Lightroom 6: Why won't it install on macOS 10.15 Catalina

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 4 weeks ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
Why won't Adobe let me install my LR6 on my new macOS Catalina machine? LR6 runs on Catalina. However, the installer that comes with the LR6 download is a 32bit installer, so it won't run in Catalina... LR6 will, the installer won't!
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 5 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Laura Shoe

Laura Shoe, Champion

  • 135 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
That's correct, Peter - Lightroom 6 can't be installed once you've upgraded to Catalina for the reason you cite - the installer is 32 bit. I'm afraid you're out of luck, unless you can revert to Mojave.
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 795 Posts
  • 203 Reply Likes
Indeed: LR6 runs but the installer won’t. So you can « keep » LR6 on Catalina but can’t run the installer, so you’re ... stuck.

And don’t expect any update from Adobe regarding LR6.

Your options are:
* Restoring Mojave through a backup and recover LR6 and then upgrade (or not) to Catalina
* Keep catalina and ditch LR6 for any other subscription based LR or any other DAM on the market with license.
* Maybe you can find a portable version (in your backup?) of LR6, but not sure it’s the most optimal way of running a software...
(Edited)
Photo of Tjorners

Tjorners

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
this is ridiculous surely ?!! Adobe made a point of LR6 being 64bit only yet you can't install it on 64bit Catalina because of the installer itself - what a farce
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 2687 Posts
  • 1144 Reply Likes
No, it is not ridiculous at all. It made at lot of sense at the time. Lightroom 6 is obsolete software. It was developed at a time when it was totally unnecessary to make everything 64 bits, because 32 bits software ran just fine on the then current MacOS. Because the installer is only needed once, there was no need to spend a lot of time to make it 64 bits. That would not have given you any benefits.
Photo of Robert Hendrickson

Robert Hendrickson

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
Capture One is looking better and better.
It makes no business sense for ME to spend $1200 per decade ($10 / month = $120 / year = 1200 / decade) (assuming zero inflation) for software I have anyway already bought for $130 that has no added features other than a recompiled installer.

First I'll reinstall Mojave, and if that doesn't work I'll buy Capture One.
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 668 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
"that has no added features other than a recompiled installer ". Like Luke Skywalker said, "everything in that sentence is wrong". No added features? You haven't been keeping up! It's been explained elsewhere that you actually pay less with the monthly fee than buying it outright every time there's a major upgrade.

Go! And never darken my towels again! ;-)
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 668 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Adobe is in business, and it makes NO business sense to spend resources to update an app for a small minority of users, when there is no return to their investment. That’s why!

You got YEARS of use out of your investment, The Adobe Cloud is the killer feature now, upgrade and you can edit at the beach!
Photo of Dan Brown

Dan Brown

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
but it's ok for us to pay them for a product and then have them decide it's obsolete a year or so later? I run a business. where is there ROI on me spending any more money with Adobe if they act like this to paying customers?

They surely have an obligation to their consumers? if not why would I choose to waste another penny on their products? If I treated my customers this way I would expect that they would 1) never return and 2) tell everyone about the shoddy service. 

the software itself is perfectly happy running, all we need is them to recompile an installer for 64 bit. @adobe - if you can't be bothered to look after us, then you're literally sending us to the competition. 
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 795 Posts
  • 203 Reply Likes
« then you're literally sending us to the competition »

They are, unfortunately. They follow the cash, and the cash lies in monthly subscriptions from smartphone users, and not in pro photographers, and even less in LR6 licences potentially convertible in subscriptions. There’s literally no gain for them to compile a 64 bit compiler for LR6, so if there not legally obliged to, don’t expect it... If there’s one evidence about LR business, is that they’re not customer oriented company but a money centric company. And it’s up to us to accept it or look elsewhere. Luckily, if you don’t need cloud options, competition does an amazing job!
Photo of Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen

Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion

  • 5513 Posts
  • 2200 Reply Likes
Dan, Adobe released LR6 in 2015 and last updated it in 2017. It's now 2020. In the computer world, that's ancient history.

