will adobe Lightroom 6 be stand alone

[swovem]

Announcement on the 16 of June. Speculation is that Lightroom 6 will only be available on Adobe CC. True? Price? If it is your $50 a month I will be looking for new software.

[John Waller]

No-one knows until announcements are made.

Anyone who does know is bound by NDAs.

[Jeff Schewe]

swovem wrote:

Price? If it is your $50 a month I will be looking for new software.

Ya know, the $50/month is for the full suite f products including; Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, FinalCut Pro, Premiere Pro, Dreamweaver and all the rest of the suite of products...likely ore than you need/want. The Photographers CC suite is $9.95/month...big difference in the pricing.

[areohbee]

swovem wrote:

Speculation is that Lightroom 6 will only be available on Adobe CC.

It was only a few months ago that Tom Hogarty (Lightroom product manager) stated Lightroom will be available stand-alone for the foreseeable future, or something like that.

I'm hoping he could see into the future more than a few months.. .

Reminder: Lightroom is not really part of the creative suite, per se, it's more like a "bonus" app for CC subscribers..

~R.

[Keith Reeder]

Adobe has actually used the word "indefinitely" in this context, so I'm expecting a stand-alone v. 6.

This is what happens when rumour sites stir up the villagers...

[pinkypunk35]

Yes I expect it to be subscription only, either this release or next. Despite what Tom Hogarty has said. Other Adobe managers said similar things when CC was first rumoured to be happening.

There is simply no reason for it not to be CC only. Adobe have moved to the cloud format and investors and (some) consumers are happy with that way of paying for software so I can't see it changing any time soon. It would be offered as part of Photoshop so that you are still paying for a single app.

Hopefully the subscription model will change for those wanting just a handful of tools as well, rather than the 1 app or every app model. So a reduced rate for Designers, photographers and vidiographers who traditionally only use 3-5 apps and don't need the full monty package.

[dj_paige]

There is simply no reason for it not to be CC only.

Pure speculation on your part. Why don't we wait and see?

[pinkypunk35]

dj_paige wrote:

Pure speculation on your part. Why don't we wait and see?

Naturally, it's all speculation.

But is there a valid reason why Adobe would offer 1 app on a perpetual licence but not the other 20?

[dj_paige]

You might want to ask Adobe instead of asking people in this forum. We don't know, and we can't answer the question.

[pinkypunk35]

It's a rhetorical question.

[idriveajeed]

I just called Adobe customer service about upgrading my standalone copy of LR3 to LR5. Apparently, I can still do it on the website or over the phone. It's just kind of hidden on the website. I asked if LR6 would be available as a standalone application and the support person said no, LR6 would be subscription only.

I guess it's time for me to decide what I'd like to do with all my photo stuff. I don't use LR enough to justify a subscription when upgrading to the standalone copy would pay off in like, 8 months.

[Keith Reeder]

OK, I'll be the first to say it: there's no way on God's Green Earth that a worker drone on a telephone helpline would be authorised to be the first to release that piece of information, or even to have knowledge of Adobe's plans in that space.

No way. I'd have more faith in the opinions of folk on here than of that piece of "advice".

[idriveajeed]

I completely agree with you. Which is why I'm calling them again today and

asking the same question.

[ssprengel]

I remember a few months ago, for a few hours or maybe even a few days, there was, apparently by mistake, a menu item announcing the all new cloud-based Photoshop Elements option on the Adobe.com Elements 12 page. licking on it lead to a page-not-found error, and then soon after it disappeared, a blog entry that said they weren’t doing a cloud-based Elements.

That suggests to me that everything being cloud-based is close to critical mass at Adobe but there must be others in power positions that are still saying No at this point.

Another question would be will they offer LR 6 alone for a few dollars a month, or will the $10/month LR+PS be the only LR option.

