メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Cost to upgrade from 12 to 20?

Permanently deleted user
Just checking if I did it right......

I have been using C1 Pro (Sony) v12 for a while. Some time back, I downloaded, installed and activated the v20 beta and used it sporadically.

Yesterday I got a notice when starting v12 that an upgrade was available. When I checked, it was the non-beta v20 so I purchased it for $109, downloaded it and installed it. However, when I attempted to run the new v20, it identified itself as the beta version. Huh?

I then uninstalled v20 (beta) and re-installed the purchased / downloaded v20 (assumed non-beta). It still identified as the beta. Double huh?

I then deactivated the beta license and used the license from the Email I received when I purchased the v20 "upgrade". Now it identifies as v20 and does not say "beta". Success, I think.

So I have two questions.....

1. Did I use the correct procedure to upgrade v12 to v20? The whole process was very un-obvious and left me with a lot of unanswered questions.

2. Was the $109 that I paid correct for an upgrade from v12 to v20 (Pro-Sony)? Seems kinda steep since a brand new copy is $129? Checking my licenses, it shows that I have NO upgradable licenses. Not sure if that is correct.... I purchased a copy of v12 and now v20. If memory serves, v12 cost $79?

Thanks,
Paul
0

コメント

31件のコメント

日付 投票
  • Paul Steunebrink
    When you upgrade a license, you trade in the old key (which will be deactivated after the purchase) for a new key and pay the reduced upgrade price.

    Which key did you use for the upgrade? Your CO12 key or an older key, like CO11 or older?

    I ask because the upgrade fee for CO Pro Sony 12 > 20 should be US$ 89, and from CO Pro Sony 11 or older > 20 should be US$ 109.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    OK, then I screwed up, no thanks to Phase One's really confusing upgrade process I guess. I followed the link in the update screen in C1 which (as I remember) led me to a purchase / download page. The price was $109 (again, as I recall). Nowhere did it ask for ANY C1 license key until I tried activating v20. I thought I was simply upgrading my C1 v12 to C1 v20 since I followed the link in C1 v12. Seems what I actually did was purchase a brand new copy of C1 v20?

    I have subsequently tried starting my copy of V12, which now shows it is not activated. That makes sense if whatever I did WAS an upgrade.

    I's so confused ☹️

    Lets see what PhaseOne has to say in answer to the support ticket I opened.

    Paul
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    pgoelz wrote:
    Seems what I actually did was purchase a brand new copy of C1 v20?

    Just to emphasize, a $109 price is an upgrade price, not a brand new license.

    What I do not understand is how a C12 > 20 upgrade would cost you $109, instead of $89, unless the price information I have is off. If so, I apologize.

    As you stated, let's see what support has to say.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    And so far, no answer from support, other than the automated acknowledgement.

    FWIW, I looked up my original v12 purchase. The cost for a new perpetual licence for C1 Pro (Sony) back in February was $109. If the $109 I just paid was really an upgrade price, I'm not real happy. Frankly, given the very small increase in functionality V12 >> v20, I find even $89 a bit steep. I only paid it because I prefer C1 and did not want to jump off the upgrade train.

    Maybe if the cost continues to rise I'll try again to make friends with RawTherapee?

    FWIW, the C1 web site is currently VERY slow.... like 30 second page loads.

    Paul
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Got a response from CaptureOne support. Unfortunately, it merely told me how to upgrade and did not answer my clearly stated question of WHAT WAS THE CORRECT COST. They merely pointed me to the upgrade store and said I could see the costs there. Unfortunately, that requires an upgradeable license, which I no longer have (assumed because my v12 license was upgraded to v20, and there is currently no upgrade for v20).

    I have replied to their answer and we'll see what happens next.

    I would still appreciate hearing from anyone who has successfully upgraded from a pre-October 25 v12 to v20. What were you charged?

    Paul
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    OK, heard from C1 again. $109 (85% of the new purchase price) was the correct cost for the v12 >> v20 upgrade.

    That is a major disappointment. I informed them that this will be the first and the last time I pay that kind of money for an update. I'll use v20 until the next major upgrade and then either jump off the upgrade train permanently or look at something like RawTherapee.

    I urge anyone else who considers this upgrade cost to be excessive to contact CaptureOne and tell them.

    Paul
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    pgoelz wrote:
    OK, heard from C1 again. $109 (85% of the new purchase price) was the correct cost for the v12 >> v20 upgrade.

