@Wlodek It might be interesting to take out a months subscription and then submit any and all issues with PL9 to see the reaction.
2 Likes
Or all the old outstanding issues
Incidentally, from the sales page itself:
…DxO Premium Support tickets are handled ahead of standard requests.
Guess that answers that question.
Those of us not willing to pay for a support subscription can expect reduced/de-prioritised customer support.
That’s awful customer service.
1 Like
‘can expect’ => ‘is’.
Sounds like propaganda logic 
1 Like
Well, when you consider. “normal” service can take several days already, I do wonder how long that would end up with a lesser priority 
Although I do wonder how the “priority” staff will fill their time when there are no priority requests.
Day-by-day it’s none of my business (provided I don’t need support and am getting on with, y’know, living my life 
)
But I do wonder how they’ve structured the team. Is there even a separate support team for premium members, or is it all the same support team but they’ll drop everything for any premium issue?
Given “Premium tickets… are handled ahead of standard” I’m guessing that is the case and it’s all one team working with the most urgent (paid) tickets first and foremost.
If everything works as it’s supposed to, I could put this issue in the same unimportant category as “how well my ISP provides support”. I don’t need it, so who cares? But with recent performance and masking issues, how they’re dealing with issues suddenly is a concern after all.
I’m really not bothered by this. When I’ve needed support, the team has consistently responded within 24–72 hours, and if my issue can be solved, it usually is.
If others want to pay for faster service, that’s fair enough.
With the recent price adjustments and the move to separate things that used to be bundled together, it feels like a natural evolution — a small, boutique team doing what they can to stay competitive and afloat. I get that. I don’t necessarily love it, but I understand it. At some point, though, my own budget for supporting them might not stretch as far as they need.
1 Like
That’s my concern also. The products already aren’t cheap, especially for those of us who “choose” to stay up to date with latest upgrades.
I do appreciate they’re a smaller team than e.g. Adobe, but so am I.
Are established customers to see slightly reduced support… slightly higher prices… slightly more segregated features so we need to buy more things… year on year?
Most of us regulars are no doubt here because we enjoy using the products on some level and they’re useful to us. Frankly, it’ll be stressful trying to get set up with a replacement if it comes to that, but we’re not golden geese either.
Yeah, and the squeeze is there. For them, for us. And I enjoy their products. I think it’s imperative that competition remains strong and healthy. We’ve seen what happens with consolidation and “silos” in an industry across all sectors.
I’m gonna say this, and I will probably take some flak. But DxO already seems to struggle with messaging and getting their name out. I rarely encounter them in the wild. And when potential customers come to the forums, casual observers see a lot of negative talk.
The won’t bother to dig deeper and see for the most part, IMHO, it’s a passionate and demanding community that desires and tries to help be part of finding solutions to problems. It also holds the team accountable. They aren’t required to look below the surface though. And many/most won’t and will just move on.
I’m not advocating fanboy culture. Or that people should ignore problems. And fwiw, I don’t think most DxO customers are “filthy casuals” if I can borrow a gaming term. But that makes us as niche as the products.
So, I wish I knew how to help, or had a “magic” solution. But the average Adobe, Luminar, On1, Topaz user isn’t our tribe. And I still really only have one-foot in the village myself. So I should probably put the microphone down now. 
Microphone away, I can’t be the only one with a “gob” 
In short: I agree entirely.
Longer:
Competition is absolutely important but that’s only possible if the options remain competitive.
If DxO fancies going the way of Adobe… charging more, offering less (unless you pay)… is that still competitive?
As good as the PhotoLab product is, looking around the forum here it’s clearly not perfect and the problems aren’t a mildly irritating missing feature, but performance and stability issues. Not good if you rely on it for your career, for example.
As you say, if potential customers do come here they’re going to get the worst impression. They won’t even see the photos I’ve lovingly created with PhotoLab, just me moaning. DxO aren’t here doing damage control - we were left to speculate and beta test and fault-find for ourselves.
I consider myself a fanboy, insomuch as I waste a lot of time here talking, in the vague hope it’ll lead to improvement. I could just sign up to Adobe, take my 20GB free cloud storage and my mobile app and programs that work faster - but I think PhotoLab can potentially do a better quality job.
Looking around… it’s not just me complaining and I don’t entirely like what I see of DxO monetising support, not communicating regarding feature-breaking issues and so on. I hope they get the message.
1 Like
Well said.
We’ll see and I hope so.
1 Like