Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe leaks 'Lightroom Mobile' app

By dpreview staff on Jan 18, 2014 at 03:13 GMT
A screengrab from a (now deleted) page on Adobe's website which shows a subscription fee of $99 for 'Adobe Lightroom for mobile'. [via 9 to 5 Mac]

Is Adobe planning to release a mobile version of its Lightroom Raw editing program? It seems so, judging by an accidental leak on its own website earlier this week. A private page on Adobe's website - quickly removed - appears to have revealed details of a planned iOS version of Lightroom, including a price of $99 for an annual cloud subscription license.

Adobe demonstrated an early beta version of the application last year at a 'sneek peek' session at the Photoshop World show in Las Vegas and it seems as if Lightroom Mobile is almost ready for its official launch. The full feature set is a matter of conjecture at this point, but it appears that for a fee of $99 per year, users will be able to store images in the cloud and synchronize work between mobile and desktop versions of the software. It is unclear at this point whether a cheaper version will be available, perhaps minus the integration with Creative Cloud (we hope so). 

Photographers have been asking Adobe for a mobile version of Lightroom for a long time - what are you hoping for in the upcoming release? Let us know in the comments.  

Via: 9 to 5 Mac

Comments

Total comments: 210
12
RicardoPhotos
By RicardoPhotos (3 months ago)

You can buy a RAW editing app for iPad now: Photogene

$20 I think.

0 upvotes
Clint009
By Clint009 (3 months ago)

I hope the competition will get the message. We need a very good product same as Lightroom but no annual fee and no renew expansive upgrade in a to short period or a free upgrade if happened in a minimum three years after the latest upgrade.

0 upvotes
stern
By stern (3 months ago)

Yearly licence??
Never ever.
A couple of months ago, I had to make my choice which software to buy for RAW processing. LR was high on the list, and although it is (still) a stand alone no-cloud, no-rent application, I decided against Adobe because I am not sure they will keep LR that way. This iOS version of LR seems to indicate the way LR (full version) is heading. Well, DXO has a happy customer more now and Adobe one less.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
Marksphoto
By Marksphoto (3 months ago)

GOOD GOING ADOBE, now we can probably and finally look for a programmable keyboard with sliders to speed things up for us poor folks with curpal tunnel syndrome.

It's about time ADOBE and BEHRINGER started a line of mixers. I would gladly fork out at least $1000

Just imagine people doing 100 files per minute, we'd be whipping them up like pancakes, just the same as we learn to type fast...

Lets face it, our phones may already have enough power to make us worlds ahead in our post producuction that eats us away from the fun that we are supposed to be having in the field instead.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Plasmoic
By Plasmoic (3 months ago)

looking at comments, makes me think that they intentionally leaked the price, not the software...

0 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (3 months ago)

Agree.
This is is similar to a method that is quite well described, e.g. by Cialdini in "Influence: Science and Practice".

0 upvotes
panpen
By panpen (3 months ago)

$99? Are people from Adobe insane?

9 upvotes
Smeggypants
By Smeggypants (3 months ago)

yes

3 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (3 months ago)

adobe, take a look at autodesk or microsoft if you wanna learn how to price decent mobile apps

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (3 months ago)

typo, its 99c not 99$
who would pay 99 bucks for a photobrowser ^^

even for adobe that would be too pricey

3 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (3 months ago)

Solution: lose the iPad and go get a Windows tablet and a free dropbox account for the library. Load LR on the tablet, work in the full version (with a real digitizer on some tablets!) when on the road using DB. When you get back home/to the office, just fire up the tablet and use lightroom to move the images to their final storage location on you server or external drive.

Real Lightroom, no importing/exporting catalogs for every outing, and no additional cost.

11 upvotes
Shivaess
By Shivaess (3 months ago)

I literally do this with a Surface Pro. It runs lightroom and photoshop just fine, and when I come home it all goes on the big computer. Prior to the Surface I used an Asus EP121 for the same purpose.

1 upvote
ciao_chao
By ciao_chao (3 months ago)

Finally Windows is starting to make sense. Up until now I've struggled to fathom Win8 and Surface.

1 upvote
Alaska Dad
By Alaska Dad (3 months ago)

Just wait, Adobe will start charging $49 /year to run full LR on desktop AND tablet.

