Except that Adobe charges 80 dollars for the upgrade not the full price. So you're spending more money in the subscription model. More so if the time span between upgrades lengthens which it has already. LR5 came out in June of 2013.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe 'Doubling Down' on Lightroom in Wake of Apple's Aperture Announcement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're looking at it wrong too. The subscription version of Lightroom is actually a subscription version of Photoshop and Lightroom. Photoshop is what makes it a good deal, as it was FAR more costly to buy and upgrade. In fact, Photoshop CC is actually the version that used to be known as the "Extended Edition" which retailed for $999. The subscription IS $9.99 a month. So it would take 11 years before you paid off the old cost of Photoshop and Lightroom via your subscription fees, and that's not including the old costs of annual upgrades!
That is why the subscription is a ridiculously good deal. BUT, if all you want is Lightroom, buy the standalone on sale. Subscription is for Photoshop, in fact Adobe used to charge the same $10 a month for Photoshop without including Lightroom at all.
So the 10 dollars a month includes PS?
I guess in that case it makes more sense. Tbh, I thought it was LR only.
I'm not looking at it wrong. I know the rental includes PS. Lightroom is enough for me, and I don't care about any cloud stuff.
And I don't support Adobe's international price gouging. With retail, you could always buy the expensive software from the US.
It's a photographer's package for $10 a month. Photoshop Extended and Lightroom. $1130 worth of software. I know, I once paid it! Actually just sold my 3 version old Adobe licenses on Ebay for $600 to someone afraid of CC, so my subscription to the full and far more up to date Adobe suite is free this year.
My PS needs are light and I have PS 5.5 on my Mac so I don't think I need to embrace the subscription model yet, but I will give it some serious thought.
I'm on the MS subscription for Office because I'm getting value for my money. if I think the same thing for adobe, I'll bite the bullet.
I'm on the MS subscription for Office because I'm getting value for my money. if I think the same thing for adobe, I'll bite the bullet.
I know the feeling. I got so ripped off when I bought the $600 iPhone when all I wanted was a calculator. I wish there was another way or device. Though there may never be a solution to that, at least Lightroom is available in a retail box as a standalone piece of fully licensed software with no strings or subscriptions attached that you can still import from the US without complaining about other offers that might be a far better deal to people other than yourself.
I don't care about paying 10% more for a Lightroom box.
When I was looking at maybe buying one the the CS bundles, I could have saved like $1000 by ordering it from the US.
And 40% international markup when you take out tax is certainly not right. I see CC as a scheme to prevent international users from paying the real price.
It's even more amazing that Adobe is now among those companies scaming european customers. 9.99$ US for most of the world, 9.99 for EU (all without VAT) which is a markup of >30%!!!
Seriously WTF Adobe?
Update: Just checked and it's even worse for most european customers.
Adobe sells the photographers cc for 12,29 incl. VAT. So basicaly Adobe calculates 24% VAT for european customers, while most countrys in the EU have 20% (+/- 1%) VAT.
Just as an example:
12,29 - 19% VAT (Germany) = 10,33
10,33 = 14,10$ US
That is a markup of 40%!!! ... I wonder why this somehow stopped me from updating from LR 4 to CC for photographers.
(I could easyly afford the price but I don't like to get effed over for being european)
I don't think the subscription model is Adobe's attempt to over-charge international users, but rather create a consistent revenue stream.
Major enterprise applications have always been on a subscription model, and while I prefer to buy my applications, I see the logic in Adobe and MS embrace.
I don't see that the ONLY goal it too overcharge, but that it is an important one.
They claim it's added costs of doing business and providing support there blah blah blah. Don't know much about it, but don't you guys get screwed on a lot of things? I remember reading a PS4 costs 400 euros. Coca-cola is pretty much double the price in the UK. I think Europe gets screwed on a lot of things. I live in Orlando and it's like Black Friday for tourists in my Wal-Mart at all times.
Sometime its scary. Once it was speculated that Mac Pro is dead, then slimmer iMac had very long delay...
Maybe one day Apple Inc will become Apple Mobile Inc.
Pricing up Lightroom for my and my wife's usage it comes to £421.44 a year (around $720 US).
That's rather a lot more than Aperture, and comes with additional restrictions.
I can't see licensing terms for the standalone version instead of the subscription, but I assume it has broadly the same restrictions and would be similarly expensive.
A professional may well be prepared and able to fork out that, but for amateurs like us who do photography for pleasure rather than to make money, it's not an option. Besides which I think paying extra just because we have more computers (when we're still only ever using it on one at a time) is stupid. Apple didn't make us do that.
I'm going to have to wait and see with the new app, but I really don't hold out much hope that it's going to be enough of Aperture replacement to replace it in our workflow.
I can't really blame Apple for getting out of a business it doesn't want to be in, but boy do Adobe's licensing terms suck in comparison.
That's rather a lot more than Aperture, and comes with additional restrictions.
I can't see licensing terms for the standalone version instead of the subscription, but I assume it has broadly the same restrictions and would be similarly expensive.
A professional may well be prepared and able to fork out that, but for amateurs like us who do photography for pleasure rather than to make money, it's not an option. Besides which I think paying extra just because we have more computers (when we're still only ever using it on one at a time) is stupid. Apple didn't make us do that.
I'm going to have to wait and see with the new app, but I really don't hold out much hope that it's going to be enough of Aperture replacement to replace it in our workflow.
I can't really blame Apple for getting out of a business it doesn't want to be in, but boy do Adobe's licensing terms suck in comparison.
I agreed that the monthly fee is something most of us don't want. As a prosumer I have been fine with Lightroom 2. I can upgrade to Lr5 for $79 but am even rethinking the need for it.
You should however look into student discount. I believe it is $79 for the full version.
Nope, not wrong. You could not simply import your already organised folders as they were. I recall asking Aperture experts when they demoed the programme to out group of pro-photographers how to do just that and they sheepishly had to admit that you couldn't. So like many others who already had a large amount of carefully organised work, I simply never bothered to use Aperture. Which is a big part of it's failure to ever gain traction in my view.
Once again, how do we know that LR5 or LR6 wil lbe compatible with Apple's new OS going forward?
What a daft thing to say.
A: Adobe would be insane to rely on Apple given they have a history of dumping things [Aperture being just the latest] without informing or caring about others. The Cocoa/Carbon fiasco being a good example of where companies got screwed over by Apple.
B: How on earth would that be of any use to the millions who use PCs?
C: 'like everyone else' Such as?
PS is a pro standard programme and Pixelmator certainly does not even come close to PS's capabilities. Not to mention that the vast majority of PS users are not photographers.
Besides if you are not a pro why not buy PS Elements
Loads of software can read or open Adobe's files. They even introduced an open source raw file format that anyone can use for cameras to stop the idiocy of not being able to use a new camera's raw files due to a model number change. You seem to be confusing Adobe with Apple who certainly like to trap you into their software with their propriety file systems and ways of working.
So professional tools are overkill for non professionals - only accurate thing you have said.
----------
Apple are working on a migration tool for Aperture to LR. Ironic really. It should do the same job for iPhoto libraries and information.