Be mad at Apple, they made the decision to obsolete your outdated software, but if you only bought it a year ago, they had already warned you.

You can quite happily stay in the past and continue using your old Lightroom version, but you'll need to stay on an older operating system too. Or, since this is a tool of your trade, you might choose to use modern tools.
Photo of Dan Brown

Dan Brown

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
thanks for enlightening me. I've only worked in the computer industry since 1996, in every sector from government to space to fashion to TV to banking, with pretty much everything in-between. I have used all kinds of software from all kinds of companies, from accounting to software development, film editing, writing, presentation, music production, games and pretty much everything else. Only Adobe decide to deprecate their software this quickly. I bought an app in 2017 to run on Mac. I still have the same Mac, just an updated OS, and the software actually runs fine on Catalina once installed. However the 10 minutes it would take them to have a developer recompile the installer app from 32 to 64 bit is too much of an opportunity for Adobe to take more money out of me rather than have me as a happy customer. 

I have Affinity Photo for Mac. I bought it in 2015. I still get free updates and it works. I have Final Cut Pro X. I still get free updates and it works. I have MS Office. I still get free updates and it works. I use Evernote. I still get free updates and it works. Scrivener, Motion, Logic, MainStage, OneNote, MarsEdit, Sonos, Amplitube, PodFarm, Superior Drummer, Elite Dangerous, oven macOS itself. All of them I bought back in the 32bit days, all of them still work in the 64bit days, none of them are charging me an upgrade fee. Just Adobe try to do this, so don't make out like this is me not understanding, or that I just don't understand how software works. I know how your software works, I had a hand in making a lot of it work. Adobe is the odd one out here. Adobe are trying to push us down a model they prefer whether we like it or not, but seemed happy to take my money in 2017 WITHOUT WARNING ME IT WOULD BE OBSOLETE within a couple of months. 

I think we deserve better as customers. I think they should realise they have a vested interest in doing right by us. I might be in the minority in this opinion, but I think they are forcing me down a path I don't want to take. And since I have the option of using two feet, that is what I have decided to do. 

Please don't make this out like I don't understand though. I understand perfectly well thank you very much. I just choose not to opt into being fleeced, and I choose to make my voice heard in case others feel similarly sorely put upon. 

Modern doesn't mean I have to sign up to being ripped off once a month for software I already paid for. Modern means putting the customer at the heart of the service you deliver. I do use modern software, I just don't choose to sign up to Adobe's recent software. 
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 668 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
"Adobe is the odd one out here". Really Dan? I have half a dozen legacy apps that I use that won't work on Catalina. It doesn't bother me, I'll get new apps.

OF COURSE Adobe is "trying to push us down a model they prefer"! That's how a company makes money! I think you, like so many others on this board, just really enjoy complaining about Adobe? Everyone needs a good punching bag!

In 2017 I knew about the switch to 64-bit apps, but many here (who don't have AN IT GUY) didn't, and now they are angry. I don't know, maybe get an IT guy?
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 668 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
@Antoine: cloud options is the killer feature, which no one else has. I don't absolutely need it, but I absolutely want it!

PS-a subscription model is actually cheaper (and better) than buying it for $699 every few years (or every time you want the new features).
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 795 Posts
  • 203 Reply Likes
I partially agree: being able to sync images on mobile is indeed the only reason I’m sticking with LR right now: having the opportunity to sync my entire catalog is a huge plus. Having an unlimited storage for « only » smart preview is a huge plus.

The subscription model, however, is way more expensive: LR was roughly 150 / version and new version was released every other year. This is about the yearly price. Add to this many people were happy to keep their version for more than two years.

And finally, the sync integration with Classic is still full of bugs and limitations, which is unacceptable for such a price.

So yes, sync features are pretty unique in the DAM market but it comes at a high price tag and everyone is forced to embrace that model, whether they like it or not.

