Skip to main content

New License Model: Changes to the way licensing, updates, and upgrades work

Comments

1064 comments

  • Thomas Kyhn
    Top Commenter

    Well said, Pip.

    1
  • Shane Baker

    I personally wouldn't have minded an increase in price or the push toward subscription

    I would. One of the reasons I first moved to C1 was Adobe moving into the software rental business.

    As for an increase in charges, as an enthusiast photographer (ie: I make no money from my photography) the ever-rising price of C1 has really reached the limits of my toleration. Further increases in charges, especially if combined with forcing me into a subscription, will cause me to move on - probably back to Adobe.

     

    4
  • Thomas Kyhn
    Top Commenter

    Shane Baker:

    I would. One of the reasons I first moved to C1 was Adobe moving into the software rental business.

    As for an increase in charges, as an enthusiast photographer (ie: I make no money from my photography) the ever-rising price of C1 has really reached the limits of my toleration. Further increases in charges, especially if combined with forcing me into a subscription, will cause me to move on - probably back to Adobe.

    I understand completely. My main point was that the increase in price / push toward subscription is even more unacceptable given the frustration that goes along with using the product. With less severe bugs, better customer support and more transparency, an increase in price would at least have been less unacceptable, even if it was still unacceptable.

    1
  • Robert Cope

    Hi Bernhard Sanders,

    Thanks for the helpful link to the Q&A regarding off-line activation.

    Robert

    0
  • bernhard sanders

    Hi Ernst.W.

    you are right - they have obviously removed (or i can not find it any more) the 15.0. download. But that was the case on last tuesday 13th as well - 15.0. was listed for the download on their download page under previous versions, but the download did not start. I contacted the support and they have sent me a link - and it has worked for 15.0. I have tried the same link a few minutes ago - 15.4.x ! They changed that and it seems to me that they have entirely removed 15.0 downloads from their servers. Therefore to anyone having the 15.0. installer - keep it safe !!

    3
  • J M Smith

    Reply to:

    BeO 
    If I were Adobe I would try to buy Capture One.

    Assuming C1 is  in control of their costs (which a due diligence process would reveal) then I would either benefit from the high C1 subscription or license fees, revenuewise, or welcome C1 refugees in my CC subscription program. The few users who probably move to something else would not bother me much, I would think that rising the CC subscription fee by only 10%, which would probably acceptable by most, more than compensates for that. 

    If I were the Capture One owner and if I would think about offering the C1 company to Adobe, I would try to raise license and upgrade cost and make perpetual licenses less attractive, in order to increase C1's market value.

    No speculation here, only a fictional Christmas story.

    Cheers,
    BeO

    ************************************************************************************************

    BeO,

    CO will most likely be sold as the PE firm exits, but it will not be to Adobe.  The anti-trust implications are simply too large, although there are other competitors, the market concentration would be enormous.  It might slip through the US regulators, but I suspect that the EU would stop it in its tracks...

    1
  • ernst.w

    @bernhard sanders

    My setups go back to V12 missing only two versions, one of them is 15.0.

    Kind regards
    Ernst 

    0
  • e

    Paul Reiffer I love your impartiality, because the initial “Many of you have expressed a desire…” that triggered all this mess was not a blanket statement?

    It’s in the human nature to imagine scenarios based on perceptions and signs. The elephant in the room is that Capture One is acting in a very hegemonic way and they are only listening to what they want.

    Facts show that:

    1. C1 perpetual licenses are technically not perpetual and have been made more expensive and less attractive over time
    2. The subscription plan is “really the best choice…” for the company’s bottom line, and not the customer’s
    3. Some customers don’t realize (or don’t care) that their work is being held dependent of activation servers and a rent

    In my humble opinion, the underlying question/problem that needs to be addressed by each one of us is:

    Do you accept that your photographic work and archive depends on the company Capture One?

    If your answer is yes, you’re not even reading this. If your answer is no, you probably want to own your work and the right to decide how and when to access it. Based on shared perceptions and the above facts, C1 doesn’t seem to be taking this route.

    No one cares, but my personal reply to this question is: NO, never. I want to remain free to equally use different tools and when I retire, I want to be able to access my databases and pictures without having to pay for it. Currently, my masters volume is software agnostic, not my edits.

    People at C1 don’t even have the openness to show their faces on their website. Most of us are talking about people we have never seen or heard. We’re assuming more, because we don’t see the people. Personally, I don’t do business with people who hide (and slide). In the present case, I will use their tools for what they are worth and I don’t want my photography to be retained by them, ever.

