A couple of years ago I chose to buy LR6 rather than rent Lightroom CC, as I did not fancy the monthly payments. Because I own a Nikon and an Olympus and use them side by side it made sense to use LR6 rather than the free processing software offered by both companies (I didn't like either anyway). I have all the lenses I require and as both cameras represent the latest offerings in their niche, I will not be upgrading in the forseable future. So, in fairness, this news should not affect me. As an aside, someone who's blog I follow recently attempted to cancel his LR CC subscription and it made amusing reading. It took him some time to persuade 2 x Adobe call centre operators (yes, it took two lengthy phone calls - no facility to do so on-line) that he really did want to cancel his subscription.

A couple of years ago I chose to buy LR6 rather than rent Lightroom CC, as I did not fancy the monthly payments. Because I own a Nikon and an Olympus and use them side by side it made sense to use LR6 rather than the free processing software offered by both companies (I didn't like either anyway). I have all the lenses I require and as both cameras represent the latest offerings in their niche, I will not be upgrading in the forseable future. So, in fairness, this news should not affect me. As an aside, someone who's blog I follow recently attempted to cancel his LR CC subscription and it made amusing reading. It took him some time to persuade 2 x Adobe call centre operators (yes, it took two lengthy phone calls - no facility to do so on-line) that he really did want to cancel his subscription.

You rent software either way. In once scenario you pay up front for a license, which is all you really own. When it is replaced with a new version, you need to pay again for the upgrade.

The other scenario you can pay up front or monthly - $120/yr or 10/month. Oh, and it is much cheaper, and you don't have to order the upgrade and pay extra for it when it becomes available. The irrationality behind not wanting to "rent" software is baffling - especially because it is cheaper. I have found great benefit for each new version of all the software I use. Some are content to use 7 yr old software on 10 yr old computers to process images from 12 yr old cameras. Not me.

To be fair they said

"We don't want [the name change] to be perceived as a lack of investment, or a lack of effort with that product. It is very good at what it was designed to do, which is manage files and folders on disk. All of those desktop-local workflows that photographers told us about during our first Lightroom Public Beta back in 2006, we are absolutely going to continue investing in. It's a different team."

There is no mention of how long they will continue investing and as indefinitely means as long as we feel like (for stand alone) it is no reassurance at all.

Currently Lightroom Classic requires OSX 10.12 Sierra. That's a forced upgrade until Apple won't let you upgrade anymore. Is adobe going to support older versions of lightroom classic when a new version of OSX comes out?

They forced an OS update between 5 and 6 so it is likely they will continue to do so.

With Lightroom classic you are relying on Adobe's Servers to say carry on every couple of months, as soon as they decide it isn't what they want to do, it stops working.

But you should be ok with Lightroom classic , for a while anyway.

I've had Photoshop for over 15 years. Got Lightroom when it first came out. Upgraded about every other time back then on both of the programs. I bet I spent more than an average of $9.99 month if I was to figure it out. I think both of the programs today are the best on the market at the cost of a restaurant lunch once a month. I don't like the monthly either but I do want a program that is easy to use, Lightroom, and a great final editing program with layers and special adjustments, Photoshop.

Some of the competitors out there are up there in price and they will have upgrades one a year and charge for that. I bet if you were to look back over the next couple of years you wouldn't save more than $20 a year one way or the other. I like my photography and I will spend $9.99 a month having fun.