blackest Loc: Ireland

Get a price for a perpetual license for lightroom 7. offer a $1000 $2000 will they sell one to you? Perspective...

Photo One Loc: Clearwater Florida

I would say, your best bet would stay with ON1 Raw 2018.

Kenny

glyphtrix

We're talking about profiteering: Holding people hostage in a captive service then jacking up the price.
We're talking about corporate greed at it's worse.
There's nothing wrong with a company turning a profit.
There's everything wrong with extortion and never ending ransom payments -to keep your own work.

Dramatic?
Yes.

Far from the truth?
pffft. Hardly.

Have you ever even heard or used of Photo Filtre 7
It was a UK plagiarized LR code and it's still available, totally free and enormously powerful.
Is it okay to steal code?
Perhaps not.

Does it exist, none the less ?. Hell yeah. As do many other programs.
Maybe it can't do EVERYTHING you happen to need but combined with any number of the numerous programs already endorsed by numerous members-
it gets the job done.
It's free.
And you can spend your own "friggin ten dollars " on yourself for any thing you want instead of diligently handing it over to the corporate board of Directors. They don't need it so much.

All you happen to be saying is that
Far too many UHH members are wasteful about their spending habits, are lazy and UN resourceful and are completely entrenched in a system that they have no hope for escaping AND simply don't appreciate the value of money.


Don't worry.
Someone else will fill the gap

Give it time.
But they will be replaced, by a start up company making a "quick buck" by offering yet another capable a stand alone product with the "gimmick" of a one time download.
until
they in turn,
develop a following
-then go the subscription route.

Which
is
the
way
this
game
is
played

After this season or trend of subscription model services upsets enough users. (Again,
as it did 10 years ago, when similar strategies employed in music delivery systems
-which have since returned in that industry as well) .

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Okay, we know where you stand. The good news is that we have freedom of choice. You can go for free or pirated software, others can choose to pay to keep developers improving their work and providing for their families.

No one is extorting me. I can CHOOSE to pay for Lightroom. Or not. I can't force Adobe to give it to me for free, and I won't ask someone to steal it for me.

Fact is, I have a library of software, ranging from the commercial, to the shareware, to the free. They all have a place on my hard disk. I can choose to use Lightroom or not. Just like I can choose to pay Apple for my computer. If I don't like Apple's pricing or the inability to add RAM to my computer, I'm free to choose Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc.

When I hang my photos, no one asks what software I used to edit it. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Photo One Loc: Clearwater Florida

I think you sent this to the wrong person!!

Kenny

blackest Loc: Ireland

Don't think anyone is asking for free, rather just a fair price similar to what we have been buying all along. (we never had too, we chose to buy it).

If adobe chooses not to sell, then Adobes not getting my money. Apple has chosen to make non upgradable macbook pro's. I will just make do with my upgradable macbook pro's (all maxed out). If they choose to make an upgradable replacement and only really wanting a replaceable hdd , upgradeable Ram and a battery that can be replaced when needed. Then I will buy another macbook pro. I don't know any pro who wants to trash a laptop for the sake of a few upgradable parts. The pennies saved in production costs are costing dollars in sales.

Evon

I do not like the subscription products at all. For example: someone on little income, retired and trying to make a living with photography and filming cannot afford on top of living expenses... $10 LR, $10 PS, $10 Essentials, $10 video editing software, yearly subscriptions for website, ms products, etc. It Really adds up. I cannot do it and with so many competitive standalone products, just does not make sense for the average midlle class income person to pay subscription. For fine art editing, I use an iPad along with iColorama ($3.99 full support and always free updates every other month as they add more features. Not for batch editing or cataloging etc but epic for the price. I am trying the 1on 2018 beta which is amazing and well worth the standalone price (they offer an additional standalone price which is slightly more..includes free future upgrades and full on support). I really feel that users once they figure out that at the end of the day their total annual expenses of their multiple subscription software along with the rest of life needed items (also going subscription) may wake up and it will be too late. For those that don't have to work hard for their money, I say go ahead and support these companies.
I have decided NOT to subscribe even when setting up my computer clients with software. Some companies may be offering options more attractive than the subscription scam created by the greed mongers.

Evon

Well stated!!

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Of course you do realize that it is 10.00 for Lightroom AND Photoshop AND Bridge AND ACR as a package right?

Not 10.00 for each.

And of course by buying the stand alone you are only getting a license to use the software, you do not own the software and the license can be revoked at anytime

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

So true!

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

If you rent your home, lease a car, use a cable service, have an Internet provider, are you not paying them a monthly fee? You don't own any of those goods or services, you are, in effect, subscribing to them.

The difference is that you can choose to discontinue your subscription to Adobe and still have all your photos. Discontinue paying for any of the others, and you lose them entirely.

Yankeepapa6 Loc: New York City

"Windoze" I that an example of a Freudian slip???

whwiden

I have done that in the past and it did work well. Unfortunately, some more recent Intel chips are designed to prevent dual booting. And, as it is, you must modify a number of bios settings to get linux to properly load and boot even on a single install. As it is Windows 10 on the yoga took up almost 30gb of space. Linux about 6gb. On a 128gb drive I probably would not have dual booted the machine even if I could have figured out how to make it work. It is a shame because a dual boot has some real benefits.

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Intel chips preventing dual-booting? Are you sure? Why would Intel purposely cripple a product? If you have a source for that, I'd like to see it.

My Macbook Pro is four months old. It ships with a 3.5 GHz Intel Core i7 and Apple includes Boot Camp as standard software.

One other solution possible is virtual machines. On PC (BIOS-based) hardware, you can run VMware (commercial) or Oracle Virtualbox (free) which enable you to install other operating systems and run them alongside the host OS. The caveat is that you need the memory to run a secondary, simultaneous OS. I run Parallels Desktop on my Mac and have installed four different Windows OSes (7, 10, 2008, 2012r2) for use at work. These actually boot up faster and can leverage the hardware of the Mac (USB-C ports, Retina Display, etc.). I also have installed a number of Linux variants for testing and evaluating.

I'm in the computer field, if you hadn't guessed.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It’s an indicator that that OS is boring.