Adobe is hurting the whole industry

[Pontoneer]

I wrote a post here asking for advice for LR+PS vs Capture one. I'm happy with LR6 but I will not invest in building collections or buying or developing presets if I know I will switch my basic raw processing software in the future if i change camera.

CC "forces" me to take on photoshop and cloud storage besides LR. It's not the same as LR stand alone. This move is "forcing" people to pay for photoshop and cloud storage as well. In 4 years it is the difference between 150$ and 600$ (simple math, for the basic CC license prepaid 1 year = 150$).

it's kind of scary because I have already sunk costs in this like a ton a VSCO presets and a ton of edited photos. But in 3 or 4 years, what if adobe decides to increase the prices? I work in a design agency and designers work with adobe products for over a decade, it is impossible for them to change. But amateurs? Artists? Enthusiasts?

Also, Adobe just buys challengers that might eventually hurt their business. They are just as aggressive in this regard as google or facebook. I don't like that. :/

No one is forced to use cloud storage , all my RAW files are imported directly to storage folders on my drives , then for processing imported to LR without moving them , or opened in PS from those folders , the processed JPEGS are then exported to their folders before the finished job is removed from LR or PS closed .

I have nothing on ‘cloud storage’ .

 

[lilBuddha]

They've dominated because one of their products (PS) is essentially the best, but being best isn't good enough if your pricing model is punitive. They may well learn that lesson if enough people ditch Lightroom ( which isn't the best anyway IMHO ).

This is the marketing, not the reality. There have been times through their history where they were not the best. They got in with Apple early on, they developed Postscript and then Illustrator, then Photoshop. There were not many, if any, competitors so they came to dominate the Mac and Mac dominated the graphics world because other OS'* didn't take graphics seriously. By the time Windows was graphics friendly, they were entrenched and the standard. Standards are difficult to fight. People still think Macs are superior for graphics and this isn't true any longer.

The average person doesn't know there is a choice.

I have no idea why you think you know what the average person actually thinks or what they know.

Because I talk to them? I'll admit that it is not a scientific study, but people I encounter who are not photographers or artists generally only know the term photoshop. Unlike hoovers, they've no need for the actual product so are unaware of the alternatives.

*With exceptions, but this is not the History of Computer Graphics thread.

 

[Boomanbb]

The industry is wide open from free to paid to subscription. I just picked up a copy of DXO 11 for free yesterday, I purchased Pixelmator for my iPad last year along with Lightroom Mobile CC. Options exist for everyone. People need to get over themselves and use what is available. I would never have paid full price for Photoshop but I have no problem using it under the Lightroom/Photoshop CC plan.

What people on this forum seem to ignore is that more people than ever are using Photoshop and Lightroom due to the low monthly cost.

--
Ben Boozer
Disagree without being disagreeable

 

[hjr13]

There have been a lot of people upset by Adobe's recent move to kill LR standalone and many of the comments revolve around the denial of individual choice and the personal higher cost.

But there is a bigger issue: this is bad for the whole industry.

Before the move to the subscription based model, they were a profitable and apparently sustainable company.

The move to the subscription model appears to have been good for them. But this has negative consequences for the rest of the industry.

For example, someone buying a standalone LR for $150 every three years versus leasing saves $210 over three years. For this one product alone, forcing people into the subscription model means that they have $210 less to spend on tripods, lenses, camera upgrades, etc. Given that this is just one product, it is clear the money being redirected to Adobe is significant.

I know for many here find that a small expense but median household income in the US is <60K a year. Spending extra money on PP software typically means the money has to come from somewhere.

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

I don't think to many companies think we better not make to much profit so others can make some too. Any company charging any price will leave people with less money to buy other items.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

 

[hjr13]

It isn't a case of what people want, it's a case of what they're prepared to accept and pay for, it's a personal choice, it's as simple as that. If you don't like Adobe's model then go elsewhere, or use an earlier version that's not in the CC model. If enough people do that they'll soon change their current model, if not, well, you get what you deserve.

I get what I deserve if other people make that choice? That doesn't even make sense.

Adobe is like Coca Cola or Pepsi. They dominate because of name recognition. Anything else has a massive disadvantage. There have been alternatives to Photoshop that were as good and sometimes better, but Adobe's name has kept them dominant.

I've had PS since ver. 2.5 and I've never seen anything that comes close to what PS can do. They are a lot of alternatives but as far as I know none come close to doing what can be done in PS.

