Reading mode: Light Dark

Adobe is hurting the whole industry

Go to last post
Adobe do not care for anyone else in the industry. It is all about money, plain greed.

Unfortunately, consideration for the consumer is rapidly disappearing in many businesses. I am all in favor of capitalism but it seems that now the only objective is profits, Wall street and shareholder satisfaction, and resulting obscene salaries and bonuses for executives. Consumers' needs do not figure in the business strategy of many corporations. Not too many years ago American business was the most consumer friendly in the world. Sadly that day has passed.

There are still some companies that do cater to the consumer and still profit. I will not name any as I could be accused of advertising.

We can only hope that in time Adobe and others will start to lose business to competitors and will realize the error of their ways, but I am not optimistic.
 
That $210 over three years that would be invested in other gear, tripods, bodies, lenses:

D850, $3000, 45 years of saving

Decent tripod $1000, 15 years of saving

Ballhead for that tripod, $500, another seven years

24-70 lens for that D850, $2300, 30 years

In under a hundred years I could have gotten started had Adobe not been so greedy, or I could just choose one of the other options, get over my Adobe angst, and start now.😁

D
 
Christof21 said:
In 10 years: 1200$ (1600$ for Europe)

I changed LR version once in 10 years.. let's say I buy 2 updates every 10 years period.

Conclusion: LR is not for me anymore.

What is modern is to propose different payment methods, and the user chooses the one which best suits his need. Here we have to adapt to Adobe model, they do not listen to their users.

I think this is a big mistake.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not worth it to you... but then again you aren't worth it to them too.

It's down wonders for its stock price though...
 
Last edited:
Holger Bargen said:
John Gellings said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Photoshop cost $1000 in 1990!

Lightroom has always been priced well. Sure, now you have to pay and in the past you could use a version until it didn't support your camera... but we are still talking about $120 a year. It is well worth that if you know how to use it.
Click to expand...
It is overpriced if you see what you can do with RawTherapee!
Click to expand...
Does RT have cataloging?
 
Surprised no one here has mentioned one of the prime reasons Adobe went to a subscription model as have many other software vendors. The vast army of cheaters out there are in fact responsible for that situation. If implemented correctly cloud based software effectively kills off software piracy. And of course Adobe Photoshop had long been the most pirated of all software.

For software creators there just have not been any certain ways to prevent piracy especially in overseas markets. Thus today software product cheaters can kick and scream all they want and it will change nothing. The way Adobe handled that reality in the past was by jacking up the price of Photoshop for those that could pay instead of going after perpetrators. Thus as standalone versions of Photoshop gradually become too out of date for use, the effective subscription price could become better balanced.

--
David
 
Last edited:
John Gellings said:
Holger Bargen said:
John Gellings said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Photoshop cost $1000 in 1990!

Lightroom has always been priced well. Sure, now you have to pay and in the past you could use a version until it didn't support your camera... but we are still talking about $120 a year. It is well worth that if you know how to use it.
Click to expand...
It is overpriced if you see what you can do with RawTherapee!
Click to expand...
Does RT have cataloging?
Click to expand...
This feature of Lightroom bothers me more than helps me. I want to develop my RAW files at a high quality standard - and I do not want to be forced into an organisation system I don't like. It was the reason why I started late with Lightroom - and now I live with the situation that I have my RAW files stored twice - and have to delete them at two postions on my harddrive if I want to erase them (if I don't want to make the decision at while doing the import into Lightroom catalogue).
 
Davi7d777 said:
Surprised no one here has mentioned one of the prime reasons Adobe went to a subscription model as have many other software vendors.
Click to expand...
Davi7d777 said:
The vast army of cheaters out there are in fact responsible for that situation. If implemented correctly cloud based software effectively kills off software piracy. And of course Adobe Photoshop had long been the most pirated of all software.
Click to expand...
Lightroom CC can still work without connecting to the cloud fortunately. Standalone or not, the difficulty for software piracy is the same unless it could work only with the cloud.

The piracy has noting to do witht his imho, this is only a commercial strategy.

What we want is lightroom CC with no souscription.
 
I've been a CC subscriber for years and wouldn't have it any other way. My second license is installed on my son's laptop. Taking into account the apps we both use and a typical number of hours each month we're in those apps, the Educator's subscription for all Adobe apps costs about $ .40 per hour...forty cents. Affordability, is just one of many benefits of the subscription model.

Another benefit of the subscription model is that the expense of the software is totally predictable, which makes it easier to plan for and fit into my household budget. No more unplanned purchases, every few years.

