Subscription software - why the trend?

[Bercy]

I had a nice computer put together - SSD's and as much RAM as I could load. I am starting fresh with Light Room. I have LR2 but I would obviously want to set up clean with LR5. However everything is leaning to subscription based soft ware e.g. Office 365 and now LR%/CC PS. There have been a couple of forum discussion but these were early on. How useful is the Photoshop CC/LR5 combo, or is it subscribing to what in my limited hands could be bloat. Could be worth a poll! - if upgrading would you subscribe or buy. Not sure how to set up a poll? Help appeciated!!

[I @ M]

I have added a poll Bernie. :)

For future reference, the option to add a poll is in the thread header under "thread tools" where you can select the various options for a poll.

[Bercy]

Thanks for setting up Andrew - appreciated! Cheers Bernie

[jev]

A subscription model assures the software company from a steady revenue without having to focus on maintenance so much. From a business point of view this model looks attractive. Customers OTOH don't need to invest in the software up front, so purely from a financial point of view it looks like a win-win situation (even though I'm not sure if a subscription like this is tax-deductible).

Now, being (semi-) private customers however we typically don't like this type of arrangement for gut-feeling reasons: (one) a continuously re-occurring payment like this feels like paying ransom money (don't pay and you won't be able to get to your photo's anymore), (two) it is a vendor-lock in construction written in large capitals, (three) we fear prices will go up over time and (four) the overall cost of ownership feels more expensive than the sum of a single payment (it most probably isn't but it feels like it).

Personally, I chose software that (for the time being) does not require subscription (and it's a good sack of money cheaper than PS+LR). It's a matter of taste, really. YMMV.

[ricktas]

I agree with Jev.

We are moving to a world where monthly payments on everything is the way of the future. Phone bills were the start. Remember when your phone bill came three-monthly?

I reckon we will see more and more of this monthly payment model across not just software, but a huge range of things we use. If most are like me, I work on a monthly household budget, and put aside money from my income above what my regular bills are as savings. These savings are what let me buy things like LR, Photoshop, new lenses etc. I believe the finance guru's have realised that is how most people budget, and they have also realised that some companies and products can be shifted from the savings component to a piece of the monthly expenses budget, rather than a bit of the savings every now and then. They know that once we incorporate an amount into our monthly expenses, it becomes a part of our regular lives, rather than a direct decision to spend from our savings.

[Bercy]

I think Rick has this nailed. On the one hand we all feel that we would prefer to buy the product outright, but the way we actually work is different to that. Nobody puts $30 in a tin each week until they have saved enough for Lightroom and photoshop. Rather we put it on credit, and then pay $30 a month in interest, and for some people they never pay it off!! So on Rick's logic it is actually a a good way for a lot of people to operate. Heaven forbid some people may get bored with their camera and begrudge the $1,000 investment in software. (Heresy). If they had hired they could just cancel the subscription. Interestingly also, have you noticed quite a few charities don't wan't your $5 but do want you CC details for a monthly "donation".

For Christmas I am getting a subscription! I'll just a have to wait a few weeks. Time to clean my sensor which is another matter ....

[MissionMan]

I have seen this a lot in business. In many cases it works well for business because its an operating expense as opposed to a capital expense. Its easier to get approval for opex over capex. For small businesses it works well from an affordability perspective and ties in with the whole cloud model. I.e. I don't have to install a sharepoint environment on my own servers and then worry about the hardware getting too small when I grow, I just buy users as and when I need them and cancel when I don't.

I don't mind the subscription model too much, I think it makes it more affordable for a lot of people. Adobe Create Suite is $2500 but people can get away with $50/month and always have the latest greatest version. You can also cancel when you don't need it so if you need it for 6 months, you can pay for it for that period and dump it when you're finished.

[agb]

I have seen this a lot in business. In many cases it works well for business because its an operating expense as opposed to a capital expense. Its easier to get approval for opex over capex. For small businesses it works well from an affordability perspective and ties in with the whole cloud model. I.e. I don't have to install a sharepoint environment on my own servers and then worry about the hardware getting too small when I grow, I just buy users as and when I need them and cancel when I don't.

I don't mind the subscription model too much, I think it makes it more affordable for a lot of people. Adobe Create Suite is $2500 but people can get away with $50/month and always have the latest greatest version. You can also cancel when you don't need it so if you need it for 6 months, you can pay for it for that period and dump it when you're finished.
I pay $9.99 a month for Ps and Lightroom.

[Kym]

I pay $9.99 a month for Ps and Lightroom.

Which is Adobe's best anti-piracy move ever. :D
Make the price palatable.

[MissionMan]

I pay $9.99 a month for Ps and Lightroom.

