Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

3 Messages

 • 

392 Points

Wed, Oct 18, 2017 8:39 PM

Answered

Lightroom Classic CC: Branding a total catastrophe

I've used Photoshop since v1.0 in 1990, and Lightroom for some years. I've also been a professional software dev and product manager for 25 years.

It makes a great deal of sense to me that Adobe would introduce a prosumer-oriented, cloud-based photo cataloging and editing application natively supporting mobile workflows. The overly simple slant of Apple Photos and others have left plenty of room for a capable and scalable app+platform targeting less-casual users.

However it's inconceivable to me that Adobe would not see the branding catastrophe of calling that "Lightroom". The announcement video in which Julieanne Kost lays out the differences and argues with a straight face that it "works for both professionals and amateurs" feels tone-deaf, bordering on disingenuous.

Classic" is akin to saying "Yesteryear." It smells like "end of life" and will most surely discourage new professional adoption. It also telegraphs to existing users that this tool, central to so many pro workflows, may not be there in the future. No amount of forum-reply assurances "we plan to keep both forever" can overcome the implication that senior-management focus may have shifted toward greater consumer orientation and that Adobe is paving the way for abandonment of a key pro app.

The language in Kost's video backs this up: unadorned "Lightroom Classic" vs "the All-New Lightroom CC", and so forth throughout, providing a contrapunctal narrative in which at every turn "Classic" represents the old, the manual, the difficult, and the new app (how do I even reference it separate from Classic? I already use "Lightroom CC" (2015), but now "Lightroom CC" is a completely different application. Do I write "Not Classic"? or just ""?) represents the agility and ease of the cloud- and mobile-empowered future.

I happen to come from an industry (feature animation) that got to the cloud long before most, we just didn't call it that in 2005. But in 2017, master data in that industry is still well too large and sensitive to live in public server farms. It's kept on-premises and backed up "manually" as Kost puts it. I have 500 GB of LR master images on an SSD here. I know many LR users have multiple TB of master images. How does Ms. Kost propose one would move those to "the cloud"?

Either Adobe intends to end-of-life Lightroom as a pro app, in which case I'm disappointed, or it doesn't but somehow didn't realize this branding would telegraph such an intent, which would be astonishing.

I hope it's the latter. If so, "Lightroom CC" (the new one, not the one I already have installed) should be given an entirely different name. Or, just call a spade a space: "Classic" is "Pro", and the new one isn't.

Responses

9 Messages

 • 

374 Points

3 years ago

Complete agree, the "classic" part makes me feel very suspicious. I would love to have cloud features in the LR we all know and use instead of getting with classic vs CC comparison nonsense.

5 Messages

 • 

212 Points

3 years ago

I fully agree!

143 Messages

 • 

2.9K Points

3 years ago

Nailed it, thanks. I totally agree with this, Something being a 'Classic' is often used as an excuse for when things don't work as you'd expect .. "well, it is a classic" (meaning, please excuse its foibles, it is old and not as fancy as current stuff, you know ...).

37 yrs in s/w development & architecture, and have been with all versions of Lightroom (perpetual license ;) since Raw Shooter.

2 Messages

 • 

92 Points

3 years ago

Exactly this + privacy concerns + 1 TiB quota with AT&T fiber and $10 recurring cost. Very dissapointed. Purchased standalone Lightroom 6 recently. Wished I knew what was coming, I would have certainly gone another route... :(

At the same time I wish them as much success as Nintendo with the NES and SNES Classic!

16 Messages

 • 

390 Points

3 years ago

I am very concerned as well.  This is not aimed at pro photogs, but more at the amateur.  The pros, with their larger files, and more of them, will be hurt by this new version.  Not to mention those that pay for data ...

6 Messages

 • 

128 Points

Nowhere does she address the issue of limited (metered) bandwidth and the costs associated with that. And how about letting the user store and access their "CC" files from cloud services we already may have subscribed to? 20GB to "try it out" is nothing near what is needed and the unspoken message is that there will be additional storage costs when the 20GB limit is reached. "Classic" is newspeak for on its way out. A major marketing fumble on the part of Adobe. I just don't believe the reassuring words.

12 Messages

 • 

250 Points

Disagree... the CC version is there since “forever” (for who was using the cloud already like myself), now Adobe, simply released a desktop app as well.
Furthermore, in CC will go whatever you decide to put there for mobile use (if needed, otherwise you’ll keep things in the classic only as usually) via the collections.
For me a priceless service: I’m always around and my wife shows pics to the client on iPad or I simply send them a private web link. They put all the stars, flags, comments they want and in real time I have their choice on my MAC and LR Classic...
We need to use things for what they’ve been built for ... not complain all the time :)
My two cents, of course...

