Adobe Lightroom Returns to the Mac App Store

[mdwsta4]

I'll echo others wanting the ability to purchase a standalone version. I'm still using CS5 and LR6. However old those apps are now, they are considerably cheaper than what I'd pay on the subscription model.

I've skipped out on upgrading to Mojave, but figure I'll probably be upgrading to Catalina. I'm worried about losing compatibility with PS and LR

 

[Greenmeenie]

I'd love to take you back to when we paid $1500 every year for one Adobe app or $250 for Microsoft Word. I remember $10,000 for Maya. $2500 for Lightwave. $5000 for 3D Studio basic version. $129 for Mac OS. $250 for Windows.

If you factor in inflation those prices would be even more massive today, but instead you are paying MUCH less.

If you want lower prices you need subscriptions. It's the only way to beat piracy that hurts all paid users and avoid malware. If you're a pro user you chalk it up as expense. If you're not chalking it up as an expense you're not a pro user and you don't know anything about accounting. Go use something cheaper in that case.
[doublepost=1561045051][/doublepost]


OH ok. So write your own software if you're not grateful for all the hard work people do for you.

I remember in the 90s Adobe creative suite used to cost $1,299 and $400 to update. I would keep the programs for years without needing to update them.

I guess my point is since switching to the ipad pro as my main content creation device, i have also switched to apps like Affinity Photo for photo editing & Luma Fusion for video editing instead of Photoshop & Premiere. Haven’t missed them at all. And do not miss the monthly fees they charge either. Both Affinity & Luma cost $20 and do everything adobe did for me. Love it.

 

[kalex]

Out of curiosity, where do you purchase your discounted annual plan?

they pop up once a year or so. last time i got it from B and H video. It was $89 + tax

 

[Grimace]

Can't we get 15% off of the recurring subscription now that it's through the App Store by buying the almost-always-available $100 iTunes gift cards priced at $85?

 

[Morgenland]

I am not against subscriptions. I have a few. In this case, I wouldn’t use the product enough to warrant the $10 monthly fee. I think Adobe should offer an alternative.

Subscription intends to rip customers. It‘s that simple. Nice you support Adobe

 

[4jasontv]

Or perhaps it's because there is no other product out there that does everything Lightroom does or Adobe's ecosystem provides. I'm talking things like having great DAM and syncing across multiple devices and multiple platforms with desktop, iOS, and web based access.

Yes, I'm a subscriber and pay annually for mine. I have no issue supporting them as they are constantly working on updates and new features. Plus, I just like Lightroom overall.

You're comment assumes people are wanting an alternative.

You shouldn’t be paying for updates.

You're comment assumes people are wanting new features.

 

[4487549]

Too many decent alternatives for less and without a subscription. Adobe isn't getting any more of my business, including ditching Acrobat in favor of PDF Expert.

Why people stick with Lightroom is beyond me - perhaps just laziness to identify an alternative.

Because it's the gold standard for professional photographers. That's why.

 

[macduke]

Assuming the App Store version is only the CC version, I'll stay with the Adobe sub. I've been using LR since the beta. The Classic UI is almost second nature. I really don't like the CC UI.

The first version I used was either 1 or 2 when I was taking Digital Photography in college in 2008. I got my first Mac around that time and I don't think I bought it until 2 or 3. I don't mind CC as much on my iPad Pro, and they've added a lot of features over the years, but I still much prefer Classic on desktop. CC is too finicky.

 

[newellj]

Has this ever been tested in court?

I don't know. I do know that there have been a lot of news reports over the years of businesses paying massive amounts for license violations. The question is whether they'll find you, but in the music industry, the answer has surprisingly often been yes. Do you want to be the test case?
[doublepost=1561065326][/doublepost]

The first version I used was either 1 or 2 when I was taking Digital Photography in college in 2008. I got my first Mac around that time and I don't think I bought it until 2 or 3. I don't mind CC as much on my iPad Pro, and they've added a lot of features over the years, but I still much prefer Classic on desktop. CC is too finicky.

I have trouble finding the tools I want to make the adjustments I want to make. I think some of them just aren't there, but if I can't find them quickly it doesn't really matter. I want to edit photos, not search help/support pages.