The average person doesn't know there is a choice.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

Adobe takes money from other sectors because they make the best product. And it's their job to make money, not keep photographers happy and stress free.

If you don't like it, vote with your dollars. Apparently enough people do that it's working for them. This "tug at the heartstring" approach is meaningless in the context of dollars and cents.

 

[khunpapa]

There have been a lot of people upset by Adobe's recent move to kill LR standalone and many of the comments revolve around the denial of individual choice and the personal higher cost.

But there is a bigger issue: this is bad for the whole industry.

Before the move to the subscription based model, they were a profitable and apparently sustainable company.

The move to the subscription model appears to have been good for them. But this has negative consequences for the rest of the industry.

For example, someone buying a standalone LR for $150 every three years versus leasing saves $210 over three years. For this one product alone, forcing people into the subscription model means that they have $210 less to spend on tripods, lenses, camera upgrades, etc. Given that this is just one product, it is clear the money being redirected to Adobe is significant.

I know for many here find that a small expense but median household income in the US is <60K a year. Spending extra money on PP software typically means the money has to come from somewhere.

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

Do you know Mr.Darwin?

Mr.Charles Darwin.

Adapt and Survive, that's the truth of this world since time im-memorable.

 

[stevo23]

There have been a lot of people upset by Adobe's recent move to kill LR standalone and many of the comments revolve around the denial of individual choice and the personal higher cost.

But there is a bigger issue: this is bad for the whole industry.

Before the move to the subscription based model, they were a profitable and apparently sustainable company.

The move to the subscription model appears to have been good for them. But this has negative consequences for the rest of the industry.

For example, someone buying a standalone LR for $150 every three years versus leasing saves $210 over three years. For this one product alone, forcing people into the subscription model means that they have $210 less to spend on tripods, lenses, camera upgrades, etc. Given that this is just one product, it is clear the money being redirected to Adobe is significant.

I know for many here find that a small expense but median household income in the US is <60K a year. Spending extra money on PP software typically means the money has to come from somewhere.

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

We all have a choice, go with it or go somewhere else, the market will dictate what happens, it's as simple as that.

Sure, a choice we have. But what Adobe is doing doesn't therefore translate to "good for the industry".

 

[Father Bouvier]

Adobe is not a monopoly. It's a free market with many players, nobody forces anybody to buy anything. If there is a sufficient profit in standalone product Adobe will continue to sell it, or somebody else will.

 

[sportyaccordy]

There have been a lot of people upset by Adobe's recent move to kill LR standalone and many of the comments revolve around the denial of individual choice and the personal higher cost.

But there is a bigger issue: this is bad for the whole industry.

Before the move to the subscription based model, they were a profitable and apparently sustainable company.

The move to the subscription model appears to have been good for them. But this has negative consequences for the rest of the industry.

For example, someone buying a standalone LR for $150 every three years versus leasing saves $210 over three years. For this one product alone, forcing people into the subscription model means that they have $210 less to spend on tripods, lenses, camera upgrades, etc. Given that this is just one product, it is clear the money being redirected to Adobe is significant.

I know for many here find that a small expense but median household income in the US is <60K a year. Spending extra money on PP software typically means the money has to come from somewhere.

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

We all have a choice, go with it or go somewhere else, the market will dictate what happens, it's as simple as that.

Sure, a choice we have. But what Adobe is doing doesn't therefore translate to "good for the industry".

How is what Adobe is doing not good for the industry? Sounds like the rest of the industry is about to gobble up a lot of market share. If anything it sounds very good for the industry.

 

[GregWCIL]

There have been a lot of people upset by Adobe's recent move to kill LR standalone and many of the comments revolve around the denial of individual choice and the personal higher cost.

But there is a bigger issue: this is bad for the whole industry.

Before the move to the subscription based model, they were a profitable and apparently sustainable company.

The move to the subscription model appears to have been good for them. But this has negative consequences for the rest of the industry.

For example, someone buying a standalone LR for $150 every three years versus leasing saves $210 over three years. For this one product alone, forcing people into the subscription model means that they have $210 less to spend on tripods, lenses, camera upgrades, etc. Given that this is just one product, it is clear the money being redirected to Adobe is significant.

I know for many here find that a small expense but median household income in the US is <60K a year. Spending extra money on PP software typically means the money has to come from somewhere.

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

It's called the free market. If enough customers don't like it, another competitor will gain business.

Your comments are very naive. Adobe's decisions are based on their duty to perform for their stockholders. Do you think Apple, John Deere or any other company acts differently?