Adobe apparently didn't get the message from photographers, NO subscriptions.

4 upvotes
Marksphoto
By Marksphoto (3 months ago)

Even better, get a powerful notebook,slap 32 gigs of RAM with some crazy SSD and you got a power house with a real keyboard, so that you can stop swearing at on-screen keyboard, it's not that much more heavy than an ipad to carry from your car to the park bench.

Hey Alaska, the moment they start doing the $49 per year subscription most of us will buy LR5 and boycott LR by sitting on this version for years, then we will see who crumbles next and maybe from this will arise some serious competition - I do like the new improvements but they are likely to be insignificant in the nearest future versions of LR

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Slynky
By Slynky (3 months ago)

As an infrequent user of photo-processing software, I can't afford to be put on the rotating rental model (greedy) Adobe has migrated to. How many other people are in this same "boat"? Hopefully enough to leave a dent in their profit.

6 upvotes
stern
By stern (3 months ago)

I am in the same boat. Recently decided against LR because I am not sure where LR is heading (I suppose it will become a rental software soon - I prefer ownership). Thats why I didn't buy LR and decided to get my software from DXO (Optics pro). Its about the same initial price, but it belongs to you - after purchase no more costs incur.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (3 months ago)

I bet the price is so high, because this version of LR will support the feature that photographer can't live without: THE 3D PRINTING!!!

7 upvotes
KAMSA
By KAMSA (3 months ago)

A bit late,...considering Photo mate R2 Android,..

0 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (3 months ago)

What substantially new can mobile LR bring to the table(t) especially for ridiculous $99 per annum?

4 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (3 months ago)

A link directly to your main LR catalog and seamless synchronization. Convenience and efficient workflow translates to real dollars for working pros, and to more time behind the lens and fewer menial, time consuming tasks at the computer for amateurs.

1 upvote
SimonTSM
By SimonTSM (3 months ago)

But why? We all lug a Mac Pro to every location. I don't think any professional I work with really cares about having the catalogue accessed remotely. We create a new catalogue for each shoot, we only care about the shoot we are on now.

3 upvotes
Richard
By Richard (3 months ago)

I pay 34.99 for 40mb internet speed per month and Adobe thinks they are going to charge me $99 for an android app or even a computer program. LOL

Adobe is smart though. The send out a fake announcement saying 99 dollars, everybody screams blue bloody murder, then they introduce it at 30 dollars and everyone says, yes I am stupid and will buy this product. LOL

I own Photoshop Touch for Android. $10 and I own it. LR for android should be 15 dollars one time charge max. If anyone pays more than that, they are getting soaked by Adobe. I cannot believe that anyone in the android community would pay rent even 10 dollars a year for this thing let alone 10 dollars a month. But I have been wrong before.

13 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (3 months ago)

I guess, as this is an accidental leak, that the page is just a test page and likewise the price is just a default price for testing. It won't stop the adobe haters pouring their vitriol on the company however, followed by more when the actual price is released.

1 upvote
Richard
By Richard (3 months ago)

How do you know this? Do you work for them? If this is the case. They should have corrected this and said it would not cost this price. If I hated Adobe would I own Adobe Photoshop touch? No, but I do because it is a reasonable price and I do not have to rent the software. Adobe set up a rental at outrages prices and many people are not going to buy it. That is not hatred. That is how capitalism works. And being able to express dissatisfaction with Adobes prices is called free speech. The ability for Adobe to set their own prices is called free market. The abilitty for Adobe to go down the drain asking too much for their product is what happens when a company gets greedy. Only time will tell if they charge to much. But I will not rent software, that is not hate. It is wisdon. If I were a pro and could write it off as an expense it may be worth it but Adobe abandoned the consumer in favor of the pro, now it reaps the reward. Not hatred but wrose, not buying.

3 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (3 months ago)

The domino effect. You buy a new camera. Software can't open the files. Solution: Buy new software.

You start your perpetual subscription and download the new software. But the new software won't run on your existing OS (this happened to me with trouble-free Snow Leopard and LR 5). Solution: Buy a new OS!

Ok, so a new OS is cheap, except for the time spent de-bugging. Your buy the new OS and four of your applications no longer work. Solution: Paid upgrades!

