CO 7 Express someday?
Hi, do you have planned to release CO7 on express version?
thanks.
thanks.
0
-
Being not discontinued is not the same as supporting a product.
To avoid the political speak answers the question to have asked was "will Express 6 support future new camera releases like CO7 Pro" then see what answer they come up with. 😊0 -
[quote="Paul Silk" wrote:
Being not discontinued is not the same as supporting a product.
To avoid the political speak answers the question to have asked was "will Express 6 support future new camera releases like CO7 Pro" then see what answer they come up with. 😊
I've asked whether it is still being developed. Like you say, the reply I got above can mean absolutely anything you like. And the more I think about then the more I wonder if even Capture One themselves know for sure where its going and haven't firmly decided whether to plough on with Pro alone or not.0 -
[quote="bigfatron" wrote:
[quote="Paul Silk" wrote:
Being not discontinued is not the same as supporting a product.
To avoid the political speak answers the question to have asked was "will Express 6 support future new camera releases like CO7 Pro" then see what answer they come up with. 😊
I've asked whether it is still being developed. Like you say, the reply I got above can mean absolutely anything you like. And the more I think about then the more I wonder if even Capture One themselves know for sure where its going and haven't firmly decided whether to plough on with Pro alone or not.
It is just possibly that this is not an easy decision to attempt either technically or from a business perspective.
I'm not at all familiar with the detail differences between Express and Pro - I've always used Pro.
However is seems to me that the major changes between V7 and V6 - the key areas - are the new processing engine and the catalog facility. I would assume that Express users would not have any expectation of cataloging content. That might be somewhat burdensome for a base level RAW convertion application.
So the key is the new processing engine. Which means the marketing question becomes ... (how) can we deliver the new engine in a lean form without compromising the objective for the development or the market segmentation required for differential prcing (leading to the revenue streams that allow the product to exist, etc., etc,).
It is just possible I suppose that some of the features and facilities that are fundamental to any success using the new engine may not currently sit well with a 'lite' version. Moreover it is just possible that a version that requires 64bit windows may not be too attractive, yet, to the potential market of users. I am a typical example being currently a 32bit user.
Let's assume, for example, that if has become evident that to enable an application to work effectively with many future camera and lens releases it will have to include lens correction facilities. Even in 'lite' form. How much support baggage does that bring to the party? Bear in mind a 'lite' version would be looking at comparatively low upfront income per sale and no regular maintenance stream despite the constant need to update and prepare distributions (and all the associated costs). It might somply not work as a financial model. It might also be too much to include in a reduced feature set. If inclusion IS u unavoidable, how do you approach that challenge?
If I were developing software with those thought in mind (and I have been party to very similar challenges in the past so I have some insights for the subject) the only logical approach would seem to be to develop a single application for testing and distribution but split the available functionality based on the licence registered. However when re-writing with new undrerlying technology, as we seem to have here, this may not be so readily possible. It could depend on the inherent design, the development tools or simply a need to bed in and prove the new code before deciding on the best way forward.
Even if I intended to offer the cut down version and was happy that it was technically possible and financially supportable I might well baulk at putting out 2 new products based on new technology at the same time. In fact I wold want to be very sure that things were 100% OK before doing so.
So what we have is Pro moving to V7 and, as far as I have read, Express continues staying with the V6 technology. That is a fairly common approach in the modern day. Whether that can and will change later is another matter and if any of my earlier assumptions are half correct, I don't see what Phase One could say in the meantime that would satisfy the wider 'need to know'. "No more Express" would not work. "Yes we will" would not work without a time scale and especially if technological issues later turned that into "No we won't". "No information/No decision yet" would also seem to be unacceptable having read previous comments.
I'm really not at all sure that there is anything that could be said that would satisfy everyone so it may be best to stick to a position that really results in only one criticism - that no information is being offered. Uncomfortable it may be but better than trying to operte on multiple fronts and distracting from the continuing development work being undertaken.
My thoughts, for the little they are worth.
Grant Perkins0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
It is just possibly that this is not an easy decision to attempt either technically or from a business perspective.
I'm not at all familiar with the detail differences between Express and Pro - I've always used Pro.
However is seems to me that the major changes between V7 and V6 - the key areas - are the new processing engine and the catalog facility. I would assume that Express users would not have any expectation of cataloging content. That might be somewhat burdensome for a base level RAW convertion application.
So the key is the new processing engine. Which means the marketing question becomes ... (how) can we deliver the new engine in a lean form without compromising the objective for the development or the market segmentation required for differential prcing (leading to the revenue streams that allow the product to exist, etc., etc,).