Clearly, Adobe's crystal ball is seeing a not-too-distant future where many (and ultimately most) of their customers will be using mobile devices for all their computing. All apps and data will live in the cloud. This has been the reality for most anyone who travels frequently on business for years. Eventually, this will be the reality for all networked persons. Adobe's move towards a fully cloud-based future is merely an acknowledgement of the inevitable.

I've been backing up all my important data to the cloud for years. I spend anywhere from 9-13 hours away from home, every day. When traveling, that can be for weeks at a time. If there's a fire or if my home is broken into, all my computing equipment and external drives could be lost. Forever. It only makes sense to backup data to a secure location outside your home or business. The cloud, is the most convenient, accessible and secure option.

When Adobe develops a secure, unlimited capacity cloud storage service that can be used for photos and other important docs at a reasonable price (a la BackBlaze), I will gladly give that Adobe service, consideration.

Look at cloud-based computing from Adobe's perspective. Consider the potential savings in business operation costs. How many customer service issues are related to outdated versions of a product, versions that haven't been properly updated, that aren't compatible with the OS on the customer's computing device, with failed customer-owned hard drives or devices that have been compromised by viruses or malware? Moving the application and images to the Adobe cloud addresses many of those issues. It's an evolution that should significantly lower the cost of customer service. Reduced business operation costs translate to increased profits and a more secure company. A more secure Adobe, is a company whose products are more likely to be around for the long haul.

Folks need to get past their fears of the cloud, if only for the reason that this is clearly the future of home and business computing...and that future is right around the corner.
 
Holger Bargen said:
John Gellings said:
Holger Bargen said:
John Gellings said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Photoshop cost $1000 in 1990!

Lightroom has always been priced well. Sure, now you have to pay and in the past you could use a version until it didn't support your camera... but we are still talking about $120 a year. It is well worth that if you know how to use it.
Click to expand...
It is overpriced if you see what you can do with RawTherapee!
Click to expand...
Does RT have cataloging?
Click to expand...
This feature of Lightroom bothers me more than helps me. I want to develop my RAW files at a high quality standard - and I do not want to be forced into an organisation system I don't like. It was the reason why I started late with Lightroom - and now I live with the situation that I have my RAW files stored twice - and have to delete them at two postions on my harddrive if I want to erase them (if I don't want to make the decision at while doing the import into Lightroom catalogue).
Click to expand...
Ok, but it is a feature that many of us do like and is a big reason I use it.
 
What this will do is create a gap for competitors.

One door closes another opens.

So on the contrary this might be good for the overall market as new products take advantage of the situation.

Adobe may yet regret this decision...or they may just be positioning themselves to the professional end of the market.

I hear a new program will come along soon............from the Affinity people. I have changed from PS to Affinity....and very good it is too.
 
A Weed said:
sportyaccordy said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
When Adobe took PS from owned to subscription there were lots of people here saying that "its market value will end up hurt" but, in fact, its market value has benefitted.

Adobe knows (unlike everyone here) where its sales are positioned. It won't have made the change unless the numbers of people likely to be upset is too small to affect its market value.
 
SpiltMilk said:
absquatulate said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We all have a choice, go with it or go somewhere else, the market will dictate what happens, it's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
I think this "hurting the industry" is a specious and vacuous argument anyway.

The same thing could be said of any change made by a company - if my milk goes up from £1 to £1.20... that's 20 pence I don't have to spend on sausages..

In the end, a company is only responsible to itself (bosses, owners, shareholders) - the "industry" is self-correcting.

That is... until the idiots start to rule and they keep buying these "next new things" JUST for the sake of having them.

People - if you current phone works, you DO NOT need the iPhone 12 or the Galaxy "Super Wraparound" G10.

Same here - if your current LR does what you need it to... stay with it and don't "upgrade".

if you are one of the "constant upgraders" - then it is YOU that is killing "the industry", not the companies.
Click to expand...
The only thing that forces upgrades of software for some users ( in the case of PS & LR ) is support for latest versions of ACR to support newest cameras . With newer cameras natively shooting DNG format , that is becoming less of an issue .
 
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Every time a camera maker brings out a new model it drags money away from the rest of the industry. Every time a maker of anything brings out a new model it drags money away from the rest of the industry.

Indeed, they drag money away from all other industries.

You seem to be saying that Adobe should make less profit so that Canon (or Nikon or whoever) can make more ... which is pretty silly.
 
Christof21 said:
John Gellings said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Photoshop cost $1000 in 1990!

Lightroom has always been priced well.
Click to expand...
Not anymore in my opinion, especially in Europe.
Member said:
Sure, now you have to pay and in the past you could use a version until it didn't support your camera... but we are still talking about $120 a year. It is well worth that if you know how to use it.
Click to expand...
In 10 years: 1200$ (1600$ for Europe)

I changed LR version once in 10 years.. let's say I buy 2 updates every 10 years period.

