Why all the hating on Adobe?

[LongTimeNikonUser]

I have no love for Adobe, but neither do I have "hate" for them. I view them as a company that has done a LOT to advance digital photography post, originally with Photoshop and then with Lightroom.

For both products, a significant contribution has been the APIs that have allowed the creation of an extensive ecosystem of plug-ins and presets, Those allow third parities to sell value-added software at relatively low development cost.

Do I "like" the subscription model? Heck no, but it's pay me now or pay me later, for any commercial product. Has Adobe always carefully listened to users? Probably not, but you could say that about almost any software company, including a few that I worked for.

For anyone who doesn't like the subscription model who will consider only non-superscription alternatives, some questions:

1. Have you compared the release cycles and prices of Lrightro9om before subscription, w8ith the monthly subscription costs? How do you think they compare, total dollars (or euros or pounds) per year?

2. For software companies that are non-subscription, how do those products compare with Lightroom? Do these companies meet their promises for new features? Do they need to pre-announce features as a way of overcom0ing current product deficiencies just to get sales?

3. For software companies that are non-subscription, do they have a viable business model that assures long-term survival? If not, you may be locked into a proprietary RAW processing tool that is no longer supported, including new features and new camera models.

Just wondering. Comments welcome. (Nothing will go to \dev\null.)

 

[Pixel8888]

After Others went subscription like capture one, of leave essential parts out of their core program, and require additional programs to be bought like DXO, PS/LR is quite likely the best bang for the buck. At least for the 88 Euros I paid for 12 month.

BUT the demosaic or raw conversion from capture one and DXO is still better. Adobe should really work in that, considering their deep pockets and army of developers.

 

[Liquid Light]

I have no love for Adobe, but neither do I have "hate" for them. I view them as a company that has done a LOT to advance digital photography post, originally with Photoshop and then with Lightroom.

For both products, a significant contribution has been the APIs that have allowed the creation of an extensive ecosystem of plug-ins and presets, Those allow third parities to sell value-added software at relatively low development cost.

Do I "like" the subscription model? Heck no, but it's pay me now or pay me later, for any commercial product. Has Adobe always carefully listened to users? Probably not, but you could say that about almost any software company, including a few that I worked for.

For anyone who doesn't like the subscription model who will consider only non-superscription alternatives, some questions:

1. Have you compared the release cycles and prices of Lrightro9om before subscription, w8ith the monthly subscription costs? How do you think they compare, total dollars (or euros or pounds) per year?

2. For software companies that are non-subscription, how do those products compare with Lightroom? Do these companies meet their promises for new features? Do they need to pre-announce features as a way of overcom0ing current product deficiencies just to get sales?

3. For software companies that are non-subscription, do they have a viable business model that assures long-term survival? If not, you may be locked into a proprietary RAW processing tool that is no longer supported, including new features and new camera models.

Just wondering. Comments welcome. (Nothing will go to \dev\null.)

I don´t know about "hate", but Adobe´s business practices are the problem, not their products.

One obvious flaw in your reasoning: Connecting innovation with a subscription model is a complete non-sequitur. To this day I have not seen the slightest shred of evidence that the subscription model has contributed in any way, shape or fashion to more, faster or better innovation in their products. For 8 years after introduction of CC, innovation in PS was every bit as slow as it had been during the Creative Suite days. The only major change is AI functionality, but people hardly need to be reminded what double edged sword this is in light of - here it comes again - Adobe´s business practices.

Adobe did NOT introduce CC to offer more or faster innovation, or more safety/security, etc. They introduced CC for one purpose only: To make more money.

The cost argument doesn´t work either: It is limited to the photography bundle, and even there it is debatable. The moment you add another app, costs shoot up compared to the CS days.

I will skip over the viable business "argument" - there´s just nothing to it.

Adobe apologists like to omit two issues: With perpetual licenses, the decision to upgrade was based on new features. Adobe had to innovate before they got the customer´s money. None or too little innovation meant customers would wait until the next upgrade. If anything, perpetual licenses were an incentive to innovate, not a subscription model where the customer basically has to pay in advance.

