Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable(petapixel.com)
petapixel.com
Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable
https://petapixel.com/2020/08/20/lightroom-app-update-wipes-users-photos-and-presets-adobe-says-they-are-not-recoverable/
441 comments
I recently signed up for adobe CC to test out premiere for some video editing work (side note, Final Cut is better) and instead of inputting a real card I used a privacy.com one. When I decided I didn't want it, I just disabled the privacy card. I only have to deal with a few annoying emails from adobe. I didn't even bother trying to cancel. Reading your comment makes me realize how smart that was.
Is that legal in the USA? Entering into a purchase agreement ("koopovereenkomst", not sure if I'm translating the jargon correctly) and then just not paying? Because that's certainly not legal where I live.
I understand that the odds of repercussions are small and that there are no damages on Adobe's side since you haven't physically taken their goods so it would probably have to be taken up by the public prosecutor rather than become a civil case... but still, I'd not be happy having my name on a "doesn't pay their bills" list, nor is it quite honest.
Or am I misunderstanding the situation and did they advertised with monthly cancelable? (False advertising) Nobody mentioned that in the thread though, and from this comment it sounds like it was very clear that you were agreeing into a year-long subscription: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24232282
I understand that the odds of repercussions are small and that there are no damages on Adobe's side since you haven't physically taken their goods so it would probably have to be taken up by the public prosecutor rather than become a civil case... but still, I'd not be happy having my name on a "doesn't pay their bills" list, nor is it quite honest.
Or am I misunderstanding the situation and did they advertised with monthly cancelable? (False advertising) Nobody mentioned that in the thread though, and from this comment it sounds like it was very clear that you were agreeing into a year-long subscription: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24232282
Here in the Netherlands Adobe breaks our laws by not allowing one to cancel a subscription every month after the first year. It took me 45 min on the phone and 4 forwards and saying expressly that they were breaking the law before they cancelled the subscription. No more Adobe for me.
All conversations could only be done in English, something my wife would already be pretty uncomfortable with.
All conversations could only be done in English, something my wife would already be pretty uncomfortable with.
I did the same. I just stopped paying and told my CC company to block transactions because I never agreed to them.
Adobe is very unclear about what you’re actually agreeing to up until the point you’re cancelling.
I just blocked transactions and never heard from them again (except for some emails).
If they want to fight it, good luck winning it in Dutch courts when the conditions are unclear.
Adobe is very unclear about what you’re actually agreeing to up until the point you’re cancelling.
I just blocked transactions and never heard from them again (except for some emails).
If they want to fight it, good luck winning it in Dutch courts when the conditions are unclear.
Everybody on the net is always like "Just told my bank to block the transaction" - when I did that, in a EU country, my bank was very reluctant.
They wanted proof that I had been in contact with the company and tried to get a refund from them, and that I in fact didn't owe them money.
They wanted proof that I had been in contact with the company and tried to get a refund from them, and that I in fact didn't owe them money.
Yep same experience with a US company that had gone broke, publicly said so on their website, yet still had renewed a subscription I had with them after the public statement that they would no longer deliver anything.
Ended up with months of paperwork, claims from the other party that I ordered it myself (no idea where as the website to order was gone) including printouts of Stripe with my IP address which was supposed to prove their point.
Five or six mail forms to fill out (yes _mail_ not email) over the period of months with very strict deadlines.
They must have gathered the IP address from an earlier transaction a year before that. It also did not raise any flags that the transaction was exactly one year later on the minute.
An incredible waste of my time and if I had to go through all of that again I will just let it go.
Ended up with months of paperwork, claims from the other party that I ordered it myself (no idea where as the website to order was gone) including printouts of Stripe with my IP address which was supposed to prove their point.
Five or six mail forms to fill out (yes _mail_ not email) over the period of months with very strict deadlines.
They must have gathered the IP address from an earlier transaction a year before that. It also did not raise any flags that the transaction was exactly one year later on the minute.
An incredible waste of my time and if I had to go through all of that again I will just let it go.
In contrast, I asked my French bank to do this once and they did immediately.
The problem is between me and the vendor, not the bank.
The problem is between me and the vendor, not the bank.
Exactly. I tried to reverse some charges. The bank told me I had to file a police report. I did find that the company returned the money pretty promptly when I told them I was reporting them to the police...
[deleted]
> Everybody on the net is always like "Just told my bank to block the transaction" - when I did that, in a EU country, my bank was very reluctant.
Depends on what it is. Any recurring SEPA payment I can get back up to 60 days. Separately I can block those payments. All from the app or their website, I don't need to talk to anyone.
I thought being able to get that money back, plus being able to block companies were SEPA rules. Meaning, applies to loads of countries (at least the countries with the Euro).
Depends on what it is. Any recurring SEPA payment I can get back up to 60 days. Separately I can block those payments. All from the app or their website, I don't need to talk to anyone.
I thought being able to get that money back, plus being able to block companies were SEPA rules. Meaning, applies to loads of countries (at least the countries with the Euro).
I was just told it wasn't possible. So I cancelled my debit card (take that, paypal).
I went through is process a couple of times.
Usually they ask you to fill an online form and attach any evidence. After that it always felt like a call center employee decided whether to start the refund or not. If you write something smart, well researched, polite, and long, chances are that poor person will just skim through it and click “accept”.
Then on the other side the company has 30-45 days to object via their bank.
With big companies they probably think it’s not worth their time.
With small companies the bank notices about a new dispute probably go to an inbox nobody monitors.
Usually they ask you to fill an online form and attach any evidence. After that it always felt like a call center employee decided whether to start the refund or not. If you write something smart, well researched, polite, and long, chances are that poor person will just skim through it and click “accept”.
Then on the other side the company has 30-45 days to object via their bank.
With big companies they probably think it’s not worth their time.
With small companies the bank notices about a new dispute probably go to an inbox nobody monitors.
You shouldn’t be contacting a bank - I think that might be the distinciton. When people say this, I interpret it as contacting their credit card and asking for a chargeback.
This depends on the credit card company but mine is very willing to charge back if I call. They find it pretty trivial.
I’ve never done anything like this with a debit card or bank though. I think the money that leaves through debit is actually gone and that’s a distinction. I know the EU is more debit focused.
This depends on the credit card company but mine is very willing to charge back if I call. They find it pretty trivial.
I’ve never done anything like this with a debit card or bank though. I think the money that leaves through debit is actually gone and that’s a distinction. I know the EU is more debit focused.
I get my credit card from my bank. I don't even know if you can get a card directly from a credit card company here in Finland.
It is not that much debit focused, but you normally get credit card from a bank here.
Which country? Because here in south eu all banks give out debit cards as standard card. NL is different in that they use maestro so if you want to travel (outside of eu) you have to request a regular debit/credit card and most NL banks do not issue debit cards outside maestro, so you get a Cc.
> if you want to travel (outside of eu) you have to request a regular debit/credit card
The era where maestro cards were impossible to use abroad was already over ten years ago. The only thing you might need a creditcard for abroad is hotels and car rental, which you wouldn't be able to do with any kind of debit card (outside of a relatively small selection of hotels).
The era where maestro cards were impossible to use abroad was already over ten years ago. The only thing you might need a creditcard for abroad is hotels and car rental, which you wouldn't be able to do with any kind of debit card (outside of a relatively small selection of hotels).
That doesn't match, at all, with my experience. I had to travel for work all over the world the past 8 years, usually twice a month and my maestro cards didn't work in any US atms or shops, nor in chinese ones, nor in hk, indonesia, australia, cambodia, most atms in thailand and other places.
In the US & China, it had big maestro stickers everywhere, but it didn't work at all. Different cards, different banks; on calling the banks they said they did not even see a transaction coming in and they the cards are set for international travel (and work fine everywhere they are accepted in the EU).
And it's not for lack of trying; One time on a big slog from US -> China -> AUS, I (stupidly) brought 1 credit card and 3 maestros and my CC got cancelled (fraud); I tried literally every atm , shop in these countries and could not get $1. I had to borrow from my colleagues. This is a few years ago.
In the US & China, it had big maestro stickers everywhere, but it didn't work at all. Different cards, different banks; on calling the banks they said they did not even see a transaction coming in and they the cards are set for international travel (and work fine everywhere they are accepted in the EU).
And it's not for lack of trying; One time on a big slog from US -> China -> AUS, I (stupidly) brought 1 credit card and 3 maestros and my CC got cancelled (fraud); I tried literally every atm , shop in these countries and could not get $1. I had to borrow from my colleagues. This is a few years ago.
I had immense issues with this in NL, even on a credit card; however in spain/portugal, I just send an email with the transaction id they cancel it without asking anything.
Have they changed their presentation? The details pages on https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html are clear enough that the lower prices are "Annual plan, paid monthly".
It's hidden behind a click of course, but it isn't obscure.
It's hidden behind a click of course, but it isn't obscure.
Holy crap, that is some dark pattern :/ Every website allows you to choose between annual and monthly payments, but but adobe just presents their annual plan in two different ways.
Yeah, I'm making a relatively dubious distinction between 'shitty' (which it is) and 'hard to find' (which it isn't particularly).
From "koopovereenkomst" I assume you are Dutch or Belgian. In the Netherlands, a "koopovereenkomst" most often means you have a "payment obligation" (betaalverplichting). The whole invoicing system where people pay afterwards, hinges on this principle.
Disclaimer: IANAL (But I helped as software developer at a factoring company: which buys unpaid invoices from freelancers for a fee or a percentage of the invoice-amount)
Disclaimer: IANAL (But I helped as software developer at a factoring company: which buys unpaid invoices from freelancers for a fee or a percentage of the invoice-amount)
> a factoring company: which buys unpaid invoices from freelancers for a fee or a percentage of the invoice-amount
Getting way off-topic here, but I’ve never heard of this. Is it like a bill-collector for freelancers? Who do the non-payers tend to be - is it companies who think they can stiff a freelancer, but who will pay up when someone with teeth comes knocking? Also, can anyone sell an invoice on to someone else to collect it, or does that possibility have to be written into the initial contract between the freelancer and the employer?
Getting way off-topic here, but I’ve never heard of this. Is it like a bill-collector for freelancers? Who do the non-payers tend to be - is it companies who think they can stiff a freelancer, but who will pay up when someone with teeth comes knocking? Also, can anyone sell an invoice on to someone else to collect it, or does that possibility have to be written into the initial contract between the freelancer and the employer?
Not sure about freelancers specifically but factoring is normally used by small companies to reduce short term capital requirements, as most companies will only pay invoices after 30 days and some have payment terms of much longer eg 90 days. Anyone can factor an invoice and if it was issued by a large and credit worthy company then this is a cheap way to access secured credit.
More recently, see the development of reverse factoring, where the customer initiates financing for its purchases from its suppliers. It's dangerous, as you can imagine; if the customer can't pay for its invoices, instead of being indebted to a supplier, they are in default to their creditor. See Greensill, a $1.5bn-from-Softbank startup that is involved in several recent crises among its creditors in the UK (see https://www.ft.com/content/d5a5951f-bab8-4ea8-b0d7-2b70455c9..., and for a more indepth explanation of what reverse factoring is (with jokes also), see https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-iyz8z-e06e88)
Thanks, this makes sense. Do you have any idea what the factor’s cut is? It can’t be too much, because otherwise the freelancer would wait for direct payment - unless they are really tight for money - so my gut feeling is somewhere between 5% - 10%
These are debt collectors, you've definitely heard of them, and they're all super shady. This is just how it works.
A normal business, say your bank or you energy supplier or your software supplier, will try and recover a debt with some basic attempts. But then they'll bundle together all their debts and sell them to debt collectors for pennies on the pound.
Don't know why they're called a factoring company in Holland.
A normal business, say your bank or you energy supplier or your software supplier, will try and recover a debt with some basic attempts. But then they'll bundle together all their debts and sell them to debt collectors for pennies on the pound.
Don't know why they're called a factoring company in Holland.
> "Don't know why they're called a factoring company in Holland."
To me it sounds like a bad translation. "Invoice" in Dutch is "factuur". "Facturering" is the process of sending an invoice. I have often encountered the word "factoring" as a supposedly-English translation of it.
To me it sounds like a bad translation. "Invoice" in Dutch is "factuur". "Facturering" is the process of sending an invoice. I have often encountered the word "factoring" as a supposedly-English translation of it.
Because that’s what it’s called in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoring_(finance):
“Factoring is a financial transaction and a type of debtor finance in which a business sells its accounts receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third party (called a factor) at a discount“
“Factoring is a financial transaction and a type of debtor finance in which a business sells its accounts receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third party (called a factor) at a discount“
Factoring companies are actually pretty common. They don’t cover disputes (where a client disagrees).
It’s used by sportsclubs here as well, since hunting down people for small amounts of money is a pain.
ClubCollect is a large one working in parts of Europe
It’s used by sportsclubs here as well, since hunting down people for small amounts of money is a pain.
ClubCollect is a large one working in parts of Europe
Being from the Netherlands and having had a company there for 30 years, I know how well the law works; I have had many companies simply not paying invoices. And because the amounts are small (few 1000 usually) they get away with it without issues. We have tried everything: even winning in court but they still did not pay. Possession indeed is 9/10 of the law. So I would not worry about it too much not paying some Adobe bill.
I recently wanted to get some practical knowledge with cloud storage buckets and my first choice was Azure (for no other reasons that name was shrouded with mystery).
Free trial, etc. I give my phone number (something like "for legal reasons"). Then it asks for my CC. I already hate it because it's highly dubious they need my CC number for a free trial since it's not needed to deliver the product. Fine, I give it. Then the process is declined because they don't like my rechargeable CC.
I am a happy AWS freeloader and potential customer now (well, for one year at least).
Free trial, etc. I give my phone number (something like "for legal reasons"). Then it asks for my CC. I already hate it because it's highly dubious they need my CC number for a free trial since it's not needed to deliver the product. Fine, I give it. Then the process is declined because they don't like my rechargeable CC.
I am a happy AWS freeloader and potential customer now (well, for one year at least).
Well, to shed insight on Azure.
1. Phone number is required to minimize fake/bot/fraudulent use accounts.
2. Credit card is required in case you want to immediately scale up, and also, used as anti fraud as depending on the card used, and address is used to judge you as a customer and whether or not you should be disabled immediately upon account creation.
Credit cards first six numbers are the BIN, or bank identification number, these are used to sort whom the issuing bank is, what type of credit card line, and whether or not it is a virtual or such.
These are compounded to give you an antifraud score. Address and connecting IP address help too.
So that's why it was denied, but for a company like Micrsoft, their billing practices are very much streamlined and not so hidden vs other companies nor do they introduce "tricky" language such as Adobe's yearly contract, payable monthly SAAS.
1. Phone number is required to minimize fake/bot/fraudulent use accounts.
2. Credit card is required in case you want to immediately scale up, and also, used as anti fraud as depending on the card used, and address is used to judge you as a customer and whether or not you should be disabled immediately upon account creation.
Credit cards first six numbers are the BIN, or bank identification number, these are used to sort whom the issuing bank is, what type of credit card line, and whether or not it is a virtual or such.
These are compounded to give you an antifraud score. Address and connecting IP address help too.
So that's why it was denied, but for a company like Micrsoft, their billing practices are very much streamlined and not so hidden vs other companies nor do they introduce "tricky" language such as Adobe's yearly contract, payable monthly SAAS.
> 2. Credit card is required in case you want to immediately scale up, and also, used as anti fraud as depending on the card used, and address is used to judge you as a customer and whether or not you should be disabled immediately upon account creation.
That's not what MS says the credit card is for (edit: which doesn't mean they aren't using it the way you explained they do):
> We ask for your credit card number to verify your identity and to keep out spam and bots. You won’t be charged unless you upgrade.
They don't want me because of my CC (I specifically want a pre-paid CC I can put money on as I need it and can never be overcharged) because my CC can't be easily charged in case I forget to cancel the service.
Amazon, PSN store, paypal, online clothing store, pro and non pro pc parts store, etc. are all fine with this card.
edit: I understand Azure is a recurring payment with potential upcost at some point or another and that the examples I gave are one time payment but then they really should find a way to let me try their stuff for free as they say they want or just stop giving me resources if the card is declined.
That's not what MS says the credit card is for (edit: which doesn't mean they aren't using it the way you explained they do):
> We ask for your credit card number to verify your identity and to keep out spam and bots. You won’t be charged unless you upgrade.
They don't want me because of my CC (I specifically want a pre-paid CC I can put money on as I need it and can never be overcharged) because my CC can't be easily charged in case I forget to cancel the service.
Amazon, PSN store, paypal, online clothing store, pro and non pro pc parts store, etc. are all fine with this card.
edit: I understand Azure is a recurring payment with potential upcost at some point or another and that the examples I gave are one time payment but then they really should find a way to let me try their stuff for free as they say they want or just stop giving me resources if the card is declined.
Fraud, and verify identity kinda go hand in hand.
The type of credit card has high fraud activity.
Remember, it is to stop bad actors from using azure services for phishing, tricky things, etc (since a default instance w/ IIS, or any web service will literally be on windows.net.)
Anti-fraud == verify identity.
The type of credit card has high fraud activity.
Remember, it is to stop bad actors from using azure services for phishing, tricky things, etc (since a default instance w/ IIS, or any web service will literally be on windows.net.)
Anti-fraud == verify identity.
> Anti-fraud == verify identity.
That card has my whole name on it and the bank has a trail of everything I do with it. MS also now have a verified phone number and can see they both come from the same country.
> Remember, it is to stop bad actors from using azure services for phishing, tricky things, etc (since a default instance w/ IIS, or any web service will literally be on windows.net.)
Nothing prevents me from doing that with a regular credit card.
Nothing prevents them from shutting down services/instances that break their ToS.
How convenient for them the only way to try out their free offer is to give them the ability to withdraw money from me.
That card has my whole name on it and the bank has a trail of everything I do with it. MS also now have a verified phone number and can see they both come from the same country.
> Remember, it is to stop bad actors from using azure services for phishing, tricky things, etc (since a default instance w/ IIS, or any web service will literally be on windows.net.)
Nothing prevents me from doing that with a regular credit card.
Nothing prevents them from shutting down services/instances that break their ToS.
How convenient for them the only way to try out their free offer is to give them the ability to withdraw money from me.
I would never give Microsoft my credit card number after hearing all the horror stories of people trying to cancel Xbox Live.
No, it's almost certainly not legal. They're unlikely to pursue for damages though, and it doesn't feel unethical to me.
It's legal, you just still owe them the money. Nothing is stopping you from canceling a debit card that you have active reoccurring payments on, just if your mortgage was one of those the bank can still find you in default.
Similarly if Adobe owed you money they may make you run through a customer service maze in order to get it. That's legal too. They don't have to provide you with a method to automatically take as much money as you assume you are owed.
Similarly if Adobe owed you money they may make you run through a customer service maze in order to get it. That's legal too. They don't have to provide you with a method to automatically take as much money as you assume you are owed.
You left out the part where they sell the debt you have with them to a debt collector who will then ruin your credit score.
Maybe it's technically illegal. I don't care.
In the USA, it would be civil issue not a criminal one anyway. They can sue me if they like.