17 Messages

 • 

506 Points

3 years ago

My thoughts exactly. This was a big disappointment, and for me it's clear that I need to start looking for an alternative to everything Adobe. The "Classic" app might live another year or two, but it doesn't  look anymore as a safe bet for my photography workflow. :(

32 Messages

 • 

774 Points

3 years ago

I agree with the sentiments expressed here however I'm encouraged by the fact that I AM seeing significant performance improvements in "Classic".  I will likely enjoy a program like the new CC version but I NEED what is now "Classic"

2 Messages

 • 

130 Points

3 years ago

Also try migrating a catalogue, just tried!!! First issue needs 1.4 TB of disk space to copy the images before uploading to the cloud. That was fairly easy to sort as its possible to change where this temp storage is. Then still can't be done as it need more than 150 GB of space on OS drive to store previews and catalog info!!!




4 Messages

 • 

114 Points

3 years ago

TOTALLY AGREE!

2 Messages

 • 

130 Points

3 years ago

Looks like Afinity might be way to go.

Employee

 • 

1.7K Messages

 • 

32.4K Points

3 years ago

Principal Scientist, Adobe Lightroom

20 Messages

 • 

408 Points

3 years ago

I wonder how many consultants and focus groups were needed for the naming.

5 Messages

 • 

212 Points

The short list was "classic" and "has been". "Has been" was preferred but classic was chosen because it was better fitting the logos.

6 Messages

 • 

170 Points

3 years ago

Agree - feels as if Classic really means End of Life coming.

12 Messages

 • 

250 Points

Hopefully is not... there’s no comparations between the two sofware: I love both (I used the cloud with LR since they starts the mobile apps), but I cannot really do without the now called classic

2K Messages

 • 

35K Points

3 years ago

> Agree - feels as if Classic really means End of Life coming.>

You mean like Classic Coke? <BG>

19 Messages

 • 

478 Points

3 years ago

The name Classic, and the focused improvements really say a few things things; all of which say the product is EOL.
The name Classic implies this is the end. Everything from Coke, the PGA and many other marketing examples can be given.
If Adobe really wanted to state the two products will live on, the could have called it Lr CC and Lr Premier, or Lr Professional, or Lr Local...
Second, the focus on what users have requested, they suddenly ignore their own vision and do what customers have asked for years? That means one of two items, they either have a new product/executive manager who has a customer focus, or they lost the product visionaries.
Third, my perception of the improvements are low risk and a good step in the right direction of code cleanup which could potentially be shared with the other Lr CC team.

None of these are are deal killers. None of them are bad per se. Even the bad marketing and name confusion is just laughable, but really does not mean much in the grand scheme of things. Even the premature release of Lr CC, does not really bother me much. It really does broadcast where Adobe is thinking. Which I think is good.

Here is the problem. Look at Lr CC. Look at how the feature set is developed which depends on the cloud.
From the very tight integration and syncing features, which is very robust for a first release, Adobe has therefore invested significant resources in this endeavor and must consider it a core design choice. They have also made it clear, by the very rapid growth in features for Lr Mobile, the new Lr CC which is tightly tied to Lr Mobile, and the minimal improvement in Lr Classic, that Adobe believes a full cloud solution is the future. Therefore, Adobe has made it obvious that they are going to make all products very tightly tied to their version of the cloud.

Having spent days figuring out solutions, and then even more time getting everything out from being held hostage by Apple iTunes and Google Docs, I am not going to voluntarily sign up to be held hostage again. Especially when you consider I was not even paying Apple or Google a penny anymore just to maintain what they had already captured. (Yes, I am still stuck with MS Office, but the price point is low enough and the benefits high enough for me to not see the bars).
Adobe is planning to not only charge for the software subscription, which I found of dubious value since I have no interest in Lr Mobile, and even less in Lr CC now, they want to charge me to store my photos? From a practical perspective, I am going to keep Office 365 which provides me 1TB of storage, why would I want to spend another $120 bucks a year at a minimum? It just does not make sense (I have almost 1TB in images, and I am about to import a lot more from my wife's library).

The practical aspect for me, is I have canceled the auto renew on my photography plan. I will let the current subscription run out, and do some research on alternatives before deciding. But Lr is not longer the automatic solution.

Tim

3 Messages

 • 

392 Points

Agreed on all points, although I'm not sure I have as bleak a view on Adobe's ability to adapt to input, hence I do think it's worth airing these thoughts on these forums.

143 Messages

 • 

2.9K Points

Also agree on all points ... but sadly am not so optimistic

4 Messages

 • 

174 Points

I like the new lightroom cc/mobile/classic...the new cc doesnt follow disk size limits and cant seem to move library to external disk. cc/mobile seems to be an improvement....you are right.....cant seem to find a name to call the product that has that problem.