[beholder3]

Complaining about Adobe when it is Google who caused the issue is like beating a dead horse

Only it is 100% Adobe who is responsible for the problem. They chose to advertise their product with features they subcontracted out to someone else (google). If someone of Adobe's subcontractors fail to keep their stuff working it is 100% attributable to Adobe, who is the party which sold the product.

If you buy a house from company A and the pipes explode then it is nothing between you and the individual plumber that was chosen by company A. It is company A's fault clearly.

[Rondec]

I don't think comparing software to screwdrivers and hammers is a fair comparison either. You buy a set of screwdrivers and you can pretty much use them for the rest of your life. Hammers can be passed down through the generations.

Software becomes obsolete far too quickly - especially if you're shelling out $1,000 for Photoshop. It doesn't take too long before you find you don't have some of the cool features of the newer release (and it's debatable how much you'd use it), or you find your new camera's raw files won't open, or you buy that new computer with the newer processors and OS, and your old version doesn't work so well, it at all.


If I were faced with buying a set of screwdrivers for $1,000 that became obsolete within a few years because they didn't fit the latest screws, yeah, I might consider renting a set I could hand in and upgrade every year or so, if it cost me less than $15 a month, and they sent me a new screwdriver in the mail every time a new screw head came out.


I get it, there are people who hate Adobe's subscription model, as they don't use it as much as their Netflix subscription, but it costs the same. But for those of us who do use the programs several times a week for a variety of purposes, the subscription method is a lot less painful than shelling out $1,000 a copy and watching it slowly go out of date. And again, comparing the number of $150 or so gadget purchases we hobby photographers buy in a year and get much less utility from to a subscription to top-grade software is painful ($300 artisenal neck straps, anyone?).

I do chat with a few photographers at times who are limping along with their old versions of PS or Elements, yet own top-grade newer cameras, and they gripe about not being able to open certain files, etc. etc. They seem determined to never buy into the subscription plan out of spite to Adobe. Yet they have that great big variable ND filter they bought a year and a half ago, but haven't got around to using it yet ....

Clearly, the subscription model is better (cheaper) for professionals who purchased Photoshop for full price. I guess I just didn't know that many hobby photographers who did that. Typically for people like me, 95 percent of editing was done in Lightroom and the little bit of more intensive cloning would be done in Elements.

Adobe still sells Elements as a stand alone piece of software, so they must be able to avoid piracy at least a little bit without a subscription model.

I think it is clear that the people who are upset are the people who didn't follow Adobe's schedule and update with every new iteration of their software that came out. It really isn't necessary anyway. When you shoot with camera that take DNG raw files, you can open them easily in Lightroom, even if the camera itself isn't supported. I do this with my K-1 II in Lightroom all of the time.

[3by2]

I've tried most of the alternatives albeit some only briefly. There's a learning curve to some of the better ones I'm reluctant to start on, knowing how long Adobe took me, so I'm still using 5.7 and cs2. When I can no longer keep them working I'll decide which way to jump, it's just a hobby and I don't like to spend too much on it.


I tried the latest subscription versions on trial but when I went through my workflow there were not enough advantages to make the jump, the acquisition of the KP has moved me to dng files now as 5.7 won't read the pef and I'm using lens tagger for my 20-40 because 5.7 doesn't know about the lens, I imagine at some future point there will be a gotcha and that'll be that, it's close now with cs2 exhibiting some very odd behaviour sometimes.

[ThorSanchez]

Only it is 100% Adobe who is responsible for the problem. They chose to advertise their product with features they subcontracted out to someone else (google). If someone of Adobe's subcontractors fail to keep their stuff working it is 100% attributable to Adobe, who is the party which sold the product.

If you buy a house from company A and the pipes explode then it is nothing between you and the individual plumber that was chosen by company A. It is company A's fault clearly.

I'm guessing Adobe is fine with this. They probably think that the software wasn't supposed to work in perpetuity, only as long as they cared to keep it working. And there's a clear work-around: subscribe to their latest product.

