[TomTom]

If I download the current 920MB LR installer, with packet overhead, there goes about 12.5% of my monthly data usage quota (which includes uploads/downloads) in one hit. Welcome to wireless broadband in rural areas.

900MB is also simply stupid and inefficient. For Windows users Adobe could cut the download size in half simply by making the 32 bit and 64bit installers separate downloads. Instead they literally bundle two huge 450 MB installers alongside each other in the download, one of which people will never need to use.

Software devs (or their bosses) have gotten so lazy and cheap. Bloated code that includes every language possible and multiple platforms (x64, x86) in one file. Why should a printer driver install file include three or four different apps and be a 180MB download?! Grrr! SERENITY NOW!

[ElJamoquio]

Bloatware. It really bugs me. Back in my day I downloaded a 20 minute long demo (video) and it was ~500 kilobytes if I recall correctly.

Things cost more than they used to, why is this meatloaf so spicy, and you kids get off my lawn.

[TomTom]

Bloatware. It really bugs me. Back in my day I downloaded a 20 minute long demo (video) and it was ~500 kilobytes if I recall correctly.

Things cost more than they used to, why is this meatloaf so spicy, and you kids get off my lawn.

;-)

I remember when 300 baud was all I needed to do my job.

[jatrax]

I remember when 300 baud was all I needed to do my job.

You certainly had more time for coffee

[rawr]

I remember when 300 baud was all I needed to do my job.

I remember upgrading to a 2400 bps modem - wow, what a rush of speed it was. Then 14.4k, then 56k, then [insert piles of networking gear used over the last decade or two] ... this ride never ends.

[Andi Lo]

Thanks for the update Downloading as I type

[Ishpuini]

Personally I'm not so much concerned about the download size (though I understand from the feedback that not everyone is as fortunate).

However, I have noticed that the Adobe installer is particularly bad at removing old versions of their software. I recently took a Adobe CC for Photographers subscription and assumed that problem to be in the past since the Adobe CC application would be managing upgrades. For instance, after the recent upgrade, I still have Photoshop CC installed next to the newly installed Photoshop CC 2014. And what's worse, Photoshop CC still runs, and shortcuts I created to that older version remain. One may argue this could be good for backward compatibility issues (which ones I wonder though?) of for transferring personalized settings (though it seems Photoshop CC 2014 took care of that when I first launched it) of plug-ins? This does leave a lot of clutter on my drive (and in start menus).

Back on-topic, Lightroom doesn't seem to have this problem upgrading to a new minor version. However, the executable seems to have changed name, so my personally created shortcuts don't work anymore and need to be recreated... Not ideal either... Let's hope when LR6 is released, the installer will clean up left overs from LR5...

Wim

[ElJamoquio]

I just hope lr6 is still something that I can purchase.

[Ishpuini]

I just hope lr6 is still something that I can purchase.

I know this isn't the discussion here, but Adobe CC for Photographers really isn't too bad a deal you know. If you're comparing to the license cost of Lightroom only it's slightly more expensive provided you would upgrade to each new major version every time in a classic license scheme. If you add Photoshop to the equation however, 10 USD per month really isn't that much. Personally I use both regularly (and upgraded LR every major release), so I'm very happy with this new deal, esp to avoid the huge license cost for Photoshop *and* to be able to get useful (for me at least) new features without additional huge upgrade costs. This scheme makes for much more democratic software prices if you ask me.

If you install your software once and want to use that version for years and years without ever upgrading, it's a different story indeed. However, my hardware never lasted that long and the new machines (the OS really) were too advanced most of the time to be able to run those old versions anyway, so I ended up having to upgrade the software along with the machine in most cases. I never liked being *forced* to upgrade (esp at the high costs involved in this in the past), but this is not related to Adobe's subscription approach, nor is it limited to Adobe's software. It's a general gripe that concerns most software.