As far as the morality portion of things is concerned, I don't consider what they are doing moral anyway and I sleep fine at night.
In the USA, it would be civil issue not a criminal one anyway. They can sue me if they like.
As far as the morality portion of things is concerned, I don't consider what they are doing moral anyway and I sleep fine at night.
> side note, Final Cut is better
For anyone not doing professional video editing work I can definitely recommend DaVinci Resolve. The basic version is completely free and is extremely powerful.
For anyone not doing professional video editing work I can definitely recommend DaVinci Resolve. The basic version is completely free and is extremely powerful.
Once you get over the initial bump in the learning curve that most high-end content creation tools have, Resolve is one of those tools that grows with you; most of the time if you need a "new-for-you" function, it always had it ready for when you need it. Some people report stability problems, for me Resolve (stable releases) has been the most stable content creation tool - any category - I've personally used.
Pro tip: Do go through the slight additional hassle of setting up a local postgresql server with their installer and use that instead of the "local database" (=SQLite). Saving projects with a lot of internal data (e.g. many clips using correctors with trackers) is much quicker (>10x) with pg.
Pro tip: Do go through the slight additional hassle of setting up a local postgresql server with their installer and use that instead of the "local database" (=SQLite). Saving projects with a lot of internal data (e.g. many clips using correctors with trackers) is much quicker (>10x) with pg.
DaVinci Resolve free version should provide enough functionality and powerful features for even most professional work! DaVinci is a product I'll happily promote. I feel that the software somehow flies "too much under the radar": if you don't know where to look for and seek free video editing software, you end up easily in a swamp of terrible freemium software even when DaVinci Resolve is easily available.
DaVinci Resolve is, if anything, excellent for professionals. I have used it professionally for years, but realize it was originally only available with a grand console system that only large studios could afford.
I second this recommendation, especially if you deal a lot with 4K footage (no need for proxy videos that both Premiere and After Effects needs to not be janky) and color grading, as it's amazing in DaVinci Resolve.
Really? I will try it.
I always thought DaVinci was extremely powerful and overkill. I need something which can handle HDR and is a bit better than iMovie, but, both FCPX and Premiere were too much work for me to learn.
I always thought DaVinci was extremely powerful and overkill. I need something which can handle HDR and is a bit better than iMovie, but, both FCPX and Premiere were too much work for me to learn.
Recently did the exact thing with a Privacy card and SiriusXM (fuck that company). I have a plot twist tho, SiriusXM continued to extend my service after my trial period ended and payment declined then tried to make me pay $10. Turns out, I still had to manually jump through all of the hoops of manually cancelling my SiriusXM account and the $10 is the pro-rated bill between the end of my trial and when finally cancelled.
Seriously, fuck that company.
edit: seems I have a fancy for run on sentences. sorry
Seriously, fuck that company.
edit: seems I have a fancy for run on sentences. sorry
I wonder if OP could have changed his CC number to a disposable CC instead of paying out 11 months to cancel?
You can also buy prepaid debit cards at supermarkets, post offices, etc (at least in Australia) which allow you to do the same thing.
You can also buy prepaid debit cards at supermarkets, post offices, etc (at least in Australia) which allow you to do the same thing.
The rub with all of these services is that your account is burned in addition to your credit card. You can walk away from the remaining 11 months of Lightroom as long as you don't need to continue using Premiere for a project or rely on them for any other ongoing service like downloading stock photos you purchased through them (I think I remember seeing that service?)
Similarly, doing this to a Steam account or iTunes account cuts off your access to all your previously "purchased" content.
Similarly, doing this to a Steam account or iTunes account cuts off your access to all your previously "purchased" content.
A reminder that you never have to worry about ANY of this bullshit if you pirate the software
You don't have to worry about that BS if you use free software alternatives either. Plus you get to contribute to an alternative ecosystem that is also a lawful and moral alternative (Because piracy is both illegal and immoral in many circles.)
How do you contribute by using free software? You contribute if you give something, mainly coding or money.
You already contribute by growing the community. Software benefits from network effects. E.g. a large hurdle for Libreoffice adoption is the fact that many documents are in the MS proprietary formats. Messengers like Signal or Telegram are in the same boat. As the community grows, the chance increases for someone to contribute by coding or money, or hiring the lead devs for support contracts. It doesn't have to be you, but if you (and others) hadn't used the software before them, that person might not have used it in the first place.
Yes, you can increase your value to the project thousandfold with more direct contributions like coding, bugfixes, donations, community work, etc, but already being part of the community is of help.
Yes, you can increase your value to the project thousandfold with more direct contributions like coding, bugfixes, donations, community work, etc, but already being part of the community is of help.
Those effects are vastly overstated.
https://lwn.net/Articles/825602/
If you participate in the community, you can be a boon or you can also be a drag (if you just use the software in the privacy of your home, report problems and ask questions, without every giving back in any way, not even by answering other folks' questions).
If you want your open source developers to eat, they need cold hard cash.
From the lwn link above:
> Words fail me to express how beyond-utterly-broken the existing TDF / desktop model is for the ecosystem around selling Desktop LibreOffice.
> Collabora - despite C'bra still putting a lot of work into LibreOffice Desktop, having an outstanding support capability, doing lots of marketing, being the largest code contributor to LibreOffice, and having lots of existing happy customers / references for desktop LibreOffice, ... etc. etc.
> We have not had -one- -single- -new- Collabora Office customer since 2018 - zero.
(for context: the former LibreOffice development team of SUSE joined Collabora in 2013, so they're not a scrappy new startup completely disjointed from Libreoffice)
https://lwn.net/Articles/825602/
If you participate in the community, you can be a boon or you can also be a drag (if you just use the software in the privacy of your home, report problems and ask questions, without every giving back in any way, not even by answering other folks' questions).
If you want your open source developers to eat, they need cold hard cash.
From the lwn link above:
> Words fail me to express how beyond-utterly-broken the existing TDF / desktop model is for the ecosystem around selling Desktop LibreOffice.
> Collabora - despite C'bra still putting a lot of work into LibreOffice Desktop, having an outstanding support capability, doing lots of marketing, being the largest code contributor to LibreOffice, and having lots of existing happy customers / references for desktop LibreOffice, ... etc. etc.
> We have not had -one- -single- -new- Collabora Office customer since 2018 - zero.
(for context: the former LibreOffice development team of SUSE joined Collabora in 2013, so they're not a scrappy new startup completely disjointed from Libreoffice)
> If you participate in the community, you can be a boon or you can also be a drag (if you just use the software in the privacy of your home, report problems and ask questions, without every giving back in any way, not even by answering other folks' questions).
Whether problem reports are a help or hindrance depends strongly on the type of report. A low information "it broke" post is a hindrance. A high information post giving steps to reproduce, having looked for similar bug reports, giving system details needed to reproduce the report, should be a help.
Whether problem reports are a help or hindrance depends strongly on the type of report. A low information "it broke" post is a hindrance. A high information post giving steps to reproduce, having looked for similar bug reports, giving system details needed to reproduce the report, should be a help.
Thanks for linking the E-mail, it was a very interesting read!
200 million users means the community is huge. Not every project is in a situation like that. It means that Libreoffice creates tremendous value around the globe, and extracting just some of that value means the development efforts can be grown.
There are positive things in that e-mail as well: many large institutional users do contribute back.
Also note that well researched bug reports can be helpful for the community, especially if you post workarounds you found into the bug thread, and the thread is accessible by search.
As for Collabora, I'm not sure how much they engage in marketing? Maybe if they increase such efforts/change strategy they can grow their number of customers.
200 million users means the community is huge. Not every project is in a situation like that. It means that Libreoffice creates tremendous value around the globe, and extracting just some of that value means the development efforts can be grown.
There are positive things in that e-mail as well: many large institutional users do contribute back.
Also note that well researched bug reports can be helpful for the community, especially if you post workarounds you found into the bug thread, and the thread is accessible by search.
As for Collabora, I'm not sure how much they engage in marketing? Maybe if they increase such efforts/change strategy they can grow their number of customers.
As a major Open Source contributor, I'd say that advocating the software goes a long way.
For example, in one of my last job (I'm a freelance), I could get paid full time to contribute to open source tools because the guy taking the decision heard about PostgreSQL and open source somewhere. If that guy has only heard about Oracle, the same work would have gone closed source.
If the person responsible for the office solution of a school heard of open office from you, you did help a lot. Because many times, big open source users will invest in open source, in form of support, custom development or just sponsoring.
For example, in one of my last job (I'm a freelance), I could get paid full time to contribute to open source tools because the guy taking the decision heard about PostgreSQL and open source somewhere. If that guy has only heard about Oracle, the same work would have gone closed source.
If the person responsible for the office solution of a school heard of open office from you, you did help a lot. Because many times, big open source users will invest in open source, in form of support, custom development or just sponsoring.
You contribute to its popularity. People want their software to be used.
Easy: send them some money. I do, at times I even sent money to projects I deem important though I'm not actually using them, like FreeBSD and OpenBSD.
Except the peace of mind and running arbitrary code part
It's true only if you find torrents "in the wild". You can lurk/participate in an established torrent forum which gives you user reports, discussions, seeder score and a community mindset instead of a c00l w4r3z download mindset in general. Idk of english or international ones, but only because I never looked for one. TPB and KAT are not good examples, cause these look(-ed) like boards rather than forums, although I never had any issues with using them either.
In addition to gp's point: After settling my income I began buying software (games mostly) on steam/etc to support studios I like, but it is still much easier to torrent it afterwards and to not deal with bs that stores represent. I never realized before how much hassle it is to own a legal version of everything. You pay your money and they don't even bother of your convenience or digital rights, only theirs. Recently I bought starcrart remastered (without torrenting) and that battle.net downloads over 200mb over my adsl line every flipping time I try to run it. As a result, I just watch falcon pal match reviews at youtube and never run it. Blizzard deserved that money for sure, but man isn't that stupid.
In addition to gp's point: After settling my income I began buying software (games mostly) on steam/etc to support studios I like, but it is still much easier to torrent it afterwards and to not deal with bs that stores represent. I never realized before how much hassle it is to own a legal version of everything. You pay your money and they don't even bother of your convenience or digital rights, only theirs. Recently I bought starcrart remastered (without torrenting) and that battle.net downloads over 200mb over my adsl line every flipping time I try to run it. As a result, I just watch falcon pal match reviews at youtube and never run it. Blizzard deserved that money for sure, but man isn't that stupid.
I don't know about software, but pirated games are generally more secure, stable and performant with less spyware than the official games with all the DRM.
Haven't played video games for some time, but at least when I was still pirating, malware and spyware was pretty common. Bugs and incompatibilities caused by pirating were also not unheard of.
Playing pirated game is putting trust into the hands of some anonymous hackers. And that begs the question, what do they gain from giving out the game for free?
They could be doing it just for fun, for coolness, or out of altruism. And that's true for probably many case. But to say none of them wanted to earn expedient money would not persuade me.
Playing pirated game is putting trust into the hands of some anonymous hackers. And that begs the question, what do they gain from giving out the game for free?
They could be doing it just for fun, for coolness, or out of altruism. And that's true for probably many case. But to say none of them wanted to earn expedient money would not persuade me.
>>malware and spyware was pretty common.
Malware and Spyware is pretty common with purchased games, of course they call it "DRM" but it has the same goal and purpose
Malware and Spyware is pretty common with purchased games, of course they call it "DRM" but it has the same goal and purpose
Citation needed. I guess you’re probably right but companies are way more accountable than random internet person who modified the dll/binary to work without copy protection.
What's "accountable"? Any old releaser on a big tracker has way better track record of not screwing users than the average corporation.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/12/evidence-continues-to...
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/crackers-say-denuvo-d...
That's the point. Companies have proved themselves not accountable to their customers.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/crackers-say-denuvo-d...
That's the point. Companies have proved themselves not accountable to their customers.
I remember hearing about at least one game that was significantly more performant when pirated (I think it was by Ubisoft). They had so much code for DRM and network tracking that it was faster to just stop that code from executing by hacking the game.
This happened with Monster Hunter World's Iceborne expansion. It updated the included version of Denuvo and added many, many threads that constantly scanned the game executable for modifications as an anti-cheat mechanic.
A modder distributed a tool to bypass the anti-cheat and restore performance the same day the expansion released. It took over two weeks for Capcom to get the game playable again, and many more before they improved performance back to roughly pre-update levels.
For reference, I'd been using Steam Proton to play the base game on Linux and was getting 60fps at nearly max settings. After the update, I got 1. One frame per second. I saw a number of similar reports from native Windows players.
A modder distributed a tool to bypass the anti-cheat and restore performance the same day the expansion released. It took over two weeks for Capcom to get the game playable again, and many more before they improved performance back to roughly pre-update levels.
For reference, I'd been using Steam Proton to play the base game on Linux and was getting 60fps at nearly max settings. After the update, I got 1. One frame per second. I saw a number of similar reports from native Windows players.
Now you have customer support to complain to when they lose your photos.
You don't follow games recently (meaning 10 years at least). There are few publishers that put pretty nasty DRM protections inside that run constantly, take few % of the CPU and do constant full memory checks (among other things). Performance drop is visible unless you have obscurely expensive hardware.
This is kind of expected for online gaming due to many folks fucked up mentality of using cheats and playing with rest of the crowd (some psychologists could probably go quite deep on breaking this down to mostly childhood issues). If you play on your own, its just a pain in the a.
Many people buy the game and then play pirated version, just to avoid this kind of punishment of the lawful citizens.
This is kind of expected for online gaming due to many folks fucked up mentality of using cheats and playing with rest of the crowd (some psychologists could probably go quite deep on breaking this down to mostly childhood issues). If you play on your own, its just a pain in the a.
Many people buy the game and then play pirated version, just to avoid this kind of punishment of the lawful citizens.
> companies are way more accountable
Probably over half the popular multiplayer products on Steam have rootkits in them that send a lot of data about you straight to the publisher. Companies are not accountable for the things you want them to be accountable for, so for normal people it just looks like they're not accountable at all.
Probably over half the popular multiplayer products on Steam have rootkits in them that send a lot of data about you straight to the publisher. Companies are not accountable for the things you want them to be accountable for, so for normal people it just looks like they're not accountable at all.
No, for companies anything goes because copyright. They are in god mode, farming users.
There are other options out there that don’t include DRM but also don’t advocate piracy. For example GOG.com
I tend to buy (indie, Linux) games on gog/humble bundle/itch.io, or on the official developer website. When I have to use steam it really pains me, their client, drm, marketing forced accounts, pricing policy .. are a pita.
[deleted]
Are there any subscriptions on Steam to do this to? I thought temp credit cards were meant to solve passing your real cc details to a merchant for 1 off transactions or when things like adobe do sketchy stuff. If you're buying games on steam it shouldn't matter if you use a temp credit card or not.
> or when things like adobe do sketchy stuff
If a company does something sketchy and you cancel or reverse the charges, you generally lose everything on the account - not just the thing you're disputing.
Adobe is similar to Steam in that a single account is likely to have a variety of different products associated with it. If you somehow end up in a dispute involving Steam and reverse a charge, Valve will (IIRC) close out your entire account.
If a company does something sketchy and you cancel or reverse the charges, you generally lose everything on the account - not just the thing you're disputing.
Adobe is similar to Steam in that a single account is likely to have a variety of different products associated with it. If you somehow end up in a dispute involving Steam and reverse a charge, Valve will (IIRC) close out your entire account.
The core question to ask here is why the payment card networks allow merchants to circumvent the chargeback process by stealing subscription goods in retaliation for disputing fraudulent charges.
The card industry imposes a lot of regulation on merchants in the name of security (e.g. PCI) and customer experience (e.g. not allowing merchants to demand secondary ID for in-person transactions). Retaliation fraud by subscription merchants is something the card industry could stop and the industry should not be let off the hook for allowing this practice.
Neither, for that matter, should governments be given a free pass. Consumer dispute resolution processes exist for a reason (in no small part to reduce the load on the legal system) and circumventing them should not be tolerated.
The card industry imposes a lot of regulation on merchants in the name of security (e.g. PCI) and customer experience (e.g. not allowing merchants to demand secondary ID for in-person transactions). Retaliation fraud by subscription merchants is something the card industry could stop and the industry should not be let off the hook for allowing this practice.
Neither, for that matter, should governments be given a free pass. Consumer dispute resolution processes exist for a reason (in no small part to reduce the load on the legal system) and circumventing them should not be tolerated.
I think the situation is before steam had refunds people would try to make a chargeback and have their whole account locked.
Ah ok that makes sense.
I don't see how this is legal. This is probably Steam & Apple being assholes... or hopefully just a misunderstanding.
Not likely, I tried that route about 2 years ago... they started calling and leaving threatening messages every day until I paid up. Not sure what would have happened if I kept ignoring them.
My card allows me to switch off online purchases. Not very helpful but possibly prevents the complete killing of an otherwise functional card.
It would be good if cards had a white or black list option.
It would be good if cards had a white or black list option.
For video editing you can always try DaVinci Resolve. Free and very powerfull. There are some limitations, but they will very likely not be important for "some editing" work.
As usual, I got invited to the early beta of Privacy quite a while back. Unfortunately, being an Indian resident we have no alternatives that works like Privacy nor Apple Pay.
The privacy policy of Privacy.com makes me question if they should be trusted with the detailed transaction information of their users. The policy does make it clear that they share personal data with third parties under, what they call, "controlled circumstances":
"With third parties, within the United States and in other countries, who may access data about you to perform functions on our behalf"
Here it would be nice to get a clear picture of what these functions are. If they are only for the processing of payments then this is fine (they actually mention this case in the second bullet point so my example does not hold). If these functions are to data mine my data for reselling to a third party advertisment network that would not be alright.
"With third parties, within the United States and in other countries, who may access data about you to perform functions on our behalf"
Here it would be nice to get a clear picture of what these functions are. If they are only for the processing of payments then this is fine (they actually mention this case in the second bullet point so my example does not hold). If these functions are to data mine my data for reselling to a third party advertisment network that would not be alright.
if one has to ask ...
clearly they cannot. they are based in the US.
it's like VPNs. or DOH. it's not a matter of absolute privacy, it's a matter of privacy wrt a certain party.
if privacy.com really were private, you'd fund an account with bitcoin. which afaict you cannot. so you need another level of abstraction/privacy to keep your details from privacy.com.
clearly they cannot. they are based in the US.
it's like VPNs. or DOH. it's not a matter of absolute privacy, it's a matter of privacy wrt a certain party.
if privacy.com really were private, you'd fund an account with bitcoin. which afaict you cannot. so you need another level of abstraction/privacy to keep your details from privacy.com.
Are card numbers from privacy.com not recognizable as prepaid cards? Why I am asking - recently I was trying to use my Revolut card to register MS Azure account but it threw an error saying something about prepaid cards not allowed. I had to use the card I have from my bank. I am wondering whether it would be like that with cards from privacy.com as well.
I recently started using privacy cards and encourage others to give it a shot!
Thanks for flagging this service, I just signed up. Looks very sleek and easy to use. Not sure what I would do with it, but nice to have as an option, especially when working with sketchy merchants.
