Why do we have so many issues with software programs

[Rhossydd]

It was the daily reminder to join CC that made me suspect that Adobe were behind this failure of legitimately purchased and licensed software.

That's just daft conspiracy nonsense. Apple dropping features and changing their OS costs Adobe dearly in development costs (see the mess of their change of CMS policy in 2008)

Other RAW file processing engines were equally attractive, especially considering the unneccesary file handling of LR, which I neither wanted nor needed.

?? that doesn't make sense. LR doesn't do any file handling.
Users just need to be aware that if they start moving images (that have been catalogued) around outside of LR they'll need to tell LR where they are.
The DAM capabilities of LR are fantastic and dead easy to use. Probably underutilised by many users, but a reason alone to use LR. It's also something you wouldn't loose if you stop subscribing.

Adobe were pushing their DNG format, presumably in the hope it would become another universal success like PDF format. Leica, Pentax, Casio and Samsung all natively support DNG format. Most camera manufacturers choose not to support DNG files natively.

An odd way to look at it. Adobe put out DNG as an open standard, if it had been widely adopted there'd be far less need for their software to be updated to support new cameras. A lot of people returning to LR are doing so because their new cameras aren't supported by older software.

 

[bp122]

It seems to be a thing at the moment where people like Microsoft are delivering products that they think we want or will like but without really getting any customer feedback and I am finding the newer products seem more tempermental and less user freindly than there predecessors. First issue was with moving onto Windows 10 and finding the new start menu was just horrible so had to install a 3rd party product called Start Menu X which gave me back the old XP style interface and all works well. Then Microsoft has stopped support for Office 2013 which I have been using without any issues for the last ten years, so forced to upgrade to office 2021 even though microsoft really pushes office 365 which you only rent. This product has been tempermental and given many issues that I have never encountered before and also this really odd so called simplified ribbon. The best way to describe the logic behind this is that rather than keep tools in a toolbox, fixtures in another box and say wood in a woodrack you just put tools anywhere and mix everything up. In the case of this ribbon the tools menu has gone and the tools put in many other places for you to play hide and seek. Again solution was a 3rd party program that adds back the classic ribbon with the extra tools of office 2021 included and now all seems to work because you can find the tools you need. So if Microsofts newer products are that good there would be no demand for these 3rd party add on's to return the product back to a more familiar useable interface but it seems to be a growing market where Microsoft is thinking it is improving a product but many others disagree and these 3rd party providers are cashing in on microsofts failures.

How many others are finding that newer products are just not cutting it, almost like in ten years office has not really needed to change apart from maybe in the background to operate on newer Pc architectures.

That's why my company use Google suite.
Not a lot of difference compared to ms office in documents, spreadsheets and presentations, but immensely capable, backs up to the cloud and free!

Microsoft's extensive money grubby nature has turned me away from them ages ago!

 

[Spectric]

How well does Google suite support VBA for spreadsheets ?

 

[user 43593]

Adobe put out DNG as an open standard, if it had been widely adopted

Adobe is a profitable software house with around $19.3 billion predicted revenue in 2023. The DNG file format was released in 2004 nearly 20 years ago. Why has the adoption of a helpful universal open standard image file format been so slow? Perhaps other companies and individuals saw a problem with a leading business, who were very well placed to dictate all image creation processes for their own benefit, having absolute power over image creation. I have already noted that DNG files do not retain sufficient information when compared with the manufacturer's own RAW file format. Furthermore, I've noted that DNG files are unable to contain sufficient information for medical purpose images.

 

[user 43593]

That's just daft conspiracy nonsense.

???

Users just need to be aware that if they start moving images (that have been catalogued) around outside of LR they'll need to tell LR where they are.

I had a very well designed files system that did not require any DAM software. I found telling LR where I had my files to be needless effort.

but a reason alone to use LR.

I have no issue with you liking LR. It did not suit me at the time.

 

[Spectric]

I have already noted that DNG files do not retain sufficient information when compared with the manufacturer's own RAW file format

The DNG is just a bucket, it contains the RAW data in a format which is not camera specific and the Metadata. If you are worried about the original RAW file then that to can be saved in the DNG but at the expense of an increased file size, but .

The only data that I found to be missing was the JPEG previews which I never needed anyway as the RAW contains all the image data from the camera sensor.

The DNG format is open source, it is not proprietry and owned by the camera OEM which means if Adobe vanished then someone can produce software to work with the format. I agree that you can lose some RAW data if the camera OEM puts certain data in them but for me the DNG format had enough positives that outweighed the negatives. If you don't like LR then I have heard good things about the Coral product Aftershot which is the re incarnation of Bibble.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Adobe are a successful software company - but like all companies seek to maximise profit. They make judgements accordingly - their possible view on strategy.