    That is a major disappointment. I informed them that this will be the first and the last time I pay that kind of money for an update. I'll use v20 until the next major upgrade and then either jump off the upgrade train permanently or look at something like RawTherapee.

    I urge anyone else who considers this upgrade cost to be excessive to contact CaptureOne and tell them.


    I was in the same boat going from v11 to v12. $159, if I remember correctly. Decided to vote with my wallet: no upgrade and it will remain like that until upgrades prices are better aligned with the rest of the market.

    That’s the most powerful message that can be sent to any company: stop giving them money.
    0
  • SFA
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:


    That’s the most powerful message that can be sent to any company: stop giving them money.


    Well yes, if you want the company to disappear.

    That said I note that many people felt that way about Adobe a few years ago until they halved the price of LR, introduced some 'cannot miss the value" bundles - which was probably why that had to halve the price of LR to allow the bundles to be "attractive" options - and then went subscription model.

    So a lot of people bought the full pack subscription model. Some even use all of it some of the time.

    Many left saying something like they did not want a subscription model and the only way to make a company listen was to stop giving them money.

    During that period the company's financial results improved quite dramatically.

    Natural inertia suggests that most subscribers will stay. Whether they use the software or not is another matter.

    Everyone has the right to spend their money how they wish (other than taxation). Doesn't mean much when there is no choice where to spend it.


    Grant
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:

    That’s the most powerful message that can be sent to any company: stop giving them money.

    Well you do have to tell them why - I know you already have. If you just stop spending they don't have feedback as to what the issues might be.

    SFA wrote:
    Many left saying something like they did not want a subscription model and the only way to make a company listen was to stop giving them money.

    Yep, I told them how I felt both publicly and privately. But politely 😊 . Then I stopped giving them money.

    SFA wrote:
    During that period the company's financial results improved quite dramatically.

    Yeah, message not received. Or more accurately they are happy with their decision and moving on without me ☹️ So, I guess that is message not cared about. Sucks being in the minority opinion.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    IanL wrote:
    I guess that is message not cared about. Sucks being in the minority opinion.

    The message is that "care" doesn't come into it. Adobe isn't there to make you happy.

    Like it or not, companies have a legal obligation to make money for their shareholders. They have no obligation to be your friend.

    Why people personalise Adobe's business decisions - which are clearly right for Adobe - is beyond me.
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    SFA wrote:
    Well yes, if you want the company to disappear.

    In the same way that companies have no obligation of loyalty to their customers, we have no obligation to them.

    I'm very happy with Capture One 20, and consider the price of entry to be money well-spent (even though it cost me more, not having gone beyond v. 8 previously, so I didn't get the more generous deal offered to users with more recent purchase history).

    But if in the interim Phase One had gone down the drain, I wouldn't have lost any sleep - they hadn't done anything to earn my continued interest in their corporate well-being up to the point when I finally upgraded to v. 20.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    SFA wrote:
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:


    That’s the most powerful message that can be sent to any company: stop giving them money.


    Well yes, if you want the company to disappear.


    Whether Phase One "disappears" or not is not my decision, but the cumulative effect of their own decisions and the reaction of their customers.

    I stopped giving them money for the simple reason their products (upgrades) are not worth the price tag they have. I'm not even criticizing Phase One - I'm only expressing my choice through my actions.

    SFA wrote:
    That said I note that many people felt that way about Adobe a few years ago until they halved the price of LR, introduced some 'cannot miss the value" bundles - which was probably why that had to halve the price of LR to allow the bundles to be "attractive" options - and then went subscription model.


    Maybe there is a lesson there for Phase One to learn. Adobe has been wildly successful with the subscription model because a lot of people think it's great value. I do.




    SFA wrote:

    Everyone has the right to spend their money how they wish (other than taxation). Doesn't mean much when there is no choice where to spend it.


    Luckily for us, there's plenty of alternatives to Capture One. Truth is excellent results can be achieved with almost anything nowadays, as long as we work with a good picture to start with. Our personal preference or familiarity with certain software often determines our choices. I like Capture One because it has an excellent initial rendition of my raw files (saving me some time), which I always finish in Photoshop. But if I needed to, I would certainly obtain the same results using something completely different.