For those not in the USA and with a Revolut card, you can activate a virtual card in the app, register with and then dispose of.
I did this for the free month of linkedn gold or whatever its called.
I did this for the free month of linkedn gold or whatever its called.
I am going to check it out..
As a Lightroom alternative, Darktable has quickly become a good replacement for me. I used to be a non-believer but turns out I just wasn’t used to it enough. It now has a healing brush at least as good (probably better^) as Lightroom, advanced perspective correction tool etc besides masking tools and other basics of course.
^ https://youtu.be/bWCLRYiNPn8
^ https://youtu.be/bWCLRYiNPn8
+1 to Darktable, it's an amazing piece of software.
Lately I have been using RawTheRapee [1] for most of my photo editing needs. It's simpler and less flexible than Darktable, but I get better results in less time unless I need some very specific editing. Also RawTheRapee's noise reduction and sharpening are better than Darktable's.
[1] http://rawtherapee.com/
Lately I have been using RawTheRapee [1] for most of my photo editing needs. It's simpler and less flexible than Darktable, but I get better results in less time unless I need some very specific editing. Also RawTheRapee's noise reduction and sharpening are better than Darktable's.
[1] http://rawtherapee.com/
I went through a similar experience - in fairness Adobe do say that the prices advertised are the monthly fee based on a 12 month subscription, but the way in which it was presented felt like they went out of their way to hide that fact.
I then discovered that you can only cancel that 12 month subscription within a short window at the very end of the 12 months.
In the end Adobe retired one of the products from Creative Suite and I used consumer protection law to cancel the subscription on the basis that the service had been materially changed.
I then discovered that you can only cancel that 12 month subscription within a short window at the very end of the 12 months.
In the end Adobe retired one of the products from Creative Suite and I used consumer protection law to cancel the subscription on the basis that the service had been materially changed.
I also fell for Adobe's "monthly subscription". The only saving grace was that I by chance happened to cancel 11 months in, only to be suprised that I actually was on a yearly subscription. Lost one month of fees, could have been worse.
> I then discovered that you can only cancel that 12 month subscription within a short window at the very end of the 12 months.
Is that legal?
Is that legal?
That's not legal in Netherlands. You can easily cancel ages in advance (by law). The law was implemented because of too many shady behaviours by various companies.
Generally yes, you enter a contract for a 12 month subscription but get a discount for it (ex. paying monthly with no subscription it'd cost x, paying monthly with a subscription would cost 0.8x). Good services usually have a clause that you can cancel but have to pay a penalty (for example (number of months0.3x) or (number of remaining months 0.1x)).
I ran into this issue several years ago and found a loophole without having to cancel my credit card.
When I was going to college I took advantage of the student discount for the full Creative Cloud suite. After a few years, the discount was no longer available and Adobe started charging me the full $60 a month. I didn't have the $720 needed to cancel my subscription and I just lost my job. I ended up downgrading to the Photoshop + Lightroom subscription since it was $20 a month instead of $60 and I didn't want to cancel my credit card. I found out after reading the subscription confirmation email that in their system it treats a subscription change the same as if I was signing up for a new subscription and I could cancel it and get my money back.
When I was going to college I took advantage of the student discount for the full Creative Cloud suite. After a few years, the discount was no longer available and Adobe started charging me the full $60 a month. I didn't have the $720 needed to cancel my subscription and I just lost my job. I ended up downgrading to the Photoshop + Lightroom subscription since it was $20 a month instead of $60 and I didn't want to cancel my credit card. I found out after reading the subscription confirmation email that in their system it treats a subscription change the same as if I was signing up for a new subscription and I could cancel it and get my money back.
I fell in this trap too and luckily I paid through PayPal.
I really don’t like PayPal as a company but from a consumer standpoint they’re useful to me because I am able to terminate billing on the PayPal side of things. Also i have not been burned by PayPal in the few disputes I have had to go through.
I wish there was a less shitty option than PayPal with the same level of insulation and dispute resolution. Lots of small businesses/creators have gotten fucked over by PayPal freezing funds for months and not allowing appeals or really any communication is terrible and I hate supporting it.
I really don’t like PayPal as a company but from a consumer standpoint they’re useful to me because I am able to terminate billing on the PayPal side of things. Also i have not been burned by PayPal in the few disputes I have had to go through.
I wish there was a less shitty option than PayPal with the same level of insulation and dispute resolution. Lots of small businesses/creators have gotten fucked over by PayPal freezing funds for months and not allowing appeals or really any communication is terrible and I hate supporting it.
This is something that really should have been done at the bank level. Cards should have been a request system, the seller requests money and you grant that request. And then for subscriptions you can automate the grant process but at any time its under your control and can stop. Its insane how we just give every seller access to our bank accounts to pull money out of.
I never understood how it works in a bank. For one e-commerce purchase, my bank may send me an sms code to approve even minor amounts. But for the other it may not require that even for substantial sums. I think that some banks have this functionality built in, but it's the seller who decides which one to use. That is strange. As a result, I'm using a virtual card with a tunable limit for all less trusted services. Anyway, legal issues still apply. Adobe basically tricks users into a year long, autorenewable loan contract here, and that has nothing to do with their (in)ability to grant payments. It is a law that allows these terms is insane, not banks.
Ironically it's done for user convenience, so that you don't need to automate the periodic payment yourself.
This is pretty much as SEPA direct payments work, except the grant is reversed.
For this specific use case, the old fashioned virtual credit card is sufficient. BOA and Citi offer them, to name a couple.
wrt dispute resolution, paypal is pretty awful compared to the traditional credit card, at least the major (top tier) bank issuers. the lower tiers like Capital One I imagine are more difficult. I'm in a paypal dispute right now. I have to wait 2 weeks for something to happen (don't know what exactly) before i can progress to the next stage, whatever that is. really? my amex reverses the charge immediately when i call them, and as far as my side of things, i'm done with it at that point. my WF visa is similar, and they call me when a further action is required.
paypal is google-level horrible. nearly indispensable service, immensely useful in some ways, the worst anti-user behavior in other ways. even the website to manage your account is full of dark patterns.
if you hate supporting it, stop supporting it.
wrt dispute resolution, paypal is pretty awful compared to the traditional credit card, at least the major (top tier) bank issuers. the lower tiers like Capital One I imagine are more difficult. I'm in a paypal dispute right now. I have to wait 2 weeks for something to happen (don't know what exactly) before i can progress to the next stage, whatever that is. really? my amex reverses the charge immediately when i call them, and as far as my side of things, i'm done with it at that point. my WF visa is similar, and they call me when a further action is required.
paypal is google-level horrible. nearly indispensable service, immensely useful in some ways, the worst anti-user behavior in other ways. even the website to manage your account is full of dark patterns.
if you hate supporting it, stop supporting it.
This is why whenever it’s possible I will sign up and pay for the subscription via Apple’s IAP. It’s simple, no bullshit, and I can cancel my current month’s subscription immediately.
I used to swear by Lightroom. That came to an end when they started the high pressure tactics to push people towards the subscription model.
Nowadays I use Raw Therapee and I'm quite happy with it. Free software, has all the features I need. No corporate overlords.
https://rawtherapee.com/
Nowadays I use Raw Therapee and I'm quite happy with it. Free software, has all the features I need. No corporate overlords.
https://rawtherapee.com/
I've found calling or chatting with support can solve most accidental adobe charges. Through my own fault I let a trial lapse and was on the hook for a year. A quick chat with the explanation of my mistake and they canceled the rest of the charges.
It might be easy for you but for many, having to actually call is super annoying and a bridge too far.
Super annoying? Sure.
A bridge too far? Learn to deal with the world as it is mate.
A bridge too far? Learn to deal with the world as it is mate.
If everyone learned to deal with the world as it is, nothing would ever change.
It’s possible to know how to deal with something, and advocate for change. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Agreed 100% -- the annual / monthly info is intentionally obfuscated. Rather than a dark pattern I consider it a scam outright.
Monthly pricing is great, people can justify doing a small project with expensive software without breaking the bank and simply resume the subscription if relevant work picks up. Especially great for freelancers.
But intentionally making it appear that it's a monthly subscription when it's actually an annual subscription is beyond the pale.
Monthly pricing is great, people can justify doing a small project with expensive software without breaking the bank and simply resume the subscription if relevant work picks up. Especially great for freelancers.
But intentionally making it appear that it's a monthly subscription when it's actually an annual subscription is beyond the pale.
CaptureOne as well: https://www.captureone.com/en/ although their interface is not as good.
I find the interface, speed and functionality of C1 better than LR's. I've switched to it completely and never looked back, I can recommend it unreservedly.
Capture One has a perpetual license, you can try it for free and before checkout their price shows the yearly commitment.
I'm a huge fan of C1's interface, it feels so intuitive and everything's just where I expect it to be.
It looks like they want to charge me the same as Lightroom but without the seamless cloud storage.
It's exactly this why the end users (even me as a developer) prefer Apple and it's mandated control over payments. I can safely use apps and spend money on apps secure with the knowledge that Apple will enforce this on my behalf to protect me from such money grabbing.
Yeah it really sucks that Apple takes 30% of all revenue, but the developers have painted themselves into a corner with behavior like this.
Yeah it really sucks that Apple takes 30% of all revenue, but the developers have painted themselves into a corner with behavior like this.
Exactly.
I have been “trialing” many apps that I wouldn’t normally bother with because of the high start-up cost. I say “trialing” because usually the 7 day or whatever trial period isn’t enough for me to decide if I want to keep the app or not, so I just typically sign up for a month after that as well.
For example, I think OmniFocus is like $100+. I heard lots of great things about it and tried it out, but as it is a task manager the 7 or 14 day trial wasn’t enough. Without being able to pay for a single month, knowing that I can cancel it immediately after I sign up and not worry about the subscription again, I would have never given it another look. But I was able to pay $10 for a month. And that month gave me enough time to try out all the features. Unfortunately for them I decided this was not the right software for me, but that’s how it goes.
Someone else in this thread wrote that Lightroom doesn’t have monthly subscriptions. Again, via Apple, it seems like I can subscribe for a month at $2, $5, or $10 depending on my storage needs. Though after this story I wouldn’t trust them for storage and would just take the $2 plan of I needed to use the software.
I have been “trialing” many apps that I wouldn’t normally bother with because of the high start-up cost. I say “trialing” because usually the 7 day or whatever trial period isn’t enough for me to decide if I want to keep the app or not, so I just typically sign up for a month after that as well.
For example, I think OmniFocus is like $100+. I heard lots of great things about it and tried it out, but as it is a task manager the 7 or 14 day trial wasn’t enough. Without being able to pay for a single month, knowing that I can cancel it immediately after I sign up and not worry about the subscription again, I would have never given it another look. But I was able to pay $10 for a month. And that month gave me enough time to try out all the features. Unfortunately for them I decided this was not the right software for me, but that’s how it goes.
Someone else in this thread wrote that Lightroom doesn’t have monthly subscriptions. Again, via Apple, it seems like I can subscribe for a month at $2, $5, or $10 depending on my storage needs. Though after this story I wouldn’t trust them for storage and would just take the $2 plan of I needed to use the software.
PSA: if you get on a support call with Adobe and complain long enough, they will waive the cancelation fee (source: I’ve done it). Not that this excuses Adobe in any way. They still intentionally obscure the fact that you’re signing a year contract when you sign up.
Yep, the magic word is “charge back”.
I love Affinity publisher and hype their products up as much as I can.
For Adobe, could you not have issued a chargeback or in some other way dispute the cancellation?
For Adobe, could you not have issued a chargeback or in some other way dispute the cancellation?
Not worth the time, irritations, and headache that will follow. I'm struggling to survive our Startup[1] and this is definitely not something I can digress my attention.
1. https://valinor.earth
1. https://valinor.earth
Ooh thanks for the link. Remote Sensing is a particular area of formal and informal study/interest, and have had similar ideas to components of what your startup seems to do, but am not currently doing anything related. There is so much underused public data available.
I checked and at least in Germany Adobe offers the monthly subscription. It's a little more expensive as can be expected. I purchased it some years ago, and then cancelling after a few months they tried to charge the rest of the year, but when I pointed them to the subscription type I had, they complied.
Affinity is wonderful, and for a 1.x product range, it’s pretty darn good.
It's not adding much to the discussion, but this exact thing happened to me as well. You can't exactly escape Adobe products these days, but you can certainly keep your money in your pocket.
SumatraPDF for Windows is terrific.
SumatraPDF for Windows is terrific.
> While trying to cancel my subscription, I realize I can only do that after paying for the remaining 11 months (rough calculation).
Yep! They have a thing called “yearly contract, billed monthly “. It took me a few minutes to understand what it meant. The first time I came across such a contract in the software world.
Yep! They have a thing called “yearly contract, billed monthly “. It took me a few minutes to understand what it meant. The first time I came across such a contract in the software world.
Their subscription left me with a bad aftertaste as well. They "freeze" the account for a couple of days prior to and after the billing date and will not allow you to cancel in that period. So you then have to call again after the freeze lifts.
I have also ended my 25+ year relationship with Adobe. I wouldn't feel so miffed about it if it wasn't for buying a full CS3 Master Collection licence for $2.5k thinking I was a "good boy" and this would be a sound investment in my career since I was deep into Flash, Flex, Fireworks and ofc Photoshop and Illustrator.
Then they went full Cloud and did me the "favour" of giving me a discount on this suite of $59.99 to $39.99 (IIRC). Every. Damn. Month.
The thing is I wasn't really using any of it much anymore, so I cancelled, but every now and then I need to whip up a logo/graphic or retouch some image and I don't have the little [Ps] or [Il] in my Dock anymore and I'm not gonna sign up again and pay monthly. That was the point of buying this software in the first, it's there for me when I need it, it's mine.
Nowadays Sketch gets me where I need to go most of the time, gonna have to get Affinity soon.
Then they went full Cloud and did me the "favour" of giving me a discount on this suite of $59.99 to $39.99 (IIRC). Every. Damn. Month.
The thing is I wasn't really using any of it much anymore, so I cancelled, but every now and then I need to whip up a logo/graphic or retouch some image and I don't have the little [Ps] or [Il] in my Dock anymore and I'm not gonna sign up again and pay monthly. That was the point of buying this software in the first, it's there for me when I need it, it's mine.
Nowadays Sketch gets me where I need to go most of the time, gonna have to get Affinity soon.
I also highly recommend Affinity Photo. It covered all of my use cases for photoshop and some for lightroom. Adobe is a scummy corporation who doesn't deserve their customers.
Can you clarify why that was so? I started using privacy.com for basically any trial of subscription nowadays, am curious if this would Avert their dirty tactics.
Adobe subscriptions are sold as annual plans only. You have the option of whether to prepay the full year, or to pay it off in monthly instalments.
https://www.adobe.com/au/creativecloud/plans.html
(I'd definitely recommend going with Affinity Photo instead if it suits your needs.)
https://www.adobe.com/au/creativecloud/plans.html
(I'd definitely recommend going with Affinity Photo instead if it suits your needs.)
The bundles are yearly plans only, but subscriptions to individual apps can be done on a month-to-month basis (try clicking on Photoshop, not "Photography")
That is true for some apps, but not others. Lightroom is not available monthly at all.
Lightroom is available at $1.99, $4.99, and $9.99 monthly for 40, 100, and 1000 GB of cloud storage, respectively.
This is what Apple’s App Store tells me.
See: imgur.com/a/Gk2S01k
This is what Apple’s App Store tells me.
See: imgur.com/a/Gk2S01k
That’s likely for the mobile version only, not the desktop version
[deleted]
Don’t forget Darktable! I recently got a Panasonic GH5 and I’ve been shooting RAW stills. Darktable has been a nice easy to use free/OSS RAW workflow.
http://www.darktable.org/
http://www.darktable.org/
I moved to darktable after updating my camera, the old LR version I had didn't support the new raw format.
Darktable is awesome.
Darktable is awesome.
Couldn't you have changed your CC number and email to disposable ones, and then written off the account?
Not if they used the lock-$2 verification trick.
Disposable, not fake. $5 would be ample for any authorization-based validation scheme I've ever implemented, dealt with, or heard about.
How does it work? Never heard of it before
Basically a proxy to the real credit card - then you can switch it off.
What does that mean?
Do yourself a favour and check out Capture One.
It's a bit more pricey (at least more pricey than the Photographer CC sub), but feels so much more polished.
It's even better at handling LR catalogues than LR. Last time I checked migrating my those files took minutes vs hours (CO vs. the new LR).
I've been using LR for years (10+?, and other products for almost 20) and the only reason I haven't completely switched yet is laziness.
It's a bit more pricey (at least more pricey than the Photographer CC sub), but feels so much more polished.
It's even better at handling LR catalogues than LR. Last time I checked migrating my those files took minutes vs hours (CO vs. the new LR).
I've been using LR for years (10+?, and other products for almost 20) and the only reason I haven't completely switched yet is laziness.
I'm all for shitting on big companies when they do shady stuff, but Adobe literally makes it clear when you sign up that you are signing up for an "Annual plan, paid monthly". You have 3 options.
Annual, Paid Monthly Annual, Paid Once Monthly, no Contract (which is priced higher than the other two)
This seems more like user error not understanding what they're signing up for.
Annual, Paid Monthly Annual, Paid Once Monthly, no Contract (which is priced higher than the other two)
This seems more like user error not understanding what they're signing up for.
You should have chargebacked. Unless it was 100% unambiguous that you entered into such a contract, the credit card company will side with you.
Edit: I've only had to chargeback once, in a situation that I tried to work out with a vendor. Other times, I've had to threaten a chargeback to vendors who didn't deliver promised goods.
Edit: I've only had to chargeback once, in a situation that I tried to work out with a vendor. Other times, I've had to threaten a chargeback to vendors who didn't deliver promised goods.
I generally find subscription requirements and similar tactics to be really frustrating, but for some reason it’s never felt that way with Adobe to me.
I think there’s something just sort of staggeringly impressive about the amount of detail and complexity in even one of the Creative Suite applications compared to the price of the whole collection.
Like paying $60 a month or so, which even if you get stuck is well under a thousand bucks a year, for all the development work that goes into dozens of specialized media editing solutions, which they keep super updated, seems kind of fair.
I’m comparing it, for example, to the misery of having to pay $10k+ a year for the steaming pile of garbage user experience of Salesforce, for example. Or $30 a month for like a hot new email client like Superhuman.
Adobe pricing has always struck me as profoundly fair in this context. That’s a seriously impressive software achievement.
I think there’s something just sort of staggeringly impressive about the amount of detail and complexity in even one of the Creative Suite applications compared to the price of the whole collection.
Like paying $60 a month or so, which even if you get stuck is well under a thousand bucks a year, for all the development work that goes into dozens of specialized media editing solutions, which they keep super updated, seems kind of fair.
I’m comparing it, for example, to the misery of having to pay $10k+ a year for the steaming pile of garbage user experience of Salesforce, for example. Or $30 a month for like a hot new email client like Superhuman.
Adobe pricing has always struck me as profoundly fair in this context. That’s a seriously impressive software achievement.
