# Date for Adobe responses?



## PhilBurton (Nov 5, 2017)

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


----------



## clee01l (Nov 5, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> 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.


I like your use of the word *corrosive*.  Since Victoria has the contact with Tom, I'll wait until she returns to prod Tom for a response.  
Perhaps Tom is not aware that Lightroom Forums does not live in a vacuum.  Facebook, DPReview and several photography blogs have all been the source of negative reactions to Adobe's roll out of Lightroom Classic/LightroomCC and the killing of the perpetual license.  As we all know information flows freely in social media.
That corrosion of trust will certainly spread if Adobe fails to address their customer's concerns forthrightly.  There are at least three products out there that want to acquire Adobe's customer base and this will only increase that chance for those companies to succeed in doing so.


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 5, 2017)

clee01l said:


> I like your use of the word *corrosive*.  Since Victoria has the contact with Tom, I'll wait until she returns to prod Tom for a response.
> Perhaps Tom is not aware that Lightroom Forums does not live in a vacuum.  Facebook, DPReview and several photography blogs have all been the source of negative reactions to Adobe's roll out of Lightroom Classic/LightroomCC and the killing of the perpetual license.  As we all know information flows freely in social media.
> That corrosion of trust will certainly spread if Adobe fails to address their customer's concerns forthrightly.  There are at least three products out there that want to acquire Adobe's customer base and this will only increase that chance for those companies to succeed in doing so.


Clee,

Adobe should respond without a prod from Victoria.  They should be feeling a lot of anxiety already.

I doubt that Tom is unaware of social media.  A lot of Adobe's recent product developments are driven by the increasing power of social media and digital marketing.  Tom seems like a pretty smart guy, judging by the recent YouTube interview.  I'm guessing that there are some senior managers in Adobe who want to return to 1995.  In general, Adobe has market leadership in its product areas, and maybe the culture there doesn't know how to react to serious competition.  And social media, including this forum, can be a force multiplier for competition.

Phil Burton


----------



## RikkFlohr (Nov 5, 2017)

Phil,

My contract with Adobe ended on October 17th of this year. California (where Adobe is based) law stipulates that contractors cannot be employed more than 18 months in a cycle of 24 months. Even though my contract expired, I am still bound by my NDA as an employee. 

To that, I no longer speak for Adobe but do still advocate for them. Any information, internal to Adobe, which takes place after October 17, 2017 is beyond my reach. 

Long story - short, I won't be providing you any dates. 

I may, however, provide opinions from time to time... as I do remain part of the community. I do understand your frustration but I also understand Adobe's quiet nature here. As I said in another thread, nothing imminent is transpiring and the time for panic is long off and may never come.


----------



## tspear (Nov 6, 2017)

RikkFlohr said:


> I may, however, provide opinions from time to time... as I do remain part of the community. I do understand your frustration but I also understand Adobe's quiet nature here. As I said in another thread, nothing imminent is transpiring and the time for panic is long off and may never come.



Rikk,

Because of my subscription contract, I have about 10 months until my contract renews.
So, Adobe locking me in, actually could give them a false sense of security. I am actively looking at my options, in fact I have joined a couple of betas for other solutions based on the feedback I have already provided. 
Did Adobe lose me? Not yet, but I am no longer a guaranteed customer.

Tim


----------



## Hoggy (Nov 6, 2017)

RikkFlohr said:


> Phil,
> 
> My contract with Adobe ended on October 17th of this year. California (where Adobe is based) law stipulates that contractors cannot be employed more than 18 months in a cycle of 24 months. Even though my contract expired, I am still bound by my NDA as an employee.
> 
> ...



Well, you may not currently work at Adobe, so this isn't really directed at you..

We can certainly understand Adobe not *wanting* to say anything [without the million meeting march].  But I think what a lot of us are saying is that it's just not acceptable this time around.  The scarcity of finding anything about Lightroom Classic on Adobe's website mirrors *to a "T"*, the same situation of the now defunct perpetual version.  So I think we'd like some answers about that and the other items Cletus and Gnits (& many others) have requested.

Given the state of what is happening right now, I think Adobe should at least treat its users with a little more respect and openness than they're been doing lately.  Granted, we may be peons in Adobe's multi-Billion dollar eyeballs, but still..  Do not even _cattle_ at least deserve humane treatment up until slaughter?


----------



## Gnits (Nov 6, 2017)

RikkFlohr said:


> My contract with Adobe ended on October 17th of this year.



Rikk, I have a lot of respect for you and wish you well in your endeavours going forward.


----------



## Hoggy (Nov 6, 2017)

Gnits said:


> Rikk, I have a lot of respect for you and wish you well in your endeavours going forward.



My understanding would be that he might be back after 6 months - due to the law for contractors.  I myself was a contractor in a somewhat similar situation, I suppose.  There can be some strange rules in place for contractors, whether imposed by state or company (and/or Union).

But if not, good luck Rikk!


