Adobe Brings Photoshop Lightroom 4 to Mac App Store

[JHankwitz]

Adobe worked pretty hard on LR4. Why should Apple suck up $45.00. They've really done nothing to earn it except be there. I've bought a couple of cheapie apps from the App Store but everything else I get from the source if possible. That way the devs get the money they worked hard for and deserve.

Apple is conveniently distributing the software. It's your and Adobes choice to make a transaction or not from the App Store.

Apps like A Better Finder Rename and Ripit probably don't come from really rich companies. Let Apple supply great computers and I'll find my own software.

It's the developers choice as to how they want to distribute their software. Apple does supply great computers, and allows you to find your own software. So what's your point?

 

[hkenneth]

The difference is that Adobe understood why it needed to embrace that model.

Everyone is noticing that AppStore sales are the way to a larger audience. Hence the beginning of an era where you find big house professional apps in these app stores.

Good for users and everyone else.

----------

It also comes down to a trusted source in the Mac AppStore. Most people not 18 to 21 years of age are cautious and down want "trouble" for downloads. The Mac AppStore is seen as a reliable and tested source.

Does tested mean censored? Plus Mac AppStore is not compatible with the GNU license, thus you won't find any free software (I mean freedom, not free of charge) in AppStore.

 

[theBB]

If I were a manufacturer of software of any clout I d tell apple to go eff themselves and not sell from the mac app store. 30% fixed cut? Are they joking? For what? For storing a file on their server? For the review space? There might be some rationale for a cut in ios devices but what's the rationale of a 30% cut on the mac? If apple want to offer a service to their users where they can purchase with relative safety and ease on the mac, as well as see everything together they should forego the 30%, it's simply ludicrously high, and it benefits neither the dev nor the end user who has to pay more for apple to cover the cut, but only big fat filthy rich apple.

Developers used to setup their own online distribution systems with inconvenient unlock mechanisms and then support users who botched it up through emails. Hosting, bandwidth, credit card processing cost extra. Many also had a hard time getting exposure to users looking for such software. They could outsource this to some online stores, but I heard those stores charged an even higher premium. Considering App/iTunes stores are said to be barely profitable, it seems 30% cut just about covers the costs.

Other than exposure, the same considerations do not apply to Adobe though. They already have this distribution system setup and at its volumes their overhead might be quite a bit lower. However, large corporations selling high priced apps at large volumes may get their own private deals where Apple gets a smaller cut. Who knows?

 

[foodog]

Exactly what I was thinking!! There are so many Pros! This is why I purchase aperture a few months ago and now I am switching to Lightroom which I really wanted.

Just curious why switch? What are the benefits of using Lightroom over Aperture? Not being sarcastic, I really am curious what your reasons are.

 

[Comeagain?]

ok, there are some problems with this:

1. Until now, I could buy one LR license and could use it either on Mac OS or on Windows. That's no longer the case. Also, Adobe never did any license checking - so existing LR licenses could always be used on more than one computer (not legally, though).

You can still buy Lightroom from Adobe, Walmart, Amazon, etc. this is just another alternative that some people will like.

2. Because Adobe doesn't just hand over 30% of its profits to Apple, they have to find a way of making up for the losses they incur. And they've already found one: you can't buy upgrade versions of LR through the app store. You can only purchase the full version. So every year, the Mac user will pay 50-60$ more than the Windows user who can just buy a boxed version (which won't be available anymore from Adobe for Mac OS starting with LR 5) upgrade.

Again, not necessarily. And, how do you know it won't be available for Mac in a boxed version, or as a download from Adobe directly? No where in this article does it say that.

so Apple screws us over with their ongoing greed once more.

Adobe put this in the app store. How is this Apples greed?

Anyway, I'm sure Apple zealots will still think this is a good idea somehow. I'm very much looking forward to reading the re-framing attempts here.

This is bringing a popular, powerful tool to a reliable source. With a different license, allowing for more flexibility. Sounds real dangerous.

----------



I think you're wrong about that one. Apple very much forces companies to get gatekeeper-certified and push their stuff on the app store. Mountain Lion is more than likely going to be the last version of OS X that allows users to side-load software. After that, it's going to be the App Store or you'll have to jailbreak your Mac as well, not only your iPhone and iPad.

Apple highly suggests is, as it helps create a more secure OS for new users. It is not required anywhere for Mac OS X. Why do you think Apple is going to limit everything to the MAS? Because of a new security feature, which can be disabled?

Anyway - I've been a Mac user for about 15 years now. I've pushed Mac OS X at work where Apple made a crapload of money because of me, I bought pretty much every Apple device made during that time frame. When they announced Mountain Lion and gatekeeper, they finally managed to drive me away. I just ordered an HP Spectre and am in the process of selling my Macbook Pro. I already sold my iPhone and my Macbook Air.

We hope you enjoy your PC, and stop complaining. (oh...)

My replies are in bold.

 

[theBB]

1. Until now, I could buy one LR license and could use it either on Mac OS or on Windows. That's no longer the case. Also, Adobe never did any license checking - so existing LR licenses could always be used on more than one computer (not legally, though).