Yup. That's the photographers bundle but you can get creative suite as well (depending on whether you need it)

[ameerat42]

I can think of a few "Gravy" options!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[bcys1961]

I bought LR5 outright . As I teach at University I was able to buy the "Educators and Student" version which was $108 ( compared to $199) . Therefore after 11 months I am in front financially. I don't see any reason why I would need to change anytime soon but if they bring out LR6 and it looks compelling I would upgrade by buying outright. Often the upgrades may not really be worth it . Even if I had to pay $199 I would still buy outright as unless you plan to upgrade or change within two years you are in front.

I'd do the same if I buy Photoshop but so far I have not found I need it.

I think the move to subscription based pricing is just a means to get more money out those who subscribe.

[MissionMan]

I bought LR5 outright . As I teach at University I was able to buy the "Educators and Student" version which was $108 ( compared to $199) . Therefore after 11 months I am in front financially. I don't see any reason why I would need to change anytime soon but if they bring out LR6 and it looks compelling I would upgrade by buying outright. Often the upgrades may not really be worth it . Even if I had to pay $199 I would still buy outright as unless you plan to upgrade or change within two years you are in front.

I'd do the same if I buy Photoshop but so far I have not found I need it.

I think the move to subscription based pricing is just a means to get more money out those who subscribe.

True, but Photoshop also is included which goes for about $800 (less obviously on student pricing) so at $10 a month, it takes a while until you get in front if you need photoshop. You can also get a complete student/teacher subscription for only $11.99 which includes all their apps

If could live with just Lightroom, I would probably buy it outright as well, but as a lighter user, I'd probably stick to a cheaper app

[bcys1961]

True, but Photoshop also is included which goes for about $800 (less obviously on student pricing) so at $10 a month, it takes a while until you get in front if you need photoshop. You can also get a complete student/teacher subscription for only $11.99 which includes all their apps

If could live with just Lightroom, I would probably buy it outright as well, but as a lighter user, I'd probably stick to a cheaper app


Can you still but PS outright?

Office works have "Student and Teacher Edition of Adobe Photoshop and Premiere Elements 13." for $165 .

[RJD]

No, PS6 was the last one you could buy outright.

[Kym]

The discussion is moot; subscription is the only option for future versions.
I'm not even sure that LR will remain purchasable

[Greengrass]

Why the trend? To stop illegal download, thats wy.
Even a eight-year old can download the most recent version of software these days.

[MrQ]

The only thing I don't like with the CC subscription is that you lose access to everything when your subscription expires. In the past, if you didn't want to upgrade to the latest version you could keep using your existing software. That is no longer an option. I know they do the pointless cut-down post-subscription LR, but that's not even close to being the same. They need to let users keep using the software (without future upgrades) once they've been subscribing for a year or two.

[Kym]

They need to let users keep using the software (without future upgrades) once they've been subscribing for a year or two.

Probability of that ... less than zero :lol2:

[arthurking83]

My thoughts on the subscription model echo MrQ's

IN the Nikon world, we have CNX2. Nikon have recently ceased maintenance for this software product, but it still works.
The way it works is that it embeds the edit steps into each raw file.
if this were subscription model software, nearly 10 years and nearly 100K images would be 'lost'.
Lost in the sense that all edit steps for each raw file can't be viewed as CNX2 is the only software that can red the edits properly. To get to a point where all my images would be similarly edited, using other software would mean revisiting all these images again.


The subscription model isn't the issue .. file format 'lock-in' is.
Because CNX2 was bought and paid for, even tho it's old software, I still have full access to those images .. no matter what the computer hardware(or even the OS).

Going on past history from Adobe .. future compatibility may not be 100% assured.
I remember a recent update in Lr where the catalog from an earlier version was incompatible with the newest release. So a catalog import step was required to maintain your archive of images.

There is no reason think Adobe could see this sort of situation as another way to extort money from 'part time' users.


I don't think that the subscription model is the problem. Neither is file format lock-in. But both issues together represent a serious dilemma in a possible future scenario.

[Bercy]

Thanks for all the thought provoking posts! It feels to me like a new step is required to protect the images, and the problems here is the format of the "language" in which the picture is held. As pointed out if you import in the Nikon or Canon file language, there is no law that a program will support it in the future. Given some images are now 20 years old, is there are chance of files being unreadable, without the original camera program. The Adobe DSG file (I think I have that right??) was to be the "universal" file format, but was that just a product of their own invention. Because of the rate of progress nothing is universal, and rather programmes like LR of CC need to have either legacy features to future proof files, or transcription programmes to make sure the files not corrupted and current. More over, if the file is "universal" any program should be free to read it. Otherwise it is blackmail. I am swerving back to buying LR alone as an upgrade for now and not worrying to much about CC as I would rarely use it.