And then there is the dependency issue: Subscription means you´re locked in once and for all. I´d have zero issues with Adobe´s business practices if they offered a way to opt out of CC by keeping what you have until that moment, w/o further upgrades. THAT would be choice. But what Adobe did/does is taking choice away.

I´m not surprised people use Adobe´s products - why shouldn´t they? They´re excellent, though bundled with a seriously flawed business model tailored to put the customer at a maximal disadvantage. What does surprise me much more are those not only willing to pay for CC, but also rationalise Adobe´s might-makes-right attitude at no charge on top of it.

 

[charlyw64]

BUT the demosaic or raw conversion from capture one and DXO is still better. Adobe should really work in that, considering their deep pockets and army of developers.

I would beg to differ. For one, Capture One only works decently in portrait photography. In other areas the raw conversion is nothing to write home about. And DxO - don't get me started on the mess that DxO produces. It applies it's horrendously overrated lens profiles (to the detriment of the photo) and then adds too much sharpening way too early in the editing process. It may look arguably better without any further edits but for those further edits the files are as malleable as titanium. Adobe has the Enhanced Detail demosaicing algorithm which improves image quality even for outliers like the terrible Fuji x-trans chimeras...

 

[davidedric]

A lot of people just don't like change

 

[dj_paige]

After Others went subscription like capture one, of leave essential parts out of their core program, and require additional programs to be bought like DXO, PS/LR is quite likely the best bang for the buck. At least for the 88 Euros I paid for 12 month.

BUT the demosaic or raw conversion from capture one and DXO is still better. Adobe should really work in that, considering their deep pockets and army of developers.

Yes, this is a valid point, but back to the topic of this thread, no one that I have seen hates Adobe because their demosaic algorithm.

 

[Hans de Zomers]

I have no love for Adobe, but neither do I have "hate" for them. I view them as a company that has done a LOT to advance digital photography post, originally with Photoshop and then with Lightroom.

For both products, a significant contribution has been the APIs that have allowed the creation of an extensive ecosystem of plug-ins and presets, Those allow third parities to sell value-added software at relatively low development cost.

Do I "like" the subscription model? Heck no, but it's pay me now or pay me later, for any commercial product. Has Adobe always carefully listened to users? Probably not, but you could say that about almost any software company, including a few that I worked for.

For anyone who doesn't like the subscription model who will consider only non-superscription alternatives, some questions:

1. Have you compared the release cycles and prices of Lrightro9om before subscription, w8ith the monthly subscription costs? How do you think they compare, total dollars (or euros or pounds) per year?

2. For software companies that are non-subscription, how do those products compare with Lightroom? Do these companies meet their promises for new features? Do they need to pre-announce features as a way of overcom0ing current product deficiencies just to get sales?

3. For software companies that are non-subscription, do they have a viable business model that assures long-term survival? If not, you may be locked into a proprietary RAW processing tool that is no longer supported, including new features and new camera models.

Just wondering. Comments welcome. (Nothing will go to \dev\null.)

Hating on Adobe? I must be missing something.

As a subscriber, you can only use the software while you continue to pay the recurring costs. Personally, I have a problem with not being able to use software after opting to switch to something better or simply stop upgrading.

With perpetual licenses, I have the option to upgrade or not. I often skip one major version, which results in a lower overall license cost. This flexibility is not available with subscription-based software.

Calculate the cost of a combination like DxO+Affinity vs. a Lightroom/Photoshop subscription. Every year, I save significantly by not using Adobe subscriptions. While Lightroom and Photoshop offer more advanced features, I don't need them and am very happy using DxO and Affinity. And I have the option to replace them if something better comes along.

Additionally, I always have the option not to upgrade at all.

 

[charlyw64]

Just wondering. Comments welcome.

I think much comes down to: They don't do exactly what I need them to do in the time I need them to do (basically now), they do want to make money though and are a big tech corp, so they must be evil.