 

[Carey Brown]

Those who don’t want an ongoing subscription can cancel after a year , after which their products will no longer receive updates but will continue to function .

 

[Carey Brown]

I bought into Adobe when they went to CS. Prior to that I was using Paint Shop Pro. I went with Adobe because they had a proven track record and it seemed like they were a company that was going to be around for a long time. I jumped on LR as soon as it was available and loved it, so I imported 50K+ photos into my catalog. Now my catalog is committed to proprietary edits in LR (and, yes, I was concerned about this when I bought LR).

So, export my entire catalog as 16bit TIFFs? Not practical.

(Psssst. Hey buddy, want some photo editing?)

And for those of you who say, $10/mo, what's the big deal? Well, I also bought their entire video editing suite, and that would cost me $50/mo. Not a big deal if you're making money off of it, but out of reach for an occasional user. If they make the subscription based on the number of minutes used, I might consider it.

 

[stevo23]

Adobe is not a monopoly. It's a free market with many players, nobody forces anybody to buy anything. If there is a sufficient profit in standalone product Adobe will continue to sell it, or somebody else will.

This is the crux of it. Sufficient means what? And is it about profit or profit leakage? The whole reason they created the subscription model was to arrest "profit leakage".

 

[A Weed]

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

Adobe takes money from other sectors because they make the best product. And it's their job to make money, not keep photographers happy and stress free.

If you don't like it, vote with your dollars. Apparently enough people do that it's working for them. This "tug at the heartstring" approach is meaningless in the context of dollars and cents.

WRONG. It is anything but meaningless.

In fact, a company's goodwill is a tremendous intangible asset it can ill-afford to squander.

If Adobe's model invites enough rancor--even from paying customers who are providing top-line growth, its market value will end up hurt.

 

[scrup]

Change sucks, but you either think its worth it or not.

Find an alternative, if enough users move away, Adobe will do something if not they made the best business decision.

 

[sybersitizen]

For example, someone buying a standalone LR for $150 every three years versus leasing saves $210 over three years. For this one product alone, forcing people into the subscription model means that they have $210 less to spend on tripods, lenses, camera upgrades, etc.

Good grief.

Anyone whose budget is so tight that a difference of $210 over three years is some kind of make-or-break situation has no business paying anything for Lightroom in the first place. He should be using any of the many free tools out there instead. (That's assuming he has the financial means to pursue photography at all, which itself seems doubtful.)

I absolutely hate Adobe's subscription model, probably even more than most other people hate it ... but not because I can't afford it. I could afford it with very little actual pain. There simply is no good reason for me to do so. I use other products that are either free or priced reasonably and without a subscription model. For the time being, such alternatives exist, so the Adobe parasite can only suck victims' blood if they are complicit in the arrangement.

As a side note to consider, how long do we imagine it will take for the same type of subscription model to pervade every corner of life? The snowball is rolling downhill and getting bigger by the moment. Don't be surprised to eventually find yourself paying by the month for just about everything, from cradle to grave. Maybe even beyond the grave if you don't want to risk being dug up from your cemetery plot that's rented by the month in perpetuity.

 

[Pontoneer]

Those who don’t want an ongoing subscription can cancel after a year , after which their products will no longer receive updates but will continue to function .

--
With kind regards
Derek.

Are you sure about this? I believe that LR locks you out of the Develop module if you cancel. I would suspect some similar behavior with Photoshop

Carey Brown wrote:

Those who don’t want an ongoing subscription can cancel after a year , after which their products will no longer receive updates but will continue to function .

--
With kind regards
Derek.

Yes , at work we always used to have purchased versions of Adobe CS between both our ( photography and video production ) department and Graphics next door .

When some of the products moved to subscription only , our procurement/finance dept refused to provide it , so for a while we continued with what we had . When it became unworkable because of new cameras etc , my boss put his personal subscription ( at £47/month) on two of the machines , and I just started bringing my own MBP into work with my £7/month subscription installed ( in fact I got so used to doing that I still work that way ) .

Eventually , we got a new suite of iMacs between the two departments , and our new managers managed to get full Adobe CC subs on each of them , so my boss cancelled his personal sub on the two old MacPros . They still hang on the network - one is used to run printers , and the other to allow people to view images ; the software is still there and still works , although no longer updated - we very occasionally use it on the print machine to size/crop something for printing , but that’s about it .

