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
- 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)
- 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.