Look at one of the recent controversies where they announced they would be scanning images that are uploaded to the cloud to prevent objectively vile content to end up on their servers. Could you imagine what happens if one of their servers were found out to be hosting such content - no matter how it got there. You can always make your cloud images semi public, you can use private links, you can restrict access to a closed user group - the ideal breeding ground for the distribution of such illegal content. If Adobe didn't put measures in place to prevent such doing they themselves would be in deep trouble - but now everyone is riled up because they have the audacity to have an AI as first line of defense against that - followed by a human checker that verifies if the alarm raised by the AI was possibly in error. I would call that a reasonable process with as little impact on operating a cloud. What do they think other cloud providers will be forced to do (eventually)?

 

[bananahead]

This is the internet.

People that are happy keep their mouths shut and just get on with their lives.

I moved from a selection of perpetual license software to the Adobe plan. I think that it is good value.

 

[charlyw64]

As a subscriber, you can only use the software while you continue to pay the recurring costs. Personally, I have a problem with not being able to use software after opting to switch to something better or simply stop upgrading.

You can still use Lightroom after your subscription expires - you only lose access to the develop and the map module (one of them because it incurs recurring costs for Adobe)...

With perpetual licenses, I have the option to upgrade or not. I often skip one major version, which results in a lower overall license cost. This flexibility is not available with subscription-based software.

And every time you skip an update you are making life harder for the software manufacturer to survive - and risk losing big time while nothing better is available (especially now since everybody and his dog is going subscription)...

Calculate the cost of a combination like DxO+Affinity vs. a Lightroom/Photoshop subscription.

Your comparison is screwed up - You need to compare DxO+Affinity+1Tb of cloud storage - the latter costing about $10/month - if you are comparing with the LR+PS+1 Tb cloud. Nobody forces you to use the 1 Tb cloud from Adobe, so you either need to add it on both sides of the equation if you do need it or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

 

[charlyw64]

Your comparison is screwed up - You need to compare DxO+Affinity+1Tb of cloud storage - the latter costing about $10/month - if you are comparing with the LR+PS+1 Tb cloud. Nobody forces you to use the 1 Tb cloud from Adobe, so you either need to add it on both sides of the equation if you do need it or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

I need to reply to myself to make my statements clearer - as the person I replied to originally had written a completely different text. He seemingly edited it so that his hypocrisy wasn't as obvious, he originally wrote (I still had the original I replied to in my browser cache):

"Here's some math: Adobe's subscription price for Lightroom and Photoshop with 1TB of storage is $20 per month, totaling $480 for two years. I would use Lightroom as a RAW developer and Photoshop as a pixel editor.

Currently, I use DxO as my RAW developer, which has an entry price of $229 and an upgrade price of $99.

For pixel editing, I use Affinity, which currently has an entry price of $35. Let's assume a similar upgrade price.

To stay current with these products, I would pay $229 + $35 + $99 + $35 = $398 for the first two years, already saving me enough for a nice dinner.

If I skip one major release, I would pay $229 + $35 = $264 for the first two years, leaving me plenty to buy accessories for my gear or even more dinners. The next two years would then cost me $99 + $35 = $134. This is a 3rd of what I would pay Adobe in subscription fees for that same period.

If I wait for a good sale on these products, the cost would be even lower."

 

[charlyw64]

This is the internet.

People that are happy keep their mouths shut and just get on with their lives.

I moved from a selection of perpetual license software to the Adobe plan. I think that it is good value.

Especially if you shop around and wait for a good offer (they come around several times per year) or if you happen to get some months for free when you buy an external hard disk (I think there still are 4 months for free included in the purchase of certain Seagate One Touch drives, at least it says so on Amazon - so if you need a new drive it may well be advantageous to look for such offers)... And yes, you can add these 2-4 months that you get by purchasing that drive to your LR photography plan subscription, that will postpone the next billing of your monthly subscription accordingly.

