[delegopa]

There's a simple solution... use something else. You register your disapproval of a company by not buying their products. End of problem.

Thats actually not a solution for me. All competitors I have tested, including comercial and open source, aren't up to Lightrooms feature set. I really like the software. Also I prefer not to take the path of least resistance and rather voice my opinion. I perceived this as a virtue of the USA aswell. Silence gives consent...

[bdery]

$600.00 more or less for Photoshop

Which many people don't need or want.

customer satisfaction

Which Adobe isn't known for. Like I said (taking Photoshop out of the equation) they increased the cost without adding value.

If you are a Lr user only, it's a whole different calculation. And that, I suppose, is where much of the push-back comes from, since an Lr-only user feels slighted when a Ps-Lr-Bridge-Lr Mobile user gets benes like some new tools and they don't.

Yep, I agree with you, that's where the problem comes from.

I use GIMP, I'm used to it, I like it. I don't need PS.
I use Smugmug for my web gallery and store, and their Cloud service wouldn't work for me. It,s just an archive.
I can't use mobile without using their cloud service. That's the dumbest item on this list.
I don't even know what Bridge does.

There's a simple solution... use something else. You register your disapproval of a company by not buying their products. End of problem

The problem is that there isn't a valid, equivalent solution right now. Sort of like iTunes. Even now in 2015, there are some songs that just aren't available on competing platforms. And a few years back, there weren't competing platforms.

If and when someone releases a valid replacement for Lightroom, you'll see their market shares plummet. For now there is no competition so they pretty much do whatever they want.

[johnmflores]

Thats actually not a solution for me. All competitors I have tested, including comercial and open source, aren't up to Lightrooms feature set. I really like the software.

The problem is that there isn't a valid, equivalent solution right now.

If it truly is the best solution, then be prepared to pay top dollar for it until a viable and cheaper competitor comes along. I know a working pro that doesn't use it. His workflow is based on the MacOS Finder with Photoshop for editing. It is very efficient.

[WPRESTO]

Clearly there are joiners/subscribers and resisters, and I place myself among the latter. Adobe's subscription system is a bald-faced way to increase corporate revenue by extracting it from my pocket. I'll stick with the version of PS I have until ceases to function. New cars can be purchased or leased - why should software be different?

[enoeske]

Alright, I've given this a little thought. I was a resister for a while. I had pirated versions of photoshop in the past because I couldn't afford the real thing. Now, I have the chance to have a legit version at an affordable and sustainable price, including lightroom!

From a tech perspective, I was on the forefront of this sort of technology but in the PC gaming genre. I was part of the Steam beta program when Counterstrike first went from a CD to a digital distribution. It had the bonus of getting automatically updated to the newest version. In the past, you had to find a file downloading site and find the big update patch, download and install it. Now it always kept your game up to date. I see Adobe moving to this model as a good thing. They don't have to support old versions -- everyone gets every update. No one is left with an old version that doesn't support the new cameras, whining about how they can't afford the new version.

[delegopa]

If it truly is the best solution, then be prepared to pay top dollar for it until a viable and cheaper competitor comes along. I know a working pro that doesn't use it. His workflow is based on the MacOS Finder with Photoshop for editing. It is very efficient.

I am not that much concerned about the price but rather about the business model. Also I dont want to have to run a couple of cloud related programs just to work with a single program (Lightroom in this case). I will stick with the perpetual version for now and hope there will be perpetual versions in the future. I would not mind paying a bit more for a (uncrippled) perpetual version.

[Rondec]

I guess the question I have is whether Adobe is going to continue to innovate now that they have folks locked in to a subscription model. To me, this is their problem. If you take Lightroom 5 and compare it to Lightroom 6, there haven't been huge changes, except the Lightroom 6 tends to run slower. Adobe knew they were going to have trouble adding new features that would draw existing customers to get a new edition of their software. Rather than decrease the price of their software upgrades, they decided to switch to a subscription service, where the return to them is guaranteed, even if they do almost no upgrading of the software functionality.

[WPRESTO]

Is there a contract that guarantees no increase in subscription rate for... what? perpetuity? five years? one year? until Adobe stock begins to decline and they have to boost profits by 20% 50% .... What? It reeks of "gotcha!"

[disconnekt]

Is there a contract that guarantees no increase in subscription rate for... what? perpetuity? five years? one year? until Adobe stock begins to decline and they have to boost profits by 20% 50% .... What? It reeks of "gotcha!"

That's one big reason I don't want to get the CC version of LR. I use LR here & there, so just buying the non-cc version will work for me better in the long run. And who's to say they won't raise the price down the road? It's like "oh you want more plugins? Now it's $20 bucks a month. Better plugins? $25 bucks. More updates to fix those bugs? $30 bucks a month now."

[RobA_Oz]

…. No one is left with an old version that doesn't support the new cameras, whining about how they can't afford the new version.

It's a matter of value for money, not affordability. If there'd been enough change to justify my moving from CS5 to CS6, I would have done that already. As with MS Office and AutoCAD, we are well into the diminishing returns part of the upgrade curve.

[Oakland Rob]

Which Adobe isn't known for. Like I said (taking Photoshop out of the equation) they increased the cost without adding value.

But that's YOUR experience. The market seems to say that for many, it DID add value. For Ps users mostly, I would expect, just on pricing.

If and when someone releases a valid replacement for Lightroom, you'll see their market shares plummet. For now there is no competition so they pretty much do whatever they want.

