Your Lightroom strategy is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable. Asking people to pay $120 a year just to access their photo library is extortion!
You are forcing me to look for an alternative raw editor and digital archive management software.
Your inconsiderate pursuit of short-term economic self interest, essentially pure greed, is forcing me to end a 20-year relationship of supporting your company and enthusiastically using your products. This has been a hard decision to make and it leaves me feeling deeply saddened.
I was hoping a few years ago that you would offer some way out for people who have trusted you and invested all of their creative photography work (photo editing and organizational tagging) into your Lightroom system, for example, by creating a monthly access plan or selling a perpetual license exit copy of Lightroom, but you have done neither of these things. I cannot imagine paying $120 a year (or more) for the rest of my life just to keep my photo library intact and functional.
What version of Lightroom are you using? Lightroom (mobile and cloud-based services) or Lightroom Classic?
I have chosen to use Lightroom Classic and Photoshop CC(only) from the “photography plan”.
The way I look at it is that I have all my raw images, and any final-edit tiffs made for printing, safely stored on my computer and backups. Should I decide at some stage that an image editing and printing application is better than Lightroom Classic/Photoshop CC, I have lost nothing other than the ability to edit further in Lightroom/Photoshop which, of course, I would not miss if I ever found something better.
For what it is worth, the alternative software I’ve ever looked at to date has not offered editing or printing functions that suit me better than the LR Classic/PS combo in the photography plan, and I’ve not found anything which, when regular updates are considered, costs less.
In my opinion, Suggesting that the Adobe plan is distortion is really not much different than suggesting that purchasing a smart phone for several hundred dollars that will last maybe three or four years and then having to pay a hefty monthly fee to even use it is extortion. But just about everyone is willing to do it.
I do want to clarify one thing for other readers. The poster has written "$120 a year just to access their photo library" and "paying $120 a year (or more) for the rest of my life just to keep my photo library intact and functional." In fact, after cancelling your subscription you can use Lightroom Classic for free to import photos, access and manage your photo library and create output with it. The only thing you can't do is make further edits. (I realize that this isn't sufficient for some; I just want to set the record straight.)
Is that no longer the case? Did I remember this incorrectly?
Of course, NONE of the other choices offer the robust cloud syncing features of Lightroom Classic, which is why I'm staying with it as a DAM. "There is nothing like a DAM, nothing, in the world!" SORRY!
While it may appear to many that the issue is all about money, “Adobe charges too much”, to me it's all about trust. I no longer trust Adobe to do the right thing, to actually serve me and the rest of humanity. Like Microsoft (and many other large, successful companies who have attained market dominance in certain areas), Adobe has become focused on rent seeking rather than adding value. Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of capitalism? Nevertheless, I no longer feel good about sending them money each month.
I'm not a cheapskate. I've paid Adobe more than $2,000 over the last 25 years, just to edit some image files! Am I going to pay $1,200 to continue enjoying that privilege for the next 10 years? I don't think so. It feels more like a hostage situation than a collaborative and creative partnership at this point.
Seriously, I do prefer the perpetual license model but as I was one who pretty much paid for an upgrade to both LR and PS at each new release, the economics of the rental model is about the same as the economics of the perpetual license model - just more consistent. Now, the situation with MS/Office is quite different for me. I'm still using PowerPoint, Word and Excel 2003 and Outlook 2013 because I can't stand the "improvements" they made. And, the only reason upgraded Outlook from 2003 to 2013 was that 2003 would not run on my new computer. So I will be really pissed if they force me to a rental model especially as it will contain versions I can't stand.