An acquaintance of mine introduced his friend in India, who was supposedly working for a contractor whose job is to harass companies pirating Adobe products into buying a contract; He proudly claimed that "he reported his Ex-employer to Adobe due to bad blood and harassed them to pay several several lakh rupees".
I've heard earlier that such agencies work for Microsoft, Adobe in India but that was the first time I've heard in-person from someone working for them. Adobe has every right to stop piracy of its products, but I wonder the legality of harassing the pirate instead of making a legal complaint. I presume it doesn't happen in US?
I've heard earlier that such agencies work for Microsoft, Adobe in India but that was the first time I've heard in-person from someone working for them. Adobe has every right to stop piracy of its products, but I wonder the legality of harassing the pirate instead of making a legal complaint. I presume it doesn't happen in US?
The BSA is an example of an organization that takes reports of companies pirating software and trying to work with them to get them to start using the software legally. It's legal to do this and is often cheaper for both sides as lawsuits are expensive.
Hypothetically, then it makes huge business incentive for these companies to work with hackers/crackers to embed malware in their crack for homing in on the pirates. Since, there wasn't any intrusion involved, I doubt whether it would be considered hacking legally? Even if it did, does the protections apply to cracks used for pirating? I bet there aren't any legal precedence for such situations in several countries where such organizations operate.
I've been using affinity designer since 2014. I love it, however its lacking a couple really vital features still that make illustrator a must have for many professionals (not me).
One is the envelope distort mesh, allowing you to modify on a 3d grid (3d transform, things further away are smaller). Example here[0].
The other is blending between two shapes, as seen here[1]
0: https://youtu.be/cq3K27M36mI?t=214
1: https://youtu.be/GOCPUJ5xVTw?t=661
One is the envelope distort mesh, allowing you to modify on a 3d grid (3d transform, things further away are smaller). Example here[0].
The other is blending between two shapes, as seen here[1]
0: https://youtu.be/cq3K27M36mI?t=214
1: https://youtu.be/GOCPUJ5xVTw?t=661
I got rid off Adobe from my life too. The new cloud based Lightroom cannot be installed because the installer itself cannot run on a Mac with the new file system. I could not believe it myself but that is it. The recommended workaround is to go back to the previous filesystem. Do you have any recommendation for Lightroom replacement on a Mac (not iOS)?
That’s rotten. I’m about to sign up for Lightroom on iOS and hopefully I can avoid that by going through Apple’s payment service.
I guess that is the good thing about not letting third party payments on the App Store…
I guess that is the good thing about not letting third party payments on the App Store…
I got burned by this as well, but after 6 months. Just waited out the remaining 6 months and then cancelled (Which also was "broken" on their website, requiring me to contact support to cancel.)
I've been using Luminar and have been mostly happy with it but it's possible that only because I don't know what I'm missing (with regard to Affinity). I'll have to check it out!
Isn’t the trial free? It says clearly the subscription plan is for 12 months.
What do you use for managing your photo archive?
So you signed up for an “annual subscription billed monthly” (which is discounted from the monthly subscription), didn’t actually read what you were buying, and this is somehow Adobe’s fault? This is not hidden from buyers. It is quite clearly stated when you choose your plan. You committed to something and didn’t follow through, so you are in the wrong.
Oh come; they obviously go out of their way to make sure this as unobvious as possible, for obvious reasons.
I had exactly the same experience; adobe can burn in a fire after that and the iPad photoshop disaster as far as I’m concerned.
I had exactly the same experience; adobe can burn in a fire after that and the iPad photoshop disaster as far as I’m concerned.
Have you actually looked at Adobe's site? You literally have to select "annual subscription billed monthly" to sign up. It's extremely obvious.
> You literally have to select "annual subscription billed monthly" to sign up
No, that's automatically selected for you. :) Try using the website yourself.
The billing page clearly says "Subtotal $XX/mo"; the only place it says 'annual plan' is in the top box, which says 'Annual plan, paid monthly'; and when you select, eg. the standard photoshop plan, and click 'Buy now'; it takes you to a page where there isn't even a monthly option, despite the main page saying "US$9.99/mo".
As no time do you 'opt in' to an annual plan, except by clicking on the button that says 'US$9.99/mo'.
It would be 'obvious' if it said: You minimum commitment over 24-months is $$$.
It does not.
I don't know what you get from stubbornly refusing to acknowledge this is a dark pattern; clearly other people find this surprising too, and... well, I don't know what to say. Sometimes you have to acknowledge that you're wrong.
This is bad behaviour on the part of adobe; it's not really a he said/she said/my opinion is kind of thing; in many places, having the minimum total commitment displayed on the billing page is a legal requirement. In others, a no-penalty cancel-subscription is a legal requirement.
Adobe just flat out does neither unless you fight with them and threaten legal action.
I honestly don't know how they get away with it.
No, that's automatically selected for you. :) Try using the website yourself.
The billing page clearly says "Subtotal $XX/mo"; the only place it says 'annual plan' is in the top box, which says 'Annual plan, paid monthly'; and when you select, eg. the standard photoshop plan, and click 'Buy now'; it takes you to a page where there isn't even a monthly option, despite the main page saying "US$9.99/mo".
As no time do you 'opt in' to an annual plan, except by clicking on the button that says 'US$9.99/mo'.
It would be 'obvious' if it said: You minimum commitment over 24-months is $$$.
It does not.
I don't know what you get from stubbornly refusing to acknowledge this is a dark pattern; clearly other people find this surprising too, and... well, I don't know what to say. Sometimes you have to acknowledge that you're wrong.
This is bad behaviour on the part of adobe; it's not really a he said/she said/my opinion is kind of thing; in many places, having the minimum total commitment displayed on the billing page is a legal requirement. In others, a no-penalty cancel-subscription is a legal requirement.
Adobe just flat out does neither unless you fight with them and threaten legal action.
I honestly don't know how they get away with it.
[deleted]
As mentioned elsewhere: the initial subscription was for 12 months. Extending that in NL is only allowed on a monthly basis, or a new contract. This exactly because too many companies made it purposely difficult to leave.
It's fairly logical: the customer agreed on 12 months. An additional fixed term requires a new contract/agreement. In practice companies now try to keep customers. Plus need to actually be ok instead of relying on people not overcoming the fake effort that is required to leave.
It's fairly logical: the customer agreed on 12 months. An additional fixed term requires a new contract/agreement. In practice companies now try to keep customers. Plus need to actually be ok instead of relying on people not overcoming the fake effort that is required to leave.
So you clearly didn't read what you were purchasing. As a (previous) Adobe CC subscriber, this was clear to me when I purchased (that I'd be paying for at least a year). That's really on you.
When it comes to subscriptions I have mixed feelings. Like if you agree to pay for a year (for example) then (IMHO) you should do that.
On the flipside, much like the model for gym memberships, companies can make it incredibly difficult to cancel a subscription. They deserve to be punished for this. Newspapers and magazines do this too. I realize a certain percentage of people will keep paying and not use the service (which is the ideal customer for a gym) but, for me, it means there are many things I will never buy because I don't want to deal with this (eg subscriptions to The Atlantic or the New Yorker).
Other comments here allude to Adobe's bad behaviour beyond the initial year (eg not allowing you go to month-to-month). I have no sympathy for Adobe here, particularly when they seem to be in breach of local laws by doing so.
To me the gold standard for subscription services is Jetbrains. The cost per year goes down over time and when you cancel you retain a version forever.
I personally prefer the subscription model for software compared to the previous large sticker prices for Adobe Photoshop. Outright purchases create bad incentives for companies (eg shortening the lifecycle such that bugfixes and minor features are only available via a paid upgrade to the next version). Subscriptions have a cheaper initial outlay (making them much more accessible) and they mean your software gets continually updated without version fragmentation.
Unfortunately companies also decide that a "reasonable" price for a subscription is the retail price in one year. It's not.
So anyway in your case, you are technically in breach of your purchase agreement and Adobe would be well within its rights to chase you for the full amount via disputing a chargeback, through your bank or CC provider or even through small claims court.
When it comes to subscriptions I have mixed feelings. Like if you agree to pay for a year (for example) then (IMHO) you should do that.
On the flipside, much like the model for gym memberships, companies can make it incredibly difficult to cancel a subscription. They deserve to be punished for this. Newspapers and magazines do this too. I realize a certain percentage of people will keep paying and not use the service (which is the ideal customer for a gym) but, for me, it means there are many things I will never buy because I don't want to deal with this (eg subscriptions to The Atlantic or the New Yorker).
Other comments here allude to Adobe's bad behaviour beyond the initial year (eg not allowing you go to month-to-month). I have no sympathy for Adobe here, particularly when they seem to be in breach of local laws by doing so.
To me the gold standard for subscription services is Jetbrains. The cost per year goes down over time and when you cancel you retain a version forever.
I personally prefer the subscription model for software compared to the previous large sticker prices for Adobe Photoshop. Outright purchases create bad incentives for companies (eg shortening the lifecycle such that bugfixes and minor features are only available via a paid upgrade to the next version). Subscriptions have a cheaper initial outlay (making them much more accessible) and they mean your software gets continually updated without version fragmentation.
Unfortunately companies also decide that a "reasonable" price for a subscription is the retail price in one year. It's not.
So anyway in your case, you are technically in breach of your purchase agreement and Adobe would be well within its rights to chase you for the full amount via disputing a chargeback, through your bank or CC provider or even through small claims court.
When things like this happen, is it any wonder an increasing number of users are viewing any sort of "updates" with extreme apprehension? "It was working fine just before, and now I've lost everything. Why should I have even updated!?!?"
I still remember when the general advice was "do not upgrade/change what works, unless you need something in a later version", which then changed to "updates are recommended", followed by "updates are strongly recommended", and more recently, "updates are mandatory".
Adobe isn't alone, Microsoft had done worse not long ago --- with a forced update too:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148376
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18189139
(On the flip side, at least you're able to run file recovery programs on a PC.)
I still remember when the general advice was "do not upgrade/change what works, unless you need something in a later version", which then changed to "updates are recommended", followed by "updates are strongly recommended", and more recently, "updates are mandatory".
Adobe isn't alone, Microsoft had done worse not long ago --- with a forced update too:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18148376
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18189139
(On the flip side, at least you're able to run file recovery programs on a PC.)
I definitely feel the increasing apprehension and postpone updates for as long as possible all the time.
But the change to "mandatory updates" came after numerous incidents of "millions of users running unpatched software fell victim to the latest exploit". This kind of bad publicity started the trend of software makers forcing updates on users.
Separating security patches from feature updates is better but doesn't 100% guarantee there are no data-losing bugs.
But the change to "mandatory updates" came after numerous incidents of "millions of users running unpatched software fell victim to the latest exploit". This kind of bad publicity started the trend of software makers forcing updates on users.
Separating security patches from feature updates is better but doesn't 100% guarantee there are no data-losing bugs.
> Separating security patches from feature updates is better but doesn't 100% guarantee there are no data-losing bugs.
It's a nice thought to separate "security" and "feature" updates, but I'm not sure if its realistically achievable.
----
Looking at the bigger picture, I think the issue is that once developers/managers got into the habit of forcing updates on users, it became an excuse for skimping on QA/QC. "If there's any bugs, we can just fix them in the next release". But there's a huge difference between internally finding a bug, analyzing its potential impact, then deciding it isn't a blocker and expecting your users to find bugs for you.
It's a nice thought to separate "security" and "feature" updates, but I'm not sure if its realistically achievable.
----
Looking at the bigger picture, I think the issue is that once developers/managers got into the habit of forcing updates on users, it became an excuse for skimping on QA/QC. "If there's any bugs, we can just fix them in the next release". But there's a huge difference between internally finding a bug, analyzing its potential impact, then deciding it isn't a blocker and expecting your users to find bugs for you.
That would be really, really hard and would require a tremendous amount of additional organization in the dev process. Either that or fixes would need to be back ported to every running supported version. That's insane.
I don't quite follow. Was that supposed to be a reply to the parent instead of me?
> "updates are recommended", followed by "updates are strongly recommended", and more recently, "updates are mandatory".
This is 5 years old, today we are doing:
Updates happen in background automatically without user knowing and sometimes when autoupdated software is being used at the time, it crashes when new action is performed and all not saved user data is lost.
Move fast, break things!
This is 5 years old, today we are doing:
Updates happen in background automatically without user knowing and sometimes when autoupdated software is being used at the time, it crashes when new action is performed and all not saved user data is lost.
Move fast, break things!
That's my experience every time Firefox updates these days through unattended-upgrades. The sad thing is that it handled it just fine without crashing up until a few years ago.
A quick scroll trough the settings page shows me you can turn the automatic updates off if you want.
Also not something i've experienced. Have you checked whether the crash isn't caused by some weird addon or the like?
The problem is caused when Firefox is installed through your operating system's package manager. But after a bit of searching, it looks like you can just get a version of Firefox from Mozilla's website that contains its own updater and avoids this problem.
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/b5jb7i/how_to_prev...
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/b5jb7i/how_to_prev...
> Updates happen in background automatically without user knowing ... Move fast, break things!
This is exactly why power users dislike SNAP.
Give us the ability to choose if/how/when to install updates. Period.
This is exactly why power users dislike SNAP.
Give us the ability to choose if/how/when to install updates. Period.
On the audio production side of things... people are still pretty skittish when it comes to upgrades. I like to think of an audio production system as an appliance rather than a computer.
There's a quote from George Sanger that goes something like "the difference between an appliance and a computer is that a computer breaks down more often". He was speaking about audio production. There's a photo in his book of a computer with a sign taped to it saying, in explicit words, to NOT upgrade the computer, because it is running GigaSampler and he would very much like to keep running GigaSampler.
There's a quote from George Sanger that goes something like "the difference between an appliance and a computer is that a computer breaks down more often". He was speaking about audio production. There's a photo in his book of a computer with a sign taped to it saying, in explicit words, to NOT upgrade the computer, because it is running GigaSampler and he would very much like to keep running GigaSampler.
On a side note, I think that will make the Intel Macs still valuable for years to come.
Audio production software is notoriously conservative when it comes to updates.
Audio production software is notoriously conservative when it comes to updates.
That's partly because many plugins won't be updated and if you need to revisit a project and didn't bounce stems back then you'll be out of luck.
This is what I came to comment as well. I understand security updates to prevent the haxors from taking over. Even still, I wait for these exact warnings that update are bad. The forced automatic updates are the scariest thing to me. Luckily, on the desktop, they still allow the user to update at their discretion. I never ever ever update my Adobe software in the middle of projects. I once updated in the middle of a feature film edit that was put on hold, but went back to it after an update to Premiere. There were enough oddities with the new version that made me roll back to a previous version.
Backups are a necessity, and I don't blame the users but it would definitely help mitigate risks when it comes to updating software. I am an update fanatic running Arch and constantly keep all my software up-to-date. Fortunately, I've never had any issues, but if I do I have both Google Drive synced via rclone and Crashplan to help me recover.
While I agree with you and do myself keep several backups, I get the feeling that this is actually more and more difficult to implement for "regular people".
Related to TFA's subject, I'm a user of Lightroom and Photoshop, but the computer-based, "classic" ones. I still manage my photos "the old way", with folders on my drive that I back up regularly to two locations.
However, I also tried Lightroom on my iPhone. Right now, if I were asked, I would not know how to go about backing up those pictures, aside from doing a full phone backup. Also, the marketing speak for adobe's cloud (and indeed, for every similar offering out there) is "keep your data secure / safe". So as a regular user, how would I know that's actually "not secure enough" and that "synced to the cloud" is not actually backed up?
The actual language on the latest Lightroom iPhone app is "Synced and backed up". But given Canon lost their customer's photos the other day, how much can you actually count on those backups being actual backups? My point is that we should indeed try to educate users and not blame them for this kind of problem happening, but maybe we should actively blame companies for the deceiving language they use while at the same time rendering user's data harder and harder to manage.
Related to TFA's subject, I'm a user of Lightroom and Photoshop, but the computer-based, "classic" ones. I still manage my photos "the old way", with folders on my drive that I back up regularly to two locations.
However, I also tried Lightroom on my iPhone. Right now, if I were asked, I would not know how to go about backing up those pictures, aside from doing a full phone backup. Also, the marketing speak for adobe's cloud (and indeed, for every similar offering out there) is "keep your data secure / safe". So as a regular user, how would I know that's actually "not secure enough" and that "synced to the cloud" is not actually backed up?
The actual language on the latest Lightroom iPhone app is "Synced and backed up". But given Canon lost their customer's photos the other day, how much can you actually count on those backups being actual backups? My point is that we should indeed try to educate users and not blame them for this kind of problem happening, but maybe we should actively blame companies for the deceiving language they use while at the same time rendering user's data harder and harder to manage.
>how much can you actually count on those backups being actual backups?
You can not count at it at all. The only legit option glacier honestly.
You can not count at it at all. The only legit option glacier honestly.
The conversation went in exactly the same direction 3 days ago when we were discussing Canon's recent loss of user data.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196557
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196557
G Suite is FedRAMP compliant. AWS isn't doing anything different or better and isn't any more trustworthy. Additionally, as I mentioned I also backup off-site using CrashPlan but may eventually change to another provider like Wasabi, B2 or potentially just JottaCloud.
Break things fast...
It's terrible when it happens, but it's important not to focus too much on one risk. A software update deleting your work isn't the only risk, and it's probably not the most common risk.
For an iPhone or iPad, the device getting lost or broken is probably the most common issue. Avoiding updates won't be of any help if that happens. Keeping backups will help for more risks.
For an iPhone or iPad, the device getting lost or broken is probably the most common issue. Avoiding updates won't be of any help if that happens. Keeping backups will help for more risks.
Slight sidebar: it's so frustrating that Adobe made the new Lightroom some cloud based monstrosity. For photographers with serious workflows involving local disks, we're now relegated to "Lightroom Classic" which makes me feel like I'll be discontinued in N years from now. I hope they change course and drop this whole cloud thing, the yearly subscription model is bad enough.
They've also pulled off an incredibly hostile move for paid users of older Lightrooms - they're refusing to update it for 64bit-only OS X. The app itself is 64bit (in fact, the app itself is _only_ 64bit), but its licensing/installer components are not. So if you update OS X, it's not guaranteed that Lightroom (that you paid for) will run, or if it does, how long it will continue running for. This isn't some ancient software, this is the 2015 version of Lightroom.
This is 100% intentional to drive users to subscriptions.
This is 100% intentional to drive users to subscriptions.
Its worse than that (from 2019)
"Adobe this week began sending some users of its Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, Premiere, Animate, and Media Director programs a letter warning them that they were no longer legally authorized to use the software they may have thought they owned."
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-...
"Adobe this week began sending some users of its Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, Premiere, Animate, and Media Director programs a letter warning them that they were no longer legally authorized to use the software they may have thought they owned."
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3xk3p/adobe-tells-users-...
They don’t really explain it. Did users buy a standalone version of these software and adobe now claims they can’t legally use something they bought?
Part of your Creative Cloud license is insurance/indemnification against third-party infringement claims. That is, if Adobe were to pirate someone else's software, and then that person decided to sue you for copyright infringement, Adobe would defend you.