It is just possible I suppose that some of the features and facilities that are fundamental to any success using the new engine may not currently sit well with a 'lite' version. Moreover it is just possible that a version that requires 64bit windows may not be too attractive, yet, to the potential market of users. I am a typical example being currently a 32bit user.
Let's assume, for example, that if has become evident that to enable an application to work effectively with many future camera and lens releases it will have to include lens correction facilities. Even in 'lite' form. How much support baggage does that bring to the party? Bear in mind a 'lite' version would be looking at comparatively low upfront income per sale and no regular maintenance stream despite the constant need to update and prepare distributions (and all the associated costs). It might somply not work as a financial model. It might also be too much to include in a reduced feature set. If inclusion IS u unavoidable, how do you approach that challenge?
If I were developing software with those thought in mind (and I have been party to very similar challenges in the past so I have some insights for the subject) the only logical approach would seem to be to develop a single application for testing and distribution but split the available functionality based on the licence registered. However when re-writing with new undrerlying technology, as we seem to have here, this may not be so readily possible. It could depend on the inherent design, the development tools or simply a need to bed in and prove the new code before deciding on the best way forward.
Even if I intended to offer the cut down version and was happy that it was technically possible and financially supportable I might well baulk at putting out 2 new products based on new technology at the same time. In fact I wold want to be very sure that things were 100% OK before doing so.
So what we have is Pro moving to V7 and, as far as I have read, Express continues staying with the V6 technology. That is a fairly common approach in the modern day. Whether that can and will change later is another matter and if any of my earlier assumptions are half correct, I don't see what Phase One could say in the meantime that would satisfy the wider 'need to know'. "No more Express" would not work. "Yes we will" would not work without a time scale and especially if technological issues later turned that into "No we won't". "No information/No decision yet" would also seem to be unacceptable having read previous comments.
I'm really not at all sure that there is anything that could be said that would satisfy everyone so it may be best to stick to a position that really results in only one criticism - that no information is being offered. Uncomfortable it may be but better than trying to operte on multiple fronts and distracting from the continuing development work being undertaken.
My thoughts, for the little they are worth.
Grant Perkins
Its a reasoned argument you give, but i'd add the following:
- I've been using CO in its more junior form since 3.7 and haven't missed an upgrade. As someone who doesn't make money out of my hobby then the outlay for Pro I just couldn't justify.
- The Pro version and LE/Express version has always been distributed in the same single installer package.
- Given the previous point, the LE/Express version has always been released at the same time.
- The LE/Express version has always (as far as I can tell) been merely a subset of the Pro package. i.e. the same underlying code but with certain features turned off/limited (lens correction is one example). I have in the past used Pro for the trial period and then 'downgraded' to LE/Express without having to reinstall anything. Functionality has merely been determined by the licence code entered. If its deemed that the LE/Express edition is too limited in function to be worthwhile then fair enough, but no reason not to communicate that the intention then is to go with one product only going forwards. Or continue with it and let the market decide if the LE/Express product is worth sticking with versus the alternatives.
- From a maintenance point of view then having a v6 Express and a v7 Pro version makes little sense, unless you don't intend to improve the lesser version except for essential fixes etc. Its two code bases instead of a single one where the lesser product is a subset. And if the lesser product isn't being improved, its becoming less attractive to new users and especially if there is competition in that price segment.
- The 64 bit version of LE/Express has been available for as long as Pro has been available in 64 bit form. Axing a 32 bit release wouldn't IMHO be all that controversial. Most PCs bought since Windows 7 came out will have shipped with a 64 bit OS and hardware a number of years older will be capable of running a 64 bit OS.
- 'Yes we will but we can't commit to a date yet' sounds infinitely better to me and does less damage to customer goodwill than the chirping of crickets that greets enquiries about the future of Express. Especially when (due to the reasons stated above) the lack of an Express version at the same time as a major release of Pro is notable and unusual based on previous release history.
And as you noted, no useful information being offered is the crux of the problem here.0 -
[quote="bigfatron" wrote:
Its a reasoned argument you give, but i'd add the following:
- I've been using CO in its more junior form since 3.7 and haven't missed an upgrade. As someone who doesn't make money out of my hobby then the outlay for Pro I just couldn't justify.
- The Pro version and LE/Express version has always been distributed in the same single installer package.
- Given the previous point, the LE/Express version has always been released at the same time.
- The LE/Express version has always (as far as I can tell) been merely a subset of the Pro package. i.e. the same underlying code but with certain features turned off/limited (lens correction is one example). I have in the past used Pro for the trial period and then 'downgraded' to LE/Express without having to reinstall anything. Functionality has merely been determined by the licence code entered. If its deemed that the LE/Express edition is too limited in function to be worthwhile then fair enough, but no reason not to communicate that the intention then is to go with one product only going forwards. Or continue with it and let the market decide if the LE/Express product is worth sticking with versus the alternatives.
