Capture One updates. Are they now too expensive?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I personally think it is high time that Mergers and Monopolies authorities in first world countries, had a serious look at the predatory behaviour of the major software providers, like Adobe, instead of just concentrating on Microsoft and Google. The disabling of software, where end users had bought or acquired what they were led to believe was an unlimited version, which is then remotely disabled, is an example of particularly egregious behaviour. These software companies are currently getting away with it, because they think they hold the whip hand and it is high time that they were smacked down. One tool that can be used in the UK and I am guessing that similar legislation exists in many other countries, is the Unfair Contract Terms Act, where the legislation says that companies cannot rely for example, on some unreasonable clause in page 289 of their T&C, that end users have to agree before they can use the software. 

Wilson

[willeica]

44 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I personally think it is high time that Mergers and Monopolies authorities in first world countries, had a serious look at the predatory behaviour of the major software providers, like Adobe, instead of just concentrating on Microsoft and Google. The disabling of software, where end users had bought or acquired what they were led to believe was an unlimited version, which is then remotely disabled, is an example of particularly egregious behaviour. These software companies are currently getting away with it, because they think they hold the whip hand and it is high time that they were smacked down. One tool that can be used in the UK and I am guessing that similar legislation exists in many other countries, is the Unfair Contract Terms Act, where the legislation says that companies cannot rely for example, on some unreasonable clause in page 289 of their T&C, that end users have to agree before they can use the software. 

Wilson

Wilson, as you may know I am a former head of consumer protection and also a former communications (mainly telecoms) regulator. Yes, there is egregious behaviour all over the online purchasing world and not just in respect of the issue of permanent v subscription models for photography software. There are many more significant items out there. I'll try to outline the top line principles.

1. These problems are international and require home authorities that can and are willing to act against entities located in their jurisdictions who are engaged in such behaviour. The EU Commission is probably the body that does the most, but it often uses sledgehammers to crack walnuts, using the ECJ etc. Thirty years ago I was on a committee at the OECD in Paris where we attempted to define the global principles governing what was then called e-commerce, but I suspect that the technology has always been ahead of the legislators and regulators.

2. Trying to advise politicians about the effects of changes in technology is often a fruitless task. Many of them would make Jim Hacker seem like Einstein and, in any event, by the time you have legislated, the technology will have moved on.

3. Unfair contracts legislation, which, in my part of the world, is largely based on an EU Directive from the 1990s, can have an impact at the individual case level, but most people cannot afford to sue IT majors over contracts which are not individual, but rather are market facing. One possible solution would be a class action by a group of customers. This type of thing is much more developed in the US than it is in Europe.

4. When dealing with a scenario which involves an ever-changing landscape (cue fevered discussions on this and other forums about new digital camera models and software possibilities) does having a 'permanent' license for processing of digital images make any sense? Trying to legislate for this against what are some of the most well heeled entities on the planet with financial values greater than many economies could be a fruitless task. See 5 below for a flavour of this.

5. A week or two ago my country was gifted €14bn in tax from Apple as a result of a European Court decision which was against the position of the company and our government, which now has to decide what to do with a large 'windfall' it did not want. It was the EU Commission which sought the tax and won the case at the ECJ. Our government's position against collecting the tax was largely based on concerns that such taxation might spook Apple and other tech companies which are located in our country, which has built is economic success on an FDI model. Just this morning I heard of a case where the EU Commission allowed a State Aid by Germany of €10bn to Intel which then decided it did would not take the aid, possibly because it is having to downsize its ambitions in an 'AI gale'. Governments all around the world are in awe of the IT majors and never want to drive them away or upset them too much. 'Quare as folk' has nothing on this stuff!

I'm not going to answer point 4 above, but we have bought into a new way of doing things which has brought consequences which we are still struggling to manage. Just because we have not done this so far does not mean we should give up. A class action against Adobe and others would seem to be the best course, but who will organise it? In the US it is usually an ambitious lawyer with prior experience of class actions that gets things rolling. Finally, after all that, would a successful outcome (which is by know means guaranteed) bring any substantial benefits, financial or otherwise? 

William 

[hansvons]

@wlaidlaw Adobe and everybody else fiddling with EU citizens’ rights for economic gain must be poised to face a slow but effective legal machine. 

Google lost its appeal in the recent trial regarding the EU Digital Market Act and its negligence in acting accordingly. Now, it has to pay 2,4 billion EUR. But more importantly, its behaviour is now undisputed, which will have serious consequences for damage actions that will mushroom and probably end up as a monstrous class action against Google. 

Legislators and governmental bodies like the EU Commission are catching up with the tech industry. And the Metas, Googles, and Apples of this world learn that they cannot act as they please. Adobe is certainly watching these developments as in the US, the DOJ and the FTC are also watching the EU Commission and the latest developments closely. 