2. Because Adobe doesn't just hand over 30% of its profits to Apple, they have to find a way of making up for the losses they incur.... so Apple screws us over with their ongoing greed once more... When they announced Mountain Lion and gatekeeper, they finally managed to drive me away. I just ordered an HP Spectre and am in the process of selling my Macbook Pro. I already sold my iPhone and my Macbook Air.

Umm, now you can install it on multiple Macs "legally", without any limit, but yes you lose the ability to move it to Windows. I don't see how that is really a greed issue though. It is just a trade-off every customer needs to make for herself.

30% cut is huge. I mean especially considering Adobe does not pay other stores any markup, they pick those boxes on chariots pulled by unicorns, all for free. Of course, you don't even know if Adobe is really paying 30% at its size and negotiating leverage, either, but what ever it is, it must be too much.

Oh, by the way, isn't Windows 8 gonna have an App Store, too? I hope you are good with Linux.

 

[Foggy]

I'm just annoyed that there isn't a way to upgrade the version of LR4 I have to an app store version (just for the convenience of updates and multi computer installs) other than buying it again.

 

[Mak47]

I don't see an issue with the App Store model. Users buy from there for a variety of reasons. Comfort, security, convenience...whatever the case may be. There is nothing stopping a developer from selling their app on their own website or in a boxed version in stores. It's simply another distribution channel.

I like the App Store on the Mac, if for no other reason than the fact that I don't have any hassle switching computers or downloading applications I've purchased to multiple machines. Software keys and limited licenses have always kept me from making big investments in applications. I don't want to spend $150 on something only to lose the key and be unable to use it when I switch computers.

Whether or not Apple "Deserves" 30% isn't really an issue. That's what they charge to put your stuff in their store. It's what they've always charged. If a developer doesn't like it they can choose to skip that distribution channel, but as it grows that may not be a great move.

 

[hw007]

I can't find it in the UK Mac App Store!

Maybe it will take some time for it to filter down? Who knows

HW

 

[gwelmarten]

For the pete's sake! People, do you understand how RETAILERS WORK?! Apple is the only retailer that we know for certain how much of a cut they are getting. Do you know how much best buy gets, no, walmart, no, amazon, no, you name it store, NO! There is this thing called Wholesale price. That's what retailers get. We DONT know what that price is. For all we know, Adobe's wholesale price is $75 and therefore retailers are pocketing $75, 50%. And that's not even including any logistical cost or physical reproduction.

In conclusion, everyone needs to stop talking about Apple's 30% and how we're amazed people are "biting the bullet". Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac App store is SAVING adobe money per unit sold. So please, no more of this non sense.

Did I say that I was amazed about that? I said it was good to see companies were seeing it made sense, not that it was a revelation. And I commented in this case as Adobe are quite different to Microsoft and other soft are retails in their software sales - the people that want the software are professionals, and they tend to go to adobe.com. Adobe didn't want to loose mac customers from it's website.

 

[Terrin]

Perhaps Apple gets that take for 1) creating the App Store, 2) allowing Adobe to use it, and 3) creating the infrastructure to make such purchases easy. YOu guys don't' have a good idea of what retail market up is at traditional retail stores. Best Buy and/or Walmart didn't create the product either, yet their mark up is similar. If what Apple isn't worth a 30 percent cut, Adobe wouldn't use the store.

Plus, Adobe worked pretty hard on LR4. Why should Apple suck up $45.00. They've really done nothing to earn it except be there. I've bought a couple of cheapie apps from the App Store but everything else I get from the source if possible. That way the devs get the money they worked hard for and deserve.

Apps like A Better Finder Rename and Ripit probably don't come from really rich companies. Let Apple supply great computers and I'll find my own software.

 

[dethmaShine]

We do need to make a living. But you're welcome to click on the direct link if you prefer.

Actually I visit App Shopper a lot. I like the service like most others. But what is being done is technically and ethically wrong - You are hyperlinking 'Mac App Store' to 'App Shopper'. I don't like telling business what to do or what not to but in this instance it just felt wrong.

You can glorify App Shopper all you want and I'm not against you and others making money, but please do what is right.

Thank you

 

[hermiteer]

Meh, I'll stick with Photoshop and Bridge.

As one of the engineers on Bridge CS2-CS5, I appreciate that

 

[dethmaShine]

Have you even used AppShopper? That app alone has saved me hundreds of dollars. I don't mind if arn wants to use MacRumors to promote such an amazing website/app. How much do you pay per month to use MacRumors? That's what I thought.

Everyone should go download the new TouchArcade app too. The MacRumors empire is growing! Hahaha. Keep up the good work arn & team. It's this level of dedication that keeps me coming back. My only suggestion is cutting back on DigiTimes stories, lol.

Using the service/advertising it has nothing to do with wrongly hyperlinking content for more hits. Maybe like others, you just didn't understand my concern.

