Adobe haters, I have a question for you

I tried the free version of Capture One and thought it was loads better than Lightroom.
I found I could basically apply Auto on import and it produces photos that are much closer to how I like them, therefore saving me ages.
Not to mention I can pay a one of fee and have the software for life, not a fan of subscription.
Except that they bring out major up dates that have to be paid for.

with Photoshop new updated versions were very expensive, and I was paying much the same as I do now with a drip feed prescription.
 
With Capture One you have the choice - they also have a subscription model. But if you're happy with the features of the current version and don't need to support a new raw format anytime soon, a one-off purchase for the price of 15 months subscription is probably cheaper, and you can keep the software.
 
Except that they bring out major up dates that have to be paid for.

with Photoshop new updated versions were very expensive, and I was paying much the same as I do now with a drip feed prescription.
I only update if I need to and I haven't yet. I'm not interested in the latest and greatest.
 
I'll only generally update the software if the version I have doesn't support the camera I have at the time.
I still like the flow of Lightroom but the actual output I get from Capture One is better.
 
With Capture One you have the choice - they also have a subscription model. But if you're happy with the features of the current version and don't need to support a new raw format anytime soon, a one-off purchase for the price of 15 months subscription is probably cheaper, and you can keep the software.

This may likely work on Windows but on mac as your previous post indicates this is a losing game. Imagine you have a Canon pro printer (x400 or x300 series) and what the latest mac updates are doing to this perfectly capable business hardware.

I think thats why you have to look at compatibility and open standards in even much broader way. Open source approach always wins in the end.
 
I once had a query about a Leica product from the 1930s or 40s. I emailed them and, without missing a beat, they asked me the serial number so they could give me the appropriate support.

Adobe is a global megacorporation with a market cap of a quarter of a trillion dollars. Some people might think it wouldn't be too unreasonable to ask for simple help with a product that might have cost £2000. But this isn't about active support, which hasn't been provided for CS for a long time. It's about not enforcing a mechanism that Adobe had deliberately included to prevent installations without their permission. They had originally done the right thing by releasing activation-free versions. The web pages that provided modified installers in exchange for your licence keys were already in place. The cost of keeping them up must have been absolutely trivial.

CS3 worked perfectly well on W10 when I tried it a few months ago, so Windows users are being deprived of a viable product they paid for. Mac users on older hardware have an even worse problem - CC is not compatible with their computers, but they may be locked out of the working software they purchased.

I suspect someone who missed the boat on the activation-free installers might do well at the Small Claims Court for the purchase price of the software they have now been deprived of. It wouldn't be the first time that the egregious retrictions claimed by EULAs were not compatible with actual consumer law.


The restriction, in this case, is covered by

14.8.1 The Software may rely upon or facilitate your access to websites maintained by Adobe or its affiliates or third parties offering goods, information, software and services (e.g., the Adobe Stock Photos service) ("Online Services"). Your access to and use of any website or online services is governed by the terms, conditions, disclaimers and notices found on such site or otherwise associated with such services, for example, the Terms of Use located at http://www.adobe.com/misc/copyright.html. Adobe may at any time, for any reason, modify or discontinue the availability of any website and Online Services.
source

Had they removed this service withing 1,2 or even 6 years, I suspect they would absolutely fall foul of consumer law, at least here in Europe. After 12 years, I'm not so sure.

edit: just to clarify, I don't particularly like it when companies do this - it's bad PR if nothing else, but I can understand why they do it - it's just a question of being reasonable with their timing.
 
Last edited:
The restriction, in this case, is covered by

source

Had they removed this service withing 1,2 or even 6 years, I suspect they would absolutely fall foul of consumer law, at least here in Europe. After 12 years, I'm not so sure.

edit: just to clarify, I don't particularly like it when companies do this - it's bad PR if nothing else, but I can understand why they do it - it's just a question of being reasonable with their timing.
I'm sure that's what they would try to claim - it would be an interesting test case. As for the why, I don't see that the previous arrangement with the activation-free installer (made available in 2017 but killed off in 2019) imposed any unreasonable (or even noticeable) burden on Adobe. But this does fit the pattern of using all possible means to shove CC down the throats of their existing customers. Even Microsoft behaves better than this. When they found that older copies of Word for DOS weren't Y2K compliant in 1999, they made an upgraded version available for free on their website. Two decades later, it's still there.
 