 

[cube]

It is rich to call it a return if you cannot buy it.

 

[ipedro]

I’m switching to this model. I’d rather have updates come through the Mac App Store than through some adobe applet that’s always running in the background 24/7, doing god knows what.

I’ve since changed my mind on this for a couple of reasons:

- This isn’t Lightroom Classic. While I use Lightroom primarily on my iPad Pro and Lightroom CC on Mac is a good feature parity version of that, the reason I still use Lightroom on my Mac at all is because of local storage. I have an 8TB library, with most of my masters residing on archived hard drives. Lightroom CC can’t do that. It’s all or nothing in the cloud and I’m not going to pay for 10TB of cloud storage.

- Does the Mac App Store subscription enable use of Lightroom for iOS? It makes perfect sense that it does since the Mac subscription comes with 1TB of Adobe Cloud storage but how do you sign in within Lightroom for iOS? Your Apple ID? Does it sign you in automatically via iCloud?

 

[Glockworkorange]

Yeah, I don't subscribe to this construct. Software and movies SHOULD be cheaper today. There is no cost post development of content, and it still has to compete with every movie and software made prior.

Many people never agreed to trade their rights for the potential for updates. Why? Because these software companies have shown over and over that they don't fix issues unless it directly results in increased profits. Fixing and issue by releasing a new version is criminal. If a car crashed every time the left blinker and radio were on at the same time then their lawyers would be working triple time. Sofware companies don't get a pass on making a defective product just because there is less risk associated with product failure.

Also, I own the software so much as I retain the rights to sell it or use it as I see fit. Subscriptions seek to revoke that right via artificial means.

I have no reason to be grateful to a company for selling me their wares. They should be grateful I considered them.

Correct, software should absolutely be cheaper today. No more brick and mortar, no more shipping boxes, no more coming up with packaging, artwork, often no middleman vendor, etc., etc.

 

[notabadname]

Where is the Photoshop for iPad that was announced last year? The full-blown real program that they still market on the Adobe site.

 

[hayesk]

I remember in the 90s Adobe creative suite used to cost $1,299 and $400 to update. I would keep the programs for years without needing to update them.

Correct, software should absolutely be cheaper today. No more brick and mortar, no more shipping boxes, no more coming up with packaging, artwork, often no middleman vendor, etc., etc.

I think you're mistaken on artwork. Web sites, marketing, app store, etc. all need artwork. Shipping, middleman, vendor cuts amounted to ~50% of the retail price. But, consider Apple updates their OS every year requiring more updates, there are much more features in software today, making it much more complex means you have to pay more people to product a product than you did back in the 90s. Add into that the cost of living increased since then too means you have to pay people more to produce a product. This offsets the savings from physical boxes and much more.

 

[xDENTALPLANx]

Where is the Photoshop for iPad that was announced last year? The full-blown real program that they still market on the Adobe site.

I believe they just started beta testing it last month so hopefully won’t be far off.

I’m still not sure what the technical requirements are for it / what iPads it will run on.

 

[Merode]

Prosumer DAM with subscription model. I'll never wrap my head around this. There are so many better alternatives with one-time purchase option.

 

[Steve121178]

Too many decent alternatives for less and without a subscription. Adobe isn't getting any more of my business, including ditching Acrobat in favor of PDF Expert.

Why people stick with Lightroom is beyond me - perhaps just laziness to identify an alternative.

There is no decent alternative.

I think the Adobe CC Photography plan I pay for is more than reasonable. I think it works out around £120 a year or £9.99 a month. A few years ago full Photoshop on it's own was over £650 and you then had to pay extra when Adobe released a new version.

There's a lot of cheapskates out there who expect things for nothing & are too dim to understand when a subscription represents value for money. Using the subscription method, Adobe have made software that was out of reach for many amateur photographers available. It's a good deal.

The same can be said for Office 365 which is a steal.