- From a maintenance point of view then having a v6 Express and a v7 Pro version makes little sense, unless you don't intend to improve the lesser version except for essential fixes etc. Its two code bases instead of a single one where the lesser product is a subset. And if the lesser product isn't being improved, its becoming less attractive to new users and especially if there is competition in that price segment.
- The 64 bit version of LE/Express has been available for as long as Pro has been available in 64 bit form. Axing a 32 bit release wouldn't IMHO be all that controversial. Most PCs bought since Windows 7 came out will have shipped with a 64 bit OS and hardware a number of years older will be capable of running a 64 bit OS.
- 'Yes we will but we can't commit to a date yet' sounds infinitely better to me and does less damage to customer goodwill than the chirping of crickets that greets enquiries about the future of Express. Especially when (due to the reasons stated above) the lack of an Express version at the same time as a major release of Pro is notable and unusual based on previous release history.
And as you noted, no useful information being offered is the crux of the problem here.
At the risk of sounding like this is a sort of mutual back-slapping party, well reasoned yourself!
In a couple of areas in recent months and years I have seen situations where major upgrades (typically re-writes with new core developments tools (option to not change not allowed ...) or influenced by Windows (and I dare say the same goes for Apple) have been somewhat more challenging than expected. To the point where original plans had to be significantly modified and some long practised continuity became unrealistic, sometimes impossible. Nothing to do with image processing I might add although handling screen graphics, even within industry provided routines, has been compromised from time to time and for a variety of reasons. Even well established mass market products like browsers seem to have their own special ways of being incompatible with each other and notably independent of many "standards".
People I sometimes work with when beta testing (again, business applications, nothing to do with image manipulation) have discovered that re-writes, undertaken as a requirement for being able to move the functionality forward and give the product a future, have been much more challenging than they thought even when they knew they were taking on a major task. Against that background they became very nervous about releasing information that might appear to promise something that subsequently was not made available or was deferred for further development or whilst awaiting fixes or promised functionalilty from the suppliers of the core development tools and routines.
I am aware of another case, with which I was not involved, where the development time, effort and cost led to the company disappearing.
I take you point about how previous releases were presented and that, sensibly, all versions are usually released in a single distribution package. However, from time to time such routine approaches may have to change for a number of reasons. Perhaps permanently or maybe temporarily but with a period of uncertainty. When we are outside the loop it can be frustrating waiting for an outcome but I suspect that it what we may have to get used to whilst the current raft of core 'new development products' goes through a stabilization period and application developed with the new concepts have to tack along a path that is rather dependent on which way the development wind is blowing. I'm not referring solely to Capture One here - there are plenty of candidates out there with similar challenges.
It's just possible that for a while there is no truly useful information that can be offered with any degree of certainty. IN which case whihc is the lesser of two evils? Say something and maybe appear to break a promise later or say nothing and confuse or upset people? I have no idea, I'm just glad it's not my problem. Or at least, I don't think it is.
Grant Perkins0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
[quote="bigfatron" wrote:
Its a reasoned argument you give, but i'd add the following:
- I've been using CO in its more junior form since 3.7 and haven't missed an upgrade. As someone who doesn't make money out of my hobby then the outlay for Pro I just couldn't justify.
- The Pro version and LE/Express version has always been distributed in the same single installer package.
- Given the previous point, the LE/Express version has always been released at the same time.
- The LE/Express version has always (as far as I can tell) been merely a subset of the Pro package. i.e. the same underlying code but with certain features turned off/limited (lens correction is one example). I have in the past used Pro for the trial period and then 'downgraded' to LE/Express without having to reinstall anything. Functionality has merely been determined by the licence code entered. If its deemed that the LE/Express edition is too limited in function to be worthwhile then fair enough, but no reason not to communicate that the intention then is to go with one product only going forwards. Or continue with it and let the market decide if the LE/Express product is worth sticking with versus the alternatives.
- From a maintenance point of view then having a v6 Express and a v7 Pro version makes little sense, unless you don't intend to improve the lesser version except for essential fixes etc. Its two code bases instead of a single one where the lesser product is a subset. And if the lesser product isn't being improved, its becoming less attractive to new users and especially if there is competition in that price segment.
- The 64 bit version of LE/Express has been available for as long as Pro has been available in 64 bit form. Axing a 32 bit release wouldn't IMHO be all that controversial. Most PCs bought since Windows 7 came out will have shipped with a 64 bit OS and hardware a number of years older will be capable of running a 64 bit OS.