    I'm not married to any product or company, I do not have a groupie mentality. I pay for the products I use and never go beyond that. I certainly enjoy using Capture One 11 because it meets all my needs for raw development (the rest is much more efficiently done in Photoshop, with much higher quality).
    0
  • SFA
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:
    [

    I'm not married to any product or company, I do not have a groupie mentality. I pay for the products I use and never go beyond that. I certainly enjoy using Capture One 11 because it meets all my needs for raw development (the rest is much more efficiently done in Photoshop, with much higher quality).


    Well, if you like the subscription model and you can get what you want anywhere because in the end it all goes into PS you absolutely have no need to consider C1.

    Just walking away would work for you so how does your closed wallet send a message that is to your benefit?
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    SFA wrote:
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:
    [

    I'm not married to any product or company, I do not have a groupie mentality. I pay for the products I use and never go beyond that. I certainly enjoy using Capture One 11 because it meets all my needs for raw development (the rest is much more efficiently done in Photoshop, with much higher quality).


    Well, if you like the subscription model and you can get what you want anywhere because in the end it all goes into PS you absolutely have no need to consider C1.

    Just walking away would work for you so how does your closed wallet send a message that is to your benefit?


    Good question. This is the answer:

    I use Capture One for basic raw development instead of Lightroom because it gives me my target initial rendition faster. I can get the same results with Lightroom, but why bother when Capture One takes me there with fewer clicks?

    As for not giving Phase One a penny until their prices are more in line with the rest of the industry, it’s a natural and very effective way of using my money in an intelligent manner. People do it all the time: you buy from places where you get better value for your money. I’m surprised you don’t know about that or don’t see the obvious benefit.

    Now, I know that I’m just one of thousands of clients, but figure that in the end, if enough people stop paying, something will happen and I will have done my part. On the other hand, if enough people keep paying, nothing will happen and I will have to do without upgrades - no big deal so far. Either way, I feel satisfied that this is the best deal for me.

    I’m open to the possibility that sometime in the future an upgrade will come that justifies the price because the features are compelling enough to me - my position is far from rigid or blind. V12 and v20, however, do not merit a change of strategy on my part. They have nothing that justifies the high asking price - but I do recognize that a good reason for that is my use of Photoshop, which is a thousand times more efficient and sophisticated than Capture One when it comes to retouching and generally putting the final touches on post-processing.

    That is my answer to your question.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Paul_Steunebrink wrote:
    When you upgrade a license, you trade in the old key (which will be deactivated after the purchase) for a new key and pay the reduced upgrade price.

    Which key did you use for the upgrade? Your CO12 key or an older key, like CO11 or older?

    I ask because the upgrade fee for CO Pro Sony 12 > 20 should be US$ 89, and from CO Pro Sony 11 or older > 20 should be US$ 109.

    Just curious..... where did you get that $89 figure? C1 has now confirmed that the $109 I paid for C1 Pro Sony v12 >> v20 was correct. For what we got in v20, even $89 is steep (vs. a non-upgrade purchase). But $109 is outrageous IMO.

    A these prices I might as well drink the Lightroom Koolaid for $120/year. This is not how you win new customers or keep existing ones.

    Paul
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    SFA wrote:
    Just walking away would work for you so how does your closed wallet send a message that is to your benefit?

    It results in a user who feels he's getting better value for his money, Grant. Simple as that.

    Let's face it - Phase One isn't really interested in customer feedback/satisfaction.

    Adobe has dedicated online mechanisms in play to allow its users to feed back in a publicly visible, cumulative way, whereas Phase One has nothing remotely similar.

    This last - the cumulative aspect of Adobe's feedback-gathering - is crucial (Phase One has always been honest about the numbers being important).

    The covert "support case" approach beloved of Phase One has an intrinsic chilling effect on individuals who might have something to say about Capture One - if I'm the only one, is there any point? - whereas Adobe users can "piggy-back" on feedback, feature requests and concerns other people have raised, because they can see that they're not the only one who thinks that way.

    Human nature being what it is, I'm willing to bet that Adobe gets far more useful feedback from its customers by being open (as in visible) about the ideas people are raising, giving them something tangible to hang their own thoughts and concerns on, using an approach which actively encourages more feedback.
    0
  • Alain Decamps
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:
    .... They have nothing that justifies the high asking price - but I do recognize that a good reason for that is my use of Photoshop, which is a thousand times more efficient and sophisticated than Capture One when it comes to retouching and generally putting the final touches on post-processing.
    ...


