Two new versions of LR released

I can already tell that Adobe's product marketing sucks eggs in differentiating in the user's mind which one they want/need...it is obvious that so many folks think that "you MUST move photos across the web to the cloud and back", regardless of whether it is 'LR' or 'LR CC', when that is not true, or that you need a constant connection to the web to run your software. Adobe's failure to understand that many photographers are just barely computer literate and do not understand subtle nuances of cloud computing.

And fiddling with closely similar names is not helping.

sjnovakovich wrote in post #18476006
There are a ton of comments regarding this over on PP -- none of them good. I think Adobe just shot LR in the foot. No way am I sending more than a TB of data to Adobe's cloud server.

I am a perpetual license Lightroom user, and if Adobe does not alter their stance and offer a standalone version of LR7 (or whatever they choose to call it) they will be losing me as a customer. I will not move to the subscription model. I am already beginning to investigate alternatives.

Bassat wrote in post #18475844
Update is cloud only. I can't do that. Seems straightforward to me. No use for a CC app.

No it's not cloud only.
Lightroom Classic is the same as it always was. It is software on your machine and all your files are on your machine. It does give you the option to use Smart Previews to edit on the move with LR Mobile - but it is just an option.

Alan & Dan, thanks for the explanations. I also agree with the comments that Adobe is 'clouding' (<- now THAT is PFF!) the issue with similar names. The issue for me comes down to the monthly fee. It just seems wrong to me. And it really smokes my goat that I've PAID MONEY for version 3, 4, 5, and 6 of LR, and Adobe doesn't give a FFA is I ever give them any more. I've been a loyal customer. Shouldn't that work both ways? Something is wrong with this picture.

Bassat wrote in post #18476105
Alan & Dan, thanks for the explanations. I also agree with the comments that Adobe is 'clouding' (<- now THAT is PFF!) the issue with similar names. The issue for me comes down to the monthly fee. It just seems wrong to me. And it really smokes my goat that I've PAID MONEY for version 3, 4, 5, and 6 of LR, and Adobe doesn't give a FFA is I ever give them any more. I've been a loyal customer. Shouldn't that work both ways? Something is wrong with this picture.

Tom I think that Adobe sees the CC suite, along with now Lr Classic as a more pro oriented program, For many working photographers, and the majority of western at least countries, the software as a service option actually has a lot of financial advantages from a taxation point of view. Software as a service, since it is treated like any other normal business expense, is simply deductible in the appropriate tax year. Outright purchase of software licences has always been treated as a capital expenditure, which is a right PITA from a taxation point of view. Maybe back when all there were were mainframes, and software suites were usually in the thousands, if not tens of thousands of pounds/dollars that approach made some sense. In this modern day and age, with even the full Adobe Creative Suite as was coming in at under £/$1000 as an upgrade, treating it as a capital asset seems pointless. Especially where the vendor makes the licence non transferable in the contractual agreement, since that would then imply that the licence had no residual value after purchase.

So in short, for a very large number of the intended customers software as a service makes financial sense, while also helping Adobe's cash flow too. In this scenario it was not really surprising that Adobe dropped the perpetual licence option now that they have introduced a new process version. They have been pretty adamant that Lr 6 perpetual would not get any new features. Remember that Adobe's product for the amature retail market is Ps Elements, which has had a DAM component similar to a stripped down Lr for a number of years, to go with the stripped down ACR, and main editing programs.

Alan

Scott M wrote in post #18476038
I am a perpetual license Lightroom user, and if Adobe does not alter their stance and offer a standalone version of LR7 (or whatever they choose to call it) they will be losing me as a customer. I will not move to the subscription model. I am already beginning to investigate alternatives.

Amen! I guess until I buy an unsupported camera for LR 6 I have time to shop around.

Knowing the Adobe model of continually charging for updates and future cloud charges, I never got invested. I made my own cataloging system and used DPP.

Bassat wrote in post #18476105
...The issue for me comes down to the monthly fee. It just seems wrong to me. And it really smokes my goat that I've PAID MONEY for version 3, 4, 5, and 6 of LR, and Adobe doesn't give a FFA is I ever give them any more. I've been a loyal customer. Shouldn't that work both ways? Something is wrong with this picture.

Just because you don't want to pay a monthly fee doesn't mean it's wrong. It just doesn't meet your current needs. However there are two parties in this relationship and Adobe also have needs. As companies grow their costs grow and they need to focus on higher end business clients who are going to buy whole suites of products and multi-seat licenses and for whom a subscription based product is actually a massive plus.

Lightroom started out as a pretty basic product, transitioned through a solid advanced amateur/small pro tool and is now part of an entire suite of business tools that cater to high end marketing and media production companies. It is unrealistic to expect all the customers that wanted the earlier products to want the latest incarnation.

As for loyalty you bought the products that met your needs at the time. In return you got the product you paid for. I don't see any loyalty there I see a fair exchange of money for labour. If you were truly loyal you would sign up to a subscription package you don't want or need just to make sure that Adobe succeed. Of course that would be silly, just as it would be silly for Adobe to keep trying to make all the people happy all the time. The bulk of their clients are now high end pros, media companies and amateurs with significant disposable income. They need to focus on that market and if it means some previous customers needs are no longer met then there are other offering from different companies that will probably meet those needs.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18476551
Just because you don't want to pay a monthly fee doesn't mean it's wrong. It just doesn't meet your current needs. However there are two parties in this relationship and Adobe also have needs. As companies grow their costs grow and they need to focus on higher end business clients who are going to buy whole suites of products and multi-seat licenses and for whom a subscription based product is actually a massive plus.