But in the end, what people are complaining about here is the lack of installer for a product that was sold until only a couple of months ago. Is borderline legal (depending on the country and assuming someone would sue them) but it’s a fundamental b*tch move from Adobe to it’s customers.
Photo of Johan Elzenga

Johan Elzenga, Champion

  • 2686 Posts
  • 1144 Reply Likes
If you are only interested in Lightroom, then the subscription is indeed a bit more expensive. If you use Photoshop too, it’s a bargain.
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 795 Posts
  • 203 Reply Likes
I don’t need photoshop and if I needed photoshop, I’d be happy with either Gimp or an old version of photoshop. Those are mature softwares and the subscription “promise” only appeals to a fraction of LR users.

Justifying the price of a product because another is associated to it is just dishonest. (And again, forbidden in some countries). Why not renting both separately? Because they can “justify” the higher price. Just dishonest and again, giving the finger to it’s customers.
Photo of Tjorners

Tjorners

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Sorry Carlos I think you miss Dan's point - buying software in 2017 that is obsolete in less than 3 years down the line is simply not acceptable purely as a principle.  LR6 desktop works absolutely fine on Catalina (so Apple cannot take the blame here) but you cannot install it afresh and that must sit with Adobe. 

Adobe's subscription model may be fine for professionals who can afford the investment and who feel they need the absolute latest tech for their work but for a great number of people, including many domestic users, the older LR6 was absolutely all they would ever need to handle their private photo collection. These people don't want the latest thing they just want what LR6 desktop was offering at that time and for some of us thats all we'll ever need.  The subs model is absolutely not cheaper for that user group.
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 906 Posts
  • 261 Reply Likes
So stay on Mojave. There is no requirement to upgrade to Catalina.
Photo of David Converse

David Converse

  • 906 Posts
  • 261 Reply Likes
So stay on Mojave. There is no requirement to upgrade to Catalina.
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 668 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
No Tjorners, you miss MY point. Being so uninformed in 2017 that you would buy 32-bit software is your failure, not Adobe's. Get an IT GUY to give you advice on when NOT to upgrade your Mac OS? Software HAS to be updated to work on new hardware, and the "cutting edge" is what we like about Apple (so go to Windows maybe?)
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 795 Posts
  • 203 Reply Likes
Carlos, we understand you’re happy with the subscription based model. Not everyone feels the same. I think Tjorners got your point. However:

1) LR6 is 64 bit compatible, only the installer isn’t. There’s not even extra work required.
2) 64 bit is there since over the years. But maybe Adobe was so « uninformed they needed an it guy »?
3) exactly previous comment’s points: « soft has to be updated ». Which Adobe didn’t do by either keeping an 32 bit installer in 2017 or not updating a soft only shortly after it was sold, rendering it incompatible with new computers.
4) Suggesting platform switch is like the Godwin point of it discussion :p
Photo of roger ames

roger ames

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
It is completely ridiculous that Adobe would not simply provide an installer for Catalina. With the web version of Lightroom I might as well stick to Photos.
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Carlos, Tjorners didn't buy 32bit software; he bought 64bit software, not realizing -- why would anyone? -- that the *installer* was 32bit. In fact, why *is* the installer 32bit? What sense does that make? 
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
In fact, why wouldn't Adobe create a 64bit installer for this software now? It's a negligible amount of work.
Photo of Antoine Hlmn

Antoine Hlmn

  • 795 Posts
  • 203 Reply Likes
In the end, the reason why it doesn’t work doesn’t matter much, but rather the delay between a product is being sold and when it’s support ends. LR6 was sold in 2017 and probably later. Catalina was out in 2019, so 2 years later, which should legally be covered by the warranty in Europe. And next to legal aspects, there’s basic respect with regard to obsolescence and over consumption.
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree, Antoine. But ... the reason why it doesn't work is because Adobe has decided they don't want it to work, it's as simple as that. 
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
What .... a ten minute job to recompile the installer?
Photo of Carlos Cardona

Carlos Cardona

  • 668 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Oh, you’re a coder now? It’s not 10 minutes, trust me. But I don’t want to interrupt your Adobe Bashing Fun, so proceed.
Photo of peterkent

peterkent

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Um ... you know me!? (Creating a new installer is not a big deal.)
Photo of roger ames

roger ames

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
go for it.