Author Topic: Receivership  (Read 10019 times)

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Receivership
« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2018, 04:04:24 pm »
Clearly you and I have differing business ethics. I certainly do not believe a company that is in receivership and therefore potentially unable to offer ongoing support/service should still be selling. Not without a health warning anyway. The website (last time I looked) was still promoting Nik and the development thereof - a new version in 2018 it says. That suggests a future when maybe there is not one.  Given that the receivership is in the public domain it is proper that the company or its advisors should offer up some clarification.

I fundamentally disagree with your logic the buyer gets what he pays for as you have no idea what they might think they paid for - in my case I was buying into  decent software in a company that had a future as evidenced, or so I thought, by the purchase of Nik.

Given this is a DxO sponsored website we had best just agree to differ. DxO must take its own advice and act accordingly.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2018, 04:13:58 pm by ColinG »

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Receivership
« Reply #31 on: April 25, 2018, 11:01:34 pm »
@Colin I think we should not compare the two companies. Just two facts:

Employees: >17.000 Adobe vs 113 DxO Labs
Turnover: 5.854.000.000 USD Adobe (2016) vs 14.000.000 EUR DxO Labs (2017)

It makes me wonder how much was arrived with only 113 employees. Take the CEO, the management and other administrative employees out of these 113 employees. These are the ones that develop, test, communicate. Now split these resources on NIK, PhotoLab, Dxo ONE. I think it is not possible to expect more, when at the same time there is no more money and the company direction is unclear.

I would like to see the numbers the other way round, but things are, how they are.
I had no idea of those numbers.

Given that I am simply amazed at how good a product PhotoLab (and Optics Pro before it) really is, and how many camera/lens profiles they have been able to produce.

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Receivership
« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2018, 11:17:54 pm »
Clearly you and I have differing business ethics. I certainly do not believe a company that is in receivership and therefore potentially unable to offer ongoing support/service should still be selling. Not without a health warning anyway. The website (last time I looked) was still promoting Nik and the development thereof - a new version in 2018 it says. That suggests a future when maybe there is not one.  Given that the receivership is in the public domain it is proper that the company or its advisors should offer up some clarification.
There are several unknowns in this situation, and therefore I think it may well be premature to form such opinions. First, being in receivership does not automatically mean that a company is in danger of going out of business. They may well have definite plans after some kind of restructuring as in the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

As for selling goods, Chrysler in the US is not only still alive, but doing very well after its reorganization, and was selling cars during these proceedings. It was only able to stay in business because it continued to sell cars, and the danger to the buyer was much worse for Chrysler buyers than for buyers of PhotoLab due to the higher costs involved as well as the chance of losing service support and access to parts.

In addition the product they were selling works, and supplies its advertised functionality. Would I have liked to have known that this was coming? Of course, but I am not sure that Dxo knew it was coming.

I fundamentally disagree with your logic the buyer gets what he pays for as you have no idea what they might think they paid for - in my case I was buying into  decent software in a company that had a future as evidenced, or so I thought, by the purchase of Nik.
Again, you seem to be assuming that Dxo knew this was coming, and perhaps they did not. If they did know, then I think they should have posted a warning, but that probably would have been akin to just shutting down.

If they knew beforehand, then I do question their ethics, but if they assumed they would still be functioning after the receivership, then perhaps I can understand.

Personally, given how much I use PhotoLab, I hope they can work this out.

Asser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Receivership
« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2018, 11:37:58 pm »
I see it much simpler. DxO is a company. Companies are there to earn money. As long as laws are not broken, I do not expect further ethics. If you would need a credit and you would be unsure, whether you could pay it back, would you give your bank a warning? Or if you would sell your car, would you tell the buyer every weekness, the car has? Or would you concentrate on the positive aspects? It is always the side you are looking from. I think they will communicate good news, bad news find their way without effort.