[Kym]

DNG = Adobe Digital Negative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative

[geoffsta]

It's a no-brainer really.. Cloud is a crock... $100 for multi TB portable hard drives. Fill, store and forget. The current software is pretty good. Back up the installation discs on a portable HDD as well. Last for years...

[Bercy]

Given that 99% of the time I get what I need from LR, I have decided to BUY! At $99 downloaded I thought it better value than an indefinite subscription. What's more - I have a couple of programmes like driver "updaters" which I no longer want or need, but can't see where to turn off the tap! I wil probably need to get a block put on the Visa account. Chances are some time in the future some may want ot change programmes for personal reasons, but whilst easy to subscribe it might be quite hard to get the flow of funds to stop, and down load all your photos in a format that can be read by another program! DNG should be universal of course but will it always be so!

[Warb]

Speaking as an insider of the IT industry....

The subscription model provides a constant supply of money to the software company. In the past, software sold for high prices. MS Office, for example, used to cost hundreds of dollars ($700+, more for the versions including more than the 3 basic programs). Software piracy became rife as people refused to pay that much, and many people stuck with very old versions. The industry tried many things to circumvent this, online activation and restricted licenses are examples. Then the world moved towards cheap "apps" written by individuals or tiny companies, and the big companies HAD to change.

So now most software is available via subscription. It means we can get a full suite of previously very high price software for a much smaller amount of money, albeit a recurring payment. Over several years we eventually pay more, but not if we include the price of a support contract, and/or annual upgrades to the latest version.

There are some things to note with both approaches. For example, the home or student versions can still be purchased outright, but the license explicitly prevents their use for commercial purposes. Most people ignore this, but it is actually illegal to use them if what you are doing can be construed as a business. Some such license are also not able to be upgraded to the latest version (very small print in the license!), and will fail the activation process when an upgrade is applied, as the vendor "assumes" you can't be a student forever! Student versions also require you to be a student or teacher. Whilst I (a parent acting on behalf of a child) can buy such a license if I have a child at school, TECHNICALLY I must stop using it when I no longer qualify, i.e. when the child ceases full time education. Again, most people ignore such requirements, but they do exist.

Most recent outright purchase licenses also allow a single install (legally), whilst subscription models often allow several machines in a household, including mobile devices, to use the software.

"OEM" licenses provide a very cheap option for some software. They are designed for people building systems to on-sell, and often have to be bought with hardware. OEM licenses are most common for operating systems, but actually cover other software as well. However these licenses are often very restrictive, even down to being "one-off" installations in the most extreme sense - they record the hardware IDs of the components in the computer and won't install (activate) on a different machine, so if your computer breaks (or you change processor, disk drive etc.) you must buy a new license.

The software companies use many other techniques to increase their cashflow on outright purchased software. Annual maintenance contracts can cost 50% of the cost of the software, with "major upgrades" each year to try to force us to upgrade (via contract or outright new purchase). Some companies will now charge extra to resume a lapsed maintenance contract, to avoid the hit they take when someone buys a support contract 1 year in 4 to get a cheap upgrade! Most upgrades in fact offer very little to the user, often being nothing more than a "re-skin" to change the appearance. But other measures are taken to encourage upgrades, like no more updates, unsupported product notices, slight changes to file formats etc.

Overall I have found that the current subscription models mostly offer enough benefits to be worthwhile. I can install MS Office on 5 PC's and 5 mobile devices (if memory serves) for about $100 a year. That compares to $700/machine a few years ago. The installs are all kept up to date automatically, and my subscription is renewed automatically unless I choose to specify otherwise. It works very well for my family.

Regarding file formats, it is worth noting that large companies do not usually give things away without reason. So "open" file formats from large companies are for a reason. Adobe made PDF "open" to encourage rapid uptake, and succeeded. However "open" does not always mean what we think. It often means "a free license to use", which is quite different and can be revoked later!

- - - Updated - - -


What's more - I have a couple of programmes like driver "updaters" which I no longer want or need, but can't see where to turn off the tap! I wil probably need to get a block put on the Visa account.

Sorry to tell you, but most such software is totally unnecessary, just a way to extract money from people who don't know any better. It is deliberately hard to stop, because they want to keep taking your money!

[arthurking83]

.....

However "open" does not always mean what we think. It often means "a free license to use", which is quite different and can be revoked later!

.....

I think I've mentioned more than once that while the gesture appears on the face of it to be noble .. the DNG file format may not be what THEY!! want you to think it is. :D


My take is that for the next 10 or so years a lot of people will be suckered into this market movement.
At some point they will notice the lack of any real improvement of the software over the preceding 10 years that they have paid for it.
Only then will they consciously consider that while a once off up front cost of ... say $700, or $1000 may have appeared to be quite a large hit at the time, it's still probably less then the $200 or $300 a year that they have paid for the preceding 5 years up to this point of revelation.