[Todd Shaner]

With exception of the 'Edit In PS' functions LR is not integrated at all with the CS or CC applications such as InDesign. In fact LR has evolved as more of an All-In-One application solution (albeit with limited capabilities). The LR boxed perpetual license product is a very good marketing tool for Adobe. It's very unlikely novice or casual photographers will commit to a subscription plan even after using LR's on a 30-day trial. From a marketing perspective LR falls into the same category as the Elements products, which are still offered as boxed perpetual license products. Some of that end-user base will move onto the CC subscription plan, but only if Adobe keeps the door open at the entry level with boxed perpetual license products. It also allows other manufacturers to "bundle" LR with their products at an attractive price-point.....which is pure Marketing 101.

IMHO what is most likely to happen is that a new version of LR will be offered as a CC only product that is fully integrated with the other CC applications. Considering Apple has announced the discontinuation of Aperture it would be very bad marketing for Adobe to offer LR6 as a CC only product. What happens beyond the definition of indefinite is anybody's guess.

[areohbee]

idriveajeed wrote:

I completely agree with you. Which is why I'm calling them again today and

asking the same question.

I think you may have missed Keith's point - it was a waste of your time and theirs to ask the first time - they don't know the answer! (and even if they did, they wouldn't be allowed to tell you).

Bottom-line: you can't know (and anybody who claims to know is wrong, or even if they're right you can't know that they are..) - you can only guess.

My advice: enjoy Lightroom as long as the terms of using it are agreeable. Migrate in the future if said terms become a deal breaker.. - forget about trying to predict ahead of time. You're gonna feel "silly" if you migrate because you think it's going to the cloud (subscription) and it doesn't. And if you predict it will go cloud (subscription) and it does, migrating before the fact won't really buy you anything..

Rob

[Hal P Anderson]

Rob,

Extremely well put. Getting upset with what Adobe might do about LR some day in the future won't do anything except mess up your present moments. None of us knows, and all a discussion like this can do is to divide us into two camps based on how much we trust Adobe. None of it has to do with the Real World (TM).

Hal

[Keith Reeder]

For me it's not even about "trust" per se, Hal.

I don't believe for a second that Adobe (or DxO, or Phase One, or Picturecode) wants to be my friend, or worries about whether or not I'm personally satisfied with their every decision: I neither trust nor distrust any of them, I simply base decisions about them on what I believe I know.

The only official statement we've had from Adobe about the future of Lightroom is that it will remain "stand-alone" indefinitely. That's the word Adobe used: not "for now", not "at present", not "on an ongoing basis", not "for the foreseeable future".

In any normal use of the word, "indefinite" always - always - means much more than "soon, but to no specific timetable": the whole point of using the word is to imply "a long way off", without having to be specific about exactly how long that might be.

I don't believe that the choice of words was careless or unconsidered. I also don't believe that Adobe is stupid. That's not to say it's not capable of doing some stupid things, but there's "stupid" and there's "stupid!!"

To conclude that when Adobe says "indefinitely" it means "only until the next full version is released" would be to conclude that Adobe is in the business of publicly lying through its teeth to its customers about issues of major significance to them; and to conclude that Adobe is utterly clueless about the potential damage to its bottom line that would likely result from being caught in such a flagrant lie.

Reputation matters, and Adobe knows it. It's still trying to recover from the reputational hit the data-loss debacle caused them, and they'd have to be beyond stupid to pour more petrol on that fire...

On that basis, taking into account the only official statement we've had from the Adobe on the subject, there's simply no logical basis for any other conclusion than that Lr will be stand-alone for a good while yet. Any other interpretation of what we've been told by Adobe can only be based on irrational emotionalism and conspiracy theorising.

[dcrebelxt]

I think you are likely correct, that it will continue to be offered off-subscription. However, they are a company, and as you said words are well chosen.  So note Google definition that comes up for the word:

adjective

lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time.

"they may face indefinite detention"

synonyms:

indeterminate, unspecified, unlimited, unrestricted, undecided,undetermined, undefined, unfixed, unsettled, unknown, uncertain

not clearly expressed or defined; vague.

"their status remains indefinite"

synonyms: vague, ill-defined, unclear, imprecise, inexact, loose, general, nebulous,fuzzy, hazy, obscure, ambiguous, equivocal More

antonyms:

clear

So by actual definition, perhaps at the time of the quote its future was 'undetermined', or perhaps they were being purposefully 'vague'.

Of course another synonym hidden in the bunch is unlimited.

