Lightroom app update wipes users' photos and presets, Adobe says not recoverable
petapixel.com
petapixel.com
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/
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).
For Adobe, could you not have issued a chargeback or in some other way dispute the cancellation?
SumatraPDF for Windows is terrific.
https://www.adobe.com/au/creativecloud/plans.html
(I'd definitely recommend going with Affinity Photo instead if it suits your needs.)
This is what Apple’s App Store tells me.
See: imgur.com/a/Gk2S01k
You can also buy prepaid debit cards at supermarkets, post offices, etc (at least in Australia) which allow you to do the same thing.
Similarly, doing this to a Steam account or iTunes account cuts off your access to all your previously "purchased" content.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/06/crackers-say-denuvo-d...
That's the point. Companies have proved themselves not accountable to their customers.
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.
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.
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.
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 is pretty common with purchased games, of course they call it "DRM" but it has the same goal and purpose
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
It would be good if cards had a white or black list option.
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
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)
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?
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.
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.
“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“
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is between me and the vendor, not the bank.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
It's hidden behind a click of course, but it isn't obscure.
All conversations could only be done in English, something my wife would already be pretty uncomfortable with.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did this for the free month of linkedn gold or whatever its called.
For anyone not doing professional video editing work I can definitely recommend DaVinci Resolve. The basic version is completely free and is extremely powerful.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Seriously, fuck that company.
edit: seems I have a fancy for run on sentences. sorry
Nowadays I use Raw Therapee and I'm quite happy with it. Free software, has all the features I need. No corporate overlords.
A bridge too far? Learn to deal with the world as it is mate.
Yeah it really sucks that Apple takes 30% of all revenue, but the developers have painted themselves into a corner with behavior like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is that legal?
Darktable is awesome.
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 had exactly the same experience; adobe can burn in a fire after that and the iPad photoshop disaster as far as I’m concerned.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
I guess that is the good thing about not letting third party payments on the App Store…
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.)
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.
Audio production software is notoriously conservative when it comes to updates.
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.
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.
You can not count at it at all. The only legit option glacier honestly.
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.
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.
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!
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/b5jb7i/how_to_prev...
This is exactly why power users dislike SNAP.
Give us the ability to choose if/how/when to install updates. Period.
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,
Moving to Capture One or something else seems worthwhile. Tried Darktable but wasn’t a big fan.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is 100% intentional to drive users to subscriptions.
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!
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.
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.)
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 "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 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.
Not having multiple site backups isn't criminally negligent when running a paid cloud service?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
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!
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...
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.
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)
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...
That has never stopped those other knights of IP theft, the RIAA and MPAA
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 same principle could maybe be applied here?
(Usual disclaimer I am not a lawyer etc)
"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-...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Not for Joe McConsumer, at least from a usability/convenience perspective.
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.)
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...
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 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.
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-.
Flash storage degrades, and is only expected to last about 10 years or so.
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.
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
That's really the motive for a lot of things going cloud.
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
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 :)
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 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'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.
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 :)
- 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.
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 ;)
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.
...
You could do so much good with relatively little! :) Thanks everyone who considers donating!
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.
https://www.howtogeek.com/125521/htg-explains-why-deleted-fi...
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.
Except the storage on the mac I back up to of course. Which I have no desire to buy.
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.
Then to top it off they lose your data. Fantastic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1. It runs on all platforms
2. It is not cloud based
3. It does not delete your photos
Am I missing something here, what's going on?!
“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
They call it A/B testing, but we all know it's just testing...
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.
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.
Back up your stuff! You never know when something unexpected will cause you to lose it!
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“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.
- 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.
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.
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
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.
Each year I revaluate the alternatives, but so far they always come up short.
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.
Out of curiosity, what's your coronavirus take?
Also, App Store Review didn't protect users from this.
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.
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).
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.
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)_/¯ .
I'm not going to trust this corporation.