Date for Adobe responses?

[PhilBurton]

Operating System:n/a
Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info): n/a

Ad Astra wrote in a different thread Is Lightroom Classic end-of-life?

There are a number of well documented comments and concerns in this thread. I believe this forum and Victoria's support for Lightroom have the gravitas to merit a reply from Adobe.​

I would like Tom and Rikk to give us a date for a response or series of responses. If that is not possible, then a "date for the date," that is, tell us when to expect Adobe to announce the date for the responses.

The lack of any indication that Adobe will respond is corrosive to the trust we all have placed in Adobe by making Lightroom a major part of our photo lives.

Phil Burton

 

[tspear]

Brain fart:

Does anyone else think of those commercials for Direct TV where people love pouring hot coffee on themselves, or love getting their hand stuck in a vending machine, or thrilled about being smushed in a subway car? ... You know - those things that just make you giggle with glee.

Just me?

Just you.
But then, I only have Netflix. No cable, no TV....

Tim

 

[Hoggy]

Just you.
But then, I only have Netflix. No cable, no TV....

Aww, man..!.. :barefoot:

No cable/sat here either.. Just Broadcast/Over-The-Air and online sources.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I honestly don't fit into any of those categories.
I have no qualms whatsoever about paying $300 for a Capture One license.

Compared to someone who is willing to pay forever, being willing to pay once is not very valuable. Corporations don't care what you paid them already, only what you will pay them next month.

Please don't misunderstand, I tend to agree with your sentiment. I just don't think Adobe or MIcrosoft cares, as those who act on that sentiment are so few. Notice how they are racing to answer everyone's questions.

 

[PhilBurton]

This cycle has happened before. Mainframe software was sold on a lease model, aka subscription.

Rinse/repeat. Companies that fail to understand history and fail to adapt tend to fail or get swallowed up (e.g. DEC and SUN).

Tim

Tim,

Since I worked at Sun Microsystems inn the "glory days" of the 1990s, I can understand how that happens to companies. The groupthink that happens with companies often shuts down the bad news from the outside, especially if the CEO is a charismatic or strong personality. That was certainly the situation with Sun and Scott McNealy. That worked, until it didn't.There is a useful concept called the "Innovators' Dilemma" which states that successful companies get so concerned about satisfying their current customers that they donn't notice the disruptive changes. Adobe may have learned THAT lesson, but forgot the one about not "firing" your customers.

 

[LRList001]

No, that's pretty standard in the industry.

Not just wanted. They have, judging by their pricing.

Oops, let me correct this text "They also wanted to get rid of their perpetual users, judging by their attitude" (from "They also wanted to get rid of their subscription users, judging by their attitude").

 

[LRList001]

Compared to someone who is willing to pay forever, being willing to pay once is not very valuable. Corporations don't care what you paid them already, only what you will pay them next month.

Please don't misunderstand, I tend to agree with your sentiment. I just don't think Adobe or MIcrosoft cares, as those who act on that sentiment are so few. Notice how they are racing to answer everyone's questions.

I have an idea that in terms of Shareholder value, the subscription model has more (apparent) value than the perpetual model as even if it results in a lower annual revenue stream, it is more 'reliable' and therefore has a greater net present value. What this attitude seems to say is it indicates that they have no confidence in the strength of the product at all, or at least, in their ability to innovate. Other companies, (perhaps most famously, 3M) have a policy of developing entirely new products so as not to get caught this way. However, treating your product as a cash cow has a way of backfiring in the end.

 

[jms969]

Compared to someone who is willing to pay forever, being willing to pay once is not very valuable. Corporations don't care what you paid them already, only what you will pay them next month.

Please don't misunderstand, I tend to agree with your sentiment. I just don't think Adobe or MIcrosoft cares, as those who act on that sentiment are so few. Notice how they are racing to answer everyone's questions.

Of course they don't care, and that is why I have dumped them both

Phase One will get about the same revenue from me (with a perpetual model) that Adobe would have gotten from me (with a subscription model) $300 up front and a renewal every couple of years...

 

[PhilBurton]

I have an idea that in terms of Shareholder value, the subscription model has more (apparent) value than the perpetual model as even if it results in a lower annual revenue stream, it is more 'reliable' and therefore has a greater net present value. What this attitude seems to say is it indicates that they have no confidence in the strength of the product at all, or at least, in their ability to innovate.

The Chief Financial Officer of my company once told me that, "Wall Street likes subscription pricing, because it provides a more predictable future revenue stream," and therefore the place a higher "multiple" for stock pricing purposes on subscription pricing than perpetual pricing.

Your second point doesn't hold up, because customers will switch to an alternative that is more attractive. Despite what others say, it is possible to "reverse engineer" Adobe edit history in other software. It's simply a matter of the engineering dollars necessary to accomplish that task vs. the expected revenue. You don't need access to Adobe's proprietary software code to do a "good enough" job that satisfies most people.

Phil Burton

 

[LRList001]

Your second point doesn't hold up, because customers will switch to an alternative that is more attractive.

Phil Burton

Isn't that the corollary to what I put? The point I was making (badly) was that if the existing does not innovate, then the Customer will switch to the more attractive alternative. Subscription pricing suggests that a supplier does not consider itself able to innovate, so wants an on-going revenue stream from the existing product (ie, a "cash cow"). Many perpetual users are perfectly willing to upgrade (ie provide future income) IF there is a reason to do so ie they need product innovation. Lets get the scale of this in perspective. The upgrade fee is around the cost of a filter or a battery, in terms of the digital photography industry, it is small beer. A problem is the difference between capital (ie perpetual) and operational (ie subscription) budgets. Professional users are well served by subscription pricing models, because they are using operational budgets. Other users (eg the hobby user) is much more driven by capital budgets.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Thank you everyone for all the feedback. I'm sure you've all given Adobe plenty to think about. Now we wait and see what Adobe does next... but that will no doubt take time.

In the meantime, it's time to close this thread and get back to the main aim of this forum which is "dedicated to the support of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom."

I understand that many have strong feelings on the changes, which is why I've let the venting and debates go on for a few weeks, but now it's time to get back to the constructive and positive atmosphere that makes this forum a happy place to be, even when the world is getting turned upside down. Adobe's own feedback forums are the best place for complaints and demands.