Interesting insights @willeicaRegarding the Apple trial and the unwanted "windfall" that Ireland now has to deal with: it’s probably a good thing because it's forcing the Irish government to make the Irish economy more just, less US-focused, but based on genuine, domestic achievements and innovations rather than what we have now, producing fabulous numbers but with low to no positive effects on the average Irish citizen outside of Dublin.  

Edited September 23, 2024 by hansvons

[willeica]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Interesting insights @willeicaRegarding the Apple trial and the unwanted "windfall" that Ireland now has to deal with: it’s probably a good thing because it's forcing the Irish government to make the Irish economy more just, less US-focused, but based on genuine, domestic achievements and innovations rather than what we have now, producing fabulous numbers but with low to no positive effects on the average Irish citizen outside of Dublin.  

The feeling here is that the Apple windfall money should go into capital rather current expenditure as we cannot rely on a repeat. However, irrespective of the Apple case, the corporation tax take in Ireland has more or less doubled over the past 4 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_tax_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

For 2023 the Corporation Tax take was €23.8 billion of which just under €20 billion came from foreign owned multi-nationals. Of that only about 17% was attributed to IT, but some of the 38% attributed to manufacturing could also be IT related. This, of course, gives the Irish Government substantial funds which it can redistribute to the inhabitants of Ireland. I don't want to get involved in politics, but clearly this is a strategy which is not without some risks. The World Bank has held Ireland up as a 'poster child' of economic growth and diversification and I heard that institution mention Ireland more than once during my time in the Middle East where they were trying to persuade countries highly dependent on oil and gas to diversify their economies. 

Because a lot of the EMEA activities of the IT majors are based in Ireland the Irish Data Protection Commissioner is the 'home authority' for such operations. I was confused the other day when I heard Nick Clegg, the former British Deputy Prime Minister, who is now the President of Global Affairs and Communications at Meta, implying that the Irish regulator was weak and just a 'post box', but I would have thought that Meta would have been quite pleased with that. The implication of his comment was, however, that as Ireland is highly dependant on what it earns from IT majors they get an 'easy regulatory ride' here. There are many views on this, of course.

My final point is that Europe has failed to match the US and Asia in IT innovation. If it did we would have more choices and they would probably be better regulated as well, but you can't have everything.

William 

 

[wlaidlaw]

Even if the Irish regulatory environment is slightly lax, it is wholly idiotic of Clegg and Zuckerberg to brag about it. 

Wilson

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, willeica said:

However, irrespective of the Apple case, the corporation tax take in Ireland has more or less doubled over the past 4 years.

With 15% for large multinational corporations, it is still half of Germany's, which leads the Bloc in this regard with 30%. The standard corporation taxes in the EU are roughly 25%, and Ireland's is 12.5%. However, many other factors can come into play and skew the percentages of the taxes paid. Being a tax haven is rarely a long-term, future-proof policy.

 

2 hours ago, willeica said:

The feeling here is that the Apple windfall money should go into capital rather current expenditure as we cannot rely on a repeat.

Absolutely. When a meaningful strategy is developed, it should be invested in time to support Ireland's competitiveness ASAP (I'd think of education/research, meaningful immigration, you name it). 

Full disclosure: I love Ireland. It's one of my absolute favourite countries. Love the people, their openness, pride, Irishness, and sense for the European cause.

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

Even if the Irish regulatory environment is slightly lax, it is wholly idiotic of Clegg and Zuckerberg to brag about it. 

 

Idiots for sure.

[willeica]

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

With 15% for large multinational corporations, it is still half of Germany's, which leads the Bloc in this regard with 30%. The standard corporation taxes in the EU are roughly 25%, and Ireland's is 12.5%. However, many other factors can come into play and skew the percentages of the taxes paid. Being a tax haven is rarely a long-term, future-proof policy.

Agreed, but there has been some realignment coming out of the OECD https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/59812-ireland-joins-oecd-international-tax-agreement/ .Germany should be at the forefront of international IT development, but isn't. https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000529979/Germany’s_competitiveness_between_pioneer_and_lagg.xhtml Probably dangerous to say around these parts, but it has a lot of catching up to do in IT. Leica relies a lot on developments from Asia-based companies. 

William 

[hansvons]

12 minutes ago, willeica said:

Agreed, but there has been some realignment coming out of the OECD https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/59812-ireland-joins-oecd-international-tax-agreement/ .Germany should be at the forefront of international IT development, but isn't. https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000529979/Germany’s_competitiveness_between_pioneer_and_lagg.xhtml Probably dangerous to say around these parts, but it has a lot of catching up to do in IT. Leica relies a lot on developments from Asia-based companies. 

I can't agree more with your assessment of Germany's shortcomings. However, luring tech multinationals into one's country by offering them tax heaven and whatnot won't spark one's innovation power.