Lightroom started out as a pretty basic product, transitioned through a solid advanced amateur/small pro tool and is now part of an entire suite of business tools that cater to high end marketing and media production companies. It is unrealistic to expect all the customers that wanted the earlier products to want the latest incarnation.

As for loyalty you bought the products that met your needs at the time. In return you got the product you paid for. I don't see any loyalty there I see a fair exchange of money for labour. If you were truly loyal you would sign up to a subscription package you don't want or need just to make sure that Adobe succeed. Of course that would be silly, just as it would be silly for Adobe to keep trying to make all the people happy all the time. The bulk of their clients are now high end pros, media companies and amateurs with significant disposable income. They need to focus on that market and if it means some previous customers needs are no longer met then there are other offering from different companies that will probably meet those needs.

Just a few points, Dan.
1.) I only claim that the subscription plan doesn't work for me.
2.) Most Adobe PS & LR users are 'high-end' pros? Back that up, please. My guess is that most LR & PS users are average Joes like me. I can afford nice gear, and a decent program with which to process the results. There are (my opinion) WAY more of me out there than there are 'high-end' working pros. The pros may do more with the programs, but in terms of sheer number of LR buyers, us amateurs are more abundant. Lose us, lose a BIG portion of your current revenue stream. Of course, this completely discounts that working pros are more LIKELY to use the subscription model. Shifting the revenue stream may well work, since it skyrockets the price for fewer users. X time Y is still XY, no matter how you get there.

For me personally, this was exactly what I have been looking for. I don't always like having my laptop with me and I am trying to push toward only having an iPad. I was stuck at the point where when I put a picture in Lightroom and put it in a sync'd album, once I opened Lightroom on my computer, I had no way to get the "Original" image on my iPad again. So this is ideal in that now ALL my RAW images will be stored and backed up in my editing software automatically. Getting all my old images there looks like it is going to be a bit of a job because I've let my catalog get out of control a bit.

The main downer I've run into is I was going to do the library cleanup and initial upload of my catalog with my work PC. Comcast caps me at 1TB/mo, so I was going to leave my work computer uploading my images this weekend. But, Lightroom CC now requires Windows 10 and my state of the art employer only has Windows 7 still.

I also need to clean up all my cloud solutions and rethink them a bit now. I have Dropbox, iCloud and now Adobe. Having my pictures all in 1 place though will allow me a smaller plan with one of the other 2.

the old sync worked just fine for me. I load a folder, make a collection, make some edits on the go and all was fine. This new version is whatever. It basically looks like a desktop version of the iPad app so its not something I would use at my desktop. Pretty basic workflow.

digirebelva wrote in post #18475876
And if you didnt know this was coming....
Cloud is great, but it is NOT the end all be all...I have satellite Internet at home (with no other options). so transferring and working on raws from the cloud is a complete no starter. The transfers would hit my data cap long before the month runs out. When I had FIOS, yeah, it would be a no brainer...but now...uhhh no. So I guess I will use LR until I find something better, which honestly, probably wont take long. Competitors will jump on this...and what comes out could be very interesting..

Even FIOS can't compete with local speeds. I do online backups but after I've culled. Why would I want to upload 500 raw images, only to delete 80% of them soon thereafter?

BigAl007 wrote in post #18476398
Tom I think that Adobe sees the CC suite, along with now Lr Classic as a more pro oriented program, For many working photographers, and the majority of western at least countries, the software as a service option actually has a lot of financial advantages from a taxation point of view. Software as a service, since it is treated like any other normal business expense, is simply deductible in the appropriate tax year. Outright purchase of software licences has always been treated as a capital expenditure, which is a right PITA from a taxation point of view. Maybe back when all there were were mainframes, and software suites were usually in the thousands, if not tens of thousands of pounds/dollars that approach made some sense. In this modern day and age, with even the full Adobe Creative Suite as was coming in at under £/$1000 as an upgrade, treating it as a capital asset seems pointless. Especially where the vendor makes the licence non transferable in the contractual agreement, since that would then imply that the licence had no residual value after purchase.

So in short, for a very large number of the intended customers software as a service makes financial sense, while also helping Adobe's cash flow too. In this scenario it was not really surprising that Adobe dropped the perpetual licence option now that they have introduced a new process version. They have been pretty adamant that Lr 6 perpetual would not get any new features. Remember that Adobe's product for the amature retail market is Ps Elements, which has had a DAM component similar to a stripped down Lr for a number of years, to go with the stripped down ACR, and main editing programs.

Alan

Of course tax law varies, but in the US small businesses can write off capital expenditures under a certain amount in the year purchased.

I see subscriptions in the same category as furniture rentals or payday loans. "Oh, it's only $10/mo!" Yeah, F O R E V E R.

5 year cost:

Purchase LR on day 1 then every 2.5 years thereafter- $150 x 2 = $300

Subscribe - $10 x 60 = $600

Most people I know, including myself, are perfectly happy to skip versions since the incremental changes are typically small.

The same goes for other subscriptions like Microsoft Office. Most people just want Word and Excel so they can pay $7/mo forever for one PC or $150 and use it till the wheels fall off.

A little extra work, but there is always the option to take your machine offline when you import. Cull, and then go back online. I agree though it would be nice to have an area to do your culling before the RAW images get uploaded.