[Class A]

Capture One is raising prices.

An update to a new version will cost $199 instead of $159 (a 25%+ increase).

Upgrading the branded versions (specific to Fuji, Sony, Nikon) will cost $149 instead of $109 (a 36%+ increase).

As I have not heard about respective increases to subscription fees, this appears to be a bid to push more people into a subscription.

This is baffling for multiple reasons:

1. the latest upgrade from V20 to V21 was very underwhelming in terms of new features / improvements. It was the opposite of what would have been needed to convince people that they would be upgrading every year anyhow, thus inviting them to become subscribers.
2. many bugs inherited from V20 and earlier versions still exist, and new ones have been added in V21.
3. the increase follows a recent hike in upgrade pricing; upgrading C1 versions used to be significantly cheaper.
4. the number of allowed active licence activations has been reduced from three to two.
5. the pricing is not competitive with Adobe's photography plan which includes the use of Lightroom and Photoshop.
6. C1 is missing quite a bit of functionality with respect to Lightroom while Lightroom has been catching up regarding colour editing, for instance.

The current first-time licence price appears to be $299; not sure whether it is going to be higher shortly as well.

I personally no longer recommend C1 due to its host of issues, lack of bug fixing activity, and luxurious pricing. Pentax support has been poor all along. Capture One would have to do a much better job of listening to their customers again, for me to spend any further money on a future version.

EDIT: At least the Nikon-specific subscription price will increase to $19/month instead of $9.99/month (a 90% increase). FWIW, C1 still does not support the Z6II while Lightroom has been offering respective support for a while now.

---

Last edited by Class A; 01-07-2021 at 03:25 AM.

[acoufap]

I got this info too.

An update to a new version will cost $199 instead of $159 (a 25%+ increase).

In Europe 169,- € increased to 219,- €. That's very steep for updates that don't bring much to the table compared to what your current version delivers. Especially Pentax users really don't get much more.

..., this appears to be a bid to push more people into a subscription.

This is my feeling too and maybe a first step to full subscription. That would be a really bad bad step!

I really like C1Pro's user interface and how it works. It's a pitty. Updating is starting to be extreme expensive - for people not earning money with photography like me that's ... . Maybe in the future I'll save the money to buy coming great Pentax lenses and stay with my current C1Pro 20 and start using Affinity Photo and RawTherapee more ...

[Rondec]

Capture One is raising prices.

An update to a new version will cost $199 instead of $159 (a 25%+ increase).

Upgrading the branded versions (specific to Fuji, Sony, Nikon) will cost $149 instead of $109 (a 36%+ increase).

As I have not heard about respective increases to subscription fees, this appears to be a bid to push more people into a subscription.

This is baffling for multiple reasons:

1. the latest upgrade from V20 to V21 was very underwhelming in terms of new features / improvements. It was the opposite of what would have been needed to convince people that they would be upgrading every year anyhow, thus inviting them to become subscribers.
2. many bugs inherited from V20 and earlier versions still exist, and new ones have been added in V21.
3. the increase follows a recent hike in upgrade pricing; upgrading C1 versions used to be significantly cheaper.
4. the number of allowed active licence activations has been reduced from three to two.
5. the pricing is not competitive with Adobe's photography plan which includes the use of Lightroom and Photoshop.
6. C1 is missing quite a bit of functionality with respect to Lightroom while Lightroom has been catching up regarding colour editing, for instance.

The current first-time licence price appears to be $299; not sure whether it is going to be higher shortly as well.

I personally no longer recommend C1 due to its host of issues, lack of bug fixing activity, and luxurious pricing. Pentax support has been poor all along. Capture One would have to do a much better job of listening to their customers again, for me to spend any further money on a future version.

EDIT: At least the Nikon-specific subscription price will increase to $19/month instead of $9.99/month (a 90% increase). FWIW, C1 still does not support the Z6II while Lightroom has been offering respective support for a while now.

I wonder if these companies will eventually destroy their own market through squeezing consumers.

It feels like on one hand non-proprietary software is getting better -- things like Raw Therapee are very robust right now and the cost is nil. On the other hand, these companies have to squeeze their users harder to get the same amount of revenue out of them.