    I don't find the upgrade price high. I do admit that every update of C1 I did, was a nice surprise after some time.

    I always find it strange that people buy lenses for thousands of euro's, same for camera's and maybe computers, but have a problem with a software upgrade, which is voluntary (till some point).
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Alain wrote:
    I always find it strange that people buy lenses for thousands of euro's, same for camera's and maybe computers, but have a problem with a software upgrade, which is voluntary (till some point).

    Big difference. A lens is a one time purchase with zero ongoing cost. CaptureOne's pricing (be it perpetual license or subscription) equates to a continuous ~$100/year ongoing cost.

    And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks is reasonable or how it compares to anything else. What matters is what each individual customer thinks is reasonable. Make the price structure unreasonable enough and we stop being customers. A mere 15% discount for an upgrade is, in my opinion, NOT reasonable.

    Paul
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Well, I bought the CAPTURE ONE 12 PRO license on the same day October 23, 2019 and I activated it then, today let me know and let me know that I have a new version available v.20 and ............
       Do i have to pay it? 169'00€ 🤓 🤓 🤭

    in all advertising media this "offer" appeared.:

    The most interesting thing about the offer is that the purchase of a perpetual license of Capture One Pro 12 in any of its variants from October 23 onwards, comes with the “gift†of the free update to Capture One Pro 20 for when it comes out The new version of the developer.

    Why can't I download it for free, at no cost?

    I don't understand

    Thanks
    0
  • Alain Decamps
    pgoelz wrote:
    Alain wrote:
    I always find it strange that people buy lenses for thousands of euro's, same for camera's and maybe computers, but have a problem with a software upgrade, which is voluntary (till some point).

    Big difference. A lens is a one time purchase with zero ongoing cost. CaptureOne's pricing (be it perpetual license or subscription) equates to a continuous ~$100/year ongoing cost.

    And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks is reasonable or how it compares to anything else. What matters is what each individual customer thinks is reasonable. Make the price structure unreasonable enough and we stop being customers. A mere 15% discount for an upgrade is, in my opinion, NOT reasonable.

    Paul

    Paul

    My most used lens is a good 70-200/2.8, the clear filter before it is more than 100 euro.

    I see about 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop less noise when going from CO12 -> 20, I'm sure that a lot of photographers would buy the newest camera for that improvement.

    In the end it's an individual choice, but with a perpetual license you can halt the expense if that's more useful at the time.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    NN635451115145400173UL wrote:
    Well, I bought the CAPTURE ONE 12 PRO license on the same day October 23, 2019 and I activated it then, today let me know and let me know that I have a new version available v.20 and ............
       Do i have to pay it? 169'00€ 🤓 🤓 🤭

    in all advertising media this "offer" appeared.:

    The most interesting thing about the offer is that the purchase of a perpetual license of Capture One Pro 12 in any of its variants from October 23 onwards, comes with the “gift†of the free update to Capture One Pro 20 for when it comes out The new version of the developer.

    Why can't I download it for free, at no cost?

    I don't understand

    Thanks


    Provided that you read before purchase that you had the free upgrade with CO12, you download CO20 and activate it with the license key you already have. If you don't succeed, open a support case.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    Alain wrote:
    I always find it strange that people buy lenses for thousands of euro's, same for camera's and maybe computers, but have a problem with a software upgrade, which is voluntary (till some point).

    It’s natural you find it strange: you are being Irrational about it. People pay different type of money for different kind of things: you can spend a quarter of a million dollars on a fancy car and still be totally justified in not wanting to pay $100 for a gallon of gasoline. Likewise, spending thousands on a fine lens does not mean you have to pay $2000 for a good memory card or think that DxO PhotoLab is worth $850.

    The cost of raw developing software has absolutely nothing to do with how much a person spends on lenses. You’re being irrational.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    ClauS wrote:
    NN635451115145400173UL wrote:
    Well, I bought the CAPTURE ONE 12 PRO license on the same day October 23, 2019 and I activated it then, today let me know and let me know that I have a new version available v.20 and ............
       Do i have to pay it? 169'00€ 🤓 🤓 🤭

    in all advertising media this "offer" appeared.:

    The most interesting thing about the offer is that the purchase of a perpetual license of Capture One Pro 12 in any of its variants from October 23 onwards, comes with the “gift†of the free update to Capture One Pro 20 for when it comes out The new version of the developer.

    Why can't I download it for free, at no cost?

