Perspective

DxO ViewPoint
1

From Wikipedia:

Number of DxO employees(in 2021) vs Number of Adobe employees (2022):

89 vs 29239

Perhaps one of things to keep in mind when comparing both companies. I didn’t have any idea of the ratio when looking it up.

3 Likes
2

and you can guess that quite a few of those 89 aren’t coders…

3

“As of December 2, 2022, we employed 29,239 people, of which 51% were in the United States and 49% were in our international locations.”

and all of them work on ACR/LR … right

1 Like
4

Leica has 700 employees, Sony 113000 :sweat_smile:

5

That’s not an excuse for DxO doing more things badly (Adobe model). A smaller team means there should be more focus. Specifically PhotoLab should focus on RAW development and not sidetrack into

  1. DAM (the module is very poor and slow, with filtering still incredibly primitive and uncomfortable – I have to set four filters by hand every time I want to filter, no presets)
  2. or metadata (every time I try the PhotoLab metadata tools I either lose time or lose data or both).

On top of that the very aggressive minimum OS support alienates a lot of photographers who have no reason normally to run the latest OS and/or to waste money on new computer hardware.

Let’s not forget removing cross-application compatibility (I have to wonder if DxO is taking backhanders from Adobe to kneecap the compatibility with Affinity Photo).

Instead DxO should be building cross-application compatibility with non-competitor specialised tools in the DAM and metadata arena (PhotoMechanic for instance, there’s a crop tool in PhotoMechanic that I would sorely love to have work when I open up a photo coming over from PhotoMechanic).

I’ve seen own goal after own goal from DxO in the last three years. It’s frustrating. The underlying PhotoLab software is so good that despite the misfires and wasted resources I wouldn’t consider using anything else. Like @mwsilvers, I find the interface and workflow far more intuitive than anything else among RAW developers. Apple Aperture was the only other RAW developer with which I got along intuitively and it’s gone.

I wish DxO would spend its resources more wisely and spend less time alienating its existing customers by constantly nickel and diming us.

3 Likes
6

At least how many of the 29239 do you think working on ACR/LR Even if it was only 3%, it would still be 10 times DxO. The people working at Adobe also likely have access to more resources at relatively lower cost for their development.

To be clear, I’d also prefer if some things related to DxO’s software were different. In terms of what they can achieve and how many users they can please at the same time however, I think the size really makes a difference in this case.

1 Like
7

may be it is 0.3% - we simply do not know …

PS: Iridient is a ONE PERSON operation

1 Like
8

… and what has all this to do with the category ??

9

Thought I was being obvious.

Perspective about ViewPoints on DxO.

10

… playing around with words instead of a targeted headline / category,
but thank you to not drift into politics rubbish

11

I attended an Adobe conference on-line a couple of years ago and there was one session where you could talk to the developers of Lightroom Classic. I got the impression that the Lightroom Classic team at least was surprisingly small. Personally I think comparing the number of employees of Adobe to DXO is comparing apples and oranges. You can be sure that Adobe has a huge marketing department, for example. That is why they dominate the photo/design market. Not because they are better, but because they have excellent marketing.