At one time, real updates were pretty easy, but now the software is so good that it is probably hard to have real improvements from one version to the next. I suppose this may be behind the push to go to a subscription model. Overall, the biggest thing these brands have going for them is inertia. If I am familiar with the interface of Lightroom and Photoshop, it is easier for me to be Adobe's fee than to go in a different direction and learn a new platform.

[Class A]

At one time, real updates were pretty easy, but now the software is so good that it is probably hard to have real improvements from one version to the next.

You have of course a point and I agree that's why Adobe ultimately went to subscriptions only, as too few customers would have decided that they needed the latest small epsilon improvements.

Having said that, in Capture One's case, there is a ton of limitations that should be lifted and in their entirety respective improvements would significantly improve productivity.

Just to name a few glaring issues, Capture One has no "virtual copy" concept (as Lightroom does), it's "variant" notion is drastically weaker so one has to apply workarounds to say organise colour versions and B&W versions of the same images into different albums. One cannot see the contents of sub-folders when selecting a super-folder, forcing one to visit all sub-folders individually when looking for a particular image. It is not possible to overwrite existing exported images either, which forces one to remove them manually before exporting again, involving navigating to the output folder. There is no per-image history in Capture One, which incidentally makes the recently introduced "before/after" feature entirely useless. The latter is a joke that cannot do more than give one a warm and fuzzy feeling of how much the final image looks different to the unedited version. As a tool to judge the latest editing steps, it is 100% useless. I could go on and on; there are seriously so many things to fix in Capture One that I would gladly pay extra if they only fixed a subset which is relevant to me. In a particular case, it would be just undoing a removal of a feature which lead to worse usability compared to previous versions.

Instead of addressing frequently pointed out issues, Capture One introduced functionality that no one publicly asked for. For instance, the ability to annotate images with directions for retouchers appears to only serve a tiny fraction of C1 users who actually outsource further retouching. Compared to that, the user base that would benefit from implementing commonly requested features would be much larger.

The same can be said about "speed editing". While it is a good feature, in principle, I never read any post in the "feature requests" forum suggesting this form of interaction. I wrote "in principle", because the people who stand to benefit from the "speed editing" feature the most, should already own some type of console that achieves the same goal, often in a better way. I don't want to argue that a company should never make improvements that weren't suggested by customers, on the contrary, but when there is a host of issues to fix and a host of frequently requested features to implement, perhaps unsolicited ideas (or those coming from unrepresentative focus groups) should be followed up with a lower priority.

Judging from the responses to V21, while some liked the speed editing feature, the overwhelming response was that V21 was a disappointment and felt much more like an update evolution, rather than a full price upgrade.

---

Last edited by Class A; 01-07-2021 at 06:11 AM.

[Wheatfield]

You have of course a point and I agree that's why Adobe ultimately went to subscriptions only, as too few customers would have decided that they needed the latest small epsilon improvements.

Adobe was more or less forced into a subscription model because of software piracy. There was a cottage industry dedicated to circumventing Adobe's software registration process.
If one wanted Photoshop, it was an easy process to find a copy of it on a software sharing site, download the program and the key generator required to register it and voila, instant Photoshop.
Apparently, at one time, something like nine out of ten Photoshop programs in use were pirated.

[Rondec]

You have of course a point and I agree that's why Adobe ultimately went to subscriptions only, as too few customers would have decided that they needed the latest small epsilon improvements.

Having said that, in Capture One's case, there is a ton of limitations that should be lifted and in their entirety respective improvements would significantly improve productivity.

Just to name a few glaring issues, Capture One has no "virtual copy" concept (as Lightroom does), it's "variant" notion is drastically weaker so one has to apply workarounds to say organise colour versions and B&W versions of the same images into different albums. One cannot see the contents of sub-folders when selecting a super-folder, forcing one to visit all sub-folders individually when looking for a particular image. It is not possible to overwrite existing exported images either, which forces one to remove them manually before exporting again, involving navigating to the output folder. There is no per-image history in Capture One, which incidentally makes the recently introduced "before/after" feature entirely useless. The latter is a joke that cannot do more than give one a warm and fuzzy feeling of how much the final image looks different to the unedited version. As a tool to judge the latest editing steps, it is 100% useless. I could go on and on; there are seriously so many things to fix in Capture One that I would gladly pay extra if they only fixed a subset which is relevant to me. In a particular case, it would be just undoing a removal of a feature which lead to worse usability compared to previous versions.