    I don't understand

    Thanks


    Provided that you read before purchase that you had the free upgrade with CO12, you download CO20 and activate it with the license key you already have. If you don't succeed, open a support case.



    I have followed your instructions / tips to download v.20 and it has not let me activate.
    Where can I send support / help request?

    Thank you.
    Thank you.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    NN635451115145400173UL wrote:

    I have followed your instructions / tips to download v.20 and it has not let me activate.
    Where can I send support / help request?


    Enter your account page on captureone.com. Click on "go to help center". You will find a "submit a request" link at the top right.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    NN635451115145400173UL wrote:
    I have followed your instructions / tips to download v.20 and it has not let me activate.
    Where can I send support / help request?

    Thank you.
    Thank you.

    That may be an issue on the CaptureOne web site. When I was communication with them about how to find the cost for an upgrade, I was told to just go to the upgrade page and put in my license key. When I pointed out that their web site states that I do not have any licence keys that can be upgraded, the reply was that was an issue on their end that would be corrected soon. It may be the same issue is preventing you from upgrading your license.

    Paul
    0
  • SFA
    Keith Reeder wrote:
    SFA wrote:
    Just walking away would work for you so how does your closed wallet send a message that is to your benefit?

    It results in a user who feels he's getting better value for his money, Grant. Simple as that.

    Let's face it - Phase One isn't really interested in customer feedback/satisfaction.

    Adobe has dedicated online mechanisms in play to allow its users to feed back in a publicly visible, cumulative way, whereas Phase One has nothing remotely similar.

    This last - the cumulative aspect of Adobe's feedback-gathering - is crucial (Phase One has always been honest about the numbers being important).

    The covert "support case" approach beloved of Phase One has an intrinsic chilling effect on individuals who might have something to say about Capture One - if I'm the only one, is there any point? - whereas Adobe users can "piggy-back" on feedback, feature requests and concerns other people have raised, because they can see that they're not the only one who thinks that way.

    Human nature being what it is, I'm willing to bet that Adobe gets far more useful feedback from its customers by being open (as in visible) about the ideas people are raising, giving them something tangible to hang their own thoughts and concerns on, using an approach which actively encourages more feedback.


    Keith,

    I would like to believe your Adobe analogy but I'm not sure it works the way outline it.

    I mean "really works" as opposed to allowing people to think it works.

    On a much more selective basis back in time working with commercial customers in a Customer Services system development we ran a user group. Face to face meetings at least every quarter where we hosted visitors and presented various things, mostly discussions about what they wanted to see in future developments.

    Everyone had their own key needs. The more advanced businesses with larger budget would pay for features for immediate availability (well, after a development and test period an when they got around to doing something with it) and the feature would eventually appear for all in a later release.

    Sometimes we would come up with ideas based on variations of the same operational "thing" that customers had hinted at and perhaps suggest joint funding to confirm a place in the features development queue or, maybe, test commitment to the idea.

    Sometimes we present brand new idea and even new products, integrated to the suite of functionality, that we though should be attractive to the service industry or some major parts of it.

    Presented with a freebie most people, whether at a personal level or on behalf of their company, would agree to it being a good idea if it looked vaguely OK. Most of them were a waste of time although once in a while a new client might take up an idea and make good use of it.

    Even those paying for the "vital requirement" rarely implemented them. They often discovered that the need was not as vital as they had been told by their users. In effect one just ended up with a completely wrong impression fo what would be truly useful and therefore potentially attract more users, thus more income and profit - so long as it was not wasted on taking side tracks and being led up dead ends.

    Worst case is you end up stuck with something nasty to support for years because one small client adopted an idea that no one else was interested in and made it a key part of their business process. All of a sudden one finds one is branching into becoming expert at jumping through hoops maintaining ever increasing complexity that just cannot be abandoned for "commercial reasons".

    Meanwhile most customers only use the core 20% of the product and the majority of those that request something new that they cannot possibly live without ... find they can and do live without it after all.

    The open support concept sounds good and for a large organisation in a dominant position who will go on and do their own thing anyway, it may be useful for stringing things along to stop people drifting away if that is their marketing concern.

    Otherwise it is of dubious value in my experience - but maybe things have changed recently?

    My heart want to see open support with people actively and positively involved.