So one purchase has now led to half a dozen. Best case, you're back where you started. I wasn't that lucky because PS 6 runs much slower than PS 5 but newer is always better (wink). Angry at Adobe? Heck no, no one to blame but myself. The Fixx had it right.

4 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (3 months ago)

Or do better research before you buy the camera so that any software required can be factored into the price you are willing to pay.

0 upvotes
locke_fc
By locke_fc (3 months ago)

Utter madness, Adobe

4 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (3 months ago)

So the key part in Adobe's "at the moment we do not have plans to make Lightroom subscription-based" turns out to be "at the moment"...

12 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (3 months ago)

This is a portend for the future of LR... jump ship to C1P7 and kiss goodbye to cloudy skies...

6 upvotes
Philip Corlis
By Philip Corlis (3 months ago)

Adobe isn't a software company anymore, they are organized crime running a protection racket... "Nice little business you got here - be a shame if anything happened to all those pretty little pictures of yours. For $50 a month we can make sure your software doesn't disappear..."

24 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (3 months ago)

Again the utter nonsense that they are somehow stealing your files. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
AshMills
By AshMills (3 months ago)

Well, it is more like ransom them. You can keep access, sure, but you must keep paying.

4 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (3 months ago)

No. There is only one image file type that is proprietary to adobe and that is .psd files. Any other format can be opened in any number of alternative programmes. If you dont save in .psd then there is no problem. If you do, just convert before giving up your subscription. No ransom, no protection racket. If you want to use the software and formats owned by adobe you pay them, if you don't want to don't pay them.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (3 months ago)

> Any other format can be opened in any number of alternative programmes.

Oh, nice! Silly me, I started to worry about those .lrcat files...

So, my dear BaldCol, what do I open Lightroom Catalog files with?

5 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (3 months ago)

I'm not your dear anything vadims.

Last time I checked LR wasn't time limited. If you have LR now you'll be able to open your catalogue files forever and ever.

Silly you indeed.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
BaldCol
By BaldCol (3 months ago)

Oh and, just stating the obvious really but catalogues are not image files.

0 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (3 months ago)

BaldCol, you're wrong on all counts, and you continue pontificating, sometimes in BOLD CAPS... Hilarious.

You just realized that .lrcat files are something that cannot be handled by anything other than Lightroom. Good. At this point, you should have switched back to lurking mode and just listen to what people who actually own and use Lightroom say.

For the record: for those who shoot RAW, Lightroom *is* time limited. As soon as we buy a camera whose RAW files are not yet supported by Lightroom, we're bound to upgrade. For instance, I had to upgrade to LR5.1 to get support for my new Sony RX100mk2.

And to state the obvious for anyone who has even a slightest idea of how Lightroom works, .lrcat files are precisely the storage for *all* the edits. Processed RAW file is the original RAW files plus editing commands in .lrcat. This the price we pay for "non destructive editing".

So pretty please think twice (or at least once) before writing anything else on this subject.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
1 upvote
micksh6
By micksh6 (3 months ago)

2 vadims: Enable .XMP files saving in LR. This is where your editing will be stored and you won't need .lrcat.
XMP files can be read by some other programs. Now, who needs to think twice?

2 upvotes
BaldCol
By BaldCol (3 months ago)

I use Lightroom for the majority of my work so no need to explain how it works to me.

Lightroom is not time limited. You can use your current setup for ever. If you choose to buy new equipment then you might need to buy new software as well. That's always been the case and has not changed with the 'cc' model (not that Lightroom has to be bought under cc).

Of course those nasty mean people at Adobe do give you an alternative by providing a free process by which you can convert your raw files from any camera they support to .dng.

Thinking twice and outside the box.

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Andrew Booth
By Andrew Booth (3 months ago)

I'll pay up to $30 one-off purchase for this app.

Mobile devices are too slow for good RAW processing, and files are too big to upload in bulk for file processing. It might be handy to have around though for a single file...

3 upvotes
drshuayb
By drshuayb (3 months ago)

I purchased Lightroom 5 recently and I opened a few raw images of my living room on it and I have to say that canon's digital photo professional program rendered the colors (especially the leather couch) almost perfectly whereas LR gave my couch much more yellow to it than it actually is. Any suggestions please??

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (3 months ago)

Use the 2010 rendering engine.
The 2012 version sucks as it plays with the mid and quartertones.