    As a side note, I briefly saw that accounting audit that someone posted earlier in the thread and from what I understand as a humble (aging) photographer, if the hundreds of millions of revenue for only 179 employees are true, it seems pretty obvious to my simple mind that the company Capture One is not into photography any more. They would sell cookware or pet food, it would be the same economic logic. My two cents.

    My inbox is still filling with comments from this thread that are legitimately talking about what customers get for what they pay. I suggest we photographers reframe the discussion (elsewhere) to a wider angle (pun intended) and towards strategies about how to build future-proof workflows that are not tied to the hegemony of what remains a small number of persons who have their reasons to do what they do. We should be smarter.

    3
  • Paul Reiffer

    So, "e" - how mysterious...! 😂

    To cover your three main points (I think?)

     

    1) The line of of "Many of you have expressed a desire…"

    This was a ridiculous statement to be included in that original email, I completely agree. I liken it to when airlines said "we've heard your feedback that you think our catering is awful, so based on your request we've decided to give you flexibility by charging for food". Errr whaaaat?

    I THINK what quite a few people actually said was "please stop releasing unfinished features!" - and that's been translated by a marketing group into a twisted pattern of words to match the narrative they wanted.  It's not unusual in the industry (or in all industries, actually), but I personally dislike that approach - it's insincere at best.

    The statement itself may well be true - it would be nice for features to be released as and when they are fully ready - but while moving to a fluid schedule helps to achieve that, I don't think a change to the release cycle was on the top of many customers' lists at the time.  

    My personal view? Sure, explain why it's happening, but don't pin it on non-existent mass customer sentiment.

     

    2) Dependence on software.

    You know, I still have the CD (yes, CD) in front of me with the "Complete Topaz Collection" on it that I bought at a trade show maaaaany many years ago. At the time, it was offered with "lifetime updates".  Guess how that played out for a company that then struggled with cash and forced annual upgrade payments on their customers to remain in business?

    I also remember the days when "offline activation" meant I was one of (probably) less than 10% of Adobe users who actually PAID for their software - and yet, even those using pirated versions used to b!tch and moan about the lack of development that was happening in the software?!

    And I'm pretty sure I still have a few tape backups of old systems that I'll keep "forever", "just in case".  No idea how I'd restore them - the drives, OS, software and cables don't exist any more.

    My point is, the world changes - as does software.  My own workflow means once an image is finished, it get's "tiffed-off" to our Final Images repository and that becomes THE reference image from there. It never changes, as we need consistency in our limited edition prints, but it's also not software dependent as a file format.

    If I moved to another editing platform, I wouldn't be re-importing all of my raws (or all of the working images with edits) from day one, I'd just start from that point forward.  Of course, I may "go back" to another shoot from years ago, but I'd be going back to the raws to review as the images I already edited are sat as final TIFs.

    So, no - not everyone has a workflow that's *reliant* on their editing software. But even if it was, CO have not said they're pulling the Perpetual license at all, so there is NO difference right now to any user or purchaser of a license - until the details of the upgrade plan/loyalty scheme are known in January.  Hence - utterly pointless speculation for the time being.

     

    3) The "hundreds of millions" - I'm assuming you've read those accounts as Danish Krone, right? I mean, nobody would be SO inward looking that they'd expect international accounts to be published in US dollars when that's actually at a rate of around 1:10 to their own currency, would they? 

    For those who want to put the effort in, of course the company accounts are available online (indeed, for more recent accounting periods - same with any company, it's hardly super-sleuthing) and for the 170-ish employees they have, trust me - there's not the huge stockpile of net profit sitting there for each of them that some people seem to think there is. 🙄

    Be careful with "revenue" numbers - it's a primary mistake that many people make. Sure, I can sell 5,000 iPhones overnight at $500 to make $2.5m in revenue - but if each one is sold at a negative margin, that's stupid, I've just lost $2m - hardly an accolade in business. Capture One is a profitable company, for sure (because they're not stupid!) - but it's not the behemoth that some people would have you believe.

    In my world, half-baked research is worse than no research at all.

    General advice (outside of here): Don't read the revenue numbers - read the profit lines. (And personally, I like my suppliers to make a profit - it means they'll be around in the future. To your "point 2"... 😉)

    But actually instead, spend that effort looking at whether the cost of the product they make is the right value for YOU.

     

    OR - even better - spend less time angsting about something that hasn't happened, and you don't have nearly enough details for until next month - and instead put that energy into taking, and editing, those photographs that were the primary reason you came to Capture One in the first place.