    My head, and past experience in what was a very exclusive and relatively (to an Adobe or a Phase) small group of active clients and thereafter observing various companies from inside even for internal purposes, suggests the concept is a pipe dream in most situations and requires a lot of effort to keep it going in any form and a huge amount of effort to keep it in the "positive experience" zone for all participants.

    There is, however, one potential benefit to low price of entry and club membership. That is that people will often pay for cheap access but never use it. If it's cheap enough it tends to become disposable. Larger numbers of people might well buy in, never use the product and so never put any real strain on support services.

    Pile it high, sell it cheap.

    Grant
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    SFA wrote:

    There is, however, one potential benefit to low price of entry and club membership. That is that people will often pay for cheap access but never use it. If it's cheap enough it tends to become disposable. Larger numbers of people might well buy in, never use the product and so never put any real strain on support services.

    Pile it high, sell it cheap.


    The negative spin on the Adobe Subscription would be valid (and not spin) IF the product were just cheap and not good. But that's not the case: the Lightroom/Photoshop combo is far more powerful and better value than anything else out there. That's the simple, obvious reason Adobe has a virtual monopoly - the dominance is based on having the best tools in the industry at a very competitive price.

    Capture One, excellent as it is, does not offer anything remotely comparable to the sophistication and power of Photoshop and Lightroom combined. If it were a matter of Capture 1 vs. Lightroom, a case could be easily made that Capture One is better. I would agree with that. But the inclusion of Photoshop puts the Adobe membership way ahead of the competition.

    That's the simple truth behind Adobe's enormous success.
    0
  • SFA
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:


    I use Capture One for basic raw development instead of Lightroom because it gives me my target initial rendition faster. I can get the same results with Lightroom, but why bother when Capture One takes me there with fewer clicks?

    As for not giving Phase One a penny until their prices are more in line with the rest of the industry, it’s a natural and very effective way of using my money in an intelligent manner. People do it all the time: you buy from places where you get better value for your money. I’m surprised you don’t know about that or don’t see the obvious benefit.



    That's fine. Your first paragraph explains where you original saw the benefit of spending the money in the first place according to the criteria in the second paragraph.

    With a perpetual license you should be able to stick with C1 for the significant reason outlined for quite some time, with luck. That is indeed part of the deal decisions - it's one i have used regularly. I have rarely upgraded immediately when a new release arrived but usually will eventually.

    So far* I have not been forced to move up due to computer constraints or the purchase of a new camera not supported by an older version, but that time will no doubt arrive.

    Since, as you point out, the rest of your retouching is more effectively performed in PhotoShop, which is pretty much one the C1 team expects as far as I can tell, the question is what could be changed that would make you jump into a new version?

    Something that allowed you to move more activity into C1 rather than PS? Perhaps because of speed of operation rather than editing features?

    Or something that neither C1 nor PS currently offers?

    The challenge for the development team is that the collective desires for new options from the user community may be too diverse to begin to appear to match individual desires of the majority. One aspect of the V20 offer is that at least it offers mostly new features and changes that are usable (or should be usable) by everyone.

    There are some other aspects of the license cost that one might speculate about - like how much of it is needed to cover support activity and where that blends with the overall community's balance between hardware and software support.

    With the apparent change to dedicated contact lines for C1 users who are also Phase camera/back owners but a different system for others it seems likely that some thinking has been applied and changes are in progress for support.

    If so it will be interesting to see how that develops and whether any changes and the results will influence pricing and other matters.

    Of course it may just be a new system and nothing more than an alteration to the front end user interface.


    Grant





    * Other than way back when C1 went 64bit only but then I had some other applications that went the same way and so obtaining a 64bit machine to replace some ageing and much less capable computer kit was a requirement anyway.
    0
  • Irvin Gomez
    SFA wrote:
    Your first paragraph explains where you original saw the benefit of spending the money in the first place according to the criteria in the second paragraph.


    Yes

    SFA wrote:

    With a perpetual license you should be able to stick with C1 for the significant reason outlined for quite some time


    Yes

    SFA wrote:

    Since, as you point out, the rest of your retouching is more effectively performed in PhotoShop, which is pretty much one the C1 team expects as far as I can tell, the question is what could be changed that would make you jump into a new version?


    A lower upgrade price that recognizes the need to reward customer loyalty. Lost in all these arguments is the simple fact that a person who upgrades every year would end up spending far more more on Capture One than LR/PS.

    It becomes a bait-and-switch game: "Yes, the perpetual license gives you the option to not spend money every year, but you won't get the latest features, the best ones, including bug fixes, unless you spend that money every year!!!"

