Capture One 23 16.2.1 Windows
Hi,
After installing updates everything isn't working.
Can't even authenticate. Please refer to the image attached.
-
Do you have a Subscription or a perpetual license?
If Perpetual, for which release of C1 is the License valid?
0 -
Yes, I do have the perpetual license. Bouth it recently from B&H. It's working on my Mac but can't use it on my Windows after the update.
0 -
I turned the Firewall and Anti -virus during activation and still not going through. I even did a restart. And now even my C122 isn't working on my windows machine.
0 -
If the license is for 16.1 (or earlier) it will not support the update to 16.2.
You may find other topics in the Community section and the Official FAQ pages that describe and discuss how the licensing for C1 is applied since the release of V16.
There are likely many such topics and I would not wish to attempt to point you towards any specific examples that may influence your opinion one way or another.
0 -
it's done. I fixed it.
0 -
If the license is for 16.1 (or earlier) it will not support the update to 16.2.
This is a sore spot with me and likely other holders of a perpetual license—the fact that the C1 overlords consider a dot release to be a "new" version.
0 -
Well, I suppose the alternative policy would be to release a new version every 4 months to six months.
The net effect would be the same.
0 -
No, the alternative policy that doesn't screw users would be to provide updates to the version bought, 16 in this case, until such time as a legitimate new version (17) is released. Sure, C1 could call a dot release 17 but that would just be semantics and would be no more palatable than what they're doing now.
I understood the policy before I bought in, I just don't happen to agree with it.
1 -
Agreed, it's a policy that shouts out for a solution driven by a form of subscription model as it is currently conceived.
Or, more traditional and perhaps more business oriented (for the consumer), a perpetual license and a maintenance charge of some sort. That would be somewhat like the original offering when I started using C1 and before the drive to a subscription model became the consuming dream of the software industry. For software that was still being actively developed, one might expect to pay up to circa 30% per annum of the "purchase" fee to fund the "new version" which, mainly would consist of developments implemented and delivered in the previous year or so.
Having had usable access to those developments one would be in a good position to decide whether what they offered was worth the cost before committing to the expenditure.
The problem is that that does not seem to be a commercially viable proposition for the software development industry in the modern "agile" era.
Now in many ways, while I prefer the perpetual license (in so far as there can be a perpetual license when the ability to use the product is dependent on third party factors like operating system support, etc.) I might be quite content with a subscription SO LONG AS I still had access to the last release of software that was current after suspending or cancelling the subscription for whatever reason - whether that be by choice or for other reasons.
The current policies sort of acknowledge that situation but I am not sure that are quite as well-rounded as they might be at this time.
My other observation is that an awful lot of the development effort (and therefore the costs and risks) seem to have gone into Mac only functionality for the past 2 or 3 releases.
As a Windows user, I have no access to many new features or new potential applications. Of the primary new features I can use, I don't seem to have any great need for most of them, though trying them out can interesting from time to time.
So my personal cost-benefit analysis does not entice me towards something like a subscription model.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible that what might attract ME to sign up would not be an attractive business model for Capture One.
The problem with pinning payments to dot releases (or any other naming convention semantic) is that the traditional dot release was intended to be for fixes and, occasionally, new functionality that was intended to fix stuff that did not work as it should as it was or was overdue for a re-write to improve its operation or introduce changes that necessary due to, for example, external legislation.
To eliminate such service and maintenance updates as part of a "No new features without payment" policy seems to be a mistake. There must be other ways to present and manage totally new features in a way that does not strand existing users with software functionality problems forever in the event that they have a perpetual license that they would never need to update were it not for the software faults.
I think that problem has to be resolved before a clear and clean approach to how minor (or beta test level) functional updates should or should not be charged for can be discussed successfully.
That said one only has to look at the wider software market to observe that all the dominant companies seem to have headed down the "rent our products" path and it does not seem to have done them any harm. So far.
Indeed in the USA renting one's life seems to have been a generally accepted principle for decades.
In Europe and most of the rest of the world, so far as I know, the concept is not so widely accepted from an historical perspective. It might be something more familiar to recent generations in the 21st century.
2 -
A well thought out reply, thank you.
Of the subscription models I'm aware of, I tend to favor the one now used by Topaz. One is entitled to a year's worth of updates—features, bug fixes, et al.—which stop when the calendar runs out. The software remains fully functional and the user can monitor the subsequent releases to see if any of the updates are appealing. If so, he can opt in for another year.
...the traditional dot release was intended to be for fixes and, occasionally, new functionality that was intended to fix stuff that did not work as it should as it was or was overdue for a re-write to improve its operation...
The crux of my issue with the present system. My memory of how things used to be is hard to suppress.
To eliminate such service and maintenance updates as part of a "No new features without payment" policy seems to be a mistake.
And not a small one.
There must be other ways to present and manage totally new features in a way that does not strand existing users with software functionality problems forever in the event that they have a perpetual license that they would never need to update were it not for the software faults.
One of the primary reasons for my move to the latest version of C1 is that my old one, 13/20, stopped supporting the newest Nvidia GPU driver updates; hardware acceleration was effectively disabled. Of course there will be no fix from C1 and Nvidia currently cannot be bothered to respond to support emails (or even allow them to be sent for that matter). I didn't want to be tied to an old driver forever so I paid up during the recent half-off promotion.
From C1's perspective, separating bug fixes from feature updates may not be an easy thing depending on how the code is written. I hope at some point they could make it modular enough that features and fixes could be managed separately and thus more intelligently and favorably for the user... assuming there is any incentive to do so.
1 -
it's done. I fixed it.
Would be fine to know HOW You did fix it.
1
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments