Lightroom Classic CC: Dismayed at announcement

  • 5
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 weeks ago
  • (Edited)
I only use LR not PS. It is absurd to have to pay $10/month for LR only so I purchased 6. Now with the announcements today I am pretty much screwed. Based on the burn Adobe is getting on the photography blogs there will be hundreds of users like me moving to other products like ON1 Raw, Affinity, etc. You are risking losing these customers and their cashflow. You need to offer LR only as a SaaS (what you call subscription) price only at a reasonable number.
Photo of Ed Adams

Ed Adams

  • 6 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
  • upset

Posted 7 months ago

  • 5
Photo of avpman

avpman

  • 94 Posts
  • 59 Reply Likes
Time to bolt. Adobe has just given competitors the right to eat their lunch. Goodbye Adobe.
Photo of Cash Williams

Cash Williams

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I disagree actually. This new Lightroom CC looks interesting for non-professional photo management (something I currently use Apple Photos for).

$10/m is amazing for Lightroom AND Photoshop. I only open Photoshop about 5% of the time compared to Lightroom, but I'm always glad it is there when I need it.
Photo of Ronald Christian

Ronald Christian

  • 12 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Wasn't that what Elements was for?
Photo of Ed Adams

Ed Adams

  • 6 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Cash, if you use PS then it is a good deal. Look at the math.. $120/yr for LR only is absurd. $120/yr for both PS and LR is a great deal. It was roughly $600 to purchase perpetual licenses of both so it would take about 5 years to hit a breakeven point for both. Because they were both on a update schedule of about 2 to 4 years that is a great deal. It is NOT a great deal if you look at LR only. It costs me $70 to upgrade to 6. That means if I am paying $10/month I will be rebuying it every 7 months. 
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
And if you don't use PS?
Photo of Bonnie Jay

Bonnie Jay

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Or if you don't use LR? Which I don't. Why should I have to pay for it? Why should I have to pay for any of this when I have been using the stand alone versions since PS3? I find it a freaking rip off.... pay every month for the rest of my life whether I use it or not.
(Edited)
Photo of Todd Dixon

Todd Dixon

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Your post has several different concerns, yet you are grouping them together.

1. If you purchased LR6, what does the announcement today have anything to do with the product you paid for?  Does the announcement today suddenly disable any functionality in LR6 that you already paid for?  Of course not.

2. The announcement today will have an impact on future-proofing your investment, obviously; however from a workflow point of view... what future functionality can you possibly envision will need to be added to LR beyond additional camera support?  If you are willing to pay thousands of dollars for the hardware, why aren't you willing to pay for best in class software to go along with it?  This is like a couple of newlyweds expecting to have anniversary photos taken every year for free (by you!) perennially just because they hired you to take their wedding photos...

3. Cost.  To me, this is a separate concern because there is a lot to consider when coming up with a pricepoint for IaaS/SaaS/PaaS.  While I have some major issues with other aspects of the offering, price (for the base package) isn't one of them.  Perhaps I'm a bit biased because I am a product owner for a software product in the cloud space already and I'm already a subscriber to the Photographer CC package.  That said... consider the entire cost of infrastructure to handle the bandwidth of ingress and egress (a massive burden if you consider many cameras these days have 20+MP) and syncing to multiple devices... not to mention the cost of development (software engineers, product owners, project managers, etc) to deliver value, etc. 

Bottom line, if the cost (money, bandwidth, time, or otherwise) is too much to bear, then people will abandon the product, and Adobe will have to react to the change in market conditions.  However, Adobe are operating from a position of strength in the market, and given the market's trend toward mobility and the power of cloud computing (machine learning, etc) - this is something that all of us will expect (and demand) in the months and years to come. 

To drive this point home, consider the facial recognition in Lightroom and compare that to facial recognition in Google Photos, a free product.  Google Photos facial recog >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lightroom by a million lightyears.  You can't compare them - they aren't in the same book let alone the same library or even the same planet - because Google Photos leverages the power of GCP whereas Lightroom is constrained by what limited processing power you have in your desktop.  If Lightroom doesn't react to changes in the market, particularly from competitors that don't have a P&L (e.g. are "free"), then they will lose market share.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Hmmm...when I compared Picasa and Lightroom face detection, Lightroom was faster and more accurate.  I was under the impression that Google Photos was similar to Picasa in performance but haven't tried it.
Photo of Ed Adams

Ed Adams

  • 6 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Todd.. while I appreciate your comments I don't the tone. I've been in enterprise software sales for over 35 years. I fully understand software pricing which is the root cause for all of my comments. When CC came out it forced me to purchase 6 which is no longer being updated and I suspect will in the near future no longer be supported. The reason I did this with my eyes wide-open was the cost for creative was spectacularly over priced for a user like myself who ONLY uses LR.   With the announcement yes I can continue to use 6 until Adobe sunsets it but with no added value. This forces me to make a decision to either move to classic and basically pay for LR every 7 months (see my post above) or move to another product. I own ON1 Raw, MacPhun, and others as I've seen this coming. LR 6 is slow and clumsy - none of the features announced today are in it. As I've said and this is my last comment - I will NOT pay for a product every 7 months.. ABSURD
Photo of Todd Dixon

Todd Dixon

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Ed, I feel your pain, I really do.  And I apologize if the tone of my post was a bit patronizing or arrogant.

Given that you're in the industry, you are probably coming to the realization (like me) that we aren't in their target market.  While I do love Lightroom, given the changes, I will likely not renew my subscription once my contract expires next year.

However my gripe isn't rooted in costs, it's rooted in pain that the shift in direction imposes on me personally due to my current situation, as I'm based in India on a work assignment with access to extremely poor Internet.  I have zero interest in syncing 2-3 TB of photos per year (with a 15-20% growth rate) when it literally takes 3-4 hours to buffer a 20 minute 720p video on my Netflix subscription, because Internet is so poor here...
Photo of Ed Adams

Ed Adams

  • 6 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Todd, thank you and yes you are right that I do understand their approach. I don't like it and it will cause them to lose money but.. Just like you my biggest issues is all of the time and money I have spend learning to use LR which I had to switch to when Apple stopped development on Aperature. I was already in the process of looking at other solutions because of the pricing. The announcement today just confirms its time to move off LR. 

As to your internet issue, im not sure that would be a problem if you are using Classic only if you use CC. Everything im seeing says Classic will continue to be developed and that CC will use pretty much the same code set. From my experience working for the largest software companies in the world there are two approaches to moving applications to the cloud. One is to use the same code set and just host it in the cloud or on premise. There will be some difference to handle the different environment of cloud but the base code set is the same so that development can focus on features not platforms. I think this is the CURRENT approach by Adobe. The other approach is to have two separate platform development teams. Especially for Adobe this would be a disaster. Photoshop and LR users are predominately using DSLR and mirrors working with big Raw files. We need the processing and file structures. CC is aimed at the phone photographer community. I feel their sales model is to really make the most money thru cloud pricing following the model a lot of companies like Amazon are doing. Amazon actually makes more money off their AWS platform than from the store site which is pretty amazing. Oracle is trying to make more money off cloud than their apps. Software is in a huge transition right now. Not all of it is thought out very well. I certainly feel Adobe is missing the point here. 
Photo of Art M.

Art M.

  • 73 Posts
  • 15 Reply Likes
There will be a new option where you pay $10/month for Lightroom CC plus you get 1TB of cloud data instead of Photoshop.

Overall given how expensive it is to develop and maintain complex software, and customer support, I consider the $10/month a very good value whether you get the Photoshop or 1TB version, or even for a standalone version because you will be happy to get the upgrades.

Having a steady stream of income makes a huge difference to a firm like this, and also increases their stock price (since recurring revenue is less uncertain) which reduces their cost of capital.

My beef with Adobe is that they invested huge dollars building a "cloud" version that I don't personally need while I have invested many dozens of hours of my life over the past few years WAITING for a spot heal or brush to move.   It was extremely hard to get them to take seriously the speed problems - even on fast machines - with Lightroom in D mode or culling.  They kept insisting that it was scenario specific, but it was really only specific to people who did a lot of edits on an image, or wanted to do culling in LR.

Finally a bunch of us piled on in the Adobe forums some months ago, and I think they got the message. 

But why was it so hard for them to get?

ps:  I'd like to see them credit a few months of subscription to people that purchased version 6 standalone fairly recently.  It would be great customer relations.
(Edited)
Photo of Simon Chen

Simon Chen, Principal Computer Scientist

  • 1364 Posts
  • 401 Reply Likes
The team is investing heavily on performance improvements among other things. You've seen some progress in the new version of Lr Classic CC and Lr CC (you should see much more responsive spot heal and local brushing). This is just the first wave of performance improvements. More to come in the coming dot releases.
Photo of avpman

avpman

  • 94 Posts
  • 59 Reply Likes
With a perpetual license you have the *option* of upgrading, or not  when a new version is released. You're not forced to upgrade every 7 or so months. With CC you're forced to keep paying, and paying, and paying. Plus, more importantly, if you decide to cancel the CC subscription you can not "downgrade" your catalog to an earlier version of LR once a CC version upgrade takes place. With no replacement for an up to date perpetual license, you're SOL at that point.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Well, I don't use Photoshop (Elements 9 is faster and easier to use on the 1-in-10,000 images I use it for) and the Adobe Cloud has a value of exactly zero for me.  So that means, I've got three options:

Pay monthly for a cloud service I'll never use.
Pay monthly for Photoshop which I probably won't even install.
Continue to use Lightroom 6.x and pay Adobe nothing at all.

Or, I'd pay $89 to upgrade to Lightroom 7 perpetual (if there was such a thing) right now.
Or, I'd probably pay $4.99 a month forever to get just Lightroom CC Classic without the cloud and without Photoshop.
I like BackBlaze's price structure - $5 a month or $50 a year, once a year.  I'd do that for Lightroom only.

But why should I pay for either of two things (Photoshop or the Adobe cloud) I'll never use?
Photo of Ed Adams

Ed Adams

  • 6 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Simon, what does that have to do with the issues? Again I like Adobe, used since they started but their pricing on LR only users is absurd and will cause many people to leave Adobe. You can either ignore it or find a solution. Better do it soon but I can tell you other companies are working hard to come up with great DAM and PP solutions. The latest beta of ON1 Raw 2018 is faster, does browsing, can link to most plugins and uses the best data management schema ive seen. It only saves a small file with the changes you make to an image instead of a huge PSD file. Im a database guy and love this metadata approach.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Ed, Lightroom uses only a metadata approach, with the metadata stored in the catalog or (optionally) as a sidecar file for proprietary raw photos.  PSD's are only from Photoshop.  I have about 10 of them in my >300,000 image LR catalog.
Photo of Alok Mehta

Alok Mehta

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes completely agree that now I am not going to used lightroom. There is no point of paying so much to have photoshop as I don’t use.

Wven if we have LR classic CC with 1 TB sync would have got it for $9.99 but for this adobe is charging way high.
Photo of Bonnie Jay

Bonnie Jay

  • 7 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Buy OnOne Raw... you will own it and it's a stand alone. Is it PS, no but it's a great alternative to the complicated LR.