However most people have no clue that Adobe plays with your RAW files without you knowning.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Mike Engles
By Mike Engles (3 months ago)

Hello

I do find that is a curious statement as I have just done a comparison with a virual copy. All parameters default, just varied the process version. To my eyes 2012 is much less yellow, than 2010 or 2003. Playing with the quarter tones would have no effect on the colour. a different calibration would have more effect.

Mike Engles

0 upvotes
Smeggypants
By Smeggypants (3 months ago)

Just a Photographer - "Use the 2010 rendering engine.
The 2012 version sucks as it plays with the mid and quartertones."

Don't talk nonsense. the 2012 engine is much more accurate than the 2010 version.

... and stop trying to boost yo8r self esteem by appearing clever by using terms you have no clue about. Quartertones are a musical term and nothing to do with images.

1 upvote
Alaska Dad
By Alaska Dad (3 months ago)

@Smeggypants, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/782160. Maybe you should stop trying to be the Internet police.

0 upvotes
RossN
By RossN (3 months ago)

All for the technology, but this is ridiculous and unbalanced pricing for those who don't earn their living from photography. It would be good to be able to access photos from central storage, but it's not worth doubling the cost of owning lightroom from ~$100 -> $200/yr for that feature when products like photogene exist for $3 for a perpetual license.

3 upvotes
RidgeRunner22
By RidgeRunner22 (3 months ago)

You mean uploaded RAW files that can be manipulated from mobile devices all over the world, yeah who would want that? also news flash Light Room is also used be pros to its not just for enthusiast

1 upvote
panpen
By panpen (3 months ago)

" RAW files that can be manipulated from mobile devices all over the world"

Damn, I bet we can't even breath anymore without processing RAW files while we ride the subway.

2 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (3 months ago)

So LR mobile will be much more expensive than LR for computer? $99 per year vs. $150 for as along as you want then $79/ for an upgrade version use as long as you want. Adobe thinks customers are chumps and will pay what they feel like charging.

10 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (3 months ago)

I wonder if this app will be a front end for a mainframe at Adobe actually doing the grunt work - then most of the processing overhead at the tablet or phone would be uploading/downloading and graphics rendering. It's the only way I can get my head around the price they've proposed.

I also wonder if Logmein or one of the other remote desktop programs could do something similar for less.

0 upvotes
iAPX
By iAPX (3 months ago)

It certainly won't uploads RAW images to be processed on the cloud (says on Adobe's could), because it's useless without wifi, due to cost of 3G/4G, and also EXTREMLY slow with basic cable connection, through a Wifi router.

Imagine: a D610 RAW (30MB actually on my setup) will take 5 minutes to be uploaded using my cable connection (1Mbps = 100KBps approximatively). 5 minutes per picture.

A ful shoot could consume my data plan for my cable connection, but the problem is that I will have to wait for 5 or 6 days to be uploaded through my cable connection! lol

2 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (3 months ago)

That's what is making it so confusing...... I dont understand what would make it worth so much. If you're not working on RAW files, whats the point in LR? You're going to spend $100 a year to manipulate and upload JPEGs to the cloud? I'm doing that right now for free with google+ (whether I want to or not, it seems.....).

All I can envision is that you'll upload your raw files some other way, through your computer, and then you will be able to edit them on your iPad -the processing would stay on the server while a representation would be on the tablet. But that seems trivial to me?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
RidgeRunner22
By RidgeRunner22 (3 months ago)

Yeah that should be obvious to everyone. Clearly most people would rather complain about any thing new or any potential advances in technology, than give any thought as to what this product might mean.For me this could be amazing I'm not going to buy a state of the art iMac, I use the one at the local art lab , but if could download my work there and just run the sliders on my iPad. That would be worth 99$ to me. But I also live in an area with tons of wifi

Seriously, I wonder how half the people who comment on new products and tech ever purchased a digital camera. Your trying to sound like Luddites but your into digital photography?

0 upvotes
RedFox88
By RedFox88 (3 months ago)

1 MBps upload? That's a low end cable connection. I have a middle of the road internet cable service that is 10 MBps upload. Try getting a decent internet service speed instead of paying $20 a month. You get what you pay for!