When my copy of Office 2010 ceases to have any relevance, I will completely move over to Open Office for good.

For perfect software, I'd gladly pay $1000 or even $2000 up front, and be done with it.
Apart from one or two obscure programs I have ever used .. not one fits the bill as 'perfect' software, and FWIW, in general they usually end up being at the extreme end of perfect.
If not in usability, then in stability or performance.
But I have no issue paying $200 for software that may not be perfect, but one that has not required any more financial input from me for about 8 years!

$200 over 8 years .. well it's easy math to do. And that's what good software should cost on an annual basis.

Strangely tho, the two programs I classify as 'perfect' have cost me either next to nothing($25, about 10 years ago) or nothing(about 6 years ago).

Actually thinking it about it more, that $100/yr for Office doesn't sound too bad to be honest.
If it weren't for the fact that the kids get tablet/laptops at school and they come with whatever Office version they need for school, I'd have been tempted at that price.

[Warb]

My take is that for the next 10 or so years a lot of people will be suckered into this market movement.
At some point they will notice the lack of any real improvement of the software over the preceding 10 years that they have paid for it.
Only then will they consciously consider that while a once off up front cost of ... say $700, or $1000 may have appeared to be quite a large hit at the time, it's still probably less then the $200 or $300 a year that they have paid for the preceding 5 years up to this point of revelation.

My first PC (meaning IBM/DOS style rather than any other computer) was an IBM PC XT, with DOS and a 10Mb hard drive (not a typo!). I used Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3. From the viewpoint of actually doing stuff, there is nothing that I can do now that I couldn't do on that system! Lotus required slightly more typing than the latest version of Excel, as there was no mouse to select multiple columns etc. The same applies to Wordperfect, no mouse meant navigation was slightly slower. Apart from that, the 1985 software did everything that my current word processor and spreadsheet do.

In the early 1990's I was at a presentation by Microsoft, where they stated that they could not make software do anything more than it already did, so they were concentrating ONLY on making it easier to use.

In the last 20 years, software has changed appearance but does no more than it used to. The only reasons to upgrade have been to cater for changing file formats, internet connectivity and the associated security issues.

Each round of software updates has also resulted in the software requiring more horsepower to run, and therefore also entails new hardware with higher performance. My old IBM with a 10Mb hard drive, which stored all my documents, software and operating system would not store a single photo from my 7D!

The upward spiral of hardware performance has removed any attempt at efficiency by the software companies, so software has become exponentially bigger, bandwidth requirements grow constantly.

So whilst I agree, and indeed have often said myself, that in perfect isolation a computer that did a job 10 years ago can still do it today, the reality is that without that isolation, when connected to the internet and dealing with new file formats, new security threats etc., most people find it hard to avoid upgrading!

As an example, whilst I am supposedly retired I still work (for free) for a few local businesses and friends. Several of them have avoided upgrading (to save money), and are now faced with big issues. In some cases the cost of parts for a small hardware repair can be almost as much as an entire new computer because the older parts can be far more expensive. New operating systems don't always play well with older ones, or older servers. Old peripherals don't always work with new machines, and vice versa.

IT is a money making exercise, so the industry has a carrot and stick approach to making us constantly spend money. We gain very little from the expense, however it almost always boils down to either a constant string of small outlays, or one huge one every few years! In business I advised budgeting at minimum to replace 20% of IT every year, preferably more. The subscription model is one way to deal with the replacement/upgrade/maintenance cost for software.

The MS Office subscription system is one of the better ones. Adobe products can be purchased outright at very reasonable prices, but often only older versions. However because so little changes with each new version, that's probably not an issue!

When the subscription model was first introduced I hated it. But after some analysis, and getting over the "they're gouging us" gut reaction, it can make sense if the particular example is "fair".

[ameerat42]

Good! I like cynical cautions. Adobe didn't go from being mud-brickers to their palatial status by being kind.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[MissionMan]

I think the subscription based model forces companies to keep their software up to date because the subscription only works as long as people have a reason to keep it.

I run my own company and we used a subscription based model for Office 365 and exchange. It's great for temp employees as an example, as you only buy a subscription for them as long as they are at the company and the costs are fairly reasonable. Office 365 including exchange hosted is just over $10 per month and that includes up to 5 installs of the office suite along with SharePoint. When an employee leaves the company, you simply cancel their subscription and there are no further costs incurred. If they join for 6 months, you don't need to pay for the capital outlay of software that will only be used for a 6 month period. If an employee needs access to MS Project for 3 months, you can give them access without paying over a grand for the product which may be used for a limited period.