- 'Yes we will but we can't commit to a date yet' sounds infinitely better to me and does less damage to customer goodwill than the chirping of crickets that greets enquiries about the future of Express. Especially when (due to the reasons stated above) the lack of an Express version at the same time as a major release of Pro is notable and unusual based on previous release history.
And as you noted, no useful information being offered is the crux of the problem here.
At the risk of sounding like this is a sort of mutual back-slapping party, well reasoned yourself!
In a couple of areas in recent months and years I have seen situations where major upgrades (typically re-writes with new core developments tools (option to not change not allowed ...) or influenced by Windows (and I dare say the same goes for Apple) have been somewhat more challenging than expected. To the point where original plans had to be significantly modified and some long practised continuity became unrealistic, sometimes impossible. Nothing to do with image processing I might add although handling screen graphics, even within industry provided routines, has been compromised from time to time and for a variety of reasons. Even well established mass market products like browsers seem to have their own special ways of being incompatible with each other and notably independent of many "standards".
People I sometimes work with when beta testing (again, business applications, nothing to do with image manipulation) have discovered that re-writes, undertaken as a requirement for being able to move the functionality forward and give the product a future, have been much more challenging than they thought even when they knew they were taking on a major task. Against that background they became very nervous about releasing information that might appear to promise something that subsequently was not made available or was deferred for further development or whilst awaiting fixes or promised functionalilty from the suppliers of the core development tools and routines.
I am aware of another case, with which I was not involved, where the development time, effort and cost led to the company disappearing.
I take you point about how previous releases were presented and that, sensibly, all versions are usually released in a single distribution package. However, from time to time such routine approaches may have to change for a number of reasons. Perhaps permanently or maybe temporarily but with a period of uncertainty. When we are outside the loop it can be frustrating waiting for an outcome but I suspect that it what we may have to get used to whilst the current raft of core 'new development products' goes through a stabilization period and application developed with the new concepts have to tack along a path that is rather dependent on which way the development wind is blowing. I'm not referring solely to Capture One here - there are plenty of candidates out there with similar challenges.
It's just possible that for a while there is no truly useful information that can be offered with any degree of certainty. IN which case whihc is the lesser of two evils? Say something and maybe appear to break a promise later or say nothing and confuse or upset people? I have no idea, I'm just glad it's not my problem. Or at least, I don't think it is.
Grant Perkins
I too am from a software development background. Yes I agree that sometimes people say nothing rather than fear their word be inferred as some kind of firm promise. That said, its also usually good policy to be honest and up front with your customers. I usually find honesty is the better policy as life is alot more awkward and unforgiving without your customers onside. And sometimes that honesty is 'we're not 100% sure yet, can we get back to you', and actually i'd be quite happy to hear that as a response in this instance rather than the almost total stonewalling we've had to date.0 -
Hi, ther's a survey form Phase one about CO 7. Please, all of you people that want Capture One7 Express take a moment to respond that survey, saying to Phase one what we think abuot not giving answer to questions form community 0 -
[quote="NN124869UL2" wrote:
Hi, ther's a survey form Phase one about CO 7. Please, all of you people that want Capture One7 Express take a moment to respond that survey, saying to Phase one what we think abuot not giving answer to questions form community
I would, if I could (even though I use the Pro version). However I have not received the survey, despite being a long time user. BTW, I have never received a survey from PO.0 -
I also haven't received this survey. 0 -
The survey was - as most surveys go - most probably send to a selection of mail addresses. 0 -
I have a license for CO Express and I haven't got the survey as well (no letter in inbox or spam).
Although I get PO news regularly.0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
The survey was - as most surveys go - most probably send to a selection of mail addresses.
It depends on what you want to find out. If they truly want to know what their users think, in this day and age it is not hard to send out email surveys to all your customers. You can also have sites host a survey for you.
Customer surveys are quite different from general market research.0 -
Yes, I would respond in a survey if given the opportunity.
Ron0 -
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
The survey was - as most surveys go - most probably send to a selection of mail addresses.
One would hope the survey is being sent to CO6 Express users onley and not Pro users like myself as that could falsely colour the results against Express, presuming that is not what Phase One wants.0 -
No surveys received.
I regularly receive the newsletter and I have been a CO Express user since I first installed C1 LE 1.3.1 for Windows (file dated Feb/04) way back then.
Currently considering LR4.
Regards.0 -
How about today 😉
http://www.phaseone.com
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Ca ... ess-7.aspx
Thank you all for your patience and I am sorry we couldn't comment on it earlier but as always on the Phase One Forum, unreleased products are not discussed.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
76 comments