This may likely work on Windows but on mac as your previous post indicates this is a losing game. Imagine you have a Canon pro printer (x400 or x300 series) and what the latest mac updates are doing to this perfectly capable business hardware.

I think thats why you have to look at compatibility and open standards in even much broader way. Open source approach always wins in the end.
A Free/Open Source licence is really the only guarantee that the developers can't pull a stunt like this. But of course there's not always a great FOSS alternative to every application you might want to install (though I imagine I could get by with GIMP and Inkscape). Interesting you mention a printer, which recalls the origin story of Free Software:

 
But a lose for the users who would like to continue with their preferred app, but for whom the goalposts were moved.

This is of course correct, but I was really picking up on your point "...perhaps I should be grateful?" to suggest that the wider choice of software while keeping Adobe in the market was an overall win-win situation for the industry (including the consumers of their products)

Certainly as a Capture One user, I'm aware of a good number of people being grateful to Adobe for initiating their move to C1.

I wonder how many people, now using a non-adobe product, would now go back to using LR/PS, if it went back to being non-subscription, and conversely how many people paying the subscription, are still strongly opposed to it, now they have got used to it.

I'm finding more and more of programs I use are becoming subscription only, or subscription by default through annual upgrades.but at least with the annual upgrades I have some level of choice as to when I upgrade.
 
IF I move away from Adobe I will never go back unless there is an utterly compelling reason: they have lost both my future custom and any goodwill I may have had because of the hassle this move has caused. I don't hate Adobe, but I would never use or recommend their products in future.
 
This is of course correct, but I was really picking up on your point "...perhaps I should be grateful?" to suggest that the wider choice of software while keeping Adobe in the market was an overall win-win situation for the industry (including the consumers of their products)

Certainly as a Capture One user, I'm aware of a good number of people being grateful to Adobe for initiating their move to C1.

I wonder how many people, now using a non-adobe product, would now go back to using LR/PS, if it went back to being non-subscription, and conversely how many people paying the subscription, are still strongly opposed to it, now they have got used to it.

I'm finding more and more of programs I use are becoming subscription only, or subscription by default through annual upgrades.but at least with the annual upgrades I have some level of choice as to when I upgrade.
It's nice to have more diversity of products. I doubt Affinity would have done as well if standalone licences for Photoshop and Illustrator were still available, especially with the former discounts for site-wide and educational use. And clearly the PS/LR subscription suits many people who would be frequently upgrading anyway, or who were put off by the large upfront cost of PS (LR only users, not so much). I use a couple of subscription packages at work (SPSS and MS Office 365), but haven't spent my own money on them. Only MS 365 looks vaguely attractive for home use, because it's a decent deal for 1 TB of cloud storage even without the software.

If Creative Suite were to be offered under similar terms (including price) as before, then I'd be tempted to get it again at work, but less likely to fork out for it myself. It seems from the latest shenanigans with the activation servers that the standalone licences are really just long-term subscriptions that can be ended at the whim of Adobe. Something like Affinity, which doesn't require an external server to activate, can be re-installed as long as you have the licence key (the same system Adobe used to use with Photoshop 7.0 and earlier).
 
IF I move away from Adobe I will never go back unless there is an utterly compelling reason: they have lost both my future custom and any goodwill I may have had because of the hassle this move has caused. I don't hate Adobe, but I would never use or recommend their products in future.

Assuming this is in response to my post, it's interesting comparison of different experiences. I've used LR since before version 1 (ie I started with the beta of Version 1) but never especially liked it and although I wanted to use PS, but never felt I could afford it

I was using C1 long before LR went to subscription (even though I still used LR for certain things) and the subscription allowed me to add PS, and still keep LR. So once I got used to the idea of the subscription, I was comfortable with it.

I'm more irritated with c1, who have gone from an £80 upgrade every 18 months to two years, to a £158 upgrade every year. Which makes the upgrade only slightly cheaper than their subscription price, even after someone has paid £300 for the perpetual license.
 
It's nice to have more diversity of products. I doubt Affinity would have done as well if standalone licences for Photoshop and Illustrator were still available, especially with the former discounts for site-wide and educational use.

