Adobe are SCUM

the two most powerful and efficient editing programs on the planet

No they aren't.
Why not address the rest of my post then and answer my question?

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

PS & LR are powerful but not efficient

I use Affinity and what I have determined is: you cant compare the two separate programs that is Lr & PS to it. Affinity is effectively a clone of Ps with the usability of Lr. PS is very good but it has being going for a long time in one form or another and thus can is cumbersome and also scary to use for the uninitiated because Adobe just layer on the updates year after year without getting rid of the dross from decades ago. Affinity on the other hand was developed only in the last few years, they have taken 95% of whats good about PS and made it far more user friendly and for only a fraction of the price.

Now were adobe wins with consumers is with LR and thats why PS is being sold as a mere bonus in the CC structure. At the moment I am looking for a alternate to LR which Affinity isnt at all and the likes of capture 1 pro is to expensive. If there were a CC deal for LR at say $6 as a standalone I would consider that but it wont happen cause Adobe are shooting fish in a barrel.
We would probably opt for a cheaper LR only option as well

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk
 
BTW, I have some structural concerns with the statement 'Adobe are scum'. Shouldn't it be 'Adobe IS scum', grammatically?
Adobe is a company, not an individual, so is plural.
 
Just found this on the adobe website.

The only way to turn off auto renewal before your 12-month renewal date is to cancel your subscription
 
BTW, I have some structural concerns with the statement 'Adobe are scum'. Shouldn't it be 'Adobe IS scum', grammatically?
Adobe is a company, not an individual, so is plural.
Yep, but it depends if you're referring to a company (a single business entity) or if you mean the company as a group of employees etc. So probably both would be correct, just slightly different in meaning.
 
BTW, I have some structural concerns with the statement 'Adobe are scum'. Shouldn't it be 'Adobe IS scum', grammatically?
Adobe is a company, not an individual, so is plural.
Yep, but it depends if you're referring to a company (a single business entity) or if you mean the company as a group of employees etc. So probably both would be correct, just slightly different in meaning.

Company as a group of shareholders, actually.
 
Microsoft and Adobe are both doing well as companies this year in large part due to their Subscription plans. This is usually a good thing, or we will end up with what happened to Aperture and Nik.

I have been using MS Office 360 for a few years now and it usually works very well in keeping me with the latest software without thinking about it - although I could be using a 10 year old version of Office and not even notice the difference (except my old version never had the nag screen that the program cannot verify my subscription).

A couple of my design programs have also gone to the subscription model. Right now that puts me at four programs in the subscription model, not including LR as I am still using LR6 for at least a few more months.

Looking back, I paid over $300 for LR3, then did two upgrades - LR5 and LR6 - so in seven years paid around $500 for just LR. So the subscription price is not that bad of deal, especially adding in Photoshop. But there is a definite point at just how many subscriptions one can have and still be economically viable.

With standalone programs I have many older versions that still work just fine for when I need them and would never be able to justify keeping a subscription going. However, with the returns that Microsoft and Adobe are showing it may be the beginning of the end for standalone programs.
 
Microsoft and Adobe are both doing well as companies this year in large part due to their Subscription plans. This is usually a good thing, or we will end up with what happened to Aperture and Nik.
...

With standalone programs I have many older versions that still work just fine for when I need them and would never be able to justify keeping a subscription going. However, with the returns that Microsoft and Adobe are showing it may be the beginning of the end for standalone programs.

Subscriptions work for Microsoft and Adobe because they have a proven product that people are already using. Plus, due to users' archives and editing, they're locked into LR. So they're being forced to subscribe, in many cases. However, asking people to subscribe to a new, unproven products will be much more difficult. Also, competitors are always looking to sell product. So there will be developers who will stick with the sales rather than the leasing of products to satisfy that group of buyers.
 
Microsoft and Adobe are both doing well as companies this year in large part due to their Subscription plans. This is usually a good thing, or we will end up with what happened to Aperture and Nik.

...

Every software has a product life. LR has pretty much reached the end. Sure, they're adding cute little features. But these really don't help most people or make much of a difference to pay for an expensive update. The product is at it's maturity. It doesn't really pay to spend more for updates for most people, certainly doesn't pay for a subscription that goes on for the rest of your life. This is Adobe's method of extending the life of their product that few will buy new or for an update at little cost to them.
 
This is exactly why I bought Corel.
 
Microsoft Office has also moved to an annual subscription based model. I use Linux and don't have to pay to use GIMP or Libre Office.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top