On the photographers side, I think the adobe option makes a lot of sense. Having access to lightroom and photoshop for $10/month is very reasonable when you consider how much we use it. 30 cents a day is far more palatable than the alternatives and if you find a better product, it's easy to move. Yes, you may lose your custom photo configurations but the simply option would be to generate JPG's of everything and keep the RAW for changes. You can also imbed keywords in the file itself so if you export with your current keywords, it would be easy to rebuild a new library in a separate product.

I think there is a fear with subscription because it seems like a lifelong noose but its actually the opposite.

[arthurking83]

I'm pretty sure that Lr doesn't embed the keyword data in the (raw)images, but keeps it in it's own catalog database system only.
I think it transfers it to the exported jpg file, but that I've tried .. not in a raw file.

You can get third party software that does this tho .. but I've had some issues with some of these systems, and won't bother with any ever again.
Only Nikon's ViewnX2 has never given me grief with embedding keyword/ITPC data into a raw file.

[MissionMan]

Yeha, you're right, I only ever tested it with JPG's and it worked. Raw it creates an XMP sidecar file

[Bercy]

I bought LR5 - for now it is all I need. I can't see this changing any time soon. Sometimes the best mouse trap is not complicated either. How long until some of the other firms start to knock on Adobe's lofty door with products that can give a decent bit of competition. A lot of the use of these programs relies on industrial and educational inertia I reckon.

[Hawthy]

I subscribe to the Photoshop CC 2014 package, which includes LR and PS. For $10 per month, I can't fault it. You get access to the most up to date versions of both programs for 33 cents per day.

I am an amateur photographer and once I have processed a photo I save it as a JPEG on my hard drive and in all likelihood will never look up the original file again. So, I will always be able to find the photo and enjoy it regardless of whether or not I continue to subscribe to Adobe. I have never really understood the cataloguing in Lightroom and never used it.

The main thing for me when deciding to sign up for a monthly plan was how I could justify spending more on software in one hit than I spent on my camera body? I have a Nikon D5100 which I think cost about $460 including the 18-55 mm lens. (I bought it on a well-known Australian online auction site). Buying CS6 up front is about $684 at the moment. Plus Lightroom is $99. So I would be looking at spending $783 to get what I have for $10 per month.

Sure, after 78 months I would have paid the full purchase price. But what if I had deposited that $783 against my mortgage with an interest rate of say 5.5%? Thanks to the magic of compounding interest, in six and a half years my mortgage would be reduced by $1,118 so my purchase of the software would really only have cost me a net amount of $445. ($780 less the difference between $1,118 and $783). What a bargain!

At least, that is how I sold this to my spouse...and it relies on Adobe not increasing the monthly subscription fee...

Still, I am very happy with it.

[Warb]

I just had a look at my records. In rough figures:

In 2012 I spent $180 on Lightroom 4
Mid 2013 I spent $100 upgrading it to Lightroom 5

That's $280 over about 30 months, or $9.30 per month.

For $10 a month, on the Creative Cloud model, I could have Lightroom (plus Lightroom Mobile), Plus Photoshop (plus various mobile apps that may be free anyway!), plus (as I understand it) 20Gb of cloud backup. Currently an old "boxed" version of Photoshop costs $380 (CS3), to $680 (CS6). Adding that cost, over the 30months I have owned Lightroom, means my monthly cost would have been $22 for the cheapest (CS3) version.

So whilst I would indeed have owned the disks and a license to ruin it, it would have cost me twice as much per month - not including the interest I would have made as mentioned by Hawthy - and I'd not have the mobile versions, cloud storage etc. Nor would I have been certain I could run it on Windows 8, so I may have had to buy upgrades anyway! I'd have to keep using all that software, without upgrades, for the next 2.5 years (seems unlikely) to be better off with an outright purchase.

[I @ M]

That's $280 over about 30 months, or $9.30 per month.

Compared to my preferred software ( unfortunately recently no longer being supported ) that cost me around $180 some 6 or 7 years ago and has received full support and upgrades at no cost during the whole time and still is functional for another few years at least, the a$obe model looks entirely extortionate.

[MissionMan]

Compared to my preferred software ( unfortunately recently no longer being supported ) that cost me around $180 some 6 or 7 years ago and has received full support and upgrades at no cost during the whole time and still is functional for another few years at least, the a$obe model looks entirely extortionate.

I'd still rather pay $9 a month than have the piece of crap that NX-D has become. Mine crashes more than Linsey Lohan after a drug binge

[I @ M]

I'd still rather pay $9 a month than have the piece of crap that NX-D has become. Mine crashes more than Linsey Lohan after a drug binge

I do not consider NX-D to be software, even for free.
I do consider Capture NX 2 to be stable, efficient and relatively speedy processing software that has been a very worthwhile and economical purchase.

I have absolutely no idea who Linsey Lohan is. Can they be bought for $9.00 a month?