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Receivership
« Reply #34 on: April 26, 2018, 09:51:35 am »
If I sold yes I would be honest. I also work in  an industry which is heavily regulated against misleading information or the withholding of known information. I applaud it. If being a business means being less that than open with customers then that business is a disgrace in my book. As I said in my earlier posts I do not share your views on this and never will.

Your reference to credit is different as a) these days your credit information is readily available via the credit agencies so lenders have all the information they need and b) adopting your approach would be illegal anyway.

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Receivership
« Reply #35 on: April 26, 2018, 12:10:42 pm »
Clearly you and I have differing business ethics. I certainly do not believe a company that is in receivership and therefore potentially unable to offer ongoing support/service should still be selling. Not without a health warning anyway. The website (last time I looked) was still promoting Nik and the development thereof - a new version in 2018 it says. That suggests a future when maybe there is not one.  Given that the receivership is in the public domain it is proper that the company or its advisors should offer up some clarification.
There are several unknowns in this situation, and therefore I think it may well be premature to form such opinions. First, being in receivership does not automatically mean that a company is in danger of going out of business. They may well have definite plans after some kind of restructuring as in the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

As for selling goods, Chrysler in the US is not only still alive, but doing very well after its reorganization, and was selling cars during these proceedings. It was only able to stay in business because it continued to sell cars, and the danger to the buyer was much worse for Chrysler buyers than for buyers of PhotoLab due to the higher costs involved as well as the chance of losing service support and access to parts.

In addition the product they were selling works, and supplies its advertised functionality. Would I have liked to have known that this was coming? Of course, but I am not sure that Dxo knew it was coming.

I fundamentally disagree with your logic the buyer gets what he pays for as you have no idea what they might think they paid for - in my case I was buying into  decent software in a company that had a future as evidenced, or so I thought, by the purchase of Nik.
Again, you seem to be assuming that Dxo knew this was coming, and perhaps they did not. If they did know, then I think they should have posted a warning, but that probably would have been akin to just shutting down.

If they knew beforehand, then I do question their ethics, but if they assumed they would still be functioning after the receivership, then perhaps I can understand.

Personally, given how much I use PhotoLab, I hope they can work this out.

I hope they work it out too. I also hope that they had not seen this coming, although that does  not say much for the management. Either way it has happened and they are still silent. If something  meaningful had been posted we would not be having this conversation.

RockvilleBob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 4
Re: Receivership
« Reply #36 on: April 26, 2018, 01:08:41 pm »
I am disappointed that the receivership "news" took so long to be public. I bought DXO PL after the company filed for receivership but prior to public announcement. My guess is that I probably would have opted for Capture One. It seems like the public awareness of receivership should have been visible earlier.
I am pleased with DXO PL and will evaluate what to do when the outcome of the receivership is finalized. The best outcome for me is that DXO drops the camera and focuses on software development with the introduction of a new generation of "NIK" filters and the inclusion on layers and NIK filters in DXO PL.
If the product stagnates and there is no communication from DXO to customers, I will start evaluating alternatives in a few months and switch to another solution, hopefully one with a longer shelf life.
I feel DXO owes its users a update on what is transpiring and when to expect a decision about the company direction and future of DXO PL.

Asser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Receivership
« Reply #37 on: April 26, 2018, 02:55:25 pm »
You have mentioned some videos. I got several messages from youtube now, that videos have been uploaded. Maybe your video belongs to them. Something like that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a39F8xLJu4c

Bencsi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1608
Re: Receivership
« Reply #38 on: April 26, 2018, 04:18:28 pm »
Hi RockvilleBob and other Disappointed Guys,

 The situation is not as bad as you paint up. The recent software PL v1.2 is functioning. If you bought it, it will be working at least 4 more years. I'm still using the DxO OpticsPro v8 since 2010 under Win XP. OK, the further development is questionable. Until your actual camera and lens combination is recognized, there is no handicap.  If I count 4 years use only 4x12=48 months for 200 €, it represents 4.16 €/month. That is the fact. Your money is not wasted at all.

