription but rather highlight my situation where a subscription makes some sense even if I'm not really a fan of it.
----------
I've used it from time to time, but not a lot. Sure I probably could get by with pixelmator or something but I guess I'm not at that comfort level yet :/
The other case where a subscription makes sense is if you had neither like me. $10 / month is a great way to get in without having to put in a bunch of money upfront.