    1
  • bernhard sanders

    Hi  "e"

    well said - and i can add: They do react, they have removed the 15.0. installer, the last one which can activated offline, from their download page! Exactly one week ago the 15.0 download was visible on their HP, but a download did not work. After my email request the support have sent me a link to download 15.0. - that has worked and i got 15.0 . Yesterday i have tried the same link - and it leads to 15.4.2., a version with no offline activation option.

    That means - they react, they show their faces by action in the background. That has worsened the situation rather than calming everything a bit. They have closed the last backdoor to offline activation.

    You're right - as you have stated in your last paragraph - we have to accept that we can not trust C1 any more and have to look for solutions for us, move to companies or software tools we can trust in. Like, just 2 examples, Ed Hamrick for Vuescan, Mario Westphal for iMatch DAM - both of them with real lifetime licenses, great support, permanent updates, responsive for new features and with a fair pricing model. Both softwares are not to everyones taste, are just examples, but they are stil available for those of us who can work with them since many years !! Well done, Ed and Mario.

    We should remember what has happened with - just 2 examples - Canto Cumulus Database - bought off by investors, dead for a while and back with a completely different approach. To iView - bought off by MS, later by C1 - they have developed it to death as well.

    I am sure - there is a great space in the market. For solid tools for us. We have to be smarter. "e" - where is eslewhere ?

    And to Paul Reiffer:

    Certainly there are pirated versions flying around of Adobe products, and there are pirated versions of C1. BUT I DO NOT USE THEM !

    Certainly we live in digital times - but please accept that not every Photographer wants or needs to go that way.

    We do not need for example pirated Video editing software - there is Blackmagic Resolve giving us the slightly limited software for free and a license for just about €350.-- - and they are quite successful. Even though the free version would meet my needs, i am about to buy the license - a fair price for a great software with permanent updates.

    Paul - we are talking in different languages from different points of view.

    -1
  • Medea Pers

    Perhaps Paul Reiffer can explain why CO removed the 15.0 installer. Or at least give us his reaction to it? 

     

    1
  • Paul Reiffer

    @Medea Pers

    Can't explain - I don't work for them.

    Don't have any reaction to it - it may be a mistake, an oversight. Could be linked to software piracy before they changed the activation process in later versions. Could be a "tidy-up". Could be intentional. No idea.

    But I have no reaction, because I always run the latest version - so 15.0 isn't relevant to my setup, sorry.

    Why anyone with a 15.X license would want to download the original version (which has unresolved bugs and features missing) instead of 15.4.3, *other than to avoid activation* is beyond me...

     

    Update (to edited response above) - @bernhard sanders

    I didn't mention anything about you, or your software use?

    In fact, your post is completely irrelevant to the discussion I was having where I made reference to the history of Adobe as part of a wider point.  Good luck with the crusade.

    0
  • bernhard sanders

    Paul - even with only "half baked research" - it is obvious, that it was intended. The timing of removing 15.0 and relinking v15.0 to v15.4. tells me that. You want to work with the newest version ? Well, up to you, for my needs and the features i use v15.0 ist fine - i have payed for that version and i am happy with it for now. And i am not that old school - i do not have to restore my legally activated versions from tapes or even floppy drives - i have them stored on images including the OS. I can restore them on a blank SSD and they work. That is not pirating!!

    And - it has imho not much to do with pirated versions. Even the offline process is (or was) safe for C1, and i am sure there are still pirated versions of 16.x flying around. BUT i would never use them. And i will stay with 15 until i have found a solution like DxO or other coming companies. And without all the panic started with C1 communication and behaviour i would certainly have stayed with C1.

    Regarding your statment about research - well, what i can see is that C1 was not too successful to run a good research on what some of their customers want. Otherwise they would not have run in this disaster.

    0
  • Paul Reiffer

    @bernhard sanders - I don't understand how I've ended up in a discussion with you on something I have no interest in?!

    That's going to be the end of this random exchange for me, thanks!

    -1
  • Weldon Thomson

    The problem for me, and I suspect many, are the questions ‘do I want to give this company a chance to explain later what they are doing now, in hope that I am over-reacting and it will not be that bad, and Is this a company that values its customers such that I feel I can trust enough to support its product as/if I continue to invest my time, resources, and effort building my image catalogue and workflow around it. Their actions and lack of both response or concern thus far appears, to me, to demonstrate that it is not.

    5
  • Weldon Thomson

    Paul Reiffer -

    “ I don't understand how I've ended up in a discussion with you on something I have no interest in?!”