What happened is that Adobe pirated someone else's software - specifically, Dolby's. They slathered surround-sound support into all their apps, but used very questionable accounting methods to avoid paying for all that licensing. For example, if they added 5.1 support to Premiere, they'd only count it as a "sale" if you actually opened Premiere and used that particular feature. This is a blatant license violation.
Creative Cloud used to have a feature where you could install old versions of their software, all the way back to CS6. Of course, if Dolby's lawsuit worked out, each version you installed could count as a separate license violation. Hence, they took away that very generous old version support and said you only get the latest version and last year's version.
As one of the developers for Ruffle, this absolutely sucks, because there is no Adobe-sanctioned way to generate test Flash movies with ActionScript 2 code anymore. That support was removed when they released the first Creative Cloud version of Flash, which is already many years old and also not provided by Adobe anymore.
What happened is that Adobe pirated someone else's software - specifically, Dolby's. They slathered surround-sound support into all their apps, but used very questionable accounting methods to avoid paying for all that licensing. For example, if they added 5.1 support to Premiere, they'd only count it as a "sale" if you actually opened Premiere and used that particular feature. This is a blatant license violation.
Creative Cloud used to have a feature where you could install old versions of their software, all the way back to CS6. Of course, if Dolby's lawsuit worked out, each version you installed could count as a separate license violation. Hence, they took away that very generous old version support and said you only get the latest version and last year's version.
As one of the developers for Ruffle, this absolutely sucks, because there is no Adobe-sanctioned way to generate test Flash movies with ActionScript 2 code anymore. That support was removed when they released the first Creative Cloud version of Flash, which is already many years old and also not provided by Adobe anymore.
> For example, if they added 5.1 support to Premiere, they'd only count it as a "sale" if you actually opened Premiere and used that particular feature. This is a blatant license violation.
I wouldn't say 'blatant'. That seems like a reasonable tactic in a vacuum.
I guess they could have made it a separate download and install when you click that menu option, but the end result would be the same.
I wouldn't say 'blatant'. That seems like a reasonable tactic in a vacuum.
I guess they could have made it a separate download and install when you click that menu option, but the end result would be the same.
If it's a free download it still might not fly. I suspect they would have to charge a reasonable fee for providing the specific functionality in order for that approach to work (otherwise the only "sale" was that of the original software).
If you focus specifically on the sale, sure.
But if you look at what actually happens to the IP, there's a good argument that dolby has no right to any payment from a user that never touches their IP.
But if you look at what actually happens to the IP, there's a good argument that dolby has no right to any payment from a user that never touches their IP.
The license fee would be based upon the method of counting installed base. If Adobe wants to change the method of counting, Dolby should be allowed to change the fee.
Isn't the IP licensed in terms of sales (or revenue, or something similar) though? (I haven't looked up the specific license in this case.)
Probably it's something in EULA that Adobe grant user licence to use the software that might be revocable under certain permission like this one.
I don't know why this is such a shock to people reading HN. EULAs have always granted a license to use typically on a single computer. They have never granted a license to own (would gladly be proven wrong if someone has an example). It's not your code. You can't own it. I'm sure they are concerned about having to support the legacy code. Yes, converting to 100% subscription based users, but if they can pull the plug on any responsibility to support old code, that would be ideal for them.
No one is shocked by bad behavior, but just because something isn't surprising doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion.
Would it? Great. Let's just all applaud, justify and support what is best for all corporations and see where we get with that, nay?
I bought a copy of Photoshop Elements 2019 two months before Catalina came out. Guess what no longer works on Catalina? Adobe knew full well it wasn't going to work, but still continued to sell it, and didn't bother to update it.
There's also no way to download Lightroom 6 from Adobe anymore, so unless you saved the installer, you'd be out of luck on a new Mac even if Adobe had updated the licensing system for 64bit.
There are some tech companies I don't have a particularly positive view of and try to avoid, such as Facebook. Only Adobe, however, do I consider such an execrable blight on the industry that I have a firm, no-exceptions, "never again" policy.
There are some tech companies I don't have a particularly positive view of and try to avoid, such as Facebook. Only Adobe, however, do I consider such an execrable blight on the industry that I have a firm, no-exceptions, "never again" policy.
FYI, I thought this was not possible either but if you bought it from Adobe you can log into your account, see your past purchases, and download the v6 installer. I just did this like a week ago when I realized I lost my v6 installer. But you're right in a sense in that unless you have it on your Adobe account history, the installer is no where to be found anywhere else like it used to be.
Piracy exists to keep corporations honest.
While that's a tempting view, in the case of Adobe piracy exists to drive adoption.
Most of the time, piracy is used because it's just more convenient then properly paying [0]. Those who still pirate, despite there existing a more convenient option to pay usually can't afford it, and will pay when they can.
In the meantime, the name of your program becomes a verb and an industry standard, and everyone has to deal with it.
[0] https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/11/25/gabe-says-piracy-isn...
Most of the time, piracy is used because it's just more convenient then properly paying [0]. Those who still pirate, despite there existing a more convenient option to pay usually can't afford it, and will pay when they can.
In the meantime, the name of your program becomes a verb and an industry standard, and everyone has to deal with it.
[0] https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/11/25/gabe-says-piracy-isn...
Payments in fiat are very user-hostile though, and very few vendors can afford cryptocurrency.
> Payments in fiat are very user-hostile though
Not for Joe McConsumer, at least from a usability/convenience perspective.
Not for Joe McConsumer, at least from a usability/convenience perspective.
Same happened with Adobe Premiere. I've been a Premiere user for the last 12 years but that change lost me. I've moved to Final Cut Pro because of it.
Out of curiosity, what extent (if any) do you hold Apple responsible for the situation?
As an example, Big Sur will drop support for Mac Minis from before the Haswell 2014 models.
If Apple don't care about customers with purchases that are more than 6 years old, is it fair to expect Adobe to?
(That's ignoring Catalina's estimated support date likely to be 2022, as that's presumably not the sort of macOS update to which you refer.)
As an example, Big Sur will drop support for Mac Minis from before the Haswell 2014 models.
If Apple don't care about customers with purchases that are more than 6 years old, is it fair to expect Adobe to?
(That's ignoring Catalina's estimated support date likely to be 2022, as that's presumably not the sort of macOS update to which you refer.)
This is why my main media computer is still Mojave.
Regardless of the apology, Adobe should not be allowed to simply dismiss that they deleted user files. In effect, due to Adobe negligence, they have destroyed user intellectual property. A signal and example needs to be made. Individual users can sue for damages -- lost value and opportunity -- illegal destruction of property.
The computer fraud and abuse act could also be applied for criminal charges -- Adobe misused and misappropriated their access to customer data and systems. Arguing that it was a "mistake" and "we are sorry" does not correct the damage done. If Adobe makes such a fuss over protecting their IP, then they should not be surprised when their customers do so also. There is a potential for a class action here as well. And Adobe is very profitable -- some legal team representing this case, even if pro bono, will be/become quite rich.
Moreover, telling people that they should have X, and Y, and Z, to protect themselves from the mistakes of rogue actors/apps, is simply a displacement of responsibility tactic.
Just because something illegal/damaging was "done with a computer" does not mean it was "ok" and "an apology is enough" -- now pay us for our services you miserable worm/user!
The computer fraud and abuse act could also be applied for criminal charges -- Adobe misused and misappropriated their access to customer data and systems. Arguing that it was a "mistake" and "we are sorry" does not correct the damage done. If Adobe makes such a fuss over protecting their IP, then they should not be surprised when their customers do so also. There is a potential for a class action here as well. And Adobe is very profitable -- some legal team representing this case, even if pro bono, will be/become quite rich.
Moreover, telling people that they should have X, and Y, and Z, to protect themselves from the mistakes of rogue actors/apps, is simply a displacement of responsibility tactic.
Just because something illegal/damaging was "done with a computer" does not mean it was "ok" and "an apology is enough" -- now pay us for our services you miserable worm/user!
This happened on the user's phone. The issue is at what point negligent authorized access becomes unauthorized access. "Exceeds authorized access" is a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. A contract cannot override criminal law. This is really complicated, see [1]. An EULA, though, might not be enough to get Adobe out of this.
Especially if a third party, not a party to the EULA, owned the photo. If, for example, a news photographer for a newspaper had a photo lost, and the photographer, but not the employer, had agreed to the EULA, the newspaper might sue.
This is an important point. If a third party who is not bound by the EULA suffers damages, they can sue for negligence. The EULA binds only those who have agreed to it.
[1] https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-me...
Especially if a third party, not a party to the EULA, owned the photo. If, for example, a news photographer for a newspaper had a photo lost, and the photographer, but not the employer, had agreed to the EULA, the newspaper might sue.
This is an important point. If a third party who is not bound by the EULA suffers damages, they can sue for negligence. The EULA binds only those who have agreed to it.
[1] https://shawnetuma.com/cyber-law-resources/what-does-cfaa-me...
A difficulty that has been pointed out on other forums is that after an unexpected delete bug that caused permanent data loss, during any subsequent legal action you may have no evidence to demonstrate what you have lost. If you do have a backup available from elsewhere to demonstrate the damage that was done to your device, you have also demonstrably limited that damage to a small inconvenience in having to restore the backup.
I support the principle that having permission to install updates should not grant carte blanche to have those updates do anything no matter how harmful, and indeed I would be in favour of much stronger regulation of technology in this area. However, I'm not sure how much that would help if there isn't some mechanism for regulators to assess statutory/punitive damages in some form. Even then, there's no way for a regulator to fairly allocate any financial compensation available to users who were, or claim to have been, affected. We're effectively trying to create a deterrent rather than trying to compensate for actual losses here, and with something like lost personal work, you can never make good the damage just with money anyway.
I support the principle that having permission to install updates should not grant carte blanche to have those updates do anything no matter how harmful, and indeed I would be in favour of much stronger regulation of technology in this area. However, I'm not sure how much that would help if there isn't some mechanism for regulators to assess statutory/punitive damages in some form. Even then, there's no way for a regulator to fairly allocate any financial compensation available to users who were, or claim to have been, affected. We're effectively trying to create a deterrent rather than trying to compensate for actual losses here, and with something like lost personal work, you can never make good the damage just with money anyway.
If someone steals from you you don't have to produce exhaustive evidence of your ownership in order to file a police report or claim your insurance. This works because saying you owned something you didn't is fraud and filing a false report is an additional crime.
The same principle could maybe be applied here?
(Usual disclaimer I am not a lawyer etc)
The same principle could maybe be applied here?
(Usual disclaimer I am not a lawyer etc)
What if you have timestamped file metadata l, but not tge data, or checksumed IDS records? Would that qualify as sufficient evidence?
No. It's evidence that something was lost, but not a measure of the actual damages you suffered. Whose to say if you lost $100 or $100k? In the absence of the lost material there's most likely no way to demonstrate anything.
In this case some sort of statutory deterrent would probably be a much more effective solution. I honestly doubt that regulation is a good solution here though - bugs like this are so severe from a PR perspective that there's already a huge incentive to avoid them.
(This reminds me of that time that Steam on Linux ate every last user file on the system whole. https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671)
In this case some sort of statutory deterrent would probably be a much more effective solution. I honestly doubt that regulation is a good solution here though - bugs like this are so severe from a PR perspective that there's already a huge incentive to avoid them.
(This reminds me of that time that Steam on Linux ate every last user file on the system whole. https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3671)
Even with the images who's to say the images are $100 or $100k?
Microsoft paid "low six figures" for Bliss (the Windows XP desktop background) but only $300 ($45 to the photographer) for Autumn (a different desktop background)[1].
If you get physically injured and you successfully sue how do they determine the damages to award you? There isn't a dollar amount for physical pain. They can't test an alternate future where you aren't injured and see how much money you make. They just make up estimates. It would be the same here; they would estimate the monetary and emotional damage of losing the pictures.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2017/12/23/microsoft-xp-bliss-photog-p...
Microsoft paid "low six figures" for Bliss (the Windows XP desktop background) but only $300 ($45 to the photographer) for Autumn (a different desktop background)[1].
If you get physically injured and you successfully sue how do they determine the damages to award you? There isn't a dollar amount for physical pain. They can't test an alternate future where you aren't injured and see how much money you make. They just make up estimates. It would be the same here; they would estimate the monetary and emotional damage of losing the pictures.
[1] https://petapixel.com/2017/12/23/microsoft-xp-bliss-photog-p...
It's evidence that something was lost, but not a measure of the actual damages you suffered
That has never stopped those other knights of IP theft, the RIAA and MPAA
That has never stopped those other knights of IP theft, the RIAA and MPAA
My impression of the SOP of those organisations, which I stress is based entirely on online hearsay so may be wildly inaccurate, is that they write to someone who they suspect has probably ripped something illegally, make a song and dance about the huge statutory damages that can potentially be awarded (under US law), and then rely on the fact that defending a suit will also (under US law) probably cost them thousands even if they win, so settling may work out cheaper even if they really have done nothing wrong?
The analogous organisations don't tend to try that kind of stunt here in the UK. Unless the copyright infringement is criminal, in a civil action our legal system currently only provides for actual damages to be awarded, and it's usual for the winning party to be awarded their legal fees at the loser's expense.
So unless there are some kind of statutory/punitive damages available for each lost photo in a case like this, it doesn't seem to be a comparable situation.
The analogous organisations don't tend to try that kind of stunt here in the UK. Unless the copyright infringement is criminal, in a civil action our legal system currently only provides for actual damages to be awarded, and it's usual for the winning party to be awarded their legal fees at the loser's expense.
So unless there are some kind of statutory/punitive damages available for each lost photo in a case like this, it doesn't seem to be a comparable situation.
I don't think it's wise to push for expansion of criminal liability of software bugs. Civil courts provide enough remedy here.
Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation.
And honestly, it's good this way. If you want to secure your photos, make backups yourself or sign a contract with some company that will guarantee something. But once they are liable and can be sued, the service will be astronomically expensive.
And honestly, it's good this way. If you want to secure your photos, make backups yourself or sign a contract with some company that will guarantee something. But once they are liable and can be sued, the service will be astronomically expensive.
In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive.
Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc.
The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "supersedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed.
There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc.
The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "supersedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed.
There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
If you want bulletproof software with guarantees (like the medical industry or aerospace or traffic light systems or banks) you'll get extremely conservative, boring old tech with no flashy new features all the time.
If the cost for breakage is too high they just won't make any changes unless absolutely necessary. But the market has spoken and people prefer flashy new features and updates instead of boring railroad control-like software that is works the same way for decades.
You can't have it both ways. If your data is important don't just store it on a single device. These photos were just stored on a single device that could break for any reason any day anyway.
Unless Adobe can be shown to have been criminally negligent or intentionally malicious I don't think there's a case here but ianal.
If the cost for breakage is too high they just won't make any changes unless absolutely necessary. But the market has spoken and people prefer flashy new features and updates instead of boring railroad control-like software that is works the same way for decades.
You can't have it both ways. If your data is important don't just store it on a single device. These photos were just stored on a single device that could break for any reason any day anyway.
Unless Adobe can be shown to have been criminally negligent or intentionally malicious I don't think there's a case here but ianal.
If keeping my professional data safe from deletion means that I will as a result get more boring tech I think I'd make that choice most times in the course of my work. What I'm finding annoying in recent times is how I'm not able to actually make that choice as often as I'd like.
Also agree with your point about making backups if anything is significantly important, though I've also found a lot of products in recent times are deliberately making it harder to create backups (Slack comes to mind here)
Also agree with your point about making backups if anything is significantly important, though I've also found a lot of products in recent times are deliberately making it harder to create backups (Slack comes to mind here)
> If you want bulletproof software with guarantees (like the medical industry or aerospace or traffic light systems or banks) you'll get extremely conservative, boring old tech with no flashy new features all the time.
If users could actually evaluate the guarantees and have reasonable assurance that they would be upheld, I suspect this is exactly the direction the industry would take.
However, because it's unreasonably expensive to verify that those guarantees hold (relative to the value the software offers), end-users have no reason to prefer products that offer them to products which merely claim to be secure.
If users could actually evaluate the guarantees and have reasonable assurance that they would be upheld, I suspect this is exactly the direction the industry would take.
However, because it's unreasonably expensive to verify that those guarantees hold (relative to the value the software offers), end-users have no reason to prefer products that offer them to products which merely claim to be secure.
You can verify it based on the legal warranty contract that you sign. The reason this is not offered is that consumers/prosumers would not be able to pay for it.
Turning a process/culture that works 99% of the time into 99.99% is often surprisingly expensive. For example currently as a company you may have some slightly less attentive engineers or less strict code review process for convenience and speed, or you may pursue lots of projects with tight deadlines etc. which can lead to a situation like this with non negligible chance, but usually won't. Most of the software you use doesn't routinely delete user data, it's an accident. To avoid it you need to hire higher quality engineers or more of them to give them breathing room and less workload, and have to give up on some new features and innovation, which is really not so easy in a competitive market.
Turning a process/culture that works 99% of the time into 99.99% is often surprisingly expensive. For example currently as a company you may have some slightly less attentive engineers or less strict code review process for convenience and speed, or you may pursue lots of projects with tight deadlines etc. which can lead to a situation like this with non negligible chance, but usually won't. Most of the software you use doesn't routinely delete user data, it's an accident. To avoid it you need to hire higher quality engineers or more of them to give them breathing room and less workload, and have to give up on some new features and innovation, which is really not so easy in a competitive market.
But the market has spoken
It has? When was the market given a choice?
I, for one, would be absolutely fine with having fewer shiny new features but also not having software I rely on break all the time. The current culture of just shoving everything out, whatever condition it's in and regardless of the consequences of any potential failure, and saying you'll patch any problems later is toxic and quietly causing enormous damage to our society.
The culture of saying you can sell some hardware product with embedded software, or some software product that is hosted online or based on a subscription model, and then effectively force users who have already committed to that product to accept arbitrary changes whether they want them or not, is also toxic.
We don't know how to reliably write 100% bug-free software, but we do know how to write better software than much of what is produced today. Getting a significant increase in quality isn't even that expensive, since the long-term savings from reduced maintenance and increased productivity help to offset or even outweigh any additional costs during initial development. However, it does require hiring people with actual skill and knowledge to write the software instead of just assembling a cheap team of code monkeys. It also requires your leadership team to actually care about quality and plan to achieve it and provide resources accordingly.
IMNSHO, our industry would benefit from having more developers and leaders with these skills and mindsets, but until there is some form of pressure (and again, I couldn't disagree more that the status quo is a result of genuine customer preference) the economic drivers aren't pushing towards training up new software developers to be better and having leaders plan for good quality products in many cases. After all, why waste time and money doing something right if you can do it wrong but cheaper and still charge almost the same for it anyway? I think we're well overdue for genuine competition in the market and/or regulatory intervention to drive standards up.
It has? When was the market given a choice?
I, for one, would be absolutely fine with having fewer shiny new features but also not having software I rely on break all the time. The current culture of just shoving everything out, whatever condition it's in and regardless of the consequences of any potential failure, and saying you'll patch any problems later is toxic and quietly causing enormous damage to our society.