 

[JHankwitz]

Perhaps Apple gets that take for 1) creating the App Store, 2) allowing Adobe to use it, and 3) creating the infrastructure to make such purchases easy. YOu guys don't' have a good idea of what retail market up is at traditional retail stores. Best Buy and/or Walmart didn't create the product either, yet their mark up is similar. If what Apple isn't worth a 30 percent cut, Adobe wouldn't use the store.

Walmart's normal markup is 100%. Furniture stores markup about 800%. Jewlers usually markup 600%. Apple is clearly a bargin at only 30%.

 

[robogobo]

Meh, I'll stick with Photoshop and Bridge.

Better buy more hard drives.

 

[morespce54]

...Also, Adobe never did any license checking - so existing LR licenses could always be used on more than one computer (not legally, though). ...

With Photoshop 5.5 you mean? Maybe you're lucky (or maybe I'm not) but my Adobe softwares always check for licenses (even if it already confirmed that it was legit). At least, that's what my Little Snitch tells me...

...Mountain Lion is more than likely going to be the last version of OS X that allows users to side-load software...

I feel your pain but I really doubt it will be the case.
Gate-kepper (for now), is more geared toward "novice user' safety first" (a la iOS) than toward stopping side-load softwares.

 

[flottenheimer]

Doh!

Lightroom isn't available on the Danish Mac App Store.

 

[iMikeT]

As one of the engineers on Bridge CS2-CS5, I appreciate that

Bridge is one of the 'hidden' features/apps in CS that no one uses because most people only see it as a file browser/organizer. Of course, both of us know how much more capable and powerful it really is. I appreciate your work on it and can't imagine my workflow without it.

It's too bad that my original post received so many down votes but that's expected because it's the internet right? My reason for sticking strictly with Photoshop and Bridge is that I invested the time in learning how to use my tools instead of relying on some watered down and gimmicky application designed for people who are computer illiterate like Lightroom (and Aperture).

Better buy more hard drives.

So the 20TB array that I'm building isn't enough?

 

[Baklava]

Bad move in my opinion. Adobe, let your products out of the Mac App Store.

 

[pdjudd]

Bad move in my opinion. Adobe, let your products out of the Mac App Store.

You do know that they are still available elsewhere right?

 

[dvin]

Exactly what I was thinking!! There are so many Pros! This is why I purchase aperture a few months ago and now I am switching to Lightroom which I really wanted.

try getting support. i was ecstatic when autodesk brought autocad to the app store so i could quit using bootcamp / parallels. i had some problems and autodesk wouldn't provide support for an autodesk product....and autodesk would provide support because it was purchased through the app store....it may be an isolated incident but i will not be buying any more software from the app store if i can avoid it.

 

[blow45]

Developers used to setup their own online distribution systems with inconvenient unlock mechanisms and then support users who botched it up through emails. Hosting, bandwidth, credit card processing cost extra. Many also had a hard time getting exposure to users looking for such software. They could outsource this to some online stores, but I heard those stores charged an even higher premium. Considering App/iTunes stores are said to be barely profitable, it seems 30% cut just about covers the costs.

Other than exposure, the same considerations do not apply to Adobe though. They already have this distribution system setup and at its volumes their overhead might be quite a bit lower. However, large corporations selling high priced apps at large volumes may get their own private deals where Apple gets a smaller cut. Who knows?

Well pointed out. But I think this 30% is excessive from apple to the point of being usurious, for small as well as larger companies. I wouldn't think any credit card payment system and code for the software would cut in as much as 30%, and to demand this cut from large companies with an already available distribution system...

 

[JAT]

Amazon conveniently brought me LR4. A physical, real product, to my front door... For $76 (student). As far as I know, they didn't arbitrarily absorb 30% of the sale, though I wonder what their "retail" markup is.

LOL

2. Because Adobe doesn't just hand over 30% of its profits to Apple, they have to find a way of making up for the losses they incur. And they've already found one: you can't buy upgrade versions of LR through the app store. You can only purchase the full version. So every year, the Mac user will pay 50-60$ more than the Windows user who can just buy a boxed version (which won't be available anymore from Adobe for Mac OS starting with LR 5) upgrade.

Isn't it impressive how the retail world has so completely pulled the wool over your eyes for your entire life! Standard retail markup is 30-50% of sales price. Has been for many decades. You REALLY don't want to know what it is on audio products.

Apple actually makes their markup known, and doesn't play games with it, and now you actually think they are the only reseller to have markup, just because they actually talk about it. And then you yell at people that explain it to you!!

It's amazing.

----------

Walmart's normal markup is 100%. Furniture stores markup about 800%. Jewlers usually markup 600%. Apple is clearly a bargin at only 30%.

If you are being facetious, nvm.

But if not, you understand that "markup" is usually stated as a % of sales price, making 100% the highest possible, since you can't pay more than you pay. If you mean that jewelry is retailed at 6x wholesale, then markup is 86%.

 

[brand]

So what exactly is Light Room?

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to put forth the effort and go to the Adobe Lightroom website and find out by reading about it?