1 upvote
RidgeRunner22
By RidgeRunner22 (3 months ago)

And yes it does use raw files downloaded cloud, it has been talked about, by adobe and acouple others for almost a year now! Wow you people are slow

1 upvote
ajcook
By ajcook (3 months ago)

For many of us improving internet speed to the levels you're talking about requires moving house - which is usually not practical.

Maybe try thinking beyond your own backyard?

4 upvotes
3DSimmon
By 3DSimmon (3 months ago)

now this would be nice on a mobile that actually shoots raw, but not at that price.

0 upvotes
Leandros S
By Leandros S (3 months ago)

Who wants their RAW editor to live in an ecosystem of planned obsolescence?

6 upvotes
RidgeRunner22
By RidgeRunner22 (3 months ago)

It's the best raw editor so as it turns out a lot of people. Also for those of us who aren't worried than snowden is going to steal all your photos, the cloud could offer some real advantages SUCH AS USEING AN IPAD TO EDIT RAW! and before someone says they already do that, no you don't, not effectively anyway

1 upvote
Black Box
By Black Box (3 months ago)

No, thanks.

11 upvotes
Will Kaiser
By Will Kaiser (3 months ago)

Why not offer raw processing power in the cloud; so you send a raw files with adjustments and sliders for various parameters and the cloud instantaneously sends back a draft which you can keep or continue to adjust?
Is this unrealistic? This might be worth $99 month if it were awesome.

0 upvotes
Black Box
By Black Box (3 months ago)

Two issues:
1. Servers processing power is not infinite.
2. Who's gonna hold the copyrights for the drafts?

1 upvote
DPildek
By DPildek (3 months ago)

It must be very nice to process 75MB files on the tablet. A real pleasure! And for only $ 99 per year. Terrific!
I'm waiting for LR phone edition or smart watch etion. It would be really nice to have it . Look it is 12,30h and .... 100RAW files was processed in .....2154 minutes.
Who needs Photoshop any more!!

2 upvotes
Kiwiboy
By Kiwiboy (3 months ago)

Why are you people so angry at Adobe?? If you don't like what they sell don't buy it.

6 upvotes
udris
By udris (3 months ago)

I doubt if most are angry but adobe never had a mojo as far as apps go

4 upvotes
iAPX
By iAPX (3 months ago)

The problem is that we didn't know Adobe's plan to go in the cloud when we dide bought LightRoom 1 or 2, and we have now many Collections handled by LightRoom.

We need a solution to handle these Collections on the long-term, not having to face changing commercial offerings.

13 upvotes
vadims
By vadims (3 months ago)

> If you don't like what they sell don't buy it.

If only life was that simple...

We bought something that we liked, and now it looks like we'll end up with something else.

6 upvotes
christiangrunercom
By christiangrunercom (3 months ago)

Hmm, love to see how it works with a heavily adjusted d800 file... No tablet is yet fast enough for proper usage.

2 upvotes
TLD
By TLD (3 months ago)

I was forced to use my MSI GT70 while my main system was out of commission over Christmas. The laptop has a pretty high spec, but it soooo frustrating compared to my desktop system. I think you are absolutely right about current tablets not being up to the job.

1 upvote
richarddd
By richarddd (3 months ago)

It appears they are going to work with Smart Previews rather than the RAW file.

1 upvote
Smeggypants
By Smeggypants (3 months ago)

$99 !!! not only that it's for only a year!! - These people are on LSD. And it's a bad trip!! Unbelievable!!

6 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (3 months ago)

That includes the cost of online storage as well and as it does not say how many GB of storage it is impossible to say if it is good value or not at this stage.

1 upvote
Leandros S
By Leandros S (3 months ago)

Just looked up some current prices for online storage, and the $99 should give you *at least* 2 terabytes to be competitive.

4 upvotes
SantaFeBill
By SantaFeBill (3 months ago)

Another reason to think that the computer version of LR will go to a subscription-only basis.

15 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (3 months ago)

I once had a leak in my darkroom. All the dark leaked out and film got fogged.

So what's going to happen with a Lightroom leak?

8 upvotes
jackspra
By jackspra (3 months ago)

adobe leaking info.Sounds famliar.

5 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (3 months ago)

Well, it uncovers the power of Adobe imagination.
At least, in the expected income area.

13 upvotes
Knute
By Knute (3 months ago)

A mobile Lightroom app would be great, but $99? They're on crack.