    You apparently made a choice to!

    I am perplexed, so intended as a friendly observation - Sometimes I read your posts and think you are interested, want to help, and make make some good and sensible observations. Then, other times, you seem to go out if your way to make yourself sound disinterested if not stuck up and arrogant. My experience with human nature would indicate this might likely be because you are a Capture One Ambassador and, thus, speaking within that role with some conflict with regard to what you really think?

    1
  • Paul Reiffer

    @Weldon Thomson - No conflict at all. I always say what I really think, whether that's good or bad 😉

    My point, specifically to bernhard, was that I hadn't entered into any conversation with them about their "v15 issue" or whether they were pirating software.  I was responding to 3 specific points that were addressed to me by "e".

    Following that, I was met with a load of references to me implying I'd responded to Bernhard's random v15.0 install posts - and it's not something I have any view on, so not a topic for me get involved in.

    My "close down" was to Bernhard's thread - not the wider topic.

     

    In terms of my "human nature" - I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong when it comes to "internal conflict", as I have none here (and rarely do). 👍

    There are absolutely some things Capture One got wrong on this occasion - as is well documented, my view on the initial communication couldn't be less impressed. I've detailed some of that above.

    I'm also a keen advocate of never allowing rumour to fill a void left by missing facts - something that's been allowed to happen in this case.

    That said, I also see a lot of undue speculation, pitchfork-wielding and strong "everyone believes X" or "we're ALL leaving" statements that are simply personal viewpoints dressed up to speak on behalf of an entire community.

    (Point of note: While this thread has "over 600 comments", they're from less than 150 people, in a community of hundreds of thousands. A community that is now over 50% subscription based and growing - subscribers who are completely unaffected by this change. Not saying that's right/wrong, but it's a fact.

    Interesting, connected, note - Adobe is now estimated to be at around 30 million subscribers, wow. https://prodesigntools.com/number-of-creative-cloud-subscribers.html )

    So, for perpetual license holders - absolutely, this has become a hot topic - but people also need to be able to look analytically at both sides.  Have we considered that CO aren't making any *more* "half-statements" right now, because they want to be 100% certain the correct, full, statement goes out with no ambiguity? (Again, I'm not saying that IS what's going on, but sometimes there's no conspiracy to find...)

    As those who have known me for some time will agree - I'm very much in the camp of answering direct questions posed to me, and will always do that in an honest manner. People may not agree with or like my response, but it will always be from my own perspective and I make it clear that it's my opinion, not fact or company line.

    What I'm not going to do is get dragged into random @-calling on topics I have no knowledge or involvement in just because someone wants to continue a personal grievance against a company who aren't answering back.

    I'd say that's a fair position to take, as an ambassador or otherwise, no?

    1
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Yes Paul, that's a very fair position imo.

    1
  • J M Smith

    Paul,

    You are partially correct on the financials. Top line is indicative of growth, bottom line means nothing more than how good a company is at hiding profits, if you can manage your bottom line to zero or slightly negative profits then fantastic.

    What is important is their EBITDA, what you want to look for is a return >= the industry average and growing, then they are most likely a healthy company.

    0
  • Macdara G

    Everyone who feels cheated is correct. You were cheated. This is a gross abuse of software licensing - hiding updates behind a paywall is an incredibly shady practice. And highly disappointing from Capture One. Especially, since the price of the updates have continuously risen over the years. The feedback here is a testament to that.

    But will they listen?

    2
  • Weldon Thomson

    Paul,

    All good. Thank you for your thoughtful response and explanation.

    0
  • Steve Kaye

    I just found this text in the license for Capture One:

    4.5.1 End of life (i.e., the time at which the COL functionality cannot be used any longer) occurs 3 months after a new major version of the Software has been released AND / OR when a breaking change (a significant change to the core of the Software that makes it incompatible with previous versions of the Software) is introduced.

    Does this mean my software will stop working 3 months after a new version is released?

     

    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    Steve, "COL" means Capture One Live.

    0
  • Ari Kangas

    As many have pointed out, the new system means we only get even bug fixes until the new version is released. And at the same time they have said they will be releasing new major versions more often rather than once a year. Everyone who claims "nothing has changed", read and understand that. You buy 16 now, you're SoL the second 17 is released. Same with 17. And as they want to release those more often it means you won't get even one year out of your "perpetual license". Some hobbyers may want to risk their life on living with a software that won't get any more bug fixes, I don't. None of the professionals do, and apparently C1 wants them all to move to subscription model. Or maybe they're there already? Then again, often professionals want to be in control of when they update their workhorse.  SaaS doesn't give you that option. 