    SFA wrote:

    Something that allowed you to move more activity into C1 rather than PS? Perhaps because of speed of operation rather than editing features? Or something that neither C1 nor PS currently offers?

    The challenge for the development team is that the collective desires for new options from the user community may be too diverse to begin to appear to match individual desires of the majority. One aspect of the V20 offer is that at least it offers mostly new features and changes that are usable (or should be usable) by everyone.

    Those are tough questions, tough business decisions. I'll offer my opinion, with the huge caveat that I'm not IN Phase One's shoes, I'm not a software developer and I do not know the level of financial health or subscription/purchase numbers enjoyed by Capture one. I'm just a Graphic Designer doing retouching work daily with Capture One and Photoshop:

    I think all raw developing software, at this point, it making very incremental improvements in image quality and features as far as raw processing is concerned (this is a key point in my reasoning). For a few years now, all LR/PS competition, including Capture One, has gone into Photoshop territory (layers, color and luminosity masking, etc.) and that's a battle they will likely lose because Photoshop is literally 15 years ahead of them in terms of developing those features, refining them, fixing thousands of bugs, etc.

    I also think the majority of people paying for raw developing software (including Adobe products) are not professional users, but hobbyists (not a put down at all - just my observation). Most people working with Photoshop only use a few features, a small subset of all Photoshop has to offer.

    So, why not concentrate on refining the current features in Capture One, make the software faster, optimized, make a healing brush as smooth and powerful as Photoshop's, stop the urge to introduce new features while neglecting bug fixing, etc?

    In other words, if Capture One is going the 'pixel editing' route, become the lightest, most efficient, most streamlined Photoshop ever. With the fewest features, but all of them working flawlessly. Forget about developing a useless plugin architecture when plugins are dead in the Adobe universe. They mattered 25 years ago. Adobe killed them one by one and only a handful of them survive. Any 'plugins' should be features of new versions of Capture One.

    I think the only chance is fighting on quality, not quantity. That's how many people (including me) decided to pay for Capture One: it offered better results than Lightroom, the industry standard. That's how Capture One became a better product than Lightroom.
    0
  • SFA
    Irvin.Gomez wrote:

    Those are tough questions, tough business decisions. I'll offer my opinion, with the huge caveat that I'm not IN Phase One's shoes, I'm not a software developer and I do not know the level of financial health or subscription/purchase numbers enjoyed by Capture one. I'm just a Graphic Designer doing retouching work daily with Capture One and Photoshop:

    I think all raw developing software, at this point, it making very incremental improvements in image quality and features as far as raw processing is concerned (this is a key point in my reasoning). For a few years now, all LR/PS competition, including Capture One, has gone into Photoshop territory (layers, color and luminosity masking, etc.) and that's a battle they will likely lose because Photoshop is literally 15 years ahead of them in terms of developing those features, refining them, fixing thousands of bugs, etc.

    I also think the majority of people paying for raw developing software (including Adobe products) are not professional users, but hobbyists (not a put down at all - just my observation). Most people working with Photoshop only use a few features, a small subset of all Photoshop has to offer.

    So, why not concentrate on refining the current features in Capture One, make the software faster, optimized, make a healing brush as smooth and powerful as Photoshop's, stop the urge to introduce new features while neglecting bug fixing, etc?

    In other words, if Capture One is going the 'pixel editing' route, become the lightest, most efficient, most streamlined Photoshop ever. With the fewest features, but all of them working flawlessly. Forget about developing a useless plugin architecture when plugins are dead in the Adobe universe. They mattered 25 years ago. Adobe killed them one by one and only a handful of them survive. Any 'plugins' should be features of new versions of Capture One.

    I think the only chance is fighting on quality, not quantity. That's how many people (including me) decided to pay for Capture One: it offered better results than Lightroom, the industry standard. That's how Capture One became a better product than Lightroom.


    I broadly agree with everything you wrote above.

    One general consideration for development concerns the technology chosen for the development, especially when going multi-platform, and the available options might lead to significant constraints.

    For example if one wants a large but fast responding database dealing with a lot of transactions and read and writes, like a catalogue based DAM system for example with gigabytes of data, a commercial operation might look at a server based system with high transaction volume fast disks and a full multi-user server style database. It's an option open to anyone but they are usually very expensive in all aspects - hardware and software and power requirements - and demand significant operational maintenance compared to desktops.