Endre
« Last Edit: April 26, 2018, 04:43:22 pm by Bencsi »
Win7/64 PC, i7-3770, 3.9GHz, 24G RAM, Intel HD-4000 GPU, 27" calibrated LG monitor 1920*1080 px res. 82 DPI

Asser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Receivership
« Reply #39 on: April 26, 2018, 05:09:52 pm »
Hi RockvilleBob and other Disappointed Guys,

 The situation is not as bad as you paint up. The recent software PL v1.2 is functioning. If you bought it, it will be working at least 4 more years. I'm still using the DxO OpticsPro v8 since 2010 under Win XP. OK, the further development is questionable. Until your actual camera and lens combination is recognized, there is no handicap.  If I count 4 years use only 4x12=48 months for 200 €, it represents 4.16 €/month. That is the fact. Your money is not wasted at all.

Endre

The 1.2 is not public yet, but will be released hopefuly on 23 may. The only danger I see for me is, that the license and optical module servers could be deactivated in case of a liquidation. So I have backed up all optical modules for my current body and also all the license files, in case I have to clean my disk and the servers are down for a fresh install.

pjglad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: Receivership
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2018, 06:04:41 pm »
How do you backup optical modules? Thanks.

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Receivership
« Reply #41 on: April 26, 2018, 06:49:26 pm »
Hi RockvilleBob and other Disappointed Guys,

 The situation is not as bad as you paint up. The recent software PL v1.2 is functioning. If you bought it, it will be working at least 4 more years. I'm still using the DxO OpticsPro v8 since 2010 under Win XP. OK, the further development is questionable. Until your actual camera and lens combination is recognized, there is no handicap.  If I count 4 years use only 4x12=48 months for 200 €, it represents 4.16 €/month. That is the fact. Your money is not wasted at all.

Endre

How do you know an OS upgrade will not  break it in 4 years? I am on Mac but the question is still valid. I actually bought DxO PL on the back of Nik having been acquired and the suite being re-launched.

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Receivership
« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2018, 07:12:02 pm »
Hi RockvilleBob and other Disappointed Guys,

 The situation is not as bad as you paint up. The recent software PL v1.2 is functioning. If you bought it, it will be working at least 4 more years. I'm still using the DxO OpticsPro v8 since 2010 under Win XP. OK, the further development is questionable. Until your actual camera and lens combination is recognized, there is no handicap.  If I count 4 years use only 4x12=48 months for 200 €, it represents 4.16 €/month. That is the fact. Your money is not wasted at all.

Endre
I think you are being overly optimistic.

Any time someone buys a new camera or lens and that camera/lens profile is not supported due to lack of new development the user will find that the software is no longer operating according to current requirements. Any time a new OS level is released and the software no longer works with the new functionality, the user will find that the software is no longer working according to current requirements.

For your scenario to continue to be valid each user would have to decide to stay with his or her current OS, camera and lenses, and disregard any bugs that might have been found, and that does not sound reasonable to me.

I am not (yet) upset about this as I will wait to see how this all works out, but at the same time I am not particularly sanguine either.


Asser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Receivership
« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2018, 07:36:52 pm »
How do you backup optical modules? Thanks.

I went into the optical module dialog, selected my body, and checked all available lenses, so that they were downloaded in the next step. Then I looked up the directory in the app or user data folder, were the modules were stored to and packaged the module files into a zip file. The optical modules had a 'caf' extension.

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
Re: Receivership
« Reply #44 on: April 26, 2018, 09:01:53 pm »
I went into the optical module dialog, selected my body, and checked all available lenses, so that they were downloaded in the next step. Then I looked up the directory in the app or user data folder, were the modules were stored to and packaged the module files into a zip file. The optical modules had a 'caf' extension.
That seemed like a really good idea, so I mostly did the same and downloaded all of the lens modules I think I might be interested in for all of the cameras I think I might be interested in.

I will let TimeMachine do the backup, so I did not zip the files together, but I did want to thank you for the idea.

 

photography