They have ~30m users worldwide. Assuming there are ~100k photography users means 1 in 300.

As companies upgrade products they know that deleting features will alienate some users. Retaining what they may regard as legacy software ultimately leads to bug ridden bloated packages with a material cost in in maintenance and service costs for a reducing number of users.

They will have assessed the users likely to be affected and whether they will jump ship or (reluctantly) stay. They will understand revenue losses against their costs of future support and maintenance.

Adobe now go for a subscription model rather than outright purchase - the latter is simply unaffordable. Revenues would be inadequate to provide support to existing users many of whom would happily continue to use legacy software which does the job they want.

In fairness companies do not always get it right!

 

[thetyreman]

Adobe are a successful software company - but like all companies seek to maximise profit. They make judgements accordingly - their possible view on strategy.

They have ~30m users worldwide. Assuming there are ~100k photography users means 1 in 300.

As companies upgrade products they know that deleting features will alienate some users. Retaining what they may regard as legacy software ultimately leads to bug ridden bloated packages with a material cost in in maintenance and service costs for a reducing number of users.

They will have assessed the users likely to be affected and whether they will jump ship or (reluctantly) stay. They will understand revenue losses against their costs of future support and maintenance.

Adobe now go for a subscription model rather than outright purchase - the latter is simply unaffordable. Revenues would be inadequate to provide support to existing users many of whom would happily continue to use legacy software which does the job they want.

In fairness companies do not always get it right!

I'd still prefer it though if they just gave customers the option of owning it, I still use an old version of lightroom, I don't like the idea of renting software that you never own, especially with an OS, imagine paying for a computer then you have to pay £12 every month just to keep using it, that's what the latest microsoft is, in 10 years they've made £1200 from you, instead you could have bought it for say £200 and used it for 15 years, hopefully you can see my point here.

 

[Rhossydd]

I had a very well designed files system that did not require any DAM software. I found telling LR where I had my files to be needless effort.

If you need to process any file a program needs to know where it is, even if just using a 'filepen' command.
LR will work with any file structure, but a file structure alone is not a DAM. By failing to understand that you're missing one of the major features of this particular software.
It really is your loss.

 

[Rhossydd]

I'd still prefer it though if they just gave customers the option of owning it

To be pedantic, you never 'own' software you just buy a licence to use it.

The reality is that very, very few people ever just stick with one, never upgraded, system. If you want better and faster systems and the software that will run on them, that development has to be paid for somehow.

 

[user 43593]

The DNG is just a bucket, it contains the RAW data in a format which is not camera specific and the Metadata. If you are worried about the original RAW file then that to can be saved in the DNG but at the expense of an increased file size, but .

Metadata for Medical Illustration would not fit into the DNG bucket. e.g. a Dicom image file can hold 2,000 items of metadata.

The DNG format is open source, it is not proprietry and owned by the camera OEM which means if Adobe vanished then someone can produce software to work with the format. I agree that you can lose some RAW data if the camera OEM puts certain data in them but for me the DNG format had enough positives that outweighed the negatives.

The links provided below will give you an insight into some medical illustration image file subject matter and its associated metadata. DNG files do not support this use case.

Dicom - Minc - Analyze - Nifti

If you don't like LR then I have heard good things about the Coral product Aftershot which is the re incarnation of Bibble.

Thanks for the information. I no longer have a need for this type of software.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

pay £12 every month just to keep using it, that's what the latest microsoft is, in 10 years they've made £1200 from you, instead you could have bought it for say £200 and used it for 15 years, hopefully you can see my point here.

I can understand the point you make although the figures you quote are a bit doubtful.

Assume the software company wants to make the same revenue from an outright sales or a subscription service, and that the typical average would ideally upgrade every 4 years.

Simplistically - if the annual subscription was (say) £100, outright purchase price would be £400.

There are other considerations to be taken into account:

• faced with a large outright purchase cost, many users would upgrade less frequently - possibly extending average upgrade times to (say) 6 years
• some users may migrate to other companies whose immediate expense is much less - either operating a subscription service or cheaper outright purchase
• if software not upgraded, integration with other packages may get increasingly problematic
• the company would need to decide for how long to continue to provide support and maintenance - withdrawal would also cause user dissatisfaction.

With respect you are precisely the user they fear - happy to continue using software purchased 10+ years ago because it (a) meets their needs, and (b) are completely familiar with its operation.

 

[user 43593]

It really is your loss.

I was managing my own digital assets about 30 years ago.

 

[bp122]

How well does Google suite support VBA for spreadsheets ?

Haven't tried it as I don't use that functionality. Helplessly, I can only recommend googling it.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I can understand the point you make although the figures you quote are a bit doubtful.

Assume the software company wants to make the same revenue from an outright sales or a subscription service, and that the typical average would ideally upgrade every 4 years.

