The difference I see between a subscription model for updates and what we have now - annual opportunities to upgrade at a reduced cost (incentivized upgrading) - is illustrated in the difference between DxO and Topaz. With Topaz, I buy the software any time I want and get a year of free updates. If a new major release comes out in that time window, I can use it right away - and if my subscription ends while the current major release is still being supported, I am no longer able to update it for bug fixes and improvements. With DxO, I only have updates for a year if I buy the software when it’s released, but can get bug fixes and feature updates the whole time a major release is current and supported. I like the Topaz way for Topaz products, and wouldn’t mind having this for some of DxO’s software - but am not convinced this is the way to go with PhotoLab. After a while, one settles into the annual cycle that a company offers or one enters and leaves it as one wishes. And DxO still needs to make money, so I don’t think any changes to the product cycle will ultimately save us money. If there is any benefit to a change, I think DxO will need to realize it. For example, can new features be rolled out and debugged faster? Can interface redesigns and normalization of differences between Windows and Mac happen more quickly if PhotoLab is no longer on an annual major release cycle? But I suspect that isn’t the case.
It’s more than one year of bugfixes. PL 5 users still get updates although PL6 is already on sale.
Here’s a screenshot of all six versions of PhotoLab installed and running at the same time on my 2019 MacBook Pro running macOS Monterey. Just in case someone here has a question on an older version and to be able to compare what has stopped working since previous versions.
I have the same with Windows.
Since uninstallation does not change the number of activation, I keep the old versions.
It would be nice if PhotoLab had a deactivation feature so that it could be moved to a new computer without using up another of the three installations. Not too many software programs seen to have that feature.
One notable exception I know of is Sibelius, which is very expensive, professional music notation software intended for composing. It is a very useful feature which allowed me and my son, who is a professional musician, to deactivate it on one computer and reactivate on another.
I suspect most software companies want you to use up to the limited number of installations they provide forcing you to purchase a new license.
Mark
I have this on my Office 365 account, I can delete a PC that is no longer used and find one more installation.
Fast raw viewer does it this way
to transfer license from old computer to the new one if both are still up and running:
-
On old computer: Menu - Help - Registration data - Deactivate button
This will decrease total use count (recorder by our activation server) -
On the new one:
Menu - Help - Purchase/Activate
Copy-paste your license key into the License key field
Press Activate.
Use count is counted separately for old (version 1.x) and new (2.0) versions.
So, you can upgrade your license, install new version on two computers (new ones) and keep old version installed on ‘your old win notebook’
Also, 40%-upgrade discount is not limited to single copy, you may use your upgrade coupon to purchase multiple copies in single transaction (one ‘copy’ => 2 computers license)
Hope this helps,
Alex FastRawViewer team
Yes. It’s the same for me for my Microsoft subscription. I can also do something similar with my Norton 360 security software subscription which I can use on 10 devices including phones. My mention of Sibelius music notation software is an exception because it is not subscription software.
Mark
Of the software I’ve purchased, DxO sticks out in not having this feature. I can’t even think of another piece of software I’ve purchased where I’ve had to contact Support to move a license, and especially not have them question it as DxO is prone to do.
Capture One Pro has it (online as well), Exposure (as in X7), Macrium Reflect. Serif makes it a non-issue since they don’t care how many devices you use their software on.
Same on my iMac 2019 with macOS Monterey, but DPL1 does not work 100%. I can set zoom level to “fit” and to 100% exclusively. The rest seems to work.
Movable license: Lightroom has it too. I can
a) let LrC deactivate automatically and/or
b) manage activations in my Adobe account.
Hopes are not enough here, for me, Mark. My experience (below) has been different. It’s horrible that we as licensed customers have to worry about those questions.
I’ve run into the install limit issue, every year during the last few years of fighting the endless OS update requirements and computer changes and OS reinstalls, even with six theoretical installs available to me. Even with six theoretical installs (that nonsense with the Nik v2 upgrade), DxO Support has usually been suspicious and unpleasant about each install request.