Instead of addressing frequently pointed out issues, Capture One introduced functionality that no one publicly asked for. For instance, the ability to annotate images with directions for retouchers appears to only serve a tiny fraction of C1 users who actually outsource further retouching. Compared to that, the user base that would benefit from implementing commonly requested features would be much larger.

The same can be said about "speed editing". While it is a good feature, in principle, I never read any post in the "feature requests" forum suggesting this form of interaction. I wrote "in principle", because the people who stand to benefit from the "speed editing" feature the most, should already own some type of console that achieves the same goal, often in a better way. I don't want to argue that a company should never make improvements that weren't suggested by customers, on the contrary, but when there is a host of issues to fix and a host of frequently requested features to implement, perhaps unsolicited ideas (or those coming from unrepresentative focus groups) should be followed up with a lower priority.

Judging from the responses to V21, while some liked the speed editing feature, the overwhelming response was that V21 was a disappointment and felt much more like an update evolution, rather than a full price upgrade.

My impression is that these programs are probably a mess from a programming standpoint. I'm sure there is a bunch of legacy code that is just gumming things up and so I am guessing that when they sit down to "deliverables" many of the things that photographers actually want are features they kick down the road, simply because they aren't going to be easy to implement.

My impression with something like Lightroom was that the main driver of new sales was camera/lens module support -- that is to say, you buy a K-3 III and realize that there are no modules for it in Lightroom and so you have to buy the next version. Now, you just get them when Adobe chooses to turn them out.

[automorphism]

Adobe was more or less forced into a subscription model because of software piracy. There was a cottage industry dedicated to circumventing Adobe's software registration process.
If one wanted Photoshop, it was an easy process to find a copy of it on a software sharing site, download the program and the key generator required to register it and voila, instant Photoshop.
Apparently, at one time, something like nine out of ten Photoshop programs in use were pirated.

I don't really believe this is true at the time Adobe actually switched to subscription. At least, an Adobe exec said in an interview that piracy was not the motivator. I actually believe them. Despite piracy, Adobe was making a profit, but they realized they could even make a bigger profit with the cloud.

Also I'm not surprised Capture One is doing this. Typically when software products reach a certain maturity and market share, customers have a sufficient level of dependence to make raising prices bring more profit (because they don't lose that many customers). That's one reason why I hate the subscription model and use darktable.

[Wheatfield]

I don't really believe this is true at the time Adobe actually switched to subscription. At least, an Adobe exec said in an interview that piracy was not the motivator. I actually believe them. Despite piracy, Adobe was making a profit, but they realized they could even make a bigger profit with the cloud.

Also I'm not surprised Capture One is doing this. Typically when software products reach a certain maturity and market share, customers have a sufficient level of dependence to make raising prices bring more profit (because they don't lose that many customers). That's one reason why I hate the subscription model and use darktable.

I knew a few people at Adobe in the early 2ks. When they told me they had such a piracy problem that almost 90% of Photoshop users were stealing the software, I had no reason to not believe them.

My own observations at the time were such that it was believable. At the time, I knew a couple of dozen people using Photoshop, none of whom had bothered to pay for the privilege. This included several professional photographers running studios.

If you are running a company and find out that most of the people using your product are stealing it from you, it behooves you to make some changes to close that door, whether or not your company is profitable.
Adobe is a publicly traded company. If nothing else, the shareholders would be pressuring the company to tighten up security to give them bigger dividends, even if the board of directors was happy with the situation.
Piracy may not have been the primary motivator, but it certainly would have been part of what they were looking at with the decision to put in place a system that allowed them to have more ability to ensure that the people using their product were paying for it.

[Class A]

Piracy may not have been the primary motivator, but it certainly would have been part of what they were looking at with the decision to put in place a system that allowed them to have more ability to ensure that the people using their product were paying for it.

Ownership verification (anti-piracy measures) and ownership financials are two different concerns.

Adobe could have used their current online-based anti-piracy measures while still selling permanent licenses.

In other words, the question is not how Adobe ensures that only legal copies of their software are used, but why Adobe is currently not offering "one time payments for specific versions of their software". Adobe's ability to check on the legality of your installation does not depend on their ability to update your features as well.

