Lightroom: Says I need to download Lightroom 5.3 because LR 5.3 RC has expired. NO LINK TO DOWNLOAD AVAILABLE.

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 5 years ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
I have already downloaded and installed lightroom 5.3 RC, but now (Jan 1) I have to do it again...somewhere. When I try and find the link, Adobe greedily keeps directing me to the link to buy the whole damn software again. Bad enough they did not provide a full and complete version of Lightroom 5 (that need multiple updates immediately) now I can't find the link where I am supposed download Lightroom 5.3 (that does not want to charge me money). Adobe, how about posting the link for UPDATES prominently. This has interrupted my workflow...AGAIN.
Photo of Holly Hospel

Holly Hospel

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • angry and frustrated.

Posted 5 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
The links to software updates have been on a page like this for many years:
http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates
Photo of Holly Hospel

Holly Hospel

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Steve - it is truly relevant how long the downloads have been available on whatever page. If the user cannot FIND that page because the Adobe's "Download" button does not take you there OR because when do a search on Adobe site for Lightroom 5.3 (and all you get is Lightroom 5.3 RC) then it is a FAIL. It is also a FAIL to shut down the software I PAID for because Adobe has updated something. This interrupts my workflow. I am not working Jan 1 because it is fun. I am working because I need to get stuff done and Adobe's need to update and patch their software should not interrupt my work.
Photo of Kieran Madden

Kieran Madden

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Steve - I really appreciate that you've provided the link but I have to say that your comment that the updates have been on that page for "many years", despite the difficulty of actually finding the page for those who don't already know where to look, reminds me of the start of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!

"Don't you know the Earth is going to be destroyed to build this new Galactic Superhighway? The notification has been posted on Alpha Centuri for years, you had plenty of time to protest about it!" (or something to that effect.)

I completely share Holly's anger at this situation though. Fortunately I'm not a pro so can afford to lose time but it's ridiculous how this has been handled.

Firstly, the in-software link should send me to the actual download page, not a generic product page asking me to download a trial of the friggin' software or to buy it (again). Secondly, it should be made clear that we need to re-download the entire 872 Mb of software again, rather than just download an update file.

Thirdly, as holly said, and most importantly - PREVENTING US FROM USING OUR CURRENT SOFTWARE UNTIL WE HAVE FOUND AND DOWNLOADED 872 Mb OF DATA IS BEYOND ABSURD.

Sort it out, please, Adobe.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
If you goto www.adobe.com, click on Download in the menu at the top, then click on Product Updates in the menu at the top of the Downloads page, then you get to the link I posted. So 2 clicks from the Adobe Homepage.

If you Google for (Lightroom 5.3 Download), the Mac link is the 1st item and the Windows link is the 3rd item.

Alpha Centauri is more than two-clicks away from earth and the contents of its message boards are not on Google.

The LR 5.3 final release version has been available since mid-December as has the message at the top of the LR forums that LR 5.3 is available with links to its download. The LR forums are what the RC download page link to. This feedback.adobe.com area is less specific in its per-product messaging.

Yes, it is a little confusing to be sent to the trial-download page instead of the update-download page, but the RC was available to anyone, whether or not they had purchased LR, so while your situation was as a customer wanting a download link, others would find the purchase more appropriate.

It is likely that the RC was developed long enough ago that Adobe didn't know what page to send people to for the latest update, so they decided to send them to the generic LR product info page.
Photo of Holly Hospel

Holly Hospel

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Amen Kieran!
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 334 Reply Likes
Your version 5.2 would have remained intact when 5.3 RC expired. Release candidates do not uninstall previous versions. You could always run that - unless you had deliberately uninstalled it after installing the RC.

The 5.2 Version on your computer would have found and notified you of a 5.3 Final update and directed you to the proper download page as soon as 5.3 Final was released.

At no point would you have been prevented from using your current software. (5.2)

Release candidates always come with caveats as to use and clearly state expiration dates in the release notes and announcements. I would direct you to a link but the RC notice is taken down from Adobe Labs as soon as the final version is released or the RC expires.
Photo of Kieran Madden

Kieran Madden

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Wouldn't switching back to 5.2 run the risk of making a mess of our library database we've been using with 5.3 though?

I daresay RCs always come with these caveats but who reads those? I know we should, but we should also read the Ts&Cs of software licences even if it would take us 78 days to read the ones for Apple alone.

This is important information that should be flagged up with a big, impossible to miss message when installing the Release Candidate version. A message prompting people to download the full release version should also appear prior to expiration of the RC to avoid lost working time. When the RC finally expires, the expiration message should advise people to use 5.2 (assuming the answer to my question above is that doing so wouldn't risk messing up the library) if they need to work immediately, as well as linking directly to the download page.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 334 Reply Likes
"Wouldn't switching back to 5.2 run the risk of making a mess of our library database we've been using with 5.3 though? "

No.

Most people update to the Final as soon as it is released and don't run an RC till it expires. It was 20 days between Final release and candidate expiration after all.
Photo of Kieran Madden

Kieran Madden

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I see, thanks. I only updated to the RC because I needed the Publish Service fixes for use with Photosmith, I've never used an RC update before.