[MissionMan]

I do not consider NX-D to be software, even for free.
I do consider Capture NX 2 to be stable, efficient and relatively speedy processing software that has been a very worthwhile and economical purchase.

I have absolutely no idea who Linsey Lohan is. Can they be bought for $9.00 a month?

Unfortunately NX2 doesn't support some of the newer cameras like the D750, but I really like it. It's disappointing to see it go, it really should have been free though because Nikon view was so dismal.

I'm pretty sure Linsey Lohan can be bought for $9 or less a month. In fact, half a load of white bread and 50 cents is probably her going price after rehab.

[Warb]

Compared to my preferred software ( unfortunately recently no longer being supported ) that cost me around $180 some 6 or 7 years ago and has received full support and upgrades at no cost during the whole time and still is functional for another few years at least, the a$obe model looks entirely extortionate.

Indeed, but sadly your preferred software is an exception to the norm, or at least an example of "how it used to be done"! Nikon are not a software company, they make money selling cameras. At some point, Nikon decided that an inexpensive piece of software for editing photo's would add value to their hardware. So they employed what I would imagine was a fairly small team, who created (or bought) what turned out to be a reasonable piece of software. Having written a good product to start with, it probably didn't need too much spent on it to keep it up to date with later cameras. Nikon were, in any case, making money from selling camera's and any mechanism to lock customers to their brand is welcome.

Unfortunately as IT complexity and costs increases, such a model ceases to be viable. The existing customers still demand support and upgrades, but (as you point out) they haven't paid anything for many years. Much like selling an everlasting lightbulb, it's a business model that doesn't make a long term profit! Capture was designed in the days of Windows XP, and almost certainly requires significant effort to make it 100% compatible with Windows 8.1 and beyond. New users demand more frills (uploads to Facebook and other such "features") which are sometimes hard to implement when the original design never envisaged such things. Most commercial users have settled on Adobe products, and the budget end of the market is flooded with "apps" that for $12 can stick your head on a bodybuilders body. So Nikon have, like everyone else, pulled the pin and moved to a product that is cheaper to support and hence more profitable, even if they give the software away!

I have several pieces of software, unrelated to photography, that have suffered similar fates. One went from a 1 off purchase, through to a new "major release" every year (with associated removal of support for any previous version) necessitating a support contract, and finally now a (huge) penalty charge to renew a lapsed support contract. That case is actually even worse, because the software relates to a specific piece of hardware and it has no competitors, so the choice is to pay or throw the entire system away!

But the shareholders must be paid their ever increasing dividends.....

[I @ M]

Thanks for a well thought out and detailed post Warb. I realise the cost / business model / limitations that relate to software packages through their development and continual refreshes but from what I can see there has been relatively little fresh development to a product such as lightroom other than new model support additions and the odd feature or two.



Most commercial users have settled on Adobe products, and the budget end of the market is flooded with "apps" that for $12 can stick your head on a bodybuilders body.

This is one other point that I query regularly, I have yet to see any proven figures to support the theory that a$obe products are in actual fact the "industry" standard. I am rather convinced that the actual claim has been mad by a$obe, people ( non industry ) have bought the products and then repeated all over the internet in a parrot fashion those same claims because they want to "feel good" about using industry "standard" software.

From my perspective it would seem that Capture One is a very regularly mentioned program by those in the "industry".
I highly suspect that a$obe is carrying out some very "creative" advertising, after all they are from the land of snake oil salesmen -----

[Warb]

Thanks for a well thought out and detailed post Warb. I realise the cost / business model / limitations that relate to software packages through their development and continual refreshes but from what I can see there has been relatively little fresh development to a product such as lightroom other than new model support additions and the odd feature or two.

Correct, and as I posted earlier the same applies to most other software. Change the look and feel, throw in a new file format or two, increment the version number and kerching...$$$$$$. The issue is not with development, but with dollars. Saying that, what real differences are there between a 7 year old car and a new one? New software won't work on old computers for 2 major reasons: 1/ it is written so inefficiently (because computer hardware gets ever more powerful that efficiency isn't worth the effort) and 2/ BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED NOT TO! So we are forced in to a constant cycle of upgrading hardware and software, with very little benefit. But that is no different to any other industry. My 1950's Land Rover will get me to town, but not in the same air conditioned comfort as my Hilux, and nowhere near as pleasantly as my wife's Prado.


This is one other point that I query regularly, I have yet to see any proven figures to support the theory that a$obe products are in actual fact the "industry" standard.

When I say "industry" I mean the "creative industry" in general. Apple and Adobe did a very good job, many years ago, of becoming the de facto standard for "creative types". The reason was very simple, the early IBM PC's had very poor graphics! By the time PC's had caught up, and eventually overtaken (!?), Apple Macs had become entrenched as the standard for most creative graphics work. And the software of choice was Adobe. The same is true today, the daughter of a friend is starting university studying something creative/advertising/marketing and instantly she "needs a MacBook".