In either case Adobe or Tom could easily clear this up... but thus far that has not happened.  Which makes my continued support of Lightroom "indefinite" as well. ( as in uncertain, unsettled, hazy, unclear.)

I'd like to think that getting upset about this DOES serve a purpose... shows Adobe what we want, and why; and perhaps can influence their direction.  But its likely that, too, is irrational.

[Keith Reeder]

We can do this all day long, though - synonyms for "indefinite" include:

bottomless, boundless, endless, fathomless, limitless, unbounded, unlimited...

We'd all be happy enough if Adobe has used one of those words instead, I reckon.

But it was to avoid endless counter-quoting of what the various online dictionaries have to say about the word that I specifically made reference to its common usage: and it is - invariably - used to suggest that something is a long way off.

[dcrebelxt]

I did mention the unlimited buried in the synonyms.  But the main usage noted in the top dictionary hits I looked at pointed toward the 'unknown' or 'vague' side of things..

But in the end, I do hope you are right.  All we can do is wait and see.

[idriveajeed]

Thanks, Keith, for voicing your doubts. It gave me the motivation to call

again to clarify.

I called two more times. Both times, the customer service representatives

said that Adobe is planning on moving all of their applications to Creative

Cloud for subscription only, not just Lightroom. When I asked them

specifically if Lightroom would one day become a subscription only

application, they both said they did not know that information.

I just hope that first guy I called yesterday was completely misinformed. I

would prefer a standalone option for Lightroom 6.

[areohbee]

idriveajeed wrote:

Adobe is planning on moving all of their applications to Creative Cloud..

I think they meant all their "Creative Suite" applications (whether they know that's what they "meant" or not). Given that interpretation, not only is Adobe "planning to" but they already did it - so, old news.

idriveajeed wrote:

not just Lightroom.

Lightroom not really part of Creative Suite - more of a "bonus app" for creative suite subscribers.

idriveajeed wrote:

When I asked them specifically if Lightroom would one day become a subscription only

application, they both said they did not know that information.

As Keith said, they really don't know any more than has been released to the public, nevermind their ability to interpret such information..

It's like going to Fry's Electronics (or similar computer supply store) and trying to get them to explain the differences between network routers - they don't know anything about network routers, except what they read on the box, and they don't really understand that, but they'll answer your question as if they do.. - you can always return it if you can't get it to work... People who understand the differences between network routers do not work at Fry's...

Rob

[areohbee]

pinkypunk35 wrote:

But is there a valid reason why Adobe would offer 1 app on a perpetual licence but not the other 20?

Of course there is, otherwise they wouldn't have told us they plan to continue to do so - they're very careful about saying stuff like that: don't generally say it unless they've thought about it, and they mean it.. - yeah of course it can change in the future - they said that too, but to have it change, so soon after saying it probably wouldn't, would make them look like idiots (or dishonest..) - something they're trying to avoid .

PS - I tried to talk them into having *all* their software subscription only - with a "rental" scheme more like that of O'Reilly Safari - they said: "yeah, maybe, someday, but not any day soon..".

[john beardsworth]

pinkypunk35 wrote:

Yes I expect it to be subscription only, either this release or next. Despite what Tom Hogarty has said. Other Adobe managers said similar things when CC was first rumoured to be happening.

That sweeping statement is factually incorrect - so much so that it's little more than nonsense! There's a huge difference between Hogarty's "indefinitely" and whatever you claim other Adobe managers said - not least because it was only at the last minute that they learnt that top management had decided to dump perpetual licences and go subscription-only!

Sure, we can all guess there may be a move to make LR subscription-based too. So why didn't Adobe do it already, eh, when everything else went over? If not then, why now? The thing is, Adobe has a wide range of products and has different business models - what's more, LR has always been deliberately treated as a product separate from the Creative Suite. Going forward, you could see LR as a gateway product to PS and the wider suite and the CC services, so you might not want to limit it to those willing to subscribe. What's more likely is further integration with subscription-based services (such as 5.4's mobile sync) and other CC services such as Typekit, preference synchronisation, etc reaching the point where substantially all users want to subscribe.

John