Also , with my MBP , if working at a remote location without internet access , I get a reminder I’m not connected to the internet , then I can just carry on working .

With kind regards
Derek.

 

[absquatulate]

There have been a lot of people upset by Adobe's recent move to kill LR standalone and many of the comments revolve around the denial of individual choice and the personal higher cost.

But there is a bigger issue: this is bad for the whole industry.

Before the move to the subscription based model, they were a profitable and apparently sustainable company.

The move to the subscription model appears to have been good for them. But this has negative consequences for the rest of the industry.

For example, someone buying a standalone LR for $150 every three years versus leasing saves $210 over three years. For this one product alone, forcing people into the subscription model means that they have $210 less to spend on tripods, lenses, camera upgrades, etc. Given that this is just one product, it is clear the money being redirected to Adobe is significant.

I know for many here find that a small expense but median household income in the US is <60K a year. Spending extra money on PP software typically means the money has to come from somewhere.

Given how so many other photographic sectors are stressed, depressed or losing money, for an already profitable company to take money from other sectors of the industry is not beneficial to the industry or its users.

Adobe is doing nothing illegal but their greed is bad for the industry as a whole.

You all seem to conveniently overlook that the £7/month also includes Photoshop CC ( which was much more expensive than LR , and does a great deal more than LR , even if used only occasionally ) , ACR , and Bridge .

While I don’t use PS as much as I used to , because LR does most of the day to day stuff , I do still use it maybe once a week , and with some jobs I may use it intensively - I wouldn’t want to be without it .

I also don’t use LR for file management : I already had a well established system of file and folders long before it came out , and simply use it as a RAW processor , importing new RAW files into it at their existing locations , exporting the processed JPEGS to their appropriate folders , then removing from LR before moving onto the next job .

I still find the photography package excellent value ( having previously purchased up as far as CS4 and LR2 outright ) and feel the £7/month is a great saving compared to what I’ve spent in the past .

I looked years ago at Aperture and Crapture one ( basically the same application ) and didn’t like them one bit .

It must have been a long time ago as Capture 1 is much superior to LR for photo editing and not like Aperture at all these days.

Ive been using Adobe for more than two decades , have the full suite on machines at work , multiple licences at £50/month paid by my employer , and my own personal subscription for the photography apps , which allows me to install it on both my MacPro and my MBP . I also still have older perpetual versions ( purchased in years gone by ) on other older machines around the household , and these are fine for family members to use .

Adobe started out making professional products for industry users and , thanks to cheapskate private individuals who obtained their products through software piracy , had to tighten up their security .

Those of us who don’t mind paying for their products will continue to use them ; those who already bought outright will also continue to use them , but those who want everything for nothing are free to look elsewhere and will be no loss to Adobe .

Those who don’t want an ongoing subscription can cancel after a year , after which their products will no longer receive updates but will continue to function .

 

[absquatulate]

They've dominated because one of their products (PS) is essentially the best, but being best isn't good enough if your pricing model is punitive. They may well learn that lesson if enough people ditch Lightroom ( which isn't the best anyway IMHO ).

This is the marketing, not the reality. There have been times through their history where they were not the best. They got in with Apple early on, they developed Postscript and then Illustrator, then Photoshop. There were not many, if any, competitors so they came to dominate the Mac and Mac dominated the graphics world because other OS'* didn't take graphics seriously. By the time Windows was graphics friendly, they were entrenched and the standard. Standards are difficult to fight. People still think Macs are superior for graphics and this isn't true any longer.

Photoshop is the gold standard for image and graphics manipulation, that's just the reality, but most photographers just don't need that level of power, just like most word users don't need most of the power in that application.

The average person doesn't know there is a choice.

I have no idea why you think you know what the average person actually thinks or what they know.

Because I talk to them?

You mean you talk to some people you know? So a sample size so miniscule as to be beyond insignificant.

I'll admit that it is not a scientific study, but people I encounter who are not photographers or artists generally only know the term photoshop. Unlike hoovers, they've no need for the actual product so are unaware of the alternatives.

*With exceptions, but this is not the History of Computer Graphics thread.

The term "Photoshopped" has become part of mainstream language, mainly because of its market dominance. However, many photographers l know don't need or use it. They certainly don't need CC versions of it, older versions are more than enough if they need it. Adobe run the risk of killing the golden goose, but that's up to them. History is littered with examples of companies who took their market dominance for granted. Price is a key differentiator for consumers, no amount of marketing will overcome that.