Are there large scale users using Affinity products? My University was very reluctant to move away from using anything that wasn't considered the "industry standard", and in terms of my consultancy business I found it very difficult to move away from industry standard software because of compatibility with clients.

And on the subject consultancy, as I was already paying a few thousand pounds a year "maintenance" for stats and risk modelling software, a hundred pounds a year for Adobe maybe didn't seem all that much money even if it was only for my hobby.

I'm not sure what I plan to do long term with software.
 
Assuming this is in response to my post, it's interesting comparison of different experiences. I've used LR since before version 1 (ie I started with the beta of Version 1) but never especially liked it and although I wanted to use PS, but never felt I could afford it

I was using C1 long before LR went to subscription (even though I still used LR for certain things) and the subscription allowed me to add PS, and still keep LR. So once I got used to the idea of the subscription, I was comfortable with it.

I'm more irritated with c1, who have gone from an £80 upgrade every 18 months to two years, to a £158 upgrade every year. Which makes the upgrade only slightly cheaper than their subscription price, even after someone has paid £300 for the perpetual license.
Yes, it was. I'm sure the change with C1 was facilitated by Adobe's subscription - I can't imagine they'd have got away with it otherwise. So the change has benefitted C1 but hurt you, even though you're happy to subscribe.

As for industry standard software, that's a different situation, where the cost is baked into the overhead of the business. It's as fundamental as paying rent. [emoji14]
 
My view is upgrade price for the old perpetual Lightroom license wasn't that much less than the £10 a month for the Photography plan. Not worrying about upgrades and getting Photoshop and bridge thrown into the mix is a definite bonus.

Compared to the money I spend on photography hardware it feels like a small cost. If Adobe weren't constantly developing the products I would have a different view, but they are. If they ever drop Lightroom Classic for a purely cloud based approach I will have a different view though.
 
I have used PS since V7 and LR since V2 and I am very satisfied. I used to update every 2 years rather than annually which still cost me about £100 p.a. which is what I still pay for the subscription. I also wonder why so many whinge about the cost but spend enormous sums on a camera or lens. Even though I pay the Adobe fee, it is a very small part of my total photography costs. I am just an amateur though experienced and I can really benefit from the Adobe s/w. I have developed software professionally myself in the past so aware of just how much it costs. Of course, if Adobe quadrupled the price tomorrow, I would have a rethink but I have tested many of the alternatives which were, in my view, inferior (I have not tested Capture 1 by the way).
I do have a perpetual Licence for LR 5 and CS6 as well as Affinity so I could probably manage.

Dave
 
Are there large scale users using Affinity products? My University was very reluctant to move away from using anything that wasn't considered the "industry standard", and in terms of my consultancy business I found it very difficult to move away from industry standard software because of compatibility with clients.

And on the subject consultancy, as I was already paying a few thousand pounds a year "maintenance" for stats and risk modelling software, a hundred pounds a year for Adobe maybe didn't seem all that much money even if it was only for my hobby.

I'm not sure what I plan to do long term with software.
I've not worked anywhere where Adobe (or Affinity) is core software. I imagine there aren't many design houses or print shops that don't use CC. It's different where this stuff is something you only need occasionally, peripheral to your main job. It's then harder to justify a full subscription (not just the cheap PS/LR package, but one of the expensive options if you need vector graphics or layout), especially if you are funded by a grant and you have better things to spend the money on. Where I work now, neither CC nor Affinity are standard, pre-installed packages - a custom request and purchase order would be required for either. GIMP and Inkscape are in a central repository of approved packages that can be installed by any user. Affinity does have deals for education and business users (I think they may even have mentioned subscriptions as an option when I talked to them!) but I don't know if they've scored any large-scale contracts. They might do rather well by negotiating site licences with universities. In my field, journals generally don't care what software you use to prepare artwork - they just want a tiff or a PDF.
 
I also wonder why so many whinge about the cost but spend enormous sums on a camera or lens.

Imagine a world where you paid £30/month for your DSLR. If you stopped paying, they took Auto-Focus and image stabilisation away. Every year, they add 5 pixels to the sensor size and tell you that the FPS has gone up by 0.5, maybe they add a new film emulation. All other DSLRs have the quality of iPhones. At that point you can compare one off camera costs to ongoing software subscriptions.