It drives me mad, because in a commercial environment Macs are only used by creative people, and these days for no very good reason. PC's are just as good, and the same software titles are available (though for $ reasons the Mac versions are sometimes newer/better) and for really heavy image work big UNIX boxes are better. And Mac's are, historically, a nightmare to integrate with anything else. I was once involved in a project for a multi-national company, creating a particular piece of software for hundreds of users worldwide, and the cost and complexity doubled (and we're talking millions of dollars) because one department of 12 people used Macs. And for various reasons (notably the secretary of an executive officer being an ex-marketing company "Apple fan") we ended up crippling the software and doubling the cost to get it to run on Macs (for 12 people) as well as PC's (for > 200 people).

OK, back on track....

It's also important to remember that the vast majority of people in any given profession aren't talking about it on the web. Discussions on the web involve enthusiasts, not daily grind people. Reading IT forums, for example, you'd think that everyone used Ubuntu, Open Office, Firefox etc., and that Microsoft never sold anything. But that's simply not true. It's just that the people on the forums very often are "kids" who've read a magazine or two. The IT guys who work for large companies and buy software licenses 1000's at a time are mostly buying Microsoft products. Web development guys working from their front room might use all kinds of software, but in big companies Dreamweaver (Adobe) is the norm. The same applies to image editing software. How often have you heard someone say "celebrity X doesn't look like that, the picture's been Capture NX 2'd"? On the other hand, "that's been Photoshop'ed" is a standard phrase.

It might also be the case that whilst photographers, professional or otherwise, might use a product to clean up their images, in the commercial world unless the image is regarded as "art" it is almost certainly subject to subsequent work. So the photographer may use Capture, but once that picture has been sold then the team doing the page layouts, website design or whatever are far more likely to be using a suite of Adobe products.

[arthurking83]

To further add to the pain of subscription software, it seems that the next version of the Windows OS, Windows 10 may be paid for by subscription.

THIS NEWS ITEM (http://mashable.com/2015/01/21/microsoft-windows-10-consumer-preview/) speculates that it may be by subscription anyhow .. no one really knows yet.

I've been looking forward to Win10 as an update path from Win7 .. not because 7 is not usable(it sits just above XP in terms of usability and stability of all the OSes I've tried to date).
Not so much for my desktop, but more so for the tablet I got years ago, which rarely gets used as Win7 is the wrong OS for a tablet. Win7 has tablet ability and features, but is not ideal for such devices.

So now to make this tablet more userfriendly I may have to upgrade at some point.
Once the preview version is more fully stable, I'm going to try it on the tablet to see how good/bad it operates.
One of the nicer aspects of Win 10 is that it's minimum specs(although not officially revealed) appear to be lower than they are for Win8(and why I couldn't get Win8 on my tablet).

It better be damned cheap tho! Win7 cost about $100 as an upgrade, or just a tad more as an OEM purchase(I always get the pro version) .. so $10/mth just isn't going to cut it.

up to $50 per year is probably passable .. may have to cut my smokin in half(as the saying goes :D) .... as long as it's available on two or three machines tho.


Anyhow .. for us anarcho-anti-contra-subscriptionists :p .... the future is looking bleak!

[Warb]

Anyhow .. for us anarcho-anti-contra-subscriptionists :p .... the future is looking bleak!

And for those of us in rural areas, where the glorious NBN satellite provides our only internet access and is so slow that the Windows Store simply doesn't work, meaning we have to take our PC to town and "borrow" an ADSL connection just to download Office 365, there really isn't a future to worry about!

[ameerat42]

Warb. The world is indeed whacko for services to regional and rural areas. I like your prognosis. The only trouble is
there may well be a future - full of feral profiteerists!!:eek::eek: and other suitable icons.

[agb]

To further add to the pain of subscription software, it seems that the next version of the Windows OS, Windows 10 may be paid for by subscription.

THIS NEWS ITEM (http://mashable.com/2015/01/21/microsoft-windows-10-consumer-preview/) speculates that it may be by subscription anyhow .. no one really knows yet.

I've been looking forward to Win10 as an update path from Win7 .. not because 7 is not usable(it sits just above XP in terms of usability and stability of all the OSes I've tried to date).
Not so much for my desktop, but more so for the tablet I got years ago, which rarely gets used as Win7 is the wrong OS for a tablet. Win7 has tablet ability and features, but is not ideal for such devices.

So now to make this tablet more userfriendly I may have to upgrade at some point.
Once the preview version is more fully stable, I'm going to try it on the tablet to see how good/bad it operates.
One of the nicer aspects of Win 10 is that it's minimum specs(although not officially revealed) appear to be lower than they are for Win8(and why I couldn't get Win8 on my tablet).