The culture of saying you can sell some hardware product with embedded software, or some software product that is hosted online or based on a subscription model, and then effectively force users who have already committed to that product to accept arbitrary changes whether they want them or not, is also toxic.
We don't know how to reliably write 100% bug-free software, but we do know how to write better software than much of what is produced today. Getting a significant increase in quality isn't even that expensive, since the long-term savings from reduced maintenance and increased productivity help to offset or even outweigh any additional costs during initial development. However, it does require hiring people with actual skill and knowledge to write the software instead of just assembling a cheap team of code monkeys. It also requires your leadership team to actually care about quality and plan to achieve it and provide resources accordingly.
IMNSHO, our industry would benefit from having more developers and leaders with these skills and mindsets, but until there is some form of pressure (and again, I couldn't disagree more that the status quo is a result of genuine customer preference) the economic drivers aren't pushing towards training up new software developers to be better and having leaders plan for good quality products in many cases. After all, why waste time and money doing something right if you can do it wrong but cheaper and still charge almost the same for it anyway? I think we're well overdue for genuine competition in the market and/or regulatory intervention to drive standards up.
Everybody is ignorant, but smart, attentive people are expensive and are not rewarded. Managers get up the ladder by scheming and appearances and alliances, devs are rewarded for padding their CVs, project managers rewarded for introducing new stuff with a short term focus etc. In many cases people just either don't know better, or don't have the time and patience to provide different incentives. This includes the customer who also doesn't understand tech, doesn't see the value in robustness.
And again for an Adobe creative product all this is still fine. Not losing your data is a solved problem and it's called a backup.
I very very much doubt that a person who doesn't bother to back up their professional data (keeps it all on a single device that may break any day) will have the brains and mental models to understand an argument involving software quality and that they should pay premium for something so intangible and abstract as opposed to visible things like features and a modern look and feel/polish.
In some analogous cases with ignorant customers the state steps in and creates consumer protection regulation, but its usually only for really dangerous stuff that can kill you or make you sick, like food safety, not just delete your wedding pics.
And again for an Adobe creative product all this is still fine. Not losing your data is a solved problem and it's called a backup.
I very very much doubt that a person who doesn't bother to back up their professional data (keeps it all on a single device that may break any day) will have the brains and mental models to understand an argument involving software quality and that they should pay premium for something so intangible and abstract as opposed to visible things like features and a modern look and feel/polish.
In some analogous cases with ignorant customers the state steps in and creates consumer protection regulation, but its usually only for really dangerous stuff that can kill you or make you sick, like food safety, not just delete your wedding pics.
And again for an Adobe creative product all this is still fine. Not losing your data is a solved problem and it's called a backup.
On this point, I just can't agree. Regardless of whether or not users have effective back-ups -- and we all know that for various reasons, sometimes they don't, even if they believed they did -- it simply isn't acceptable for someone to push out a software patch that destroys data incorrectly.
I don't think it's a trivial thing if someone loses data of great personal value, whether it's wedding photos, or a video of your child's first play at school, or precious footage of a friend or relative who is no longer with you, or just a personal project you've put a lot of work into. These things matter to people, and even if they didn't arrange for effective back-ups, it's not their fault that the data was destroyed in this case, it's 100% on Adobe for screwing up.
In some analogous cases with ignorant customers the state steps in and creates consumer protection regulation, but its usually only for really dangerous stuff that can kill you or make you sick, like food safety, not just delete your wedding pics.
I don't know where in the world you are, so maybe that is the case for you. At least here in the UK, and in Europe more widely, consumer protection laws tend to be quite strong and quite well regarded by the public, and they certainly aren't limited to life-or-death kinds of issues (though of course we have specialised safety regulations in those kinds of areas too).
On this point, I just can't agree. Regardless of whether or not users have effective back-ups -- and we all know that for various reasons, sometimes they don't, even if they believed they did -- it simply isn't acceptable for someone to push out a software patch that destroys data incorrectly.
I don't think it's a trivial thing if someone loses data of great personal value, whether it's wedding photos, or a video of your child's first play at school, or precious footage of a friend or relative who is no longer with you, or just a personal project you've put a lot of work into. These things matter to people, and even if they didn't arrange for effective back-ups, it's not their fault that the data was destroyed in this case, it's 100% on Adobe for screwing up.
In some analogous cases with ignorant customers the state steps in and creates consumer protection regulation, but its usually only for really dangerous stuff that can kill you or make you sick, like food safety, not just delete your wedding pics.
I don't know where in the world you are, so maybe that is the case for you. At least here in the UK, and in Europe more widely, consumer protection laws tend to be quite strong and quite well regarded by the public, and they certainly aren't limited to life-or-death kinds of issues (though of course we have specialised safety regulations in those kinds of areas too).
> Unless Adobe can be shown to have been criminally negligent
Not having multiple site backups isn't criminally negligent when running a paid cloud service?
Not having multiple site backups isn't criminally negligent when running a paid cloud service?
They didn't lose the cloud data.
nope, not in the slightest... anywhere on earth as far as i know
> Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS" and you accept it when you click that Accept button upon installation.
Those disclaimers often have far less legal effect than the text would suggest, because jurisdictions often limit the effect of warranty disclaimers by sellers, and also because of product liability laws which are distinct from warranty protection (though similar to the lay understanding of warranty protection.)
Those disclaimers often have far less legal effect than the text would suggest, because jurisdictions often limit the effect of warranty disclaimers by sellers, and also because of product liability laws which are distinct from warranty protection (though similar to the lay understanding of warranty protection.)
> Software licenses always disclaim any warranty, implied or explicit, it's all "AS IS"
In practice it’s fine, IF, files in the users’ hands is the master, cloud is a copy and format used is some sort of open standards.
Lets say I sent a mail, attachment got lost, but it’s a copy, besides it’s just a jpg, so send it again. Okay.
These cloud SaaS offerings are different: they tries to make the cloud as master, in proprietary format.
So local side is the xerox copy, and you have to go through complimentary conversion service to export the original if you sir insist, and they may cease access to the files on the cloud and copies on your computer but it’s somehow “your fault“ when they do that.
That doesn’t work! Either they assume full responsibility for content they hold, or we hold every rights, as we did, as we should.
I have multiple occasion where OneDrive thought it needs to steal my files from home directories, then change mind and don’t upload, but decides to reflect the reality that it’s not on the cloud. “Where are my files?” my ass you wiped another Desktop folder!
In practice it’s fine, IF, files in the users’ hands is the master, cloud is a copy and format used is some sort of open standards.
Lets say I sent a mail, attachment got lost, but it’s a copy, besides it’s just a jpg, so send it again. Okay.
These cloud SaaS offerings are different: they tries to make the cloud as master, in proprietary format.
So local side is the xerox copy, and you have to go through complimentary conversion service to export the original if you sir insist, and they may cease access to the files on the cloud and copies on your computer but it’s somehow “your fault“ when they do that.
That doesn’t work! Either they assume full responsibility for content they hold, or we hold every rights, as we did, as we should.
I have multiple occasion where OneDrive thought it needs to steal my files from home directories, then change mind and don’t upload, but decides to reflect the reality that it’s not on the cloud. “Where are my files?” my ass you wiped another Desktop folder!
In proportion to the margin, the "service cost" is already astronomically expensive.
Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc.
The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "superceedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed.
There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
Moreover, the the click accept "contract" is not license for extortion -- does not make extortion legal. A mere contract does not make arson legal, even if accidental; does not make man-slaughter legal, etc.
The computer fraud and abuse act applies, regardless of contract. Adobe accessed user computers/hosts in a way inconstant with user defined permissions, usage policies, etc. I have a usage policy that you "signed" or did the equivalent of "clicked through": if you (Adobe) elect to install your automatic app update on my host hardware, you certify that you will not delete any data files stored on that hardware. Just because Adobe did not bother to read the language of my hardware usage policies, which has language that it "superceedes all other agreements between the hardware host owner and the app installer, does not mean that they/Adobe are "immune" and can simply ignore their liability for IP destroyed.
There has to be a way to get these $#%@#% -- enough is enough.
I’ve been shooting for a very long time. And I shoot several sessions per month, and roughly 60gb per session. Sometimes much more, sometimes less. There is no possible way, nor reason, to have all those images in the cloud.
I split up my catalogs aggressively, so I don’t really know how many images I have saved. But it’s in the hundreds of thousands.
New Lightroom might be OK for the casual photographer. But for the pro or even advanced amateur, the new Lightroom is completely useless.
I split up my catalogs aggressively, so I don’t really know how many images I have saved. But it’s in the hundreds of thousands.
New Lightroom might be OK for the casual photographer. But for the pro or even advanced amateur, the new Lightroom is completely useless.
I don't have nearly your scale of photo data, but I also refuse to move to the cloud-based Lightroom. I really hope there are enough pro users like you to prevent Adobe from pulling the plug on Lightroom Classic. I'd go straight to Affinity or elsewhere if that happened.
What's your local storage setup?
Not OP. But a friend photographer has a large cupboard with "pigeonholes", I think it was some old mail-sorting cabinet or so. He stacks them with labeled USB drives. Hundreds of them.
His reasoning, when I asked about "NAS" or so, was: it's cheap, it lasts, and it is cold storage. Paying for storage of that amount that is fire-, flood and software-error-proof is so much more expensive that it really was no choice. -his words-.
His reasoning, when I asked about "NAS" or so, was: it's cheap, it lasts, and it is cold storage. Paying for storage of that amount that is fire-, flood and software-error-proof is so much more expensive that it really was no choice. -his words-.
> it lasts
Flash storage degrades, and is only expected to last about 10 years or so.
Flash storage degrades, and is only expected to last about 10 years or so.
Flash storage has a certain maximum number of writes and so will eventually fail as a reusable storage medium. But if you simply want to back up old photos, then you are still likely to be able to read back from the medium for much longer than 10 years.
Every reference I can find gives about a maximum of 10 years as the on-the-shelf, unpowered, lifetime of flash memory. Do you have a reference to some other number?
Dell says you may get as little as three months in storage from an SSD:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pvaul/en/Solid...
I know someone who had their files vanish off a thumbdrive in the space of a few months of storage.
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/products/pvaul/en/Solid...
I know someone who had their files vanish off a thumbdrive in the space of a few months of storage.
[deleted]
I just saw this, so excuse the late response.
I’m pretty bad at storage discipline. And I admit that most of what I store is generally useless. But there’s diminishing returns on deciding what to store, vs. storing everything.
I have a little hard drive toaster that I keep a revolving 5tb spinning disc drive in. It’s my “storage” drive, and once it fills up I replace it with new ones. I don’t shoot “professionally” as in for clients, but I shoot some fairly large scale images, that result in lots and lots of data. And my working files can get up to 10gb in size. So I vigorously backup my working files, and I’m only halfassedly storing all the captures in case I need to go back and review, or dig up BTS. Lastly I have a pretty cheap and crappy SSD that I use as a sort of scratch disc. If I shoot teatherd, I’ll capture to it, or if I’m working on an image I’ll work off the SSD until the image is complete, and then move it to me of the spinning disc drives.
I currently have 3 filled 5tb drives with captures, and a drobo that I keep my working files on (tiffs, psd’s, psb’s).
If none of what I’m saying adds up, take a look at my images, and hopefully it will make it slightly more clear: http://agroism.com
I’m pretty bad at storage discipline. And I admit that most of what I store is generally useless. But there’s diminishing returns on deciding what to store, vs. storing everything.
I have a little hard drive toaster that I keep a revolving 5tb spinning disc drive in. It’s my “storage” drive, and once it fills up I replace it with new ones. I don’t shoot “professionally” as in for clients, but I shoot some fairly large scale images, that result in lots and lots of data. And my working files can get up to 10gb in size. So I vigorously backup my working files, and I’m only halfassedly storing all the captures in case I need to go back and review, or dig up BTS. Lastly I have a pretty cheap and crappy SSD that I use as a sort of scratch disc. If I shoot teatherd, I’ll capture to it, or if I’m working on an image I’ll work off the SSD until the image is complete, and then move it to me of the spinning disc drives.
I currently have 3 filled 5tb drives with captures, and a drobo that I keep my working files on (tiffs, psd’s, psb’s).
If none of what I’m saying adds up, take a look at my images, and hopefully it will make it slightly more clear: http://agroism.com
Apparently they're doing pretty well. Don't expect them to change course. But this created the opportunity for others. I have migrated to Affinity photo + Capture One. No regrets.
How did you find the migration? I’ve been resisting Lightroom upgrades as I don’t want the cloud stuff. But as raw support for new cameras falls off it’s getting harder since the two step DNG import is such a pain.
Moving to Capture One or something else seems worthwhile. Tried Darktable but wasn’t a big fan.
Moving to Capture One or something else seems worthwhile. Tried Darktable but wasn’t a big fan.
I switched to Capture One and it’s so much better. The main factor is speed. Also allowing layers for all adjustments.
How’s its catalog? One thing I like about Lightroom is the catalog is just files on disk vs a giant database in say Aperture. I like having my own file layout and would hate to give that up.
Isn't the database in SQLite?
So, you can open it in a SQLite GUI (eg sqlitebrowser.org, which I'm a dev member of) to see and/or screw with stuff?
So, you can open it in a SQLite GUI (eg sqlitebrowser.org, which I'm a dev member of) to see and/or screw with stuff?
Lightroom’s is. Not sure about capture pro. In Apertures case, the photos and meta data are in one giant blob. I’d want to avoid that. Manage the files my way, then have a separate metadata store.
The downside of the SQLite dB is no network editing. I’d love to be able to edit from multiple machines without a cloud subscription or super slow NFS.
The downside of the SQLite dB is no network editing. I’d love to be able to edit from multiple machines without a cloud subscription or super slow NFS.
Cool, makes sense. :)
It’s just files inside a magic folder. Edits are stored in sidecar files. So even if the database is corrupted, you can still recover.
You don’t need to have your photos inside the catalog either, they can be referenced externally.
If you like to maintain your own structure, you might like the Sessions feature. It’s an folder-based alternative to the monolithic catalog.
You don’t need to have your photos inside the catalog either, they can be referenced externally.
If you like to maintain your own structure, you might like the Sessions feature. It’s an folder-based alternative to the monolithic catalog.
Yeah, I use sessions, which basically means there’s no catalog. I just keep the files where I like and open those folders with Capture One when editing.
I also like the EIP package format. You can package an image into a zip of the original image and all Capture One data. Then it’s just one file for your archives but everything you need is there for the future. Even if you can’t open the Capture One bits at some point, the original is still in there.
I also like the EIP package format. You can package an image into a zip of the original image and all Capture One data. Then it’s just one file for your archives but everything you need is there for the future. Even if you can’t open the Capture One bits at some point, the original is still in there.
I'm in the same boat and slowly realizing that the one-two punch of managing assets and editing may have to be split into separate apps.
I bought Affinity Photo and I am not enjoying the migration. Having used Photoshop for 20 years, there is so much muscle memory for a lot of tasks that were quick and are much slower now. It's really hard to learn and easy to feel disgruntled when you know you could have been done in a few seconds in Photoshop. I'm considering running CS6 in a VM or paying for the damn subscription.
I bought Affinity Photo and I am not enjoying the migration.
How long have you been working with Affinity? It's not Adobe's software and it's not trying to be, so there is always going to be some period of adjustment while you get used to a new way of doing things. IME, that passed very quickly, and within a few hours I was doing most basic tasks as readily in Affinity products as I would have done in CS/CC ones, but my work is usually more in Designer than Photo.
There is still quite a bit of useful functionality present in CC but missing in Affinity, which is a more serious problem for power users who have workflows and presets and plug-ins and so on set up with the Adobe products. But the Affinity suite seems to be developing rapidly, so perhaps in time this gap will close too.
How long have you been working with Affinity? It's not Adobe's software and it's not trying to be, so there is always going to be some period of adjustment while you get used to a new way of doing things. IME, that passed very quickly, and within a few hours I was doing most basic tasks as readily in Affinity products as I would have done in CS/CC ones, but my work is usually more in Designer than Photo.
There is still quite a bit of useful functionality present in CC but missing in Affinity, which is a more serious problem for power users who have workflows and presets and plug-ins and so on set up with the Adobe products. But the Affinity suite seems to be developing rapidly, so perhaps in time this gap will close too.
Capture One is more annoying in a bunch of user interface ways (for example it doesn't default to importing RAWs for some unknown reason) but it is learnable. Expect some time watching how-to videos on YouTube if you want to achieve proficiency.
If you tell C1 to ignore JPEGs in the settings they'll be omitted from the import dialog and won't be imported. That's how it works on v11, at least.
Not op, but recently switched to same combo after trying darktable, rawtherapee and digikam. Open source solutions had some random problems, strange ui and they lock up when you change slider values, at least on my laptop. Capture one doesn't and the overall polish is decent. Affinity photo lacks some photoshop features like content-aware fill AFAICT but good enough for my amateur needs. Not going back, screw you adobe.
How did you find the migration?
Lightroom -> Capture One was an upgrade. Even when the learning curve is taken into account, I found C1 to be superior piece of software. It's faster, its color editing is better, and the default look it gives me was just better, at least for my camera.
Photoshop -> Affinity Photo was painful. I'd estimate the pain to be "moderate". It misses some features I want (color calibration targets support, some layer blending modes) and some others are not as great (no smart sharpening). Affinity UX of working with layers is surprisingly painful and the attention to detail in the UI is poor. But since 90% of my time is spent in C1 anyway, I found it tolerable.
Lightroom -> Capture One was an upgrade. Even when the learning curve is taken into account, I found C1 to be superior piece of software. It's faster, its color editing is better, and the default look it gives me was just better, at least for my camera.
Photoshop -> Affinity Photo was painful. I'd estimate the pain to be "moderate". It misses some features I want (color calibration targets support, some layer blending modes) and some others are not as great (no smart sharpening). Affinity UX of working with layers is surprisingly painful and the attention to detail in the UI is poor. But since 90% of my time is spent in C1 anyway, I found it tolerable.
Is Capture One significantly better than editing files just in folders?
Yeah, in my opinion. The catalog gives you loads of power, eases the culling process, allows you to easily export batches of photos with recipes, do searches against metadata.
It also has 'sessions' which are aimed at individual shoots or projects. I suspect most pros use them instead of catalogues. It's essentially a self-contained directory structure that C1 understands,
It also has 'sessions' which are aimed at individual shoots or projects. I suspect most pros use them instead of catalogues. It's essentially a self-contained directory structure that C1 understands,
Can Capture One migrate my existing LR catalogs?
I also detest the subscription as I rarely update and don't care about new features. It compares really poorly too with the other key piece of software I use - DaVinci Resolve. Resolve has an incredibly good free version and then the paid upgrade is a single payment.
An observation I've made is that DaVinci Resolve seems to be a more technically capable still image editing tool than Adobe Lightroom, despite being designed for video colour grading instead of photography.
For example, Lightroom does not allow custom colour spaces for the output, they're restricted to a fixed list of baked-in ICC profiles. The only option is to export in the large ProPhoto space and then externally convert to the target space as a second step.
Lightroom has no support for true HDR, the type that requires HDR10 or Dolby Vision displays. If you want to edit a 14-bit RAW photo for, say, the background image in a HDR computer game or a YouTube video, Lightroom can't help you.