    Perhaps, of one offered only a single platform solution, it might be possible to deploy the fasted platform dedicated technology to deliver performance but that might then limit the prospective customer base. And possibly constrain some aspects of data portability.

    But yes, unless some sort of dramatic revolution appear for the "mass market", RAW conversion capability requirement, taken alone, is more likely to be about incremental improvements often related to changes in the technical capabilities of cameras and, maybe, lenses.

    And fashion. I'm thinking things like the Fuji Film Simulation facilities which may or may not stand the test of time as we move further away from the analogue era.

    I think the options that C1 has added that you quite reasonably categorise as "PhotoShop" territory are useful in a RAW editor - at least I find them so since I rarely feel a need for my requirements to head over to the "PS side". Which is probably just as well as for some reason I seem not to gel with PS (or in my case Affinity) at anything more than the most basic level. I don't know why. I understand the basic ideas and concepts but just cannot get them to work with my brain.

    By comparison I find C1 very easy to use most of the time.

    I also have and used to use another application very similar to C1 in many ways but with unlimited tool based layers (as opposed to layers that can have multiple tools applied) that also included "Blend Modes". So a little more of the traditional PS areas of functionality. It was interesting and powerful but one was sucked in to using a lot of the facilities thinking it was improving the results - which results could be very good. I much preferred it to LR at the time.

    However when I tried C1, despite its quite sparse editing feature set back then compare to now, I saw at least equal and often better results just opening a file. Even without editing. It was almost like magic. It was worth spending the money for the time saving alone.

    You are, IMO, correct also about people using very few of the features of an application, even at the commercial level. Some features are so specific or need such a level of understanding for their purpose to be evident, that very few people will use them. The entire MS Office suite (and all other like it) are everyday example of that syndrome. Millions of people use Word as if it was Notepad. Millions use Excel as if it is a desktop calculator with some notation capabilities.

    I thing of the 80:20 rule (80 percent of users use no more than 20% of the features) but I suspect that it may be closer to 90:10 as additional features have been added.

    In general companies like to claim they listen to their users and implement what they are being asked to implement. Again, based on my experiences, doing so can be somewhat futile as the askers then fail to use the facilities when added, though other may use them in a different way and that creates new problems.

    If the clients agree to pay for the development of a feature then the addition can usually be considered commercial viable whether or not it is ever used. But that is a B2B thing. I think is is potentially more problematic for a desktop relatively low cost application with thousands of users many of whom are keen to express their opinions via forums like this or social media.

    All of which makes me cautious about the whole idea of developing and embedding features of some of the more asked for facilities that have become products in their own right but with plug-in capabilities. Exposure and Focus stacking would be two obvious examples. Somewhat specialised if one wants the best possible result. If not , simply churn out so jpgs and one of the stand alone tools will do a half decent job (to many people's eyes) without too much technical involvement.

    Now once in a while I like to try some stacking if I happens to create a set of images that may offer an opportunity to use it. But to me it's not something that I would feel I had to have in C1. I fully understand that other may have a different opinion. If there is a commercial demand it might be the sort of development that makes most sense in the Enterprise, CH and Industrial versions rather than the general version. Hoever I do appractiate that the additional overheads may not appeal much to the independent small operator in the commercial sphere.

    Recent years releases of C1 often seem to have majored on adding new bells and whistles in areas of general interest but probably fairly low eventual uptake as features regularly used by the majority of users.

    V20, on the other hand, seems to me to be much more about parts of the core product and some incremental advances in line with your suggestions.

    So the "headlines" don't look especially exciting to most readers, probably, but what the changes deliver have meaningful purposes for just about everyone.

    The criticism comes about whether they offer value for money. The answer is - it depends on one's viewpoint and attitude.

    If one breaks out the charge it covers both development and support of the software and proving technical support when required for no extra charge.

    One might be able to most easily shave the price by dropping free personalised technical assistance although that probably works best at scale and whether or not a supplier has the right scale (and product) to make that an option is not an easy thing to assess.

    I suspect that a focus on quality ifs the key just as you do.

    Whether there is enough discernable difference between products in the opinion of the users will be the key factor - unless money alone becomes the challenge for everyone.

    I would guess that Phase are already well experienced and informed about such matters and watching developments keenly. Whatever that might lead to we will have to wait and see.


    Grant
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。