Simplistically - if the annual subscription was (say) £100, outright purchase price would be £400.

There are other considerations to be taken into account:

• faced with a large outright purchase cost, many users would upgrade less frequently - possibly extending average upgrade times to (say) 6 years
• some users may migrate to other companies whose immediate expense is much less - either operating a subscription service or cheaper outright purchase
• if software not upgraded, integration with other packages may get increasingly problematic
• the company would need to decide for how long to continue to provide support and maintenance - withdrawal would also cause user dissatisfaction.

With respect you are precisely the user they fear - happy to continue using software purchased 10+ years ago because it (a) meets their needs, and (b) are completely familiar with its operation.

The issue is they don’t offer the option.

 

[mc281]

Very fair points.

As to the latter; yes, I have machines (admittedly ones not connected to the Internet) running decades old software (e.g. CNC control systems).

I do also have programs that are ~20 years old running on machines with up to date operating systems.

That's because gcode is gcode is gcode. That can't change. The compilers do but won't affect the gcode output.

 

[Rhossydd]

With respect you are precisely the user they fear - happy to continue using software purchased 10+ years ago because it (a) meets their needs, and (b) are completely familiar with its operation.

Actually they don't fear this sort of user at all, they're simply unimportant as they don't and won't generate any revenue.

A key aspect of subscription software is to capture market share by creating tied in 'loyalty'.
It also greatly reduces the cost of entry; A student who learnt on Adobe's products at college and looses access when they graduate can now continue to use the software professionally for a much more affordable sum, rather than having a big expense buying it for the first time.
Similarly piracy becomes less attractive when you can always get the latest version risk free for the price of a couple of drinks.

The subscription has worked well for Adobe and most users too.
It seems pretty clear that soon most of the big commercial players will move to this funding model, leaving only niche players and open source alternatives.

 

[thetyreman]

Actually they don't fear this sort of user at all, they're simply unimportant as they don't and won't generate any revenue.

A key aspect of subscription software is to capture market share by creating tied in 'loyalty'.
It also greatly reduces the cost of entry; A student who learnt on Adobe's products at college and looses access when they graduate can now continue to use the software professionally for a much more affordable sum, rather than having a big expense buying it for the first time.
Similarly piracy becomes less attractive when you can always get the latest version risk free for the price of a couple of drinks.

The subscription has worked well for Adobe and most users too.
It seems pretty clear that soon most of the big commercial players will move to this funding model, leaving only niche players and open source alternatives.

sorry but I am not some kind of cash cow for adobe, I've been using it by the way since 1998, and know more than most 'experts' out there, I started using it as a teenager in school, again I'm not paying and refuse to pay some huge silicon valley company a constant income stream, I'll just keep using the software I already bought, and I can easily just use inkscape or GIMP, you no longer need to pay for it and I even know professionals who don't use adobe, the user has the final say not the company, it's the user/customer that decides where they spend their own money.

 

[Spectric]

faced with a large outright purchase cost, many users would upgrade less frequently - possibly extending average upgrade times to (say) 6 years

That is the issue, we are often happy end users that do not see the need to upgrade just to get a few extra bells and whistles that we don't even need. The software supplier has an office full of programers who need to be gainfully employed so keep trying to improve the product we are happy with so need us to upgrade and then the Pc hardware is also being improved with faster this and more of that so the software can change to make use of these advances so it is all a vicous circle. Then you have the employer who has experienced people that suddenly fall down the ladder because of some change in the software and they now need to catch up and become familiar again so is there any solution that can please all.

This is like us and our tools, it is better if the cost can be offset by using them to earn income but if for a hobby with no income then the tools become just expense so the same applies to software products where if you are a pro photographer then a few dollars a month to always have tha latest is not an issue but for someone who is just an amateur then again it is just an expense.

 

[Jameshow]

I can understand the point you make although the figures you quote are a bit doubtful.

Assume the software company wants to make the same revenue from an outright sales or a subscription service, and that the typical average would ideally upgrade every 4 years.

Simplistically - if the annual subscription was (say) £100, outright purchase price would be £400.

There are other considerations to be taken into account:

• faced with a large outright purchase cost, many users would upgrade less frequently - possibly extending average upgrade times to (say) 6 years
• some users may migrate to other companies whose immediate expense is much less - either operating a subscription service or cheaper outright purchase
• if software not upgraded, integration with other packages may get increasingly problematic
• the company would need to decide for how long to continue to provide support and maintenance - withdrawal would also cause user dissatisfaction.

With respect you are precisely the user they fear - happy to continue using software purchased 10+ years ago because it (a) meets their needs, and (b) are completely familiar with its operation.

Everyone happy to use Microsoft 365?
Esp saving sensitive documents in the cloud?
Google cannot read them?