Even in SDR mode, the colour grading in Lightroom is much more primitive than Resolve. There's no vector scope, for example, something that would be trivial to implement for them.
Adobe talks a lot about their "AI" features, but they're very basic. They've left a lot of low hanging fruit on the tree. For example, it would be great feature that when flicking through a bunch of shots of a face while zoomed in, the eyes should be automatically aligned between each shot to make it easy to compare shots. Similarly, they could train an AI to recognise in-focus and out-of-focus faces, and automatically "score" a shot based on things like: "Are both eyes in focus, or just one?"
These days, this stuff is trivial to implement in software, yet Adobe is still firmly rooted in the 1900s era of "It's just like your darkroom! All the terminology of the black and white film era is unchanged! You can dodge! You can burn! Just... with a computer!"
Reminds me of AutoCAD 20+ years ago: it was a digital blueprint software. More computer-native CAD with proper 3D modelling capabilities such as SolidWorks ate their lunch...
For example, Lightroom does not allow custom colour spaces for the output, they're restricted to a fixed list of baked-in ICC profiles. The only option is to export in the large ProPhoto space and then externally convert to the target space as a second step.
Lightroom has no support for true HDR, the type that requires HDR10 or Dolby Vision displays. If you want to edit a 14-bit RAW photo for, say, the background image in a HDR computer game or a YouTube video, Lightroom can't help you.
Even in SDR mode, the colour grading in Lightroom is much more primitive than Resolve. There's no vector scope, for example, something that would be trivial to implement for them.
Adobe talks a lot about their "AI" features, but they're very basic. They've left a lot of low hanging fruit on the tree. For example, it would be great feature that when flicking through a bunch of shots of a face while zoomed in, the eyes should be automatically aligned between each shot to make it easy to compare shots. Similarly, they could train an AI to recognise in-focus and out-of-focus faces, and automatically "score" a shot based on things like: "Are both eyes in focus, or just one?"
These days, this stuff is trivial to implement in software, yet Adobe is still firmly rooted in the 1900s era of "It's just like your darkroom! All the terminology of the black and white film era is unchanged! You can dodge! You can burn! Just... with a computer!"
Reminds me of AutoCAD 20+ years ago: it was a digital blueprint software. More computer-native CAD with proper 3D modelling capabilities such as SolidWorks ate their lunch...
Adobe stagnation is not surprising given that they've switched to a subscription model.
Perpetual licensing means that software vendors are essentially competing with the previous versions of their own products and have to provide compelling improvements to their customers for them to upgrade. Ongoing revenue, and with it, vendor survival, depends on continual improvements.
In contrast, subscription models combined with cloud-based vendor lock-in allow software vendors to extract economic rents from their victims indefinitely. There are no previous versions to compete against and victims must pay in perpetuity to access their own data. Vendors get paid without needing to do work, so they do no work, make no improvements, and reap disproportionate profits.
Software subscriptions are a perfect example of rent seeking, with all that implies about the relationship between vendor and victim and the prospects for ongoing product improvements.
Perpetual licensing means that software vendors are essentially competing with the previous versions of their own products and have to provide compelling improvements to their customers for them to upgrade. Ongoing revenue, and with it, vendor survival, depends on continual improvements.
In contrast, subscription models combined with cloud-based vendor lock-in allow software vendors to extract economic rents from their victims indefinitely. There are no previous versions to compete against and victims must pay in perpetuity to access their own data. Vendors get paid without needing to do work, so they do no work, make no improvements, and reap disproportionate profits.
Software subscriptions are a perfect example of rent seeking, with all that implies about the relationship between vendor and victim and the prospects for ongoing product improvements.
I don't think there is any other software that matches Resolve's ease of use and results when it comes to primary or secondary (selective) color correction. I'm pretty sure you could just make a 6000x4000 (for example) timeline (resolution isn't limited to 4K in the paid version) and drop in a bunch of stills as separate single frame "clips", and export as a bunch of stills.
There are a lot of alternatives if you don't mind switching workflows a little. I'm only a casual photographer, but I made the jump to Exposure X5 (which blows Lightroom out of the water on performance). Capture One also looked like a good alternative.
Wow is that old fashioned local software without a subscription. I didn't know that was available, sounds perfect. I'm a guy that only wants to upgrade every 5 years and the subscriptions are offensively expensive.
Well with Lightroom Classic you can’t use it until you login to your Adobe Cloud account. I have a literal boxed copy of it that I can’t run because I don’t want to associate it with my cloud account (which I also don’t want to have).
The cloud is DRM. If the software doesn't run locally or only parts of it do, then it's impossible to pirate. It's also possible to impose a continuous rent on users. If the user can run disconnected that's hard to enforce.
That's really the motive for a lot of things going cloud.
That's really the motive for a lot of things going cloud.
No chance :( It’s their cash cow and it’s not going anywhere.
Especially when the cloud thing installs unkillable daemons and a top level folder that requires editing the windows registry
Well, this is as good a time as any then to try out Darktable [1]!
[1] https://www.darktable.org/
[1] https://www.darktable.org/
Definitely, darktable is fantastic. Haven't used Lightroom in years now, but at the time darktable was ahead in what it could do, editing-wise (Lightroom seemed better at organization to me then though). I posted this in the recent darktable thread, but here is a list of other FOSS photography software [1]. And I'd love any notes on new software or things to update, since this is from a few years ago now.
[1] https://9bladed.com/post/foss_photography/
[1] https://9bladed.com/post/foss_photography/
I did this a while ago. I was super excited to try out a digikam + darktable workflow. But the learning curve for darktable is so steep. I am just an amateur photographer who takes landscape photos. I used to make small edits using Lightroom and some panorama stitching. It seemed so straightforward in Lightroom. I am still struggling to figure out how to edit my photos and what modules to use in darktable. I am looking at YT videos and posts on pixlus, but I still have not been able to wrap my head around all the concepts. One day I will hopefully get it...
Agreed. I've been on Lightroom since v1.0 and long-ready to get away, but I need to replace the cataloguing and manipulation. Digikam was great to begin with, but then just stopped working smoothly, and Darktable has so many issues that I cannot understand all the suggestions to convert. I wish I could contribute to the codebase.
I've tried Affinity Photo, Pixelmator, no dice. Tried Capture One but it's like a slug dragging a ball-and-chain and the cataloguing workflow turns me upside-down. Image manipulation is blindingly good, however.
I've tried Affinity Photo, Pixelmator, no dice. Tried Capture One but it's like a slug dragging a ball-and-chain and the cataloguing workflow turns me upside-down. Image manipulation is blindingly good, however.
Don't blame yourself. If you're perfectly capable of using LG that's just clear indication the usability issues are with Darktable.
Darktable is an incredible piece of software. Far exceeds the capabilities of Lightroom.
But the UX is not great. I actually got a lightroom trial a few months ago and edited more photos in that week than I did in Darktable for a year. I hope it continues to grow and succeed but it’s UI and flow really need some work :)
But the UX is not great. I actually got a lightroom trial a few months ago and edited more photos in that week than I did in Darktable for a year. I hope it continues to grow and succeed but it’s UI and flow really need some work :)
Hm yeah new decade new tool
I used Lightroom (Classic) all of last decade and its time to move on
Crazy to think I used “newfangled non destructive non layer based editing” longer than I used photoshop the decade before
Yeah time for something new
I used Lightroom (Classic) all of last decade and its time to move on
Crazy to think I used “newfangled non destructive non layer based editing” longer than I used photoshop the decade before
Yeah time for something new
+1 for this. I used Lightroom in school, tried Darktable on my Linux machine at home and found it perfectly usable, though with a bit of learning curve of course.
Last time I attempted it on MacOS it was not terribly functional: I think only one person was working on it, part time; I don't know whether that's changed. It's a nice option on MacOS but probably doesn't function well as a DAM.
Sadly for my A7ii all the RAW files come out exposed incorrectly since the last few updates :( And by almost 3 EV too. I know it's not because of the file, since they look just fine in Lightroom.
Mind posting the RAW files? I use the a7ii and darktable and it is perfect for me.
Sure! Here you go for the RAW file : http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=04290873673274490201
Here is the SOOC JPG for the same image : http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=88911356095628235668
Google Chrome might warn you of the risk for malware, but it seems to do for every good, free filehost :/
For reference, here is the screenshot : https://imgur.com/a/6RkiGyH
It doesn't do this for every photo either, which is even more baffling.
I hope you'll excuse the poor composition, but I didn't want to publish a photo I might put on an account with my name on it :)
Here is the SOOC JPG for the same image : http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=88911356095628235668
Google Chrome might warn you of the risk for malware, but it seems to do for every good, free filehost :/
For reference, here is the screenshot : https://imgur.com/a/6RkiGyH
It doesn't do this for every photo either, which is even more baffling.
I hope you'll excuse the poor composition, but I didn't want to publish a photo I might put on an account with my name on it :)
https://imgur.com/a/0Pj2lex
Weird. I just did +1EV exposure and filmic rgb as is recommended, and it looks just fine to me.
What version of darktable are you using?
Weird. I just did +1EV exposure and filmic rgb as is recommended, and it looks just fine to me.
What version of darktable are you using?
I tried two versions, 3.3.0+185, and 3.2.1-1, one through pacman and the other compiled from source.
That's really wacky. do you also have the sidecar file? May be a bug.
Yup, here is the sidecar file: https://x0.at/uSx.xmp
I think it might be a bug too. Which is too bad, because Darktable is soooo close to the perfect photo editor (except for CA correction and sharpening, but that's neither here nor there)
I think it might be a bug too. Which is too bad, because Darktable is soooo close to the perfect photo editor (except for CA correction and sharpening, but that's neither here nor there)
[deleted]
Rawtherapee is another top contender. I use it in conjunction with Affinity Photo and have been happy with the workflow.
The UIUX is horrible. The devs are cool and the wiki is really good though.
Does anybody know a good photo management software that's not Lightroom? I don't actually need to do edits to my photos - I need to manage my photo library. Lightroom is not great at it but is passable - is there anything else? What I'm looking for is software that:
- Is fast
- Is capable of leaving photos where they are ("import-in-place").
- imports photos from card to NAS, organized by time ( year/month/day)
- allows me to make selections & export e.g. to Google Photos (exporting to a different local folder is good enough, I can setup google photos to sync, it's only slightly inconvenient).
- Ideally has good features for finding image duplicates, and maybe for searching.
- Keeps my photos locally/ doesn't insist on a cloud location.
- Is fast
- Is capable of leaving photos where they are ("import-in-place").
- imports photos from card to NAS, organized by time ( year/month/day)
- allows me to make selections & export e.g. to Google Photos (exporting to a different local folder is good enough, I can setup google photos to sync, it's only slightly inconvenient).
- Ideally has good features for finding image duplicates, and maybe for searching.
- Keeps my photos locally/ doesn't insist on a cloud location.
open source darktable is what I use.
http://www.darktable.org/
It’s fast
Leaves it in place
I think it can make collection, but not sure on this point
Not sure
It keeps files locally
Also it is open source ;)
http://www.darktable.org/
It’s fast
Leaves it in place
I think it can make collection, but not sure on this point
Not sure
It keeps files locally
Also it is open source ;)
While people seem to be replacing Photoshop with Affinity Photo and Lightroom with Capture One (elsewhere in the comments here, my own experience as well), I’m not sure what the best library focused tool is. Maybe look at comparisons of “digital asset management” or this image specific roundup: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_organizer#Notable_imag...
Photo Mechanic[0] is by far the best photo management software out there.
[0]https://home.camerabits.com/
[0]https://home.camerabits.com/
Photo mechanic is great, you can import from a card and put the files on any mounted drive. You can set the import from a card to rename the files by date or other Exif info and into directories in the same way. It can browse directories without importing.
I don't think it can find duplicates, I typically I use a file duplicates tool for that type of thing.
Adobe's Bridge product also does some of this, but I haven't used that in a few years.
I don't think it can find duplicates, I typically I use a file duplicates tool for that type of thing.
Adobe's Bridge product also does some of this, but I haven't used that in a few years.
I've been following https://photoprism.org/ for a while (without taking the plunge yet, as I was waiting for the product to mature).
Not sure it covers all the features you need but worth mentioning: Spect[1] for macOS, frugal and fast.
1: https://stevenf.com/spect
1: https://stevenf.com/spect
While not as advanced retouching features as LR digikam matches the features you list. I have used it for more than 10 years and like it.
another os and locally installed solution: https://www.digikam.org/
I'd wish for every disgruntled Adobe client who now switches to another tool that satisfies their requirements, saving a few (or considerably more) bucks in the process, to donate a small part of that to the FOSS, libre alternatives for much of Adobe's product portfolio:
https://www.gimp.org/
https://inkscape.org/
https://darktable.org/
https://krita.org/
...
You could do so much good with relatively little! :) Thanks everyone who considers donating!
https://www.gimp.org/
https://inkscape.org/
https://darktable.org/
https://krita.org/
...
You could do so much good with relatively little! :) Thanks everyone who considers donating!
Digikam for the organization part of lightroom
> This is also a great reminder for photographers that you should always back up your images, in multiple places, so you’re never subject to a single point of failure. Mistakes like this happen, even at some of the world’s largest companies
For a long time, I’ve been thinking that for all the value that Adobe provides in some of its products, it’s still quite a bad deal for the users. The single point of failure for people who use Adobe is Adobe. Those who have realized this sooner (around the time it went full-on into subscriptions) and made changes to take more control over their workflow would be better off without being controlled and swayed in every which direction because the company just wants to make more money.
While I feel pained at the loss that the Lightroom app users are going through (any kind of data loss is quite painful), I hope that for their own sake, many more users start looking at alternatives that aren’t premised on holding them hostage.
For a long time, I’ve been thinking that for all the value that Adobe provides in some of its products, it’s still quite a bad deal for the users. The single point of failure for people who use Adobe is Adobe. Those who have realized this sooner (around the time it went full-on into subscriptions) and made changes to take more control over their workflow would be better off without being controlled and swayed in every which direction because the company just wants to make more money.
While I feel pained at the loss that the Lightroom app users are going through (any kind of data loss is quite painful), I hope that for their own sake, many more users start looking at alternatives that aren’t premised on holding them hostage.
Yet another tick on the list of "ways mobile devices are not real computers". If something erases my files I ought to be able to run a recovery scan and get them back in minutes, assuming they haven't been overwritten with new data.
That's what I thought too when I saw the title --- "Adobe says 'Not Recoverable', recovery program says 'Run me!'" --- and then I read the article and discovered this is on iDevices, where raw block device access is effectively unattainable. I guess those who have jailbroken might be able to, but then again, with Apple's stance on security being what it is, wouldn't be surprised if all deletions were truly secure.
That doesn't work so well with SSDs :(
https://www.howtogeek.com/125521/htg-explains-why-deleted-fi...
https://www.howtogeek.com/125521/htg-explains-why-deleted-fi...
A real computer can run automatic backups to a second local disk or over your home network. Even if you do feel like paying Apple for adequate iCloud backup storage you're consuming bandwidth and using large amounts of data.
You can do that with an iPhone too. You can do a full backup of the phone to the mac, encrypted, which also contains "sensitive" data, etc. Can be run over wifi if you don't want to bother with cables or via usb if the local wifi is shoddy. No need to pay Apple anything for any storage.
But you can only restore an entire phone, likely losing all of your work since He last backup - was that yesterday or last month?
And sometime around iOS 6 or 7 they killed the option to maintain multiple backups - so you can’t backup, restore older version, save data, return to latest.
And sometime around iOS 6 or 7 they killed the option to maintain multiple backups - so you can’t backup, restore older version, save data, return to latest.
But funny enough you can't do both. Your iDevice can automatically back up over the network or it can automatically back up to iCloud but using one of those means the other is manual-only.
>No need to pay Apple anything for any storage.
Except the storage on the mac I back up to of course. Which I have no desire to buy.
Except the storage on the mac I back up to of course. Which I have no desire to buy.
I have recently migrated off Lightroom to Rawtherapee, and would recommend it to photographers serious about raw development. I don’t see myself going back, really.
Open-source, plain-text profile format, works everywhere. Like Lightroom, it handles DNGs natively, but allows more control as you create your image from raw scene-referred data.
Its GUI is somewhat laggier, but if you do a lot of batch processing you may be able to more than offset that by writing a simple script that delegates processing to your own cloud compute (it has a CLI tool, something Lightroom is unlikely to offer). Profile once, apply without having to launch the GUI.
Open-source, plain-text profile format, works everywhere. Like Lightroom, it handles DNGs natively, but allows more control as you create your image from raw scene-referred data.
Its GUI is somewhat laggier, but if you do a lot of batch processing you may be able to more than offset that by writing a simple script that delegates processing to your own cloud compute (it has a CLI tool, something Lightroom is unlikely to offer). Profile once, apply without having to launch the GUI.
Happy with that cloud based software yet? There is nothing more frustrating than to see all these software packages that have been turned into eternal cashcows by forcibly grafting on a service that absolutely nobody needs.
Then to top it off they lose your data. Fantastic.
Then to top it off they lose your data. Fantastic.
We should come up with a grassroots cloud service measurement system. You know how lakes and reservoirs sometimes have an "N deaths so far this year" sign.
Something like, "N cloudfails the last 3 years" for us cloud software users. Kept in a nice table so you can sort by least-bad records.
Something like, "N cloudfails the last 3 years" for us cloud software users. Kept in a nice table so you can sort by least-bad records.
Affinity Photo or Pixelmator Pro are great replacements for Photoshop. Resolve and Final Cut are much better than Premiere.
I'm still looking for a replacement for After Effects and Illustrator though.
I've heard Affinity Publisher is a great InDesign replacement although I've never used it.
I'm still looking for a replacement for After Effects and Illustrator though.
I've heard Affinity Publisher is a great InDesign replacement although I've never used it.
Depending on what you need Blender can be a replacement for After Effects. Blender can also replace Premiere so then you will have one workflow in the same program.
InspirationTuts has a nice comparison of Blender, After FX and Nuke which you might find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3jArcnGr3E
As a replacement for InDesign I used Scribus a lot. It has some unpolished edges but gets the job done. It includes industry standard PDF exports.
InspirationTuts has a nice comparison of Blender, After FX and Nuke which you might find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3jArcnGr3E
As a replacement for InDesign I used Scribus a lot. It has some unpolished edges but gets the job done. It includes industry standard PDF exports.
On what platform? Nuke is an amazing replacement for AE.
I really think they're very different applications. I think in nodes and much prefer Nuke, but AE being timeline based gives it very different strengths. Nuke also doesn't manage video and synced audio and is better optimized around frame sequences.
In school I'd often see people edit their projects in AE (because they were too lazy to learn Premere or another proper editor). It's not a great idea to use AE for editing, but its possible. If you tried to do that in Nuke you'd throw your computer out the window.
In school I'd often see people edit their projects in AE (because they were too lazy to learn Premere or another proper editor). It's not a great idea to use AE for editing, but its possible. If you tried to do that in Nuke you'd throw your computer out the window.
Sketch and Figma are amazing for UI work in vector.