To be honest, I suspect at least part of the debate is driven by people who are used to not-so-legal installations, for whom getting the latest features (for "free") might have become slightly more cumbersome now. Lower price means more people will switch to an official license and "free" versions become harder to find... Note, this is not an assumption about anyone in particular, just a general observation.

Wim

[Wired]

I love the $10 a month thing. Keeps me updated, I get the latest copies, and I don't have coasters of old software taking up space.

[Rondec]

I know this isn't the discussion here, but Adobe CC for Photographers really isn't too bad a deal you know. If you're comparing to the license cost of Lightroom only it's slightly more expensive provided you would upgrade to each new major version every time in a classic license scheme. If you add Photoshop to the equation however, 10 USD per month really isn't that much. Personally I use both regularly (and upgraded LR every major release), so I'm very happy with this new deal, esp to avoid the huge license cost for Photoshop *and* to be able to get useful (for me at least) new features without additional huge upgrade costs. This scheme makes for much more democratic software prices if you ask me.

If you install your software once and want to use that version for years and years without ever upgrading, it's a different story indeed. However, my hardware never lasted that long and the new machines (the OS really) were too advanced most of the time to be able to run those old versions anyway, so I ended up having to upgrade the software along with the machine in most cases. I never liked being *forced* to upgrade (esp at the high costs involved in this in the past), but this is not related to Adobe's subscription approach, nor is it limited to Adobe's software. It's a general gripe that concerns most software.

To be honest, I suspect at least part of the debate is driven by people who are used to not-so-legal installations, for whom getting the latest features (for "free") might have become slightly more cumbersome now. Lower price means more people will switch to an official license and "free" versions become harder to find... Note, this is not an assumption about anyone in particular, just a general observation.

Wim

I think the issue is that there isn't a reason to update every time a company releases a new version of their software. There really wasn't that much difference between Lightroom 4 and 5. Minimal difference between Elements 10, 11 and 12. If you assume that you would upgrade every two to three years, then it is kind of expensive. As time goes by, it is harder for Adobe (and other companies) to come out with killer features that are truly better than past versions of their software and make someone need to buy it. In that sort of environment, the subscription model ends up benefiting the software company, in that they can comfortably do most upgrades over time, without pressure to really come up with new and great features.

[ElJamoquio]

If you're comparing to the license cost of Lightroom only it's slightly more expensive provided you would upgrade to each new major version every time in a classic license scheme.

Lightroom 3 ~$150 in 2010 (it was released in 2009, but I didn't get it until later)
Lightroom 4 ~$75 in 2013
Lightroom 5 ~75 in 2014

Total $300. I don't actually have 5 so let's say $225 for me.

From June 2010 to Now: 48 months = $480

It's not slightly more for me; and I prefer owning my software to subscriptions anyway. I don't use photoshop, for the very rare times that I 'need' it I can just use Gimp.



As Rondec said, perhaps the bigger issue is that right now, I only need to upgrade when I feel it's 'worth it' to me. Sure, the noise control in lightroom 4 was better than 3, worth $75 to me.

If adobe has you captured, though, what incentive do they have to release something worthwhile? I really hesitate at the thought of having to 'import' all my post-processing to another program, and my understanding is that other software's 'import' function doesn't really work anyway.

I'm hoping 6 is still purchase-able. Hopefully that will keep me satisified until ~2016 and hopefully by then there's other options.

[Cambo]

A 920MB download for Windows users.

Ugh.

500 megs.

Love Lightroom. Have done the Lynda training on it, which I HIGHLY recommend.

Cheers,
Cameron

[ruggiex]

I just hope lr6 is still something that I can purchase.

I read somewhere yesterday from Adobe saying LR will continue to be offered as standalone product for the time-being. You just won't get the Cloud related features.

[Winder]

I read somewhere yesterday from Adobe saying LR will continue to be offered as standalone product for the time-being. You just won't get the Cloud related features.

I'm hoping DxO continues to evolve and can provide competition to LR. If LR does go to the cloud, I can kiss Adobe goodbye and have an alternative.