35
Replies
"Hanlon’s Razor states: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence."
(I'm not justifying any of this, just trying to provide more context.)
By @johnrellis
Well, I appreciate the time you took to respond, but it's a very far-fetched explanation, which either leaves Adobe's developers in a bad light and their lack of coordination, or it's simply your naivety that leaves out the possibility that it was the order of the day for the developers. Both options are deplorable because they leave out a number of loyal subscribers, out of incompetence or greed. Corporations do not act in an "anarchic" manner.
I'm not so forgiving, because the problem that was caused is widely known by Adobe, so it is, rather, the order of the day: leaving out older computers to condition the sale of new equipment in collusion with the other interested corporations. Otherwise, there would be a solution.
Never think that it is incompetence, when the driving force of the corporations, especially at this stage, is profit, not service. Too many examples to continue being naive.
@DexterGordon: "it's a very far-fetched explanation"
You've apparently never managed product teams in a large corporation and have a naive understanding of the inherent issues.
I have no inside information, and this is all speculation
By @johnrellis
The joke is called "maybe."
Too many maybes, a veiled accusation of "conspiracy theory" as if that were an argument to eliminate evidence to avoid thinking that it is a decision from the beginning. You prefer to call them incompetent than to accept the certain possibility that it is a decision. That is called alienation since Hegel.
The problem with technicians is that the tree does not let see them the forest: they are just a part of a gear, but very far from strategic decisions.
p.s. You don't know the meaning of the word naive, either. Aristotle is taking the stage to see your ad-hominem resources, and others within an irrational narrative.
So just to confirm, you believe that the LR team knew that LR 14.0 included a video component (dynamiclinkmediaserver.exe) that didn't support AVX CPUs? And they went ahead and released it anyway, knowing that it would cause buggy behavior for those on the older CPUs?
Just following the evidence...
By @johnrellis
maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe the LR team took the expedient route and jettisoned support for older CPUs rather than trying to win the "organizational battle"....your words.
The problem is that you think the cart is before the horse. It is a corporate decision because it carries a "calculated" risk that a simple technician on a development team would not take: that subscribers stop using Adobe products, but due to a consumer culture without critical thinking and the learning curve of service companies that have been using PS for decades, etc., this risk may not be so great. Some have atavistically resigned themselves (they even think that it has always been that way) to buying new computers, others will go to other platforms. I don't, but Adobe does have the precise data to make the move. It is immoral. But morality has nothing to do with business. In the end, Intel, AMD, Adobe and Microsoft create a win-win situation.....not a technical pawn lost in the shadows.
Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to understand your answer. A simple yes, no, maybe?
By @johnrellis
Was a very poorly formulated question. Especially when it starts from the premise that corporate behavior "cannot" be immoral in its pursuit of profit, but rather makes "mistakes" that can be explained by its incompetence. But the failure to remedy the damage caused by these incompetence can be explained by the economic factor "saving man costly hours." There is a contradiction there that can be explained by an ideological bias and false consciousness.
It's a simple question with a plain meaning that you've chosen not to answer.
By @johnrellis
That is a simplification that eludes the context that you yourself propose. So it is not a "plain" question, which, moreover, you yourself answer within the context of your exclusive approach. So it becomes circular if you don't accept that there can be an Adobe intentionality.
Do I cancel my monthly subscription that I have been paying loyally for so many years?
Doing so would cause your Adobe software to cease to operate fully. In my case, I would certainly keep paying because having the software work is important to me.
Do I cancel my monthly subscription that I have been paying loyally for so many years?
Doing so would cause your Adobe software to cease to operate fully. In my case, I would certainly keep paying because having the software work is important to me.
By @KR Seals
There are some alternatives for those who use LR more than photoshop like Capture One.
Anyway, repeating what I said above, clearly Adobe cannot charge the same to subscribers who decide to stay, if they cannot update their programs, again, for commercial reasons and not technical ones.
This discussion also applies to the new version of Photoshop 26.1
It seems Adobe have issued these updates and I am unable to take advantage of due to the computer I had them installed on being an older machine (but is perfectly adequate for everything else I want to use it for) and I have no intention of spending hundreds of pounds needlesly to upgrade it.
So, Adobe, can you tell me exactly why I should need to continue spending my subscription fee on 2 peices of software that will no longer be supported or updated?
I'd really like someone from Adobe to tell me what my options are? Do I cancel my monthly subscription that I have been paying loyally for so many years?
By @richardg48620525
There are some open threads on the PS forum about this problem for subscribers with AVX CPUs.
The curious thing is the reaction of people to a clearly harmful measure: it goes from those who atavistically accept the situation in a passive and domesticated way, because "their" conscience tells them that "it has always been like this" to those who allow themselves to have rational and critical thinking to determine that the measure is not determined by a technical issue, but rather a commercial one.
The only way for this last part of the statement to be incorrect is for Adobe to generate a solution to make possible the updates of computers perfectly capable of running even more demanding professional programs, with AVX.
Clearly Adobe cannot charge the same to subscribers who decide to stay, if they cannot update their programs, again, for commercial reasons and not technical ones.
EXCELLENT QUESTION! I too have the exact same problem & exact feelings about this situation!!.. somebody plz help ... this is a HUGE ISSUE! i have pix to edit And cannot! I'm livid.
By @heidih777
I can tell you that, for example, Capture One uses AI, a layer system, etc. Many similar things that can consume resources and do not require AVX2, just AVX.
With Adobe there is a corporate bet that is not technical, but commercial and clearly seriously affects the community.
You are having the same discussion here as in the Photoshop forum. Current software requires current technologies and therefore correspondingly current and powerful hardware.
Even if you don't want to admit it.
By @AxelMatt
You really are not able to argue rationally. Neither here, nor in the other forum.
As I say in this thread, but several other users will empirically confirm it in the PS forum, you can use the new versions with AVX, without problems if you install them without the CCDesktop and modify a file, removing the 2 of AVX2, leaving it as AVX.
It is not a contribution to the discussion to irrationally introduce an idea as if it were an axiom. Period.
Well with this avx2 issue. I am dead in the water in upgrading beyond 14.0 nor can I update Bridge or Photoshop. Without spending 1500.00 on a new pc
By @ronbyram
You are not alone. There are many subscribers in the same situation as us. Adobe hopes that people will act passively (like many) and buy new computers they don't need. That is their greedy bet and they are counting on a number of alienated individuals.
US$1500 at least. I spent US$3000 + monitor for photo editing
Dear Adobe Support Team,
By @kevin_1466
Good luck with your letter. I started writing to Adobe, but I ran into an impregnable corporate wall. Only after that, I went to the PS forum, which showed this problem a little earlier, to see the effect on the community.
AdChoices