Lightroom Classic: Why not just a Classic subscription offering?

  • 3
  • Question
  • Updated 6 months ago
  • (Edited)
Not to beat a dead horse but why did Adobe not offer just LR Classic subscription by itself as another option instead of bundling it with Photoshop? There are thousands of Lightroom users that have no need for or desire to learn Photoshop but would happily move to subscription just for Lightroom at a reduced price.  I would not be surprised if Adobe did A/B testing it would not bear this out.  I can do anything I want with just Lightroom without  a need for Photoshop.  If you need Photoshop also to traverse back and forth and are a power user then up your subscription.   It does not seem very principled to use non Photoshop users to subsidize LR/Photoshop combo users in their subscription pricing model if you subscribe to LR Classic CC and just need Lightroom.  Photoshop came first and for those users it is a no brainer from a subscription perspectine.  Edit in Photoshop if you like  and catalog in Lightroom...best of both worlds perhaps.  What am I missing?  Is  Adobe just waiting until a competitor can import the lr.cat file into their offering coupled with an adequate file structure before offering such an option to keep just LR users from  jumping ship?  The ship will have already left the dock if that is even a remote strategy.  Ignoring that possibility then I think I know the answer.  Too big to fail?
Photo of Tim Smith

Tim Smith

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 6 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Dan Hartford Photo

Dan Hartford Photo

  • 450 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
Perhaps it should be thought of this way.  You're paying $9.99/mo for LR Classic and you get PS and LR cloudy free.   Or, you're paying $9.99 for PS and you get LR Classic and LR Cloudy Free.  

But seriously, it might be nice to have a $6.59/mo option for LR Classic Only (no cloud sync at all) which is about what an annual upgrade once a year used to cost for the perpetual license versions when they had them (albeit the annual upgrade was more like every 18 months)
Photo of Tim Smith

Tim Smith

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Dan good point. Those coming late to the party will have to learn 2
apps to get a bang for the buck. You don’ t really need the Ferrari if you
only drive at a posted 60 mph and it gets you there just fine at that speed.
There is a step learning curve for photoshop and quite frankly I would
rather spend my time learning an app that can satisfy 95% of my editing
needs (LR) and instead use the photoshop learning time that might represent 5% of my editing
needs instead in the field doing photography . I think my point does get some support
from LR video training gurus out there. They will honestly admit that you don’t need
Photoshop to get a first class editing job done with L R.

Cheers but I respect your point of view.
Best of the season
Photo of avpman

avpman

  • 163 Posts
  • 113 Reply Likes
Not to worry, they'll likely raise the "bundle" price in time. Then you'll be left with just LR for the same price you're paying now! THIS is the problem I have with subscription software. You are shackled to it while you continue to pay and pay, and pay, and pay. You have no choice to "end with a specific version" and have complete usability.
Photo of Joel Weisbrod

Joel Weisbrod

  • 204 Posts
  • 128 Reply Likes
You might consider that many LR users do 95% of their editing in LR and only pop into PS for cloning, healing, and background replacement. Even if you never use PS, $9.95 per month for Lightroom is quite the bargain considering all it can do, multi-year new features, constant addition of RAW profiles for new cameras, constant addition of lens profiles for new (and requested old) lenses, and more. For my students, I see the $9.95 per month as a bargain with a FREE copy of PS added for those that want to use it occasionally.
Photo of avpman

avpman

  • 163 Posts
  • 113 Reply Likes
And constant bugs with every new release... Never a truly stable version.