[Wheatfield]

Ownership verification (anti-piracy measures) and ownership financials are two different concerns.

Adobe could have used their current online-based anti-piracy measures while still selling permanent licenses.

In other words, the question is not how Adobe ensures that only legal copies of their software are used, but why Adobe is currently not offering "one time payments for specific versions of their software". Adobe's ability to check on the legality of your installation does not depend on their ability to update your features as well.

They could have done a lot of things, but they did what they did. You have the option of using their software or using something else.

[Class A]

They could have done a lot of things, but they did what they did.

Pardon?

What is spelling out this blatantly obvious fact supposed to achieve?

I debunked your suggestion that rampant piracy caused Adobe to change to a subscription model and fail to see how your response connects to that or anything that was discussed before.

You have the option of using their software or using something else.

Another blatantly obvious fact.

FYI, nobody was discussing whether or not to use their software.

[Rondec]

I knew a few people at Adobe in the early 2ks. When they told me they had such a piracy problem that almost 90% of Photoshop users were stealing the software, I had no reason to not believe them.

My own observations at the time were such that it was believable. At the time, I knew a couple of dozen people using Photoshop, none of whom had bothered to pay for the privilege. This included several professional photographers running studios.

If you are running a company and find out that most of the people using your product are stealing it from you, it behooves you to make some changes to close that door, whether or not your company is profitable.
Adobe is a publicly traded company. If nothing else, the shareholders would be pressuring the company to tighten up security to give them bigger dividends, even if the board of directors was happy with the situation.
Piracy may not have been the primary motivator, but it certainly would have been part of what they were looking at with the decision to put in place a system that allowed them to have more ability to ensure that the people using their product were paying for it.

I don't think it could have been just piracy that was the issue or they could have just changed their verification process to take care of it. My impression is that most companies out there are focused on making money and Adobe seems to fall in line with that.

(I'm not a big fan of the subscription model, but may someday have to go that direction. I'm still using Lightroom 6, the free standing version).

[acoufap]

... most companies out there are focused on making money ...

Market is saturated, no permanent growth happens anymore and a lot of people working for Adobe need to be fed constantly. A subscription model helps to gain constant income, even if software advances are low. So it's a social engagement if we subscribe. Maybe this way of looking at it keeps us staying positive ...

I hope that only a few other software companies need that kind of social engagement.

[ThorSanchez]

I wonder if these companies will eventually destroy their own market through squeezing consumers.

It feels like on one hand non-proprietary software is getting better -- things like Raw Therapee are very robust right now and the cost is nil. On the other hand, these companies have to squeeze their users harder to get the same amount of revenue out of them.

At one time, real updates were pretty easy, but now the software is so good that it is probably hard to have real improvements from one version to the next. I suppose this may be behind the push to go to a subscription model. Overall, the biggest thing these brands have going for them is inertia. If I am familiar with the interface of Lightroom and Photoshop, it is easier for me to be Adobe's fee than to go in a different direction and learn a new platform.

On one hand I feel for the companies that make software like this who built a business on it, and employ many people. But on the other hand, it's market forces. If you make a product you're charging hundreds of dollars for that can be mostly or completely replaced by something others do in their spare time as a hobby and distribute freely, you're in trouble.

[Wheatfield]

Pardon?

What is spelling out this blatantly obvious fact supposed to achieve?

I debunked your suggestion that rampant piracy caused Adobe to change to a subscription model and fail to see how your response connects to that or anything that was discussed before.


Another blatantly obvious fact.

FYI, nobody was discussing whether or not to use their software.

Sorry, but coming up with alternate facts is not debunking. Repeating a thousand times that the sky is pink does not change the colour blue.

---------- Post added Jan 8th, 2021 at 07:28 AM ----------

I don't think it could have been just piracy that was the issue or they could have just changed their verification process to take care of it. My impression is that most companies out there are focused on making money and Adobe seems to fall in line with that.

(I'm not a big fan of the subscription model, but may someday have to go that direction. I'm still using Lightroom 6, the free standing version).

Perhaps not just piracy, but given what I was told by people at Adobe, it was enough of a concern that they were looking at alternate registration methods.
I've often thought that the level of childlike hatred being shown to Adobe since they went to the subscription model is because they closed the piracy loophole and are making people pay for the service rather than letting people steal it.