Didn't happen with Aperture on the Mac OS, and even mighty Apple tossed in the towel. As I said before, it's called "photoshopping" for a reason. So the Photography plan will mush on. Looking at just Lr, there's not much point in someone making an its clone; we see alternatives to Lr that differentiate themselves because that's the only way they can compete against it. And there is plenty of competition if you consider alternatives competition. Others here have complained about no significant new features, so what killer feature does Lr have that all the others don't? that makes it irreplaceable? I sense a lot of "I really love it in every way...except for the price." It sounds like being trapped in an abusive relationship.

Adobe's subscription system is a bald-faced way to increase corporate revenue by extracting it from my pocket

Yes, it is. So is the perpetual version. That's why they exist, to make money. Like Pentax. You could switch to freeware or open source if you don't wanna participate in the greedy capitalistic model. And don't kid yourself about rising prices; Adobe could raise the prices of the perpetual license next time 'round just as easily (actually more easily) than they could raise the price of the subscription. I've got a year locked in, but they could release perpetual 6.5 next week and charge perpetual licensees $79 for it.

It's a matter of value for money, not affordability. If there'd been enough change to justify my moving from CS5 to CS6, I would have done that already. As with MS Office and AutoCAD, we are well into the diminishing returns part of the upgrade curve.

That's true. As we discussed, if you don't even use Ps you would think hard about the CC plan, even if $10/month is coffee money, since so is $79 or whatever for the next year or probably more. And all the extras factor into that too.

It's interesting, some here are annoyed at the lack of new features, and some resent paying for feature bloat (and with CC, for many Ps itself is feature bloat). At the end of the day you can probably use Lr 6 perpetual, with RAW and bug updates, for a few years to come. You're still better off than the poor Aperture users....

[bdery]

But that's YOUR experience. The market seems to say that for many, it DID add value.

A significant part of the market is complaining in this thread...

Didn't happen with Aperture

Which is not the same product. It tried to be too much of a merge between PS and LR, relying on iPhotos for indexing, etc. And was too tightly linked to Mac.

As I said before, it's called "photoshopping" for a reason.

I photoshop very well with Gimp.

what killer feature does Lr have that all the others don't? that makes it irreplaceable?

For me there are two things : indexing and publishing. I haven't found any equivalent with such powerful indexing tools. Publishing is more of a market reality, since a lot of people use it, a lot of tools exist.

The editing tools are very good but nothing unique, not by any stretch.

I sense a lot of "I really love it in every way...except for the price."

I love a lot of things about it. I have no gripes with the price of the stand alone version. What I (and others complain about) is the business strategy behind the CC adventure. The interview in the original post clearly states that CC was a way to make more money out of the same old product, NOT AT ALL a way to improve value. And THAT'S what I dislike.

[mohb]

What I (and others complain about) is the business strategy behind the CC adventure. The interview in the original post clearly states that CC was a way to make more money out of the same old product,

Adobe exists because it makes money - would you object if a new firm came along with a 'cloud product' much the same as LR and refuse to pay for it. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Adobe's move it's their product which is more or less a 'must have' and they will do what they can to make money out of it.

[WPRESTO]

AMEN to that last comment by bdery. Sure Adobe is out to make money. So, automaker "A" has decided advertise the base price of a car, but only makes and delivers to dealers the "Super Premium" that has fancy chrome and glitter and extra little lights all of which add $5,000 to the price of the car, but actually cost the manufacturer only $500. You'd buy in an instant even if you had no use for all that glitter, because after all, the company is out to make money.

I used Aperture for a while but what I disliked was 1) it seemed excessively preoccupied with the filing system and not enough with image adjustment/correction. 2) some plug-ins were not available; 3) several times it did strange things with the storage, at one point telling me that a huge batch of files could not be found (thought I had lost about 1200 images, but it was some screwy glitch in Aperture).

[Oakland Rob]

AMEN to that last comment by bdery. Sure Adobe is out to make money. So, automaker "A" has decided advertise the base price of a car, but only makes and delivers to dealers the "Super Premium" that has fancy chrome and glitter and extra little lights all of which add $5,000 to the price of the car, but actually cost the manufacturer only $500. You'd buy in an instant even if you had no use for all that glitter, because after all, the company is out to make money.

I used Aperture for a while but what I disliked was 1) it seemed excessively preoccupied with the filing system and not enough with image adjustment/correction. 2) some plug-ins were not available; 3) several times it did strange things with the storage, at one point telling me that a huge batch of files could not be found (thought I had lost about 1200 images, but it was some screwy glitch in Aperture).

Not sure what the point is about cars, but take cameras, like Pentaxes. Go to Ricoh's website under DSLR's and the first thing you see is the 645Z...and you gotta drop WAY down that page before you get to $500 from $8500. Despite all the glitter of those pixels (no chrome though) I didn't buy. I did buy the CC plan, but maybe that's because I don't consider Ps or Bridge "glitter." YMMV.

Aperture actually started before Lr, and was sorta groundbreaking. Later, Apple started letting it rot on the vine, unfortunately (BTW, it never incorporating any aspect of iPhoto. At some point it became possible to share libraries, but each was independent of the other). And if anything, subsequently it became harder to use with anything but Apple stuff. And that's even worse with Photos. I'd love it if the Apple fans became disgusted with that, and clamored for an alternative, which would either spur development of a completely new DAM/PIE or get current ones to drop prices.