3 ms·

> Isn't this EXACTLY what subscriptions fix, though? That you can stop paying if the product stops getting updates. How? First, by that time, you've usually sp

> Isn't this EXACTLY what subscriptions fix, though? That you can stop paying if the product stops getting updates. How? First, by that time, you've usually spent many times more than it would have cost you to own the software outright, so the vendor is already better off. Second, if you stop paying, you lose access to the software, possibly with no other way to open existing files, etc. You're the one who's being held hostage - not the vendor. As a hobbyist, I shudder to think that my total annual bill would be if all the software I use every now and then had a subscription model. It would be well in excess of $5,000/year.

ezfe 1y ago
Sure, if the subscription is unreasonably priced. Then yes, it will be unreasonable. Final Cut Pro is a $300 piece of software with a $50/yr or $5/mo subscription. It would take you 6 years to reach the same price which shows the subscription cost is reasonable. It's a separate issue when software is unreasonably priced in subscription mode, versus the merits of the subscription model itself.
- chemotaxis 1y ago
  My beef isn't with products where you have a choice between perpetual and monthly. It's with products where you don't. This includes the "always-online freemium" model, where you only really lose features over time to drive free -> paid migration and show growth.
- roywiggins 1y ago
  All of my photos are stored in a big Lightroom database. If I wasn't using an old camera supported by Lightroom 5 (that I bought outright in 2011), and was using modern Lightroom instead, I would have to pay an ongoing cost just to maintain access to my photo database, in perpetuity. This sucks no matter how much the subscription actually is right now. Losing access to all your old work in its original format if you don't pay a subscription to a company that might decide to do anything, up to and including shutting down the servers and killing the app? No thank you. Yeah, Lightroom 5 hasn't had any updates, doesn't support any new cameras, etc. But it still works, I can still look at all the photos I took with my old camera, and all my edits, and this will work, for free, until Lightroom 5 bitrots away into not working on Windows 14 or whatever. It sucks that I can't just buy a new version of Lightroom when I get a new camera, instead I'd have to jump ship or sell my soul to Adobe.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ezfe 1y ago
    I understand what you're saying, and yeah, that does suck. > Losing access to all your old work in its original format Most photo editing apps retain your originals, even when they're in a database. For example, Apple Photos has a folder full of originals with no modifications. Does Lightroom not have this? I understand that there is a lot of metadata that you also want, I'm just curious about this detail?
    - roywiggins 1y ago
      Lightroom's edits are non-destructive, so the original format of the edited photos exists within Lightroom's database or inside Lightroom's sidecar files. Yes, all my original photos are safe, but they are unprocessed raw and jpegs. I could plausibly render out my entire library and probably should, but it's the difference between a PSD and a PNG. (I did investigate open source tools back in 2011 but essentially no libraries could even decode the raw format my camera uses for years)
      - eitally 1y ago
        I've adopted a workflow like this: Camera -> Photo Mechanic ingest/culling onto laptop -> edit RAWs in DxO Photolab -> export .jpg 100% for web into "Web" subfolder for event -> pick top shots for socials, export insta-optimized shape & quality into "Socials" subfolder for event -> backup RAW/Web/Socials folder hierarchy to external SSD for backup and upload "Web" subfolder to Google Photos for sharing & "JPG backup". I keep about a year's worth of RAW edits + JPGs on my laptop before periodically clearing space, and I have some of my overall top shots stored separately on my Pixieset site.
    - saurik 1y ago
      I think the modifications here are the "original work" in question. Like, I would be wanting to save the thing I spent a lot of time myself working on -- the edits to the photos -- in their "original format": the way Lightroom is dealing with it as modifications on top of raw photos.
- archerx 1y ago
  Why would I pay $5 a month for Final Cut Pro when I can use davinci resolve for free?

ezfe 1y ago

Sure, if the subscription is unreasonably priced. Then yes, it will be unreasonable. Final Cut Pro is a $300 piece of software with a $50/yr or $5/mo subscription. It would take you 6 years to reach the same price which shows the subscription cost is reasonable. It's a separate issue when software is unreasonably priced in subscription mode, versus the merits of the subscription model itself.

chemotaxis 1y ago
My beef isn't with products where you have a choice between perpetual and monthly. It's with products where you don't. This includes the "always-online freemium" model, where you only really lose features over time to drive free -> paid migration and show growth.
roywiggins 1y ago
All of my photos are stored in a big Lightroom database. If I wasn't using an old camera supported by Lightroom 5 (that I bought outright in 2011), and was using modern Lightroom instead, I would have to pay an ongoing cost just to maintain access to my photo database, in perpetuity. This sucks no matter how much the subscription actually is right now. Losing access to all your old work in its original format if you don't pay a subscription to a company that might decide to do anything, up to and including shutting down the servers and killing the app? No thank you. Yeah, Lightroom 5 hasn't had any updates, doesn't support any new cameras, etc. But it still works, I can still look at all the photos I took with my old camera, and all my edits, and this will work, for free, until Lightroom 5 bitrots away into not working on Windows 14 or whatever. It sucks that I can't just buy a new version of Lightroom when I get a new camera, instead I'd have to jump ship or sell my soul to Adobe.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ezfe 1y ago
  I understand what you're saying, and yeah, that does suck. > Losing access to all your old work in its original format Most photo editing apps retain your originals, even when they're in a database. For example, Apple Photos has a folder full of originals with no modifications. Does Lightroom not have this? I understand that there is a lot of metadata that you also want, I'm just curious about this detail?
  - roywiggins 1y ago
    Lightroom's edits are non-destructive, so the original format of the edited photos exists within Lightroom's database or inside Lightroom's sidecar files. Yes, all my original photos are safe, but they are unprocessed raw and jpegs. I could plausibly render out my entire library and probably should, but it's the difference between a PSD and a PNG. (I did investigate open source tools back in 2011 but essentially no libraries could even decode the raw format my camera uses for years)
    - eitally 1y ago
      I've adopted a workflow like this: Camera -> Photo Mechanic ingest/culling onto laptop -> edit RAWs in DxO Photolab -> export .jpg 100% for web into "Web" subfolder for event -> pick top shots for socials, export insta-optimized shape & quality into "Socials" subfolder for event -> backup RAW/Web/Socials folder hierarchy to external SSD for backup and upload "Web" subfolder to Google Photos for sharing & "JPG backup". I keep about a year's worth of RAW edits + JPGs on my laptop before periodically clearing space, and I have some of my overall top shots stored separately on my Pixieset site.
  - saurik 1y ago
    I think the modifications here are the "original work" in question. Like, I would be wanting to save the thing I spent a lot of time myself working on -- the edits to the photos -- in their "original format": the way Lightroom is dealing with it as modifications on top of raw photos.
archerx 1y ago
Why would I pay $5 a month for Final Cut Pro when I can use davinci resolve for free?