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 6, 2017)

Gnits said:


> Rikk, I have a lot of respect for you and wish you well in your endeavours going forward.


Agreed.  Rikk, I hope you will continue to be a voice for reason here.

Phil


----------



## jms969 (Nov 7, 2017)

RikkFlohr said:


> Phil,
> 
> My contract with Adobe ended on October 17th of this year. California (where Adobe is based) law stipulates that contractors cannot be employed more than 18 months in a cycle of 24 months. Even though my contract expired, I am still bound by my NDA as an employee.
> 
> ...



I think you are misconstruing seething anger for panic...

My CC Photography subscription recently expired and I am actively trialling options to replace LR...  Two are excellent and I am waiting for the new release of the 3rd to trial it as well.  I snagged a LR 6 perpetual license to support my legacy images and I will move forward with a completely non Adobe solution for all new images.

Adobe will never get another dime of my money!!!


----------



## tspear (Nov 7, 2017)

jms969 said:


> I think you are misconstruing seething anger for panic...
> 
> My CC Photography subscription recently expired and I am actively trialling options to LR...  Two are excellent and I am waiting for the new release of the 3rd to trial it as well.  I snagged a LR 6 perpetual license to support my legacy images and I will move forward with a completely non Adobe solution for all new images.
> 
> Adobe will never get another dime of my money!!!


For those of us on the fence, telling Adobe in such terms that they have no chance at winning your business means they have no reason to listen to you.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## jms969 (Nov 7, 2017)

tspear said:


> For those of us on the fence, telling Adobe in such terms that they have no chance at winning your business means they have no reason to listen to you.
> 
> Tim
> 
> Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk



Tim you are absolutely correct, and I have completely written Adobe off as a viable alternative (other than my licensed copy of LR 6 perpetual to support my legacy images developed in LR).  I am not sure yet what DAM I will land on C1P, ON1, or Luminar (I am interested in which of the 3 works best with Photo Mechanic, I suspect C1P will win)...  I also have made the switch to Affinity Photos and love it.

Adobe's strategic rationale has been discussed ad nauseam and I am not looking to continue that discussion.  Simply put their strategic needs and my image development needs are no longer congruent.

My post was not meant to be disrespectful to Rikk only to convey a very a real feeling about Adobe (I am by no means alone) and my steps to pull together a credible (non-subscription) image development solution.

jms


----------



## LRList001 (Nov 7, 2017)

tspear said:


> For those of us on the fence, telling Adobe in such terms that they have no chance at winning your business means they have no reason to listen to you.
> 
> Tim
> 
> Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk



Has Adobe ever listened to me?  It would have been simple to stop having different functionality between perpetual and subscription.  Instead Adobe has abandoned perpetual and has used some creative understanding of English to get there.


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 8, 2017)

LRList001 said:


> Has Adobe ever listened to me?  It would have been simple to stop having different functionality between perpetual and subscription.  Instead Adobe has abandoned perpetual and has used some creative understanding of English to get there.


Without the difference in "benefits," that is, the automatic availability of new features, there would be no incentive to go with a subscription.  The difference in benefits between perpetual licenses and subscription is standard industry practice. Pay me now, or pay me later.

Phil


----------



## jms969 (Nov 8, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Without the difference in "benefits," that is, the automatic availability of new features, there would be no incentive to go with a subscription.  The difference in benefits between perpetual licenses and subscription is standard industry practice. Pay me now, or pay me later.
> 
> Phil



Very true, and one of the reasons why a number of us are switching from Adobe.  Honestly it makes no difference to Adobe whatsoever, but it does to me.

As an aside, Libreoffice works extremely well and there is no longer any tie to Microsoft either...


----------



## LRList001 (Nov 13, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Without the difference in "benefits," that is, the automatic availability of new features, there would be no incentive to go with a subscription.  The difference in benefits between perpetual licenses and subscription is standard industry practice. Pay me now, or pay me later.
> 
> Phil


That isn't exactly how I was looking at it.  The price difference seems to be such that Adobe are either overcharging for the subscription model or undercharging for the perpetual model.  It is a simple choice as to whether or not to allow users access to new features, the fact that Adobe do so suggests that they cannot justify the price separation.  They also wanted to get rid of their subscription users, judging by their attitude.  Customer service is part of the totality of Adobe's offering in the market place.  Thus far with 6.x they appear to have used the community as extended beta testers (was 6.12 the first decently usable 6.x version?) and turned their back on perpetual users, making a clear statement (by their actions) that 'perpetual is not wanted'.  In the longer term, this is a brave attitude to users, especially as there is now (very recently) at least one product out there that (IMHO) outclasses LR in every regard that matters, if you want to just post process images (ie no web stuff, no cloud stuff, just superb (state of the art) post processing of raw images, with a decent catalogue and export).


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 13, 2017)

LRList001 said:


> That isn't exactly how I was looking at it.  The price difference seems to be such that Adobe are either overcharging for the subscription model or undercharging for the perpetual model.  It is a simple choice as to whether or not to allow users access to new features, the fact that Adobe do so suggests that they cannot justify the price separation.