    I bought the sony only version originally because the price point was reasonable for a perpetual software. I moved to Pro when I got a good enough preorder deal. I can't afford 200e+ for upgrade that works for a few months and then won't even receive bug fixes. That's basically >20e/mo. No information about the loyalty scheme (which should've been the very first thing they release!) until it's too late do anything about it. 

    All of this reeks. I will be moving to other software when my v20 won't work properly anymore. I can't afford to rage quite just out of spite, otherwise I would. At this point I see no reason for me to continue with Capture One. They made it clear, they only want rich professionals. The rest of us can use something else. 

    2
  • Anders Svensson

    I really don't see how Capture One can get away with not providing bug fixes within the warranty period that various jurisdictions stipulate. In the EU that's at least two years, so they're making a mockery of it unless they only intend to drop new feature releases every two years. (Which is probably not the intention. :)

    If they advertise a feature and that feature doesn't function as advertised then they should fix it within the warranty period, full stop.

    2
  • Ari Kangas

    "We will make sure to inform you about the loyalty program ahead of February 1st, 2023, in order to give you ample time to make the decision that suits you best."

    Does "ample time" really translate to barely two weeks in Capture One language? And what exactly is the reason for witholding this information for a few more weeks? Maybe it's because you don't even know yourselves what it'll be? 

    Regardless, the FAQ states it clearly enough: If you want to update often (i.e. get bug fixes constantly) the subscription is your best bet. So don't expect to pay less than 219e/year in the future for the chance for bugs to be fixed. I don't know about you, but for me that's too much. I've yet to check if they're actually breaking EU laws with that, but if they are I'll be sure to notify the authorities about this. 

    1
  • BeO
    Top Commenter

    I don't know if this EU regulation (2 years warranty?) applies in this situation. But if it does, then C1 might have violated against it all the time because bug fixes or operating system compatibility patches have not been provided for two years even in the past, for a given major version released. Because major versions were patched only for roughly one year.

    But maybe they would have provided a patch for critical issues, and maybe they will in the future despite their plan for regular updates ceasing after a new minor release, and maybe this is even in line with the regulation (warranty only for critical issues?). As I said, I really don't know this regulation nor do I know how to interpret that, I am not a lawyer.

    Protection regulations are fine, there is a caveat though. Regulations for consumers want to protect consumers but sometimes the result can be the opposite, in this case making it more attractive for software providers to cease perpetual license agreements and favor subscription agreements in order to maintain only one version (the subscription version) thus complying with the regulation much easier. 

    1
  • Weldon Thomson

    “They made it clear, they only want rich professionals.“

    “Rich professionals” don’t want to pay more, either, and most likely WILL as hobbyists, artists, and other casual users bail, in droves, due to this new Capture One scheme. As the scheme seems clearly intended (no matter how they attempt to spin it) to increase profitability to satisfy investors, it will backfire and leave them with the necessity to raise prices for all who may be left.

    3
  • Paul Reiffer

    Hi @Ari Kangas

    Just a couple of things to maybe help frame some thinking on your concerns.

    Then again, often professionals want to be in control of when they update their workhorse.  SaaS doesn't give you that option. 

    On the subscription front - the way Capture One works (at present, granted - nobody can tell the future) is that a subscriber can choose which version they run. You don't have to run the latest release, so you're in control of the platform you're operating from.

    Some hobbyers may want to risk their life on living with a software that won't get any more bug fixes, I don't. 

    But you already are.  You said you're on v20 (3 versions behind).  So, you haven't actually been getting updates for over 2 years already on your own platform. As such, it might not be the huge change that people think for users who don't update that often?

    On the timing thing - I completely agree, the loyalty/upgrade details absolutely should have gone out on day 1 with the rest of the announcement, and 2 weeks isn't necessarily enough for people to make a decision. That said, those 2 weeks are still better then the original "plan A" which was to present them on the day of transition - so they have at least pulled it forward... 🙂

     

    0
  • Paul Reiffer

    @BeO

    It's actually a relatively new law (brought in this year) - several blog posts about it around, including Europa.eu's official stance.  One example: https://blog.intigriti.com/2022/06/27/new-eu-law-changing-game-digital-goods-producers/

    So, they didn't have to comply with it in the past.  The nuances of how software companies will comply in the future are yet to be seen, but as you say - one way will be for (many) software companies to just remove perpetual licenses.

    The rule of unintended consequences from regulation could well bite once more...!

    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.