Richard Franiec: I can see Kick starter as a tool for raising funds for charitable cause. Start ups should use their own money, take risks and enjoy the rewards. We have banks to provide funds. It is no longer 1990's when creation of $100M company took no more than the announcement.Or it is not?
They didn't want $400,000 they wanted £50,000 which should have easily come out of their own funds. Seems they wanted a no-risk (to themselves) way forward on this one.
The thing about these Kickstarter 'projects' is, it seems to be a no-risk 'investment' from the creators point of view. They get all the money they need to do the project (assuming they have done the maths correctly) from infrastructure investment to paying renumeration with no investment from themselves other than the time.
This seems entirely wrong from an investors point of view because where is the risk for the creator. They lose nothing if it fails other than face. That to me doesn't seem right especially in cases where they waste this amount of money. Incompitance comes to mind
Do we mean a print from the file as been sold or the actual rights to the picture. What makes this unique and worth anything like this amount of money?
I personally don't understand how a value such as this can be put on a print when its a simple matter of pressing the print button again to get another.
KAllen: Well if in the UK it comes out anywhere near $10. I would buy in, although I don't use Lightroom and will never trust Adobe with my Library.Of course it will be nowhere near $10. here so academic in reality.I wonder if the damage has been done, who has looked around for PS alternative and found something much cheaper that does all they could ever want?If you have why would you want to subscribe to PSCC at any price?
Why not buy it off the US site then?
georgec: DPReview is owned by Amazon. I like B&H better for tax reasons (WA)
Yes thats a valid point. At least ethical companies are worth supporting.
Paul Skelcher: Call me naive, or anything else, but I am enjoying the commentary from DPR staff. They seem like a bunch of reasonable people, genuinely interested in making life better for photographers, keen to do the best they can.The debate regarding conflict of interest between reviews and sales is pretty much irrelevant. Smart photographers will review multiple sources for a buying decision and whether Gear Shop is successful remains to be seen.
Providing a service- internet, photography or otherwise- essentially comes down to trust at a personal level and I see nothing here, or in past performance, to cast doubts on the integrity or intentions of the DPR crew.
In fact, DPR offers such a range of resources that it's easily worth a few bucks a year.
Smart photographers will review multiple sources for a buying decision and whether Gear Shop is successful remains to be seen.
Thats the key here.
GearShop whilst a useful link (and I believe going forward a promoted link) from DPR is no better (or worse) than other online retailers. They will only win though if they can compete with them and looking at current prices they are no better (or worse). As its Amazon thats really GearShop they at least stand a good chance of survival. Why they didn't they just be honest and link directly to Amazon?
Matt1645f4: @ Barney Britton. i appreciate DPR intentions are to benefit its members and users, but would it of not made sense to have offered a chance to vote on this rather than just do?
Also as the store is only open to US members and to quote the DPR announcement "In celebration of the launch, GearShop customers will be able to claim up to $150 in free accessories with select camera purchases now through July 27, 2013." Will those in other countries be offered a similar promotions as and when the Store opens up in the those Countries? Otherwise your smacking 2/3rds of this sites users in the teeth.
So thats a no then. I bet you don't give away £100 worth of accessories to the UK users.
The prices are no better than buying from BH or Adorama. No incentive to use GearShop.
Fred Briggs: The Cloud aspect of this is just a smokescreen to make it seem like a different product. In reality this is just a move from selling perpetual licenses to paying monthly to use the software. It still gets installed locally on the PC, and you do not need to use the cloud facilities - the software just calls home periodically to check that it is still being paid for.
With the old model you decide when to pay for a new version. If you decide you won't or can't pay for the latest version your software keeps working indefinitely, and you can still edit your files at any time.
In the new Adobe Creative Cloud world you have to commit in advance to paying indefinitely, with no assurance of what the future price will be. Stop paying and the software stops working next time it calls home.
No doubt any file you create with the CC version will not be usable with earlier versions of the software, so you can forget working on any CC created files unless you keep your subscription going.
"Stop paying and the software stops working next time it calls home."