My annoyance is that they have taken their foot off the innovation gas, and given subs a finger up because they know the competition is crap and you have nowhere else to go. I've just downloaded a trial of C1 off the back of this thread, and it's woefully inadequate with a premium price point.
 
Yes, it was. I'm sure the change with C1 was facilitated by Adobe's subscription - I can't imagine they'd have got away with it otherwise.

I think the C1 situation is complicated.

When I bought my perpetual license for C1 the cost was twice the cost of LR, and that was before C1 had a database as it was only competing with the ACR component of Photoshop. The main reasons that people bought C1 was for the quality of the raw processing and the superb technical support.

At some point they obviously decided to compete with LR and add the database tools, which may have coincided with them being majority owned by a British Venture capital company.

Then Adobe went subscription and LR started to get a poor reputation for processing Fuji films, both of which changed the C1 customer base (judged from the different type of support questions being asked on the Phase One forum and other photography forums).

A few years ago the British Venture Capital ownership was replaced with a Danish one, and there have been major changes at Phase One.

The software and hardware parts of the company have been split off into two companies, the C1 support system has been restructured to cope with a large user base, and for a couple of years has been very poor. Even though its dramatically improved recently, you still have to work through a series of boiler plate responses before being escalated to someone who "might" be able to help you. In the past I used to get a response within an hour from someone who was obviously a C1 expert (who also had a good knowledge of other software). And there has been a seemingly desperate rush to add new features, along with irritating bugs.

I certainly agree that the subscription issue will have increased interest in C1, but anecdotally many people seem to be put off by the C1 costs being a good bit higher than the Adobe sub costs, as well as still needing PS, or Affinity Photo at a further cost. I suspect its only the people who find the C1 raw processing and workflow worth the price that stay with it, and others look at other alternatives to Adobe.

My gut feeling is different to yours as I don't see how they can get away with being so expensive if they are trying to compete with Lightroom or other LR alternatives.
 
In my field, journals generally don't care what software you use to prepare artwork - they just want a tiff or a PDF.
I agree with all you said, and yes for people who only need a "final" product then it generally doesn't matter what software was used to produce it, but even then their can be bizarre compatibility issues.
 
My view is upgrade price for the old perpetual Lightroom license wasn't that much less than the £10 a month for the Photography plan. Not worrying about upgrades and getting Photoshop and bridge thrown into the mix is a definite bonus.

Compared to the money I spend on photography hardware it feels like a small cost. If Adobe weren't constantly developing the products I would have a different view, but they are. If they ever drop Lightroom Classic for a purely cloud based approach I will have a different view though.

I have to say this makes sense and the £7 pm we pay (not 10 if you make any effort) is not that much until you take into account the level of customer service and attitude.

Now if the LR classic was gone tomorrow and they went full cloud I would leave the ship immediately and never go back. Their intention is set on it but maybe they are far too afraid to pull this off now.

Imagine a world where you paid £30/month for your DSLR.

Please give this deal right now. That will be 1k for 3 years of the shiny Canon R5. In fact give me 2 :)

Back to the real world I am sure your bank is more than willing to put together an offering for your next dslr loan, except that you will go hungry yourself if you fail to meet the payments.

See for a working business these monthly fees for LR + PS are almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. If you are a hobbyist and edit just a couple images and have to pay the same you will likely have a very different idea about it. But then the customer service and massive inconvenience take their toll. When you pay you want to forget about all their paranoia and bugs and get on with your paying work uninterrupted.
 
If you are a hobbyist and edit just a couple images and have to pay the same you will likely have a very different idea about it.

Absolutely. Many threads could sometimes do with a "pro" version and an "amateur" version because they both have very different approaches. Pros are in it for the money, amateurs for the love.

That will be 1k for 3 years of the shiny Canon R5. In fact give me 2

Lol. We are comparing like for like. You get a Canon 50D, but you can have 2.

:film:
 
So it's basically why are you Adobe haters? :D
Hate is a strong word, though I did recently pen the term Adobophobe to describe myself. Subscription was the number one reason for looking elsewhere. The processing package I found (ON1 Photo Raw if you're interested) does most things that LR and PS do between them (filters, masks, layers etc.) and so there are both stick and carrot.
 