It better be damned cheap tho! Win7 cost about $100 as an upgrade, or just a tad more as an OEM purchase(I always get the pro version) .. so $10/mth just isn't going to cut it.

up to $50 per year is probably passable .. may have to cut my smokin in half(as the saying goes :D) .... as long as it's available on two or three machines tho.


Anyhow .. for us anarcho-anti-contra-subscriptionists :p .... the future is looking bleak!
Not right according to this new item.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-make-windows-10-free-to-windows-7-8-1-and-windows-phone-8-1-users/

[antony]

If the subscription is cheap enough (like Adobe's $9.99 plan for Lightroom + Photoshop), I am fine with it. Otherwise, I'd rather buy the software outright.
The thing is, do I really need to have the latest version? Not always.
My main Mac is still running OS X Mountain Lion 10.8.5, and I still fine with it. (I do have latest OS X Yosemite 10.10.2 on my MacBook Pro.)

[bcys1961]

I have a stand alone version of LR5. I don't yet have Photoshop but thought I would get a copy. As an educator I can access the educational software prices . I thought PS maybe available as a stand alone version to edcuators but it looks like this is not the case. I can but a standalone version of Photoshop Elements for about $150 .


So the question is , Is there anything I can do in PS that I cannot do in PS Elements.? Or , If I go with PS Elements , what will I be missing?

If I can buy the standalone I prefer it as with about 12months or so I'm in front on cost and I will not upgrade for several years ( if at all.)

I only do photography , not video and am not that much into photo manipulation , but thought that sooner or later I will want to get into to a bit of HDR blending , panorama stitching etc that cannot be done in LR . ( Although I use the Free MS ICE for stitching and it seems to work well.)

[fillum]

So the question is , Is there anything I can do in PS that I cannot do in PS Elements.? Or , If I go with PS Elements , what will I be missing?(Might be worth posting your question as a new thread as that will likely get more views than this old one...)

There is quite a bit more capability in Photoshop CC (PSCC) than in Photoshop Elements (PSE), but of course it really comes down to what functionality you use. I'm not up to speed on the latest version of PSE but off the top of my head a few things in PSCC that are not (or not fully) in PSE:-
- 16-bit processing (some 16-bit support in PSE but many functions require conversion to 8-bit)
- smart objects / filters
- channels / channel mixer
- curves adjustment
- content-aware fill
- history brush
(google these terms if you want more info - you should get a better explanation than what I could provide...:))
There is probably also more third-party 'stuff' around for PSCC than PSE - actions, brushes, tutorials, etc

I find LR5 is usually enough to process most images, so I don't use PS a lot - mostly for things like healing/cloning which I find a bit cumbersome in LR.

If you are interested in looking at a PS alternative you might like to check out onOne's Perfect Photo Suite (about $US80 for the stand-alone version).



Cheers.

[Glenda]

I'd suggest downloading a trial version of elements and see if it meets your needs Brad.

[ameerat42]

IMHO, that'd be $150 just spent, Brad.

As I said to Renzo in another thread, even CS2 outdid Elements 11 when I looked at that some time back.

[bcys1961]

IMHO, that'd be $150 just spent, Brad.

As I said to Renzo in another thread, even CS2 outdid Elements 11 when I looked at that some time back.

Thanks , I downloaded the free version of CS2 last night. Now I just need to get time to learn it . As usual ambition trumps reality !

[ameerat42]

Just ask if you need, Brad.

[wideangle]

I have seen this a lot in business. In many cases it works well for business because its an operating expense as opposed to a capital expense. Its easier to get approval for opex over capex. For small businesses it works well from an affordability perspective and ties in with the whole cloud model. I.e. I don't have to install a sharepoint environment on my own servers and then worry about the hardware getting too small when I grow, I just buy users as and when I need them and cancel when I don't.

I don't mind the subscription model too much, I think it makes it more affordable for a lot of people. Adobe Create Suite is $2500 but people can get away with $50/month and always have the latest greatest version. You can also cancel when you don't need it so if you need it for 6 months, you can pay for it for that period and dump it when you're finished.


I don't think its so true that you can cancel your subscrption when you feel like it. You can but talking to an Adobe rep they have said you will be up for 50% of the remaining months you have left. So if you have 6 months left you will have to pay up 50% off that total.

[MissionMan]

I don't think its so true that you can cancel your subscrption when you feel like it. You can but talking to an Adobe rep they have said you will be up for 50% of the remaining months you have left. So if you have 6 months left you will have to pay up 50% off that total.

https://creative.adobe.com/plans?promoid=KLXMK

Photographers plan is the only one that forces you to do it annual. All the other plans can be done month by month. They charge you more but if you have the requirement, you could easily do it for two months of the year if the requirement arises.