Something like four years ago I got fed up with Adobe and Microsoft and went all-in with Linux and FOSS alternatives. Started with Darktable, didn't like the interface and workflow, and ended up with RawTherapee, which I like quite a lot. The subscription model bothers me, but at least as big a driver was how slowly Lightroom 6 functioned on my last machine. And it was quite slow. Not only that but the longer I worked on a batch of photos, the slower it got. Adobe acknowledged this, and like the maps and other features their solution was to tell us to upgrade to the subscription package. They actively sold the new software as being much faster and more resource efficient. Nice... fix the problematic software I already paid for by asking me to pay a monthly subscription for something else.


In the end it was a very good thing. I'm far happier with Linux, RawTherapee and the rest than I ever was with a Windows-based system. So, thank you Adobe. Without your new business practices I might still be grumbling about Bill Gates every time I turned on my computer.

---------- Post added 01-30-21 at 07:55 AM ----------

Anyone unhappy with the Adobe subscription model should check out Affinity. This has a one off payment (presumably for each major version), and is only about £45 for the Photo module. It is also on offer at present for 1/2 price. They are also offering a 3 month trial instead of the usual 10 day one. It is pretty feature rich and offers everything most photographers want. ( I don't have any commercial interest here).

Or, try RawTherapee or Darktable, which are very robust and available for £0.00 forever. For Pentax users a big plus is that RawTherapee is probably the best program available for processing motion-correction pixel shift.

[Gray]

I love the fact that Pentax can shoot native raw DNG files. My K-5II and KP exist very happily side by side with Lightroom 6 and the even older Lightroom 3.61 on my laptop. Never had an issue with Pentax and standalone Lightroom. Even the latest Sony AWR files from my RX100 VII can easily be converted to DNG by the standalone Adobe DNG converter for use in the 10-year-old Lightroom 3.61. Easy, quick and stress free.


I will eventually move away from Adobe standalone, but that day is far away at the moment.

[steephill]

If Adobe had an offer just for a Lightroom subscription I might have gone for it. I don't need Photoshop or cloud storage and don't want to pay for something I would never use so I have stuck with the last standalone version of Lightroom. How long will it last now? All Adobe has to do is turn off the verification server link and we remaining users will be screwed.

[Gray]

All Adobe has to do is turn off the verification server link and we remaining users will be screwed.

If Adobe does that and cuts me off at the knees. Then it's war, and I would happily spoof their activation, in a heart beat with no qualms at all.

[PDL]

Only it is 100% Adobe who is responsible for the problem. They chose to advertise their product with features they subcontracted out to someone else (google). If someone of Adobe's subcontractors fail to keep their stuff working it is 100% attributable to Adobe, who is the party which sold the product.

If you buy a house from company A and the pipes explode then it is nothing between you and the individual plumber that was chosen by company A. It is company A's fault clearly.

So.... Adobe is at fault for Google's change?

When the maps module failed, Lightroom v6.14 was no longer supported by Adobe as the version had moved on to 7.0 something. When Adobe changed versions they no longer supported the previous versions i.e. you were on your own if you kept using the previous versions. Things like ACR updates ended for previous versions when new releases came out and as new cameras entered the market you did not get those "updates" along with missing "new features". (issues like dehaze come to mind, which was not available for LR v6.14 "licenses").

The Map Module behavior failed long after LR 6.14 was no longer supported by Adobe. Google changed the API to maps to monetize the functionality. I have explicit links to other applications that have experienced the same thing. Adobe is not the problem with this particular issue, it is Google since Adobe's agreement was to support current versions functionality, now that LR v6.14 is no longer supported, they just don't care. If you have an issue with Adobe not caring then be explicit about that but do not expect anyone to be bent about Adobe when it was Google who changed the rules to access "their" function.

To address your analogy. Back in the seventies (when my house was built) the water pipes from the street to the house were made of plastic which over time slowly deteriorated. When I had to replace the waterline, almost 40 years later, you are suggesting that I should hold the builder (three owners ago) culpable? No, I don't think so. LR was updated by version almost every year, when the "latest" version came out, development and support for the earlier version ended - even for the third party licensors. Which is why my copy of LR v4.4 v3.3 running will not work with my K-3II Pentax PEF's, so is that Pentax's problem?

[stevebrot]

Anyone unhappy with the Adobe subscription model should check out Affinity.

I am an Affinity Photo user and while it is a decent raster editor, it is hardly a substitute for Lightroom. BTW...I love Infinity's pricing model.


Steve

[stevebrot]

In regards to software obsolescence...