Personally I don't hate adobe. I use PSE 10 and love it. However, I do not do subscription based software, except for my virus checker, I've always believed renting has its place but for the most part one off payments is the much preferred route. Extend subscription services beyond Adobe and start renting other software as well and say your car, house, other essential items such as white goods and so on how much of your monthly pay is going to be left? Sorry but this tends to be my view.
 
I have used PS since V7 and LR since V2 and I am very satisfied. I used to update every 2 years rather than annually which still cost me about £100 p.a. which is what I still pay for the subscription. I also wonder why so many whinge about the cost but spend enormous sums on a camera or lens. Even though I pay the Adobe fee, it is a very small part of my total photography costs. I am just an amateur though experienced and I can really benefit from the Adobe s/w. I have developed software professionally myself in the past so aware of just how much it costs. Of course, if Adobe quadrupled the price tomorrow, I would have a rethink but I have tested many of the alternatives which were, in my view, inferior (I have not tested Capture 1 by the way).
I do have a perpetual Licence for LR 5 and CS6 as well as Affinity so I could probably manage.

Dave
For my choice of software (PS, Illustrator, Indesign, Acrobat Pro) and upgrade cycle (skipping 2 or 3 versions) Adobe have already effectively increased the price by about 5-fold. But the criticism is less about the price than about loss of control and Adobe's general attitude to their customers, including denying you access to software you've already bought. That 'perpetual' licence you think you have would be worthless if you needed to re-install the software and Adobe no longer allowed you to activate it, as has been the case for CS3 and earlier since the end of last year. CS6 is only 5 years younger than CS3 and is already out of its extended support period. I suspect its afterlife will be quite short.
 
I do not hate Adobe.

In 1987-89, I trained in the traditional graphic design at college. Meaning I use pens, ink, craft knife, masking tape, the old fashion way. At that time, the college did not have enough computers for all students, because at that time, the graphic design industrial had not suddenly switched from traditional to digital. They were phasing over, so I was unlucky enough to end up on an outdated course.

From 1995 (when I got my first PC) up until 2015, I have been using CorelDRAW application software. I figure to self-teach myself in digital graphic design, but not realised the professionals tend to use Adobe more than any other software.

In 2015, I self built my new computer, which is now 64-bit, and my CorelDRAW application would not install on the new computer. That was when I decided to switch to Adobe.

But I do find it annoying that whenever Adobe update their application, I feel like I spend more time updating, and trying to fix the update that went wrong, as well as Google In Version 100 I could click on this and that to get this effect not working in Version 500 just to find out where the hell did Adobe move those commands to. They change the interface so much that sometimes I feel like I spend more time reading the new manual than actually doing some work.

It's not just Adobe, but also Apple's iOS, Microsoft Word, and any of the 3rd parties apps on iPad.

I don't hate Adobe, just annoyed at them for always updating and updating, so much that I feel like I have to refresh and refamiliar myself with the updates.

I mean, you have the same car for 10 years, and you know where the engine warning light is, but image if the car manufacture were to come in the middle of the night, while you were sleeping, and change your car's dashboard to the new look. Wouldn't you feel annoyed if you have to seek for the engine warning light, because it had been moved to its new place, instead of automatically looking in the same location because by habit, you know it is always over there.

I don't hate Adobe, just annoyed and miffed at them and their updates!
 
Not hate. But I have plenty of reasons to avoid Adobe. It's strange that some can't understand why the price is way too high for many hobby users. 1 pound per use for PS is nonsense. Especially when I can create just as good results with other great software that is inexpensive and a joy to use. And technically better in some areas.
 
I have been asked several times, in the straightforward Photoshop CC, - No lightroom or DNG what are the main differences between that and the latest edition of Photoshop Elements? I can describe what I can do with PS CC, but I have no idea what Elements is capable of. What tools are missing from Elements which are present with PC CC?
 
Re the price of Lightroom : when I first bought it (v3 IIRC) , I believe it was about £200. After a few years they brought it down to about £100. These prices clearly have nothing to do with the cost of developement and/or production. They charge what they think the market will bear.
 