Conclusion: LR is not for me anymore.

What is modern is to propose different payment methods, and the user chooses the one which best suits his need. Here we have to adapt to Adobe model, they do not listen to their users.

I think this is a big mistake.
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to repeat this ?

Yes , LR , on its own , cost something like £100 ( it was so long since I bought LR2 I can’t remember exactly how much )

Photoshop cost something like £600 or £700 , incremental updates were a couple of hundred , last I bought was CS4 .

I was looking at a big spend after I last updated my cameras some 3 years ago ; then the subscription version came out .

£7/month is a piffling amount , and over 10 years , compared to what I’d pay for both products , with updates over that period , is an absolute bargain .

I really don’t understand all the whingeing about this .
 
absquatulate said:
Pontoneer said:
absquatulate said:
Pontoneer said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 .
Click to expand...
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.
Member said:
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 .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Pontoneer said:
Christof21 said:
John Gellings said:
bladerunner6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Photoshop cost $1000 in 1990!

Lightroom has always been priced well.
Click to expand...
Not anymore in my opinion, especially in Europe.
Pontoneer said:
Sure, now you have to pay and in the past you could use a version until it didn't support your camera... but we are still talking about $120 a year. It is well worth that if you know how to use it.
Click to expand...
In 10 years: 1200$ (1600$ for Europe)

I changed LR version once in 10 years.. let's say I buy 2 updates every 10 years period.

Conclusion: LR is not for me anymore.

What is modern is to propose different payment methods, and the user chooses the one which best suits his need. Here we have to adapt to Adobe model, they do not listen to their users.

I think this is a big mistake.
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to repeat this ?

Yes , LR , on its own , cost something like £100 ( it was so long since I bought LR2 I can’t remember exactly how much )

Photoshop cost something like £600 or £700 , incremental updates were a couple of hundred , last I bought was CS4 .

I was looking at a big spend after I last updated my cameras some 3 years ago ; then the subscription version came out .

£7/month is a piffling amount , and over 10 years , compared to what I’d pay for both products , with updates over that period , is an absolute bargain .

I really don’t understand all the whingeing about this .
Click to expand...
No need to repeat something when it is off topic.

I am a LR user, I will have to pay 12 euros/month if I want to continue with LR !! I don't want to pay for photoshop.

Is that hard to understand ?

Maybe this is fine for you and I respect your opinion , but you can understand that this new adobe strategy may not be OK for me and many other users.
 
hikerdoc said:
It is irrelevant that the average person knows little of the options to Lightroom and Photoshop. But, if one who is seriously interested in photo processing is unaware of the options it is not the fault of Adobe. That person must bear responsibility for not performing at least a cursory investigation of the options and perhaps even trying the readily available free trials. I am not aware of any companies who tout the availability and potential advantages of competing products to assure wise decisions from their potential customers.

D
Click to expand...
Then there are those of us who have been happily using Adobe products for a couple of decades , are proficient in using them , can afford them , and have no interest in changing .

How many colleges offer advanced training courses on the opposition software either ?
 
This creative cloud at 10 dollars is a fair deal. But what kind of deal will it be when it is 20 or 30 dollars a month? I'll just enjoy Lightroom 5.7 as long as I can. I've kept old hardware going for many years when I needed it to stay up.

If I get the jones to upgrade my Canon 6D, I'll buy something used that 5.7 supports.

Szumi
 
Davi7d777 said:
Surprised no one here has mentioned one of the prime reasons Adobe went to a subscription model as have many other software vendors. The vast army of cheaters out there are in fact responsible for that situation. If implemented correctly cloud based software effectively kills off software piracy. And of course Adobe Photoshop had long been the most pirated of all software.

For software creators there just have not been any certain ways to prevent piracy especially in overseas markets. Thus today software product cheaters can kick and scream all they want and it will change nothing. The way Adobe handled that reality in the past was by jacking up the price of Photoshop for those that could pay instead of going after perpetrators. Thus as standalone versions of Photoshop gradually become too out of date for use, the effective subscription price could become better balanced.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
A WIDE-RANGING REVIEW OF TOPAZ LABS - WARNING LONG POST
2
Replies
28
Views
25K
Ernie Misner
Ernie Misner
M
  • Locked
Keeping the Community Whole, and Some Ideas
Replies
4
Views
810
Smaug01
Smaug01
JimKasson
Why we own cameras, and why it matters
2
Replies
38
Views
16K
DavidMillier
DavidMillier
JimKasson
Of fidelity, photography, audio, and wine
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
6K
Satyaa
Satyaa
M
Keeping the Community Whole - Last Attempt
Replies
10
Views
765
D Lynch
D

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top