Sketch is super bloated. Once you project grows perf starts to degrade quickly. Also working with groups is not great.
Top reasons I prefer Darktable over Lightroom:
1. It runs on all platforms
2. It is not cloud based
3. It does not delete your photos
1. It runs on all platforms
2. It is not cloud based
3. It does not delete your photos
There's one winner here: the law firm that puts together the class action.
Adobe needs to pay. And pay a lot! Make an example of them -- this kind of bullshit -- blame the user for everything -- needs to stop.
Did anything happen to Microsoft when a windows update lost users files? I don't remember hearing anything about users receiving any kind of compensation. Don't know why Adobe's blunder would be any different
OK, seriously now...first Canon, now Adobe?
Am I missing something here, what's going on?!
Am I missing something here, what's going on?!
Push QA to users. What could go wrong?
> Push QA to users.
“We need to increase our margins and we know our users aren’t going to abandon us. Where will they even go to since we have them held hostage all these years?“ evil snide laughter
“We need to increase our margins and we know our users aren’t going to abandon us. Where will they even go to since we have them held hostage all these years?“ evil snide laughter
you forgot the mustache twirl
But that's basically how Google engineering works.
They call it A/B testing, but we all know it's just testing...
They call it A/B testing, but we all know it's just testing...
Adobe is in full monopolist mode, where they have lock-in and can force users to pay for not just poor functionality, but disasters like this.
Bridge 2020 is more or less totally broken on Catalina, and has been since release almost a year ago. CC 2019 version works perfectly (but only with PS 2019). It's mind-boggling that a company with this much revenue can just wreck one of their products, keep shipping it and collecting money and not give a shit.
Bridge 2020 is more or less totally broken on Catalina, and has been since release almost a year ago. CC 2019 version works perfectly (but only with PS 2019). It's mind-boggling that a company with this much revenue can just wreck one of their products, keep shipping it and collecting money and not give a shit.
> It's mind-boggling that a company with this much revenue can just wreck one of their products, keep shipping it and collecting money and not give a shit.
Bundle subscriptions are corporatized communism for apps.
From each, according to our quarterly reporting needs; to each, whatever the fuck we deign to give them.
Bundle subscriptions are corporatized communism for apps.
From each, according to our quarterly reporting needs; to each, whatever the fuck we deign to give them.
Lots of people are still paying out the nose for Lightroom; not that many people have switched to Capture One; Apple axed Aperture; Adobe thinks, probably correctly, that most people will accept whatever garbage Adobe shoves down their throats.
Capture One also has a ton of database bugs that can cause corruption.
At least, this time Adobe only deleted their own files, unlike in 2016 where they on MacOS deleted files owned by others: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35577498
Obviously this is a screw up on Adobe's part, but this is a good time to remind everyone that if you're not backing up your data, then it must not be very important to you.
Back up your stuff! You never know when something unexpected will cause you to lose it!
Back up your stuff! You never know when something unexpected will cause you to lose it!
That's all well and good, but as an industry our backup mechanisms are a horror show. You have to go way out of your way to back things up, and if you make a mistake about what is getting backed up you are unlikely to find out until restoration fails.
My sympathies lie with all the unlucky souls who are statistically all but guaranteed to experience data loss because it is so hard to do the right thing. Reminders which shunt people towards backup best practice are fine, but they are not a substitute for systems engineered to prevent data loss in the first place.
My sympathies lie with all the unlucky souls who are statistically all but guaranteed to experience data loss because it is so hard to do the right thing. Reminders which shunt people towards backup best practice are fine, but they are not a substitute for systems engineered to prevent data loss in the first place.
Seriously, what if the device breaks, is lost, stolen, you accidentally delete things etc? These photos were not synced, they were just on one device... Anything that is just on one device can disappear any day for any reason and you shouldn't be surprised.
Your data should always be stored in 3 locations:
1) Your primary computer 2) An external hard drive you keep at home 3) The cloud (Dropbox, google drive, etc)
This protects you from device failures, cloud failures/lapse of service, theft, and accidents at home (fires, floods). I personally keep the physical hard drive disconnected from the computer and in a safe, which should protect from power surges and weird edge cases like solar storms. And then I have a recurring calendar reminder set to back up my phone and computer to it every month. If my livelihood depended on that data (or if the stuff I most cared about like photos weren’t also on my phone) I’d do it more frequently.
1) Your primary computer 2) An external hard drive you keep at home 3) The cloud (Dropbox, google drive, etc)
This protects you from device failures, cloud failures/lapse of service, theft, and accidents at home (fires, floods). I personally keep the physical hard drive disconnected from the computer and in a safe, which should protect from power surges and weird edge cases like solar storms. And then I have a recurring calendar reminder set to back up my phone and computer to it every month. If my livelihood depended on that data (or if the stuff I most cared about like photos weren’t also on my phone) I’d do it more frequently.
Is there an alternative to iCloud for backing up the iPhone? I’ve kind of given up on checking what’s aloud this year.
For photos and videos specifically, yes. You can just plug it into a PC using the USB cable and it will let you pull the files straight off, just like a digital camera.
For most other types of data, you're in Apple's walled garden. iCloud is an option, as long as you don't care about privacy and security of course. You can also use iTunes on a Mac laptop, as long as you're willing to buy more expensive Apple gear with more Apple software shenanigans just to get to your files.
Otherwise, your best bet is probably to pay for one of the third-party applications that will help you to get your own data off your own device without relying on Apple's methods. Sadly, that was not a joke. But such software does exist, and some of it seems to have a good reputation.
For most other types of data, you're in Apple's walled garden. iCloud is an option, as long as you don't care about privacy and security of course. You can also use iTunes on a Mac laptop, as long as you're willing to buy more expensive Apple gear with more Apple software shenanigans just to get to your files.
Otherwise, your best bet is probably to pay for one of the third-party applications that will help you to get your own data off your own device without relying on Apple's methods. Sadly, that was not a joke. But such software does exist, and some of it seems to have a good reputation.
Your computer.
Which can then be backed up offsite if you find the folder the backup is stored in.
And when you pay for a service that boasts online backups beware. They are just other people's computers.
> the latest update to the Lightroom app for iPhone and iPad inadvertently wiped users’ photos and presets that were not already synced to the cloud
Except for Backblaze, which is owned by magic wizards.
This is another example of deeply yet inadvertent hostile behavior by a tech company towards artists and creativity.
It is hard to overstate how much this matters, and is overlooked.
I am constantly grateful that I live in a time where I have all these magical creative tools.
At the same time, tech companies have a tendency to internalize ignorance about what artists and musicians actually need, and what is nurturing or destructive to creativity.
I think the best example of this is the YouTube algorithms that favor frequent uploads for discovery. Probably nothing could be more hostile to human creativity, and I’m not sure it’s purely profit seeking. I think it is actually just ignorance.
—edit—
Apple has not made it obvious how to back up all the content from your apps, nor has Adobe, nor has either of them made it easy to do it in a non-proprietary fashion. This is anti-artistic. It makes me not have true control over my creations, and this is discouraging and damaging to creativity.
—edit2–
I believe almost any artist would say: “having control of the durability of my art is extremely important, the latest Lightroom feature is largely insignificant.”
It is hard to overstate how much this matters, and is overlooked.
I am constantly grateful that I live in a time where I have all these magical creative tools.
At the same time, tech companies have a tendency to internalize ignorance about what artists and musicians actually need, and what is nurturing or destructive to creativity.
I think the best example of this is the YouTube algorithms that favor frequent uploads for discovery. Probably nothing could be more hostile to human creativity, and I’m not sure it’s purely profit seeking. I think it is actually just ignorance.
—edit—
Apple has not made it obvious how to back up all the content from your apps, nor has Adobe, nor has either of them made it easy to do it in a non-proprietary fashion. This is anti-artistic. It makes me not have true control over my creations, and this is discouraging and damaging to creativity.
—edit2–
I believe almost any artist would say: “having control of the durability of my art is extremely important, the latest Lightroom feature is largely insignificant.”
> It seems the latest update to the Lightroom app for iPhone and iPad inadvertently wiped users’ photos and presets that were not already synced to the cloud.
“Not already synced to the cloud”. Whatever you think about Lightroom, this headline makes it sound much worse. Photos on the device that haven’t previously synced are lost, not all your photos in your library.
“Not already synced to the cloud”. Whatever you think about Lightroom, this headline makes it sound much worse. Photos on the device that haven’t previously synced are lost, not all your photos in your library.
This is a common mistake when it comes to cloud synchronization with an equally simple fix. When you compare a set of items A on the user device against a set of items B on the cloud you should FIRST check (either through file name, hash or creation/modification timestamp) that:
- An item in A is not present in B before uploading it to B. - An item in A is present in B and has changed on A before updating it on B. - An item in A is present in B and has changed on B before updating it on A. - An item in B was present on A but it's no longer there before deleting it from B. - An item in A was present on B but it's no longer there before deleting it from A.
Seriously, this is the ABC of cloud sync. Many free products also got it right. There's no excuse for the engineers at Adobe not to get it right in their overpriced products.
- An item in A is not present in B before uploading it to B. - An item in A is present in B and has changed on A before updating it on B. - An item in A is present in B and has changed on B before updating it on A. - An item in B was present on A but it's no longer there before deleting it from B. - An item in A was present on B but it's no longer there before deleting it from A.
Seriously, this is the ABC of cloud sync. Many free products also got it right. There's no excuse for the engineers at Adobe not to get it right in their overpriced products.
Spend one day trying to work on a graphic design project with the file saved in the Creative Cloud sync folder. The amount of "filename (Sync Issue1).ai" files you'll see accumulate will make you never want to use it again.
It may be coincidence, but just earlier today, I had to use a photo for display pic and default crop won't let you keep the whole photo in original aspect ratio, so I installed Lightroom to do resize but filling a blur. I believe this was my first time installing the app from play store, I signed in through Google login, I was surprised to find some 40 to 50 photos of absolute stranger synced to my email! I don't know who that person is, I assumed they may have put in my gmail instead of theirs, but it's stupid that they would start associating backups without verifying the email! Adobe has lost any respect it had. I will never trust them with my data.
My wife tells me to never update apps on phones. The updates are never worth it, they are just mucking around, no real progress is made on these apps, and worse, sometimes the updates introduce ads. The red circles beckon me anyway, all the time. I can't stop myself. I just disabled my updates, and I'm finally going to listen to her.
Beyond this major disaster, I updated my phone about a month ago. Ever since Chrome just randomly freezes now. I have to switch apps, and switch back to get it flowing again.
Beyond this major disaster, I updated my phone about a month ago. Ever since Chrome just randomly freezes now. I have to switch apps, and switch back to get it flowing again.
This is really bad advice.
If nothing else, you do want to get the security updates that are released.
In general: Update but if possible, don’t be the first one to update to a new version, wait for a day or two
If nothing else, you do want to get the security updates that are released.
In general: Update but if possible, don’t be the first one to update to a new version, wait for a day or two
Since Mozillas major update to Firefox on Androiz last month (the new UX is wrong in ar many levels it's mindbuggling they let it pass QA) I am also doing thins.
It was amazing that Lightroom came with free upgrades, year after year. I would probably have happily paid $99 each time there was a major version number increase, even if that meant paying effectively $99 a year.
That’s not far off the subscription price. Something about the subscription model feels so arrogant though, on Adobe’s part, that I just can’t stomach it. Is it because it feels like rent?
May Lightroom 6, and the hours and hours of face and location tagging I’ve sunk into it, last forever.
That’s not far off the subscription price. Something about the subscription model feels so arrogant though, on Adobe’s part, that I just can’t stomach it. Is it because it feels like rent?
May Lightroom 6, and the hours and hours of face and location tagging I’ve sunk into it, last forever.
Every year I buy a 1 year license off amazon for the photography plan (which includes both lightrooms and Photoshop). It works out cheaper (£89 for the year instead of £10 x 12)
Each year I revaluate the alternatives, but so far they always come up short.
Each year I revaluate the alternatives, but so far they always come up short.
This is exactly why I do manual updates for pretty much all my software. Any time I mention it, people hound me with "what about security issues!"
uh oh yeah thats a concern, but I will take that risk over shit like this where personal files are just getting wiped. Most users dont need bleeding edge software. You can run months behind and be fine in most cases.
I read release notes. When an update comes out, unless some big feature that I need is introduced, I skip it.
uh oh yeah thats a concern, but I will take that risk over shit like this where personal files are just getting wiped. Most users dont need bleeding edge software. You can run months behind and be fine in most cases.
I read release notes. When an update comes out, unless some big feature that I need is introduced, I skip it.
> You can run months behind and be fine in most cases.
Out of curiosity, what's your coronavirus take?
Out of curiosity, what's your coronavirus take?
You think Abode is bad, try cancelling any recurring billing from Google, even when fraudulent. A CC of mine was compromised and a YouTube premium account was made. I've changed my card number three times, yet somehow Visa let's them keep billing me. Finally had to cancel the CC account, Google kept trying to bill it for 90 days even after multiple chargebacks and the account being frozen from all charges.
It's not the first time Adobe would have deleted stuff. I remember the Backblaze fiasco from a few years ago.
Also, App Store Review didn't protect users from this.
Also, App Store Review didn't protect users from this.
Reason 23,541 why I refuse to use any "cloud" based service. There is no "cloud" - its just stored on someone else's hardware.
CaptureOne is a great product if anyone is looking for alternatives at this time. No BS subscriptions, just a license.
They have plenty of subscription options and push subscriptions hard on their landing page. They also have a really goofy "buy different versions depending on your camera" model. It's kind of gross, frankly, and has kept me from even trying the software.
I don't have strong evidence for this but at one point it seemed strongly like those camera-vendor-locked editions were actually subsidized by the vendor(s) in question. Said vendors have generally been the camera underdogs. Once upon a time Sony cameras even came with a bundled, vendor-locked Capture One license.
So? It says BUY or Subscribe on each button, that links you to purchased versions. Those camera model versions are cheaper subsidized, so you're not paying anywhere near full price.
I switched to Phase One's Capture One a long time ago -- it's light years ahead of anything Lightroom has to offer.
The biggest improvement is performance, due to C1's use of Sessions, which are basically folders where you store your RAW files, edits/history, trash, and exports per shoot.
While C1 does support the antiquated method of using a Library, there's more safety and manageability in using Sessions, and most professional photographers use this for good reason.
And regarding presets, C1 stores all (incl. user) presets in a standard directory in your home folder, so it's trivial to keep them automatically backed up.
The biggest improvement is performance, due to C1's use of Sessions, which are basically folders where you store your RAW files, edits/history, trash, and exports per shoot.
While C1 does support the antiquated method of using a Library, there's more safety and manageability in using Sessions, and most professional photographers use this for good reason.
And regarding presets, C1 stores all (incl. user) presets in a standard directory in your home folder, so it's trivial to keep them automatically backed up.
Slightly OT but does anyone else here just not update key software anymore? I haven't updated my Mac because the last time I did it, it caused a major startup error and I lost documents.
This is clearly not ideal and reflects poorly on Adobe's QA process but this is about items that are not backed up. Of course most of these users probably had their iOS device "backed up" to Apple's servers but this backup is just replication. It helps if you lose your phone, but it doesn't help if an app has a bug or you make a mistake.
It would be very cool of Apple or Google device backups supported a point-in-time restore. (Ideally a per-app point-in-time restore).
It would be very cool of Apple or Google device backups supported a point-in-time restore. (Ideally a per-app point-in-time restore).
Are they saying they deleted the photos from your phone/tablet or just the adjustments in Lightroom?
If they're just talking about Lightroom data, then although that's pretty crappy, it's what I expect out of apps. I remember the Apple Pages used to do this too. If you deleted or upgraded, the data was erased. That's all changed since they enabled cloud, but still was a horrible design.
If they're just talking about Lightroom data, then although that's pretty crappy, it's what I expect out of apps. I remember the Apple Pages used to do this too. If you deleted or upgraded, the data was erased. That's all changed since they enabled cloud, but still was a horrible design.
Good thing I went with Capture One.
But but... I thought Apple's excuse for their 30% tax was that their App Review process and locked down OS etc is supposed to prevent apps from doing such malicious things on iOS? To keep us and our data "safe"? Err... right?
From what I gather, this only affects the new Lightroom app, and primarily the iOS apps.
For many years now I've been a proponent of "never update unless you absolutely need to". I just updated my old Macbook Pro to Catalina and now it gets ridiculously hot watching even simple YT videos.
And that is why I use Lightroom classic with a hard drive local and an Amazon cloud drive backup. Still can't trust the cloud as your only backup
Honestly, from all the posts only actionable I could figure out, is to have multiple backups of important files, preferably real-time.
Whole thread is about repeated tropes of why they hate subscription/Adobe/MS etc. All these comments on alternative s/w for Desktops are funny and typical HN as the issue is with mobile apps and none of the comments showed any pattern with Adobe of poor QA. Assuming, none of the alternatives will ever have a catastrophic bug is also ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
Whole thread is about repeated tropes of why they hate subscription/Adobe/MS etc. All these comments on alternative s/w for Desktops are funny and typical HN as the issue is with mobile apps and none of the comments showed any pattern with Adobe of poor QA. Assuming, none of the alternatives will ever have a catastrophic bug is also ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ .
When the stock drops tomorrow I’ll pick it up because at the end of the day Adobe has whole industries by the balls.
The title of this should be "Lightroom iOS app update..." and save some panic for a desktop user.
I've just deleted every Adobe app from my phone and tablet.
I'm not going to trust this corporation.
I'm not going to trust this corporation.
The cloud, nor one computer should ever be your only backup
I think we can just chalk this up to a competition between Canon and Adobe on who can delete the most photos from the world.
just pirate it
* They're
Fixed now. Submitted title was "Lightroom Update Wipes Users’ Photos/Presets, Adobe Says Their ‘Not Recoverable’".
This should not be downvoted, it makes the headline much harder to parse on first read, and that's what a headline is for.
Ah yes, the cloud! Trust in the cloud folks!
How about adobe stops treating their pockets as my personal storage space, and keeps my files secure on my own device instead of deleting everything they didn't have a copy of.
This is why I don't buy software that comes with a subscription and a deal with the devil.
Darktable is great by the way; nothing's perfect, but its indexing and navigation is faster than Lightroom and the filters are basically what you use. I've also heard good things about RawTherapee.
This is why apps should be built on blockchains
How would that work? Are we gonna host petabytes of photos on a blockchain? Maybe many exabytes even? Maybe in the future, but even then, as storage capacity increases I think file sizes too will keep growing for the foreseeable future as well.
In what way do you see apps being built on blockchains? What does such an implementation look like?
While trying to cancel my subscription, I realize I can only do that after paying for the remaining 11 months (rough calculation).
With no other option, I paid my penalty and left Adobe for good. I have deleted my 15+ year old Adobe account.
Alternatives and to serve nostalgic attachments, I bought the whole suite of Affinity[1] Products. I've also bought Darkroom[2] for photo editing on iPad.
1. https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/
2. https://darkroom.co
P.S. (edit/addition) I ended a 25+ year relationship with Adobe. I paid myself through my school and college with PageMaker, and other softwares (both open source, free, and paid).