Re the price of Lightroom : when I first bought it (v3 IIRC) , I believe it was about £200. After a few years they brought it down to about £100. These prices clearly have nothing to do with the cost of developement and/or production. They charge what they think the market will bear.
All retail prices, in every sector, are based on what the market will bear. The market in Aldi will not bear the same retail price for baked beans as the market in Harrods will so Aldi beans are cheaper than Harrods beans.

Adobe have discovered that the market will bear a price of £120 a year, every year, for Photoshop so that is what they charge. They have also found that the market for Photoshop Elements will only bear a one-off payment so that is what they charge.

The only time development costs are relevant is if development/production costs are more than the price the market will bear then production will not take place.
 
err no they are not - they are based on a percentage mark up. In many cases double the wholesale price plus VAT. Then there are loss leaders where an item is sold at a price to cover the cost purchasing and selling it.
a number of years back there was a flymo mower that cost £58 at wholesale and retailed at £68 . Depending on which retailer you visited there was a 4p variation based on the particular retailers idea of 99p - B&Q like 97p
Heinze baked beans would cost approximately the same in Aldi as the do in Tesco as they would in Harrods.
People buy Aldi baked beans because they are cheaper, its likely the beans are not the same grade, tomatoes used to make the sauce are not the same quality and there is no Brand specific advertising costs. Harrods version will likely be hand made with organic grown hand collect - you get the drift.

I do agree that Adobe have decided that £120 a year is acceptable to the market but there is no way that it costs them much more than half that to develope and administer.
 
err no they are not - they are based on a percentage mark up. In many cases double the wholesale price plus VAT. Then there are loss leaders where an item is sold at a price to cover the cost purchasing and selling it.
a number of years back there was a flymo mower that cost £58 at wholesale and retailed at £68 . Depending on which retailer you visited there was a 4p variation based on the particular retailers idea of 99p - B&Q like 97p
Heinze baked beans would cost approximately the same in Aldi as the do in Tesco as they would in Harrods.
People buy Aldi baked beans because they are cheaper, its likely the beans are not the same grade, tomatoes used to make the sauce are not the same quality and there is no Brand specific advertising costs. Harrods version will likely be hand made with organic grown hand collect - you get the drift.

I do agree that Adobe have decided that £120 a year is acceptable to the market but there is no way that it costs them much more than half that to develope and administer.
Do you work in retail?
 
err no they are not - they are based on a percentage mark up. In many cases double the wholesale price plus VAT. Then there are loss leaders where an item is sold at a price to cover the cost purchasing and selling it.
a number of years back there was a flymo mower that cost £58 at wholesale and retailed at £68 . Depending on which retailer you visited there was a 4p variation based on the particular retailers idea of 99p - B&Q like 97p
Heinze baked beans would cost approximately the same in Aldi as the do in Tesco as they would in Harrods.
People buy Aldi baked beans because they are cheaper, its likely the beans are not the same grade, tomatoes used to make the sauce are not the same quality and there is no Brand specific advertising costs. Harrods version will likely be hand made with organic grown hand collect - you get the drift.

I do agree that Adobe have decided that £120 a year is acceptable to the market but there is no way that it costs them much more than half that to develope and administer.
When I did my marketing qualification (back in 91/92), we were given a group exercise to do. Thus involved a real project that our tutor had taken to market. We were given manufacturing costs for this device which was an electrical tool used by professional beauticians.

So, we had injection moulding costs per 10,000 mouldings, electric motor costs per 1,000 motors, assembly costs per 100, and so on. Our task was to decide on a retail price.

Using the costs provided, we (my group) worked out that the unit cost of production was just below £1. My group wanted to gave a retail price of £5 but I held out for £50 on the basis that is was a professional item and needed to priced accordingly. The actual retail price was €100. Our tutor explained that professional people needed reliable equipment and needed to be sure that the equipment was not going to let them down. A price of £5 would have signalled the item was cheap amateur trash. £50 would have suggested good amateur kit. Professionals would not have bought it for less than a professional price.

In all areas, the price asked signals to the customer the quality of the good offered. If someone sees themselves as a discerning person, you need an appropriately high price to attract their custom. The customer has no idea as to development costs or production costs and so cannot take them into account when deciding whether to buy or not.
 
Last edited:
Also possibly worth pointing out that where software is sold direct by the software house there is no issue of 'markup' for retailers and no connection between quality of raw materials going into the 'tin' and price.
 
Back
Top