Despite its close relations with tech multinationals, Ireland is still rated 9th according to the Global Innovation Index 2023 in Europe, whilst Germany remains a solid third (eighth worldwide) after Switzerland (first) and Sweden. In Germany, innovation isn't based on cutting-edge IT but on classic fields like the automotive and chemical industries, biotech, and its uncountable hidden champions in specialised niches or ancillary sectors, similar to Switzerland, which is particularly brilliant in this sector. Despite being a historic leading force in engineering and innovation, the UK lost its ancestral place and is now in seventh place due to constant foot shooting. 

However, when taking down the economic googles, the UK is still a vibrant and essential force because it's still a cultural powerhouse without European competition and a close second behind the US globally. Maybe IT cutting-edge digitisation isn't as crucial in reality as we are told to believe.

Leica is somewhat an exception, as it's not a classic German hidden champion but a world-famous brand despite its small size competing in a field that large Asian corporations dominate, notably in innovation and technology. It is undoubtedly not innovation-driven but marketing-driven, building on a long history of craftsmanship qualities that are the backbone of the German and Swiss success stories and part of Leica's storytelling and success.

[acalmplace]

When thinking about different pp software and comparing them, I that see they, for the most part, have very similar tools, and that they tend to update those tools in relation to what the others are doing, so a lot of features are migrating from one software to the other within a few iteration cycles (for instance color masking or luminance masking).

However, there are things that don't seem to migrate so easily between software, and I think it's due to different design philosophies or the differing underlying architectures. Some that come to mind are the levels adjustment tool in C1, that resembles the black point and white point sliders in LR, but only to an extent, or the layers in C1, or the luma curve tool in C1, or the color adjustment sliders in LR found int the bottom tab (can't remember the name) that shifts the colors in a very different way than the HSL panel. If you really like some of those tools or approaches, then it's hard to find an equivalent.

Finally, there are aspects that relate to experience and these also do not tend to migrate. The ones that are unique to C1 and that have, so far, kept me with the software are related primarily to interface customization. Specifically, in C1, I can: make the workspace the way I prefer and save it; create and customize shortcuts based on how I tend to name and understand things; create and customize shortcuts to make small incremental adjustments (for example, using Q and A keys to add or remove 0.1 exposure and be able to create all sorts of similar key functions); and save a combination of adjustments as a style or a style brush, then define a shortcut to apply that style to a new layer or to a brush on a new empty layer (for example Shift+Command+B to Burn and Shift+Command+D to Dodge).

It's those small workflow improvements that have had the greatest impact for me, and these I do not find in other software I tried...

Yet! 

This being said, I agree with some of the comments about recent pricing model changes, which is why I started to look at other software. Thing is too, the more I use software, the better I am at figuring out what really matters (to me) and the price I'm willing to pay for the feature. In my case, it's a million miles from AI-stuff and all about user-experience (sounds familiar?)... 

Edited September 23, 2024 by acalmplace

[willeica]

5 hours ago, hansvons said:

 

Leica is somewhat an exception, as it's not a classic German hidden champion but a world-famous brand despite its small size competing in a field that large Asian corporations dominate, notably in innovation and technology. It is undoubtedly not innovation-driven but marketing-driven, building on a long history of craftsmanship qualities that are the backbone of the German and Swiss success stories and part of Leica's storytelling and success.

Europe is behind the US and Asia on IT innovation and that is a cause of concern. Germany which traditionally has been a European industrial powerhouse is relying on its traditional engineering skills. Leica is the same. For smaller companies such as Leica it makes sense to buy in technologies from countries which are stronger in developing those technologies. Leica's market positioning is different to that of other camera companies anyway eg. menus on digital cameras are less important with Leicas which are designed around 'the essentials'. 

I wish that I could find the difference between C1 and Lightroom remotely interesting, but I don't. Both are tools and photographers can choose neither, either or both. For me the biggest frustration is when Adobe does so-called 'updates' and I have to relearn things, but that is a first world problem. I had an old standalone version of Photoshop which I used up to about a year ago, but I already had an Adobe subscription with the latest version of Photoshop and when I got a new computer I made the switch. I have a fairly set approach to most processing situations and I suspect that I use at most 10% of the capabilities of both Lightroom and Photoshop. As regards those that use more of the features I would not even pretend to understand their concerns.

I'm sure others have said this, but I always bemused when people who spend many thousands to have the latest camera gear, get upset at the relatively small amounts needed to keep their software up to date. I'm sure that most people here would always update their software if the updates were free, but software updates don't grown on trees and fall down in autumn storms. 