 

[macca80]

I've been the proud owner of a subscription to Adobe Lightroom on my iPad Pro. Really saddened by the fact that their subscription model doesn't cover both the Mac App Store and the iOS App Store versions of the application. I'm not going to pay €20/mo for 2 subscriptions for the same application on a different platform. I'm an amateur photographer who occasionally likes to get into Lightroom either on the go with my iPad or on the Mac when I'm at home. I thought this could be a great way to combine both workflows under a single subscription. Too bad it isn't turning out the way I hoped.

The Adobe Photoshop photography subscription does include Lightroom Classic,Lightroom CC and Photoshop for the $10 monthly fee. You don't have to pay for it twice to use it on your ipad and Mac. If you are on the Lightroom only plan then change to the photography plan. Its the same price.

 

[Jmurgen]

No mention that through Adobe you get access to Photoshop and Lightroom (both versions) and 20 GB of online storage for exactly the same price. While I agree the update process via Apple is superior, is it really worth that much? Adobe is passing on the Apple tax directly to users by offering an inferior deal for the same price, how about trying to offer something cheaper and more compelling if you are offering a less than package. This is why I’ll never give Adobe another cent, they’ve decided they no longer need to attract customers just trick them into stupid subscriptions.

 

[ChrizON]

I would be willing to spend $150 for a one time fee.

Same, if Affinity was to get a direct Lr competitor to sit alongside Affinity Photo Id never darken Adobes door again!

 

[naerct]

It does already cover it. There is no need to subscribe again. I have Lightroom Classic and lightroom cc running and no issues using same subscription. Unless of course you got the 1TB plan that only includes Lightroom CC. Adobe did really screw up naming

Thanks for sorting this out for me kalex. I've had PS since ver. 2, and have also used LR from it's initial offering. I switched over to Adobe CC after CS4, and still use both on a regular basis. While I have an iPad and iPhone, the iOS-LR has never appealed to me. I am pretty certain that having dual 1920x1200 screens is better than anything iOS can produce. I was a bit pissed that Adobe gave away the original name to the iOS version, but what's so bad about updating from AdobeCC?? Even without the new LR, getting both PS and LR for $10/mo is quite a deal. But I also like the deal from Apple with iOS-LR and a TB of storage making it more manageable away from computer storage, I just don't think I'll ever use the small screens for photo editing.
[doublepost=1561123257][/doublepost]

I'm not interested in a subscription.

If they ever sold the newer version as stand alone, I would consider it.

I don't get it. What's your point? There are reasons that software is now sold as a subscription, and many of them benefit the user.
[doublepost=1561124372][/doublepost]

Because it's the gold standard for professional photographers. That's why.

I agree. The best part of LR is the ease of use it provides, so some of the finest editing tools couldn't be easier to use. It is also a suite of tools for web productions and making books, etc. It's a great product, but I would consider Capture One a full step ahead as a RAW translator for the highest quality performance. I used Cap-1 before I retired, but have returned to cLR for my personal work.

 

[tehStickMan]

Too many decent alternatives for less and without a subscription. Adobe isn't getting any more of my business, including ditching Acrobat in favor of PDF Expert.

Why people stick with Lightroom is beyond me - perhaps just laziness to identify an alternative.

Like what?

First list all the photo catalogue editors that support such a wide variety of cameras. No, Luminar doesn’t count, it doesn’t have camera/lens profiles, just automatic stuff.

Which of those has a catalogue? As in, LR competitor, not PS competitor?

Answer now tell me the price?

 

[nburwell]

Well I use both PS and LR.
I wish both would be on AppStore

Yup, if they offered both in the Mac App Store, then I probably would jump on this. But alas, I'll stick with my subscription through Adobe directly.

 

[Plutonius]

I don't get it. What's your point? There are reasons that software is now sold as a subscription, and many of them benefit the user.

I would counter that most of the reasons / benefit is to the software company.

Subscriptions are more lucrative then one time sales.

I would much rather buy the software outright and pay for any major upgrades if I decide I needed the upgrades. Bug fixes would still be included with the initial purchase.

For some people, subscriptions might make sense so I have no complaints if a company has subscriptions. However, I also think that companies should also sell a stand alone product.

 

[bluespark]

I would be willing to spend $150 for a one time fee.

Me too, but I would also want the ability to store photos how I want (e.g., not necessarily in Adobe's cloud).