Several years ago, I created a fairly simple Access database to help me manage my film photography negatives and as a lookup resource for processing details with various films and processing procedures. After a few years went by, I upgraded to Windows 7 64-bit and found that my copy of Access no longer worked. "No problem", said I, as I turned to LibreOffice Base as an alternative and went happily on using the database with that front-end.

So it was with some surprise that I when I tried to open the .odb a few days ago and found that Base no longer came with an Access data provider. Oh, joy! I am figuring out a workaround.


Steve

[PDL]

In regards to software obsolescence...

Several years ago, I created a fairly simple Access database to help me manage my film photography negatives and as a lookup resource for processing details with various films and processing procedures. After a few years went by, I upgraded to Windows 7 64-bit and found that my copy of Access no longer worked. "No problem", said I, as I turned to LibreOffice Base as an alternative and went happily on using the database with that front-end.

So it was with some surprise that I when I tried to open the .odb a few days ago and found that Base no longer came with an Access data provider. Oh, joy! I am figuring out a workaround.


Steve

It depends on the version of Access you loaded. I just opened my 2010 Office Pro version (x64bit) and it works just fine like it has for the last 11 years. I bought the CD's for Office (yes - plural for different devices) during the 32bit years. When I went to x64 I found the x64 installer on the 2010 CD, worked like a charm.

I do have a few really old db's that I have opened once in a while. The default db format is 2007 so there is that, maybe if I tried to open up a post 2010 version it too would fail.

[stevejo]

if you have the newer access versions, you can't open the old mdb files. You can however import the tables and other objects into a new accdb database.

[BigMackCam]

In regards to software obsolescence...

Several years ago, I created a fairly simple Access database to help me manage my film photography negatives and as a lookup resource for processing details with various films and processing procedures. After a few years went by, I upgraded to Windows 7 64-bit and found that my copy of Access no longer worked. "No problem", said I, as I turned to LibreOffice Base as an alternative and went happily on using the database with that front-end.

So it was with some surprise that I when I tried to open the .odb a few days ago and found that Base no longer came with an Access data provider. Oh, joy! I am figuring out a workaround.

I haven't used odb files for many years, but Libre Office still supports odbc connections so far as I'm aware:

Base | LibreOffice - Free Office Suite - Based on OpenOffice - Compatible with Microsoft

Do you have ODBC drivers installed in your OS, Steve?

[MarkJerling]

The joke is that Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop is NZ$14 per month, which I pay with a smile, while AutoCAD has now also gone the subscription route and that's $6,500 per year for new users (For the AutoCAD & Revit package) but offered discounted to long time users like me for $2,500 per year.
So, it's all relative folks. I won't winge about something that works and 'only' costs me $14 per month. It's the unavoidable $2,500 per year for AutoCAD that I struggle with.

[beholder3]

So.... Adobe is at fault for Google's change?

It is clearly Adobe's fault alone to sell a product with components (from whomever) which fail after some time.
Nobody needs to care about a sellers' subcontractors. Adobe could have easily made lasting agreements with their subcontractor. They didn't. And there is no evidence this wasn't Adobe's greed mixed with their incompetency.
Basically they are stealing functions from their naive customers.

Lightroom v6.14 was no longer supported

That's Adobe's own negligence and anti-customer greed action. It just makes everything worse. Adobe software lifespan is just ridiculous.

you were on your own if you kept using the previous versions.

Yep. Adobe's greed again. "You are on your own" describes it pretty well. The exact antipode to customer service.

they just don't care.

Correct.

If you have an issue with Adobe not caring then be explicit about that but do not expect anyone to be bent about Adobe when it was Google who changed the rules to access "their" function.

Nobody needs to care which of Adobe's subcontractors changes anything. It's all attributable to Adobe as the party who sold the feature for a price.

To address your analogy. Back in the seventies (when my house was built) the water pipes from the street to the house were made of plastic which over time slowly deteriorated. When I had to replace the waterline, almost 40 years later, you are suggesting that I should hold the builder (three owners ago) culpable?

If your pipes had failed after 1 year or two (whatever Adobe's end of support for customers was for LR 6.14), I bet you would have called the builder.

Basically you express that the K-30 solenoid failing (which they bought from some other party, probably not google but someone else) after Pentax support ending with warranty end is perfectly fine. Pentax had moved on to new models. Interesting.