[thewebguyd]

And people liked that model, see the huge backlash when Adobe went subscription for creative suite.

I do wedding photography as a side hustle, I upgrade my camera maybe once every ~7 years. Cameras have largely been good enough since 2016 and the 5D Mark IV. I have a pair of R6 mk II that I'll probably hold onto for the next 10 years.

Point being, Lightroom has more or less been feature complete for me for a very, very long time. For about the price of 1/year subscription, I could have purchased a fixed version of Lightroom with support for my camera and not had to buy it again for another 10 years.

We are getting milked for every nickle and dime for no reason other than shareholder value.

It actually discourages real improvements. Before the subscription model, if Adobe wanted to sell me another copy of Lightroom they had to work really hard to make useful features that people actually wanted, enough to the point they'd buy thew version.

Now, they don't have to. You have to keep paying no matter what they decide to do.

[socalgal2]

> And people liked that model, see the huge backlash when Adobe went subscription for creative suite.

That backlash was short lived. Adobe went from $4.4 billion in revenue in 2021 to $23.7 billion. It used to cost $2500 for the "master collection". Now it's $50 a month.

I was one of those people that disliked switching to subscription. I stayed on CS6 for years. I'm also only a relatively casual user though. I once tried Affinity Photo for some work. Their workflow, for my needs, would have made me take ~6hrs more time than the similar workflow in Photoshop. So I paid the $120 a year for photoshop/lightroom because $120 is way less than 6hrs of my life. If of course that was my specific case. It might not be true for others. The point was though, $120, at least for me, is not that much money relative to what I charge/get-paid. So I gave in.

Further, Photoshop is a good example (to me) of software that can't stop updating. New formats come out HEIC for example. New cameras with new raw formats come out. New tech comes out. HDR displays are ubiquitous at this point (all apple products, some large percent of Android, PC, and TVs) (which BTW, Photoshop does not yet truly support so expect an upgrade).

[projektfu]

It appears to be $69.99 per month with an annual contract, $104.99 per month if month-to-month. But the point of subscription-based things is to make you forget and not notice the price increases.

[4k0hz]

> That backlash was short lived. Adobe went from $4.4 billion in revenue in 2021 to $23.7 billion

So? Anecdotally, the vast majority of Adobe product users are still upset about the subscription model (but not upset enough to switch to worse software)

> It used to cost $2500 for the "master collection". Now it's $50 a month.

Illustrator-filmmaker-animator-publisher-photographer-web-designers everywhere rejoice!

[tokioyoyo]

They're upset, yet they're paying for it. It sounds like the software was underpriced, because people are still using it. Honestly, blame the consumers, not the businesses in these scenarios.

[mcdeltat]

For lightroom at least, no, because there are very few or even no good alternatives. It looks like there are a lot of photo editor apps out there, but most of them are crap or designed for different workflows. I can say because I evaluated various options before begrudging accepting lightroom was the only decent choice.

The subscription model irks me because it's a bit overpriced and they keep trying to shove subscription features on us. No, I don't, and will never care about ridiculously overpriced cloud storage nor generative AI tools. How about adobe fixes issues in the core product first? If given the choice, I would definitely choose a pay-once, no-upgrades licence. But adobe saw their opportunity and started squeezing us for more on a product that was fine.

The plus side of this is it's motivated me to consider building my own photo editing software.

[hackerdood]

I’m surprised capture one wasn’t able to meet your needs, as an ex-heavy Lightroom user that has been very happy with their transition to C1 with a perpetual license.

What about it ended up not working out for you?

[thaumasiotes]

> Before the subscription model, if Adobe wanted to sell me another copy of Lightroom they had to work really hard to make useful features that people actually wanted, enough to the point they'd buy [the new] version.

Not quite: https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2002-06-11

[carlosjobim]

How did Adobe manage to change your previous installation of Lightroom? If you bought it, can't you still use the version you bought?

[thewebguyd]

Yes, but no support for CR3 files, only this time I didn't have the choice to buy a new standalone version, I had to subscribe.

[rprend]

What backlash against Adobe? I think you are mistaking comment section consensus for reality. People on forums and social media complain, but the comment section consensus is often dead wrong!

There was no real backlash against Adobe. They added subscriptions and grew revenue. Some people grumbled online, but they paid, which means they don’t like the old model, they like the new one.

[thewebguyd]

A company abusing monopoly power to screw over consumers doesn't prove that consumers like to be abused.

[bonoboTP]

There is absolutely no monopoly in photo editing software. Entering this market is fairly easy with a new product. I wonder what market (in software or outside software) could you name as more competitive.

[c-hendricks]

If there's only one option how can you be sure people like it vs something different?