I think that this is the big deal.. It stopping working after you cancel the subscription. Well it doesn't stop immediately it keeps working for some time (up to 99 days) but the issue is that it does stop. I think if Adobe addressed that problem then more people may accept the subscription model without so much hate.
alexmitchellphoto: I know of so many pro photographers out there with illegal copies of photoshop/lightroom , some of the same said photographers get their knickers in a twist about copyright theft, perhaps Adobe are feed up with the volume of software theft and are protecting their investment!
Whether alexmitchellphoto knows pirates or not, its not a position people who use PS or whatever product for business should be in. As rdc13 points out its tax deductible so there is no excuse.
mike earussi: Since the only people who can justify spending $20-$50/ month for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES just to access PS are professionals who actually make money off of it and so can justify the expense, this means Adobe no longer wants amateurs to use their software. But since all professionals started off as amateurs where does Adobe think any more new PS professionals will come from since virtually all amateurs will now be switching over to alternative products?
Who says its for the rest of your lives.. Isn't it just until a more suitable product comes along that you are willing to pay for?
If that never happens then you only have Adobe to go with and you are fully aware of the consequences. Dont forget its you who have made Adobe the most popular image editor.. not them.
ianm2k4: Yes the negativity is just people expressing that they dont like change. The problem for them is that Adobe who they have come to rely on has changed its business model - something that is completely within their prerogative - whether it costs more or less to the end user. It not good moaning about this if you dont like it go elsewhere. If everyone goes elsewhere then I am am sure Adobe will change the model again but until then vote with your wallet.
Look at it this way.. If you have PS CS6 which cost around $600 and you pay the $50 a month.. then you get all the products for one year for the price of one . If you upgrade every year then you are quids in. If you upgrade every other year then dont pay the $50 a month, pay the $30 a month and you are close to even.
I really dont think people are doing the maths to see that they are neither up or down with the money in reality. And who cares if its a subscription model. Get used to it.. Its the way that its going or go somewhere else.
The $50 a month is for a new user and covers all the Adobe products.
Im sorry but in what way are the maths incorrect. Today on amazon Photoshop CS6 costs $625 (ext costs $787). If you own it already, and thats all you want to own, your outlay is $240 per year single app and thats with unlimited "upgrades" Who says they upgrade every 18 months certainly not Adobe thats your choice. That argument is flawed in that you can make up any timescale to suit. But if you upgrade when the upgrade is available you will be close to even. Photoshop has been released in yearly increments generally. Do the maths correctly next time not make up release cycles to suit your argument.
If you upgraded every year at $195 you are I admit at a slight loss (I said it was close) so you still win because you have all the incremental updates as you go along.
Yes the negativity is just people expressing that they dont like change. The problem for them is that Adobe who they have come to rely on has changed its business model - something that is completely within their prerogative - whether it costs more or less to the end user. It not good moaning about this if you dont like it go elsewhere. If everyone goes elsewhere then I am am sure Adobe will change the model again but until then vote with your wallet.
JakeB: This is a money grab at the expense of honest users, plain and simple.
I dont understand all this.. You have a choice .. why not exercise that and stop complaining about what Adobe have done. They are fully entitled to do whatever they want with their business model. Its a free world vote with your cash
zos xavius: F*** THAT! This company does not have permission to print my work. If they do it will be their lawsuit!
Indeed.. Copyright theft is theft plain and simple.
rambler35: I believe Adobe made a big initial mistake by using the term "Import".
So often we hear of people being deterred from using LR because they think the word implies that somehow an extra copy of the file is always being created and/or moved to some special LR location on the HD.
I suppose the phrase "Make Lightroom aware of where the file is located, or being placed, on your hard drive" would have been more accurate (but wordy!) description of what is happening.
Trouble is, that like Adobe, I can't think of another word or simple expression which could be used instead of that slightly misleading word "Import".
-- Richard --
Import is the correct term. If you are importing the files from a SD card or straight out of the camera, then it does copy the image to the location that you save the files.