I see that this is all obvious stuff for the long-term well-informed user but I still think it's one of those things that's only obvious if you already know it! Would be really good if Adobe could make all this clearer at least.
Photo of Holly Hospel

Holly Hospel

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
And I needed the ability to work with Nikon Raw files for the AW1...which 5.2 did not have.

When Adobe rendered 5.3 RC unusable because that version expired and did not provide a clear path to where to get the update from it failed.

No amount of, "well you you could do this" makes their mistake right. The client/purchaser/customer should not be required to run around and find, hunt, install, uninstall, download, stand on one hand while praying to adobe, to make THEIR products work.

What would make me happy? Adobe FIX the process for finding the update. Make it direct and simple. Make it clear so anyone one can find it (not just people familiar with Adobe's web site). Don't put obstacles in front of your paying customers to get what they already bought. And honestly own your mistakes.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
It's two clicks from www.adobe.com (click Download, click Product Updates) and the 1st or 3rd link in a Google search depending on Mac or PC.

The download links likely weren't available at the time the RC was created so Adobe put a more generic link embedded in the expiration message.
Photo of Kieran Madden

Kieran Madden

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Ohh, you mean the really really small text hidden amongst a very busy page? :p

Seriously though, it's two clicks if you know where to click. And it's at the top of the google search if you don't over-think things like I did and worry whether 5.3 is the final release version or whether it's a later one. And you yourself said that the link you provided above hasn't changed in years, so your reason for Adobe putting in a more generic link makes little sense.

I appreciate the help you've provided (and that you toned down the facetiousness of your original post that I received in my email notifications! ;p) but I really don't understand why you and Rikk are making excuses for Adobe. Nothing Holly or I have suggested would be difficult to implement. This is something they very easily can, and should, improve.

I don't understand why that's so controversial.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
The menus on webpages are not hidden. And I was always happy when someone gave me useful information on the forums when I couldn't figure something out, which I always try to do first, including using Google.

However, thinking about it a little more, something does seem a little off about the process you're describing having happened with the RC. The RC is supposed to act the same as how the release version will act, which is to direct to a trial/buy page if you aren't registered or to the product update if you are registered.

If you are registered and the RC directed you to the buy page then something is off.

Are you running the LR that came with the PS-CC+LR-CC for $10/month? If so then that is why things aren't working as expected. The LR 5.3 RC is the perpetual-license public-release-candidate, and would only be licensed if you had a perpetual-licensed LR 5.x already installed, so it makes sense it directed to the trial page once it expired, if the only LR you had on your system, prior, was the LR-CC month-to-month license.

Adobe has not provided a LR-CC-licensed RC, yet. LR 5.2 was the first version since the LR-CC licensing was introduced. It remains to be seen if they have a LR-CC-RC in the future.
Photo of Kieran Madden

Kieran Madden

  • 5 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I am happy you gave useful info, I did try to thank you for it :). And I did use Google - I just put in the wrong search term, as I was concerned 5.3 wouldn't be the right version for the most recent software. Also I didn't mean literally hidden!! Just not-obvious-enough hidden.

If I'm responding defensively, it's because while you have been very helpful I feel like there's a suggestion from both you and Rikk that Holly & I have been daft, that there's no issue with the way Adobe have implemented this, and that we shouldn't be complaining. I strongly disagree with that, but equally maybe I'm mistaken in my interpretation of what's been said - in which case I'm happy to apologise for my defensiveness.

I have the full LR-only license for a one-off payment so don't think it's an issue with the subscription licensing.
Photo of Holly Hospel

Holly Hospel

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
And let me add to Kieran comments, by pointing out that the RC was created because the original version of LR was buggy. In fact, Adobe had to release two (that I know of) updates in short succession.

Adobe sold a buggy version and as a stop gap measure for all the people who purchased and needed the bugs fixed, they released the RC version. It was to cover their hinders. To financially cover their hinders, the RC version was "limited time". I get that.

But they failed to make the the update easy. Period. No amount of, "if you just" and none of the innuendo that it is easy and obvious for you, negates that. As Kieran points out, it is just excuses.

Own the mistake, then fix it.
Photo of Steve Sprengel

Steve Sprengel, Champion

  • 2611 Posts
  • 333 Reply Likes
LR updates are published every 3 or so months to support new cameras and fix discovered bugs. Not sure anything has changed this time, although if you're tracking the exact release dates more carefully than I, there might have been a week earlier release for the RC and a week-later release for the final.

If the RC is not redirecting to the perpetual-license update, like it would have in the past, I'm not sure why, but one reason I can think of is that Adobe realized that the redirect would be inappropriate for LR-CC licensees like myself, and would cause even more confusion, and more calls to support for people who had their LR-CC reverted back to LR-perpetual-licensing model.

I think Adobe should make LR smart enough to redirect to whichever place is appropriate for the license-type the user has or a trial if there is no license, and in the mean time, display a generic message that lists the possibilities but without a link, at all.
Photo of Holly Hospel

Holly Hospel

  • 6 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Yes! I agree Steve! Let us hope adobe does exactly as you describe.