No, that's pretty standard in the industry.


> They also wanted to get rid of their subscription users, judging by their attitude.


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


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 13, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


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



Keep in mind that someone at Adobe has looked into the future and stratified their future customers in some unknown fashion, and figured out for each layer what their price tolerance is, and what number of customers they will get in each group and what features they need to get that group interested.

There's going to be some groups at the bottom of that, who (from Adobe's standpoint) are either too few people, or who they assume will spend too little money, or both.

My money (pun intended) is they decided on variations like:  (1) those who will pay for storage and software, and keep everything in the cloud and so bring in > $20/mo, maybe much more, (2) those who are serious users who will keep paying significant subscriptions (>= $10) forever if not more for minimal new features (and/or will convert over to CC but stay at the bottom tier), or (3) a yet to be identified crowd that is much more numerous who will pay for either micro-transitions, or smaller amounts, but in vast volumes.  This latter I assume someone is still thinking about as this release does not address it, but it does set up a platform for it possibly.  Once your app is on their phone, micro-transactions and in-app purchases becomes simple, if they can just figure out what "it" is they are selling.

While the rest who think $10/m is too much but still want serious editing features like Classic (but not enough to pay for Photoshop also)... well, my GUESS is they think you are both small in number and when multiplied by (say) $3-5/mo are not worth bothering with.

So they will tell you how important you are, and valuable customer base, and we hear you and are listening but you were written off a couple years ago internally as more trouble than you are worth.

My GUESS.  And I'm either in, or close to, that group, so please don't take offense.  I just think we all need to bear in mind that the less money we are willing to spend, the less our voices are heard -- that's just capitalism.  Or Politics.  But in this case Capitalism.


----------



## jms969 (Nov 13, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> Keep in mind that someone at Adobe has looked into the future and stratified their future customers in some unknown fashion, and figured out for each layer what their price tolerance is, and what number of customers they will get in each group and what features they need to get that group interested.
> 
> There's going to be some groups at the bottom of that, who (from Adobe's standpoint) are either too few people, or who they assume will spend too little money, or both.
> 
> ...



I honestly don't fit into any of those categories.  I have no qualms whatsoever about paying $300 for a Capture One license.  I simply will not be locked into an ecosystem with a subscription model that holds my IP hostage.  In addition to C1P I have also beta tested On1 Photo Raw 2018 and I really like it.  So for me it will be one of these DAM / Developers and Affinity Photo (I have not ruled out Luminar, but I think it is too little too late).

As an aside my business dumped MS Office in favor of Libreoffice, MS is just pushing the subscription model a bit to hard...

For me it is all about subscription vs perpetual licensing.  So I clearly do not fit any of Adobe's customer models.


----------



## MarkNicholas (Nov 14, 2017)

jms969 said:


> For me it is all about subscription vs perpetual licensing.  So I clearly do not fit any of Adobe's customer models.



My guess is that it won't be long before *all* software is on subscription *only*.


----------



## jms969 (Nov 14, 2017)

MarkNicholas said:


> My guess is that it won't be long before *all* software is on subscription *only*.



Some of it, certainly not all of it...


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 14, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> While the rest who think $10/m is too much but still want serious editing features like Classic (but not enough to pay for Photoshop also)... well, my GUESS is they think you are both small in number and when multiplied by (say) $3-5/mo are not worth bothering with.
> 
> So they will tell you how important you are, and valuable customer base, and we hear you and are listening but you were written off a couple years ago internally as more trouble than you are worth.


Considering that with software the "marginal cost" of selling another product is about zero, once the product has been created and priced, Adobe must believe that there is almost no one in that category.  But as others have pointed out, Adobe makes it very hard to discover the web page for ordering the perpetual license version of LR 6, so their sales data is not good market research.

If I were at Adobe, I would want to do some customer surveys LR only vs. LR+PS subscriptions.  I'm assuming that subscription-only pricing is an executive decision that can't be reversed.

Phil


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 14, 2017)

MarkNicholas said:


> My guess is that it won't be long before *all* software is on subscription *only*.


For all but specialized categories, and for software not developed as "shareware," YES.


----------



## tspear (Nov 14, 2017)

MarkNicholas said:


> My guess is that it won't be long before *all* software is on subscription *only*.


This cycle has happened before. Mainframe software was sold on a lease model, aka subscription.
Mini-computers came in and broke the market and sold software as is. 
Client server software systems for large enterprises in the 90s went back to subscription models, then broken by the dot com "revolution".

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

If Adobe raises the price to much, there will be a competitor who will come along and sell it via the purchase model. 

I give it another ten to fifteen years and the primary model will switch again.

Tim


----------



## Hoggy (Nov 14, 2017)

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?


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 5, 2017)

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 (Nov 14, 2017)

Hoggy said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

tspear said:


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



Aww, man..!..  

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


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 14, 2017)

jms969 said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

tspear said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

LRList001 said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2017)

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.


----------