15 upvotes
udris
By udris (3 months ago)

Adobe missed the boat with their lack of effort from the early days of mobile app .......... lost that hipster clientele which is a big market. Sure some of the dedicated photo types will hop on the band wagon but that is not the direction apps are taking. Raw conversions on a smartphone why bother when there are so many preset apps for the shoot and show mob

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (3 months ago)

No one really likes adobe anymore. Hope they will lose their business. Good luck to all the others!

12 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (3 months ago)

Hmm, I expect they will release this at way less now like $9.99, every one will say "gee thats cheap" then they will increment it up every year after that. Forever.

8 upvotes
Corpy2
By Corpy2 (3 months ago)

Annual licensing? Another product I will not buy. The list grows longer...

21 upvotes
rrr_hhh
By rrr_hhh (3 months ago)

So here it comes : after the monthly PS fee, now an LR annual fee. Noway i'm giving in.

11 upvotes
sagebrushfire
By sagebrushfire (3 months ago)

I hope the price is incorrect. That's just despicable. As it stands you can buy the actual desktop software for under $150. If you keep the same camera body for around 4 years on average, you don't need any product updates.

So why on earth would I pay $400 for 4 years of Lightroom Mobile when I can just buy it once for $150 and use it on my computer?

Adobe's subscription service is good in that it opens up the software to people who either couldn't normally use it or would be forced to pirate it. That being said, it ultimately amounts to people spending a lot more money and you simply can't justify it by the fact that you always get the "Latest" version because people don't always NEED the "Latest" version. I have Photoshop CS6 at home and Elements 2.0 at work and honestly you can't tell they are 11 years apart. The demands we have of software and tech don't actually increase as fast as Adobe's update schedule suggests.

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (3 months ago)

It shows their expectations on how much users should pay them.
BTW, who knows if mobile lr with price 99.00 per year will be dirt cheap comparing to desktop lr6 (7 or whatever)?

1 upvote
sagebrushfire
By sagebrushfire (3 months ago)

Lightroom is one program they can gouge people on because they keep having to add support for new camera's raw formats. If Canon, Nikon, Sony and Olympus could all just agree on a format or provide DNG support (I think some do) then it would be less of an issue. Most of their other software doesn't have that issue. They artificially control file compatibility for After Effects, Premiere, Flash and a few others but still there's nothing forcing people to upgrade.

2 upvotes
dharma108
By dharma108 (3 months ago)

Adobe's app priced at $99.00--Photo Mate R2 app for Android is $9:00--a great app for photo editing-does raw files and all--Adobe's pricing goes according to script--that is exorbitant!

7 upvotes
John Tannock
By John Tannock (3 months ago)

I can't help wondering if the 'screen shot' was faked by a hacker. Adobe's been doing some bonehead marketing lately, in my humble opinion anyway, but this would be over the top even for them.

0 upvotes
richarddd
By richarddd (3 months ago)

The linked article reports on a conversation with Adobe regarding LR mobile.

0 upvotes
Old Baldy
By Old Baldy (3 months ago)

If the pricing is true, this is the exact same reason I did not swap from PS5 and LR4 client versions to CC (even with the 1 year special price last month) - because I'm not willing to pay $40+/month subscription price (quoted by Adobe when I called them on this) for the 2 apps after the 1 year intro price expires.

Adobe will go the way of Kodak and the others, when they don't keep up with market expectations.

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
13 upvotes
OBI656
By OBI656 (3 months ago)

This must be some deliberate teaser since price is outrages ... but hey, why do I need to fiddle image from 36-40 MP camera on iPad is mystery to me.

6 upvotes
RecalcitrantRon
By RecalcitrantRon (3 months ago)

How about letting me use LR on my home network first? You know, like where I actually need it.

2 upvotes
Suave
By Suave (3 months ago)

Adobe must be thinking with its little head. You know, the one it wants to screw us with.

4 upvotes
David Hull
By David Hull (3 months ago)

The typical price for a high quality APP in the iPad is $10-$15 period. Adobe wants to charge 10-12 times that in perpetuity? I think that if Adobe really wants to increase their profitability, they should start packaging and selling whatever it is that they are smoking.

21 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (3 months ago)

maybe you get a free iPad with that Adobe subscription...

6 upvotes
Total comments: 210
12