William 

[hansvons]

9 hours ago, willeica said:

Europe is behind the US and Asia on IT innovation and that is a cause of concern. Germany which traditionally has been a European industrial powerhouse is relying on its traditional engineering skills. Leica is the same. For smaller companies such as Leica it makes sense to buy in technologies from countries which are stronger in developing those technologies. Leica's market positioning is different to that of other camera companies anyway eg. menus on digital cameras are less important with Leicas which are designed around 'the essentials'. 

Agreed. Thanks for the interesting discussion and for helping me derail this thread 😉

14 hours ago, acalmplace said:

Some that come to mind are the levels adjustment tool in C1, that resembles the black point and white point sliders in LR, but only to an extent, or the layers in C1, or the luma curve tool in C1,

Yes. The Levels tool, in particular, is different in C1 to other editors. It can be a decisive factor depending on what you want to achieve. Its option to handle each colour channel independently, the luma-based option to adjust the colour picker, etc., can be pivotal for proper colour separation. It's instrumental when digitising and converting colour negative.  

That said, its middle slider controls gamma, and so does the curve tool when using only one point. This allows for precise contrast control, as both options concatenate closely.

[willeica]

4 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Agreed. Thanks for the interesting discussion and for helping me derail this thread

Thanks. It is a great Forum tradition. However, it is not as far away from the roots of the original issues in this thread as some people might think. 

William 

[marchyman]

12 hours ago, hansvons said:

Yes. The Levels tool, in particular, is different in C1 to other editors.

That is the tool I miss most after moving away from Capture One.  In my case the availability of that tool was not enough  to offset the other headaches I had using the software.

[John351]

I realize this is an old thread, but I wanted to throw my 2 cents on here.  I've been a software developer for 75% of my working life and I'm now nearing retirement.  As consumers, we think nothing of buying $10,000.00 cameras and $6,000.00 monitors, but great software we all expect on the cheap.  If it's tangible we throw money at it without a care, but if we can't touch it physically, we baulk at it or worse sometimes pirate it.  I applaud Capture One for still retaining the option for a perpetual license and it's why I left LR years ago.  However, perpetual licenses help companies keep the lights on, so I get that too.

Understand that Capture One has to pay their software engineers, just like Leica has to pay their hardware engineers.  These cameras would be nothing more than fancy hammers without the onboard software to make them work.  Capture One also offers free support and these support folks need to get paid too, not to mention other office staff.

Remember, we need great software to make most modern products work.  Capture One is a great product and while I don't buy every upgrade (photography is my hobby) I understand that purchasing a new release helps them continue to be relevant and bring new things to us, all while providing a living for others.

Anyway, I've made my point for anyone that stumbles across this old thread in the future.

[wlaidlaw]

John, 

The point I was trying to make was that these IMHO excessive charges and the practice of deprecating purchased software remotely, only started after the purchase of Phase One by private venture capitalists. Their basic ethos is to milk their purchases for as much as possible in the short term and offload the ruined assets with a dispirited workforce and depleted customer base as soon as they have made sufficient return. Prior to this, Phase One had a loyal customer base and a profitable business. This whole way of thinking is what has led to the de-industrialisation of the west and will come in history, to be seen as shooting ourselves in the foot. 

Wilson

[John351]

On 12/8/2024 at 9:17 AM, wlaidlaw said:

John, 

The point I was trying to make was that these IMHO excessive charges and the practice of deprecating purchased software remotely, only started after the purchase of Phase One by private venture capitalists. Their basic ethos is to milk their purchases for as much as possible in the short term and offload the ruined assets with a dispirited workforce and depleted customer base as soon as they have made sufficient return. Prior to this, Phase One had a loyal customer base and a profitable business. This whole way of thinking is what has led to the de-industrialisation of the west and will come in history, to be seen as shooting ourselves in the foot. 

Wilson

Deprecating purchased software remotely?  You mean shutting it off?  I've had Capture One for years and I've never had it turn off on me.  At what length of time between upgrades are they turning it off?  That would 100% defeat the point of a perpetual license.

[wlaidlaw]

7 hours ago, John351 said:

Deprecating purchased software remotely?  You mean shutting it off?  I've had Capture One for years and I've never had it turn off on me.  At what length of time between upgrades are they turning it off?  That would 100% defeat the point of a perpetual license.

I can't remember which version but folks who got what they thought was a permanent licence with a new camera, then had it turned off remotely. You would need to read back through this thread to find the details. 

Wilson

[Marc B-C]

I recently switched to the subscription model for the then latest version for a substantial discount and today received my first update for free. I am therefore currently rather happy with the pricing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rogxwhit]

19 hours ago, John351 said:

Deprecating purchased software remotely?  You mean shutting it off?  I've had Capture One for years and I've never had it turn off on me.  At what length of time between upgrades are they turning it off?  That would 100% defeat the point of a perpetual license.

https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/15416245558301-Capture-One-Express-Deprecation-FAQ