 

[Hans de Zomers]

Your comparison is screwed up - You need to compare DxO+Affinity+1Tb of cloud storage - the latter costing about $10/month - if you are comparing with the LR+PS+1 Tb cloud. Nobody forces you to use the 1 Tb cloud from Adobe, so you either need to add it on both sides of the equation if you do need it or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

I need to reply to myself to make my statements clearer - as the person I replied to originally had written a completely different text. He seemingly edited it so that his hypocrisy wasn't as obvious, he originally wrote (I still had the original I replied to in my browser cache):

Hypocrisy? A completely different text? I left out the computation because anyone can do it themselves.

You do not have to agree. In my perspective, not using subscription-ware, regardless of whether it is from Adobe, is less expensive and more versatile.

 

[Hans de Zomers]

<snip>or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

The website lists the $20 subscription plan as the cheapest for Lr+Ps. I must be overlooking it.

Adobe Creative Cloud Plans, Pricing, and Membership

 

[charlyw64]

<snip>or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

The website lists the $20 subscription plan as the cheapest for Lr+Ps. I must be overlooking it.

Adobe Creative Cloud Plans, Pricing, and Membership

You have to click on the "compare plans": https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html

$9.99 and thus cheaper than anything you could muster with even DxO on its own. And then there are special offers (for example around black friday typically) where a 1 year subscription costs $88...

 

[PMB]

<snip>or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

The website lists the $20 subscription plan as the cheapest for Lr+Ps. I must be overlooking it.

Adobe Creative Cloud Plans, Pricing, and Membership

You have to click on the "compare plans": https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html

$9.99 and thus cheaper than anything you could muster with even DxO on its own. And then there are special offers (for example around black friday typically) where a 1 year subscription costs $88...

Yes, in my case I don't use (or want) cloud storage, so I went for the $9.99 USD offering. You have to select the 20GB storage option to see the $9.99 price (or in my case $12.99 CAD).



PS, personally I don't care for subscriptions. They feel more like a lease. Even with cars, I prefer to have the equity rather than hold an obligation. But you know, I'm at a stage in life where most of the days are behind me and there are fewer and fewer in front of me, so I want to get on with the things I enjoy. $12.99 (plus tax) is still less than what I pay for coffee.

 

[Pixel8888]

<snip>or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

The website lists the $20 subscription plan as the cheapest for Lr+Ps. I must be overlooking it.

Adobe Creative Cloud Plans, Pricing, and Membership

Just buy it from Amazon or Newegg on Black Friday. Amazon Germany offers the 1 year LR/PS subscription for 88 Euros from time to time during the year.

Newegg was $74.99 on Black Friday

https://www.newegg.com/promotions/black-friday/23-1634/index-software-accessories.html#softwareAcc

 

[charlyw64]

You do not have to agree. In my perspective, not using subscription-ware, regardless of whether it is from Adobe, is less expensive and more versatile.

So your current DxO+Affinity is more expensive and less versatile than the LR photography plan as it doesn't include a web presence, doesn't include integration of mobile devices (the latter now for me has become a must have), doesn't include a DAM, doesn't have decent printing capabilities (also a must as I have an A3+ printer for my photos) and has in part poorly documented, even less poorly functioning features (like pano stitching or HDR merge)... So your whole argument falls apart badly.

 

[Trk]

The issue at hand isn’t driven by hate, but rather by opportunistic competitors. It seems plausible that other companies have manufactured this “scandal” to divert customers away. In reality, only a small fraction of users are genuinely concerned about terms and conditions.

While I personally dislike subscription-based software, it’s clear that this model is becoming the industry standard. Most companies would adopt it if they could, as it offers a steady revenue stream and aligns with their long-term financial goals.

 

[Hans de Zomers]

<snip>or you must use the Adobe photographers plan which comes with 20Gb of cloud storage. And then your whole hypocritical calculations fall apart...

The website lists the $20 subscription plan as the cheapest for Lr+Ps. I must be overlooking it.

Adobe Creative Cloud Plans, Pricing, and Membership

You have to click on the "compare plans": https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html

The link I provided takes you to the standard sign-up page. On the left side, there's a label that says "All." I should have investigated further instead of assuming that "All" actually meant everything.

$9.99 and thus cheaper than anything you could muster with even DxO on its own. And then there are special offers (for example around black friday typically) where a 1 year subscription costs $88...