Plus side: we don’t have to de-activate installations (multiply by 10x programs and de-activation doesn’t sound like any more fun than writing emails). It would be better if we could disable installations in our accounts.
Alec,
Sorry to here that. I know the struggles you’ve had with DxO dropping support for older verions of MacOs every year. Happily, this has just not been an issue for me. I am still using the same Windows desktop and laptop I had when I originally installed the PhotoLab 1 Elite suite in late 2017, and hthe most current version of the suite runs just as well.
Mark
It’s a pity, but I’m not at all surprised that DxO makes it difficult to reinstall older versions of PL on a new computer. As with other vendors I’ve dealt with (most notably Microsoft), an upgrade purchase is cheaper because it isn’t separable from the purchase of the previous version. The upgrade purchase replaces the right to use the older product (its license key) with a right to use the newer product. While DxO allows the old version to remain on the computer and continue to be used, activating the old license again on new hardware is restricted or even prohibited in order to prevent handing on the old key to someone else or otherwise using it in violation of the licensing terms. Special cases can be allowed by the vendor through a support request, at their discretion. It’s all quite normal in my limited experience, even if many vendors don’t do that.
Also, I’ve seen a new install limit imposed even for very expensive software. CalMAN, for example (now maintained by Portrait Displays). When I was using that, the licensing model was very complicated, requiring a managed uninstall prior to any reinstall - or the licenses wouldn’t work again. Fortunately, their customer support was happy to reset the license counters for me whenever something went wrong (e.g., the uninstaller hung or crashed or the system hard drive died) and I needed their help - but I got sick of depending on that. Same for Microsoft with Windows licenses - and now they say a Windows license key is only good for the lifetime of one computer - it isn’t supposed to be transferred to new hardware at all (except for a hard drive replacement).
It seems that if DxO ever goes out of business, their software will die without some kind of intervention, which I very much hope they and other vendors imposing a reinstall limit will put in place in such an unfortunate situation. This is an elephant-in-the-room, I suppose. Hopefully it won’t ever become a problem for us. (I think DxO staff assured us of that once, near the time they underwent bankruptcy restructuring - but some customers stated they didn’t want to take that chance.)
Finally, I’m not a fan of Apple’s frequent new MacOS releases and DxO only supporting the latest three as soon as a new one appears. I noticed another vendor (Serif, I think) supporting the latest four and think that’s more reasonable. I’m grateful that Microsoft doesn’t release a new Windows every year, though technically they do roll out new features at least every year.
DxO is overly restrictive in my experience. For example, Capture One allows 3 activations, but it’s up to me if I want to activate my currently licensed version or a previously licensed one. Very reasonable, and very convenient if I run into an issue after upgrade and want to continue working with the previous version until it’s resolved. Not only that, the versions coexist nicely (no disabling dops, etc) and I can do all of the activation in-app or online without being subjected to interrogation by Support. The downside of Capture One is that even their upgrades are becoming expensive. (Still peanuts compared to hardware, but I don’t buy much of that any more.)
Serif is an even better. Their flexibility (it’s very nice to be able to use Affinity Photo on a computer that I don’t usually edit when it’s convenient for me) makes me use Affinity Photo more and more now that (in v2) the Develop persona is non-destructive and raws can be linked rather than embedded.
Upgrading with DxO is a bigger decision since it’s a one-way street. Yes, the old version will continue to function on my current computer, but moving it to a new computer is out of the question. I think harder (and test more) when upgrading PhotoLab than I do with other applications I purchase for this reason alone, but at some point it’s not worth the effort when there are less painful alternatives.
I don’t think DxO is doing themselves any favours by restricting access to previous versions the way they do. If they purposely want to force me to buy a new license (instead of an upgrade) if I want continued access to a previous version that I usually only use when the developer has bungled something then they’re just building the upgrade barrier a bit higher. I’ll be generous and put the reason down to primitive handling of activations, but some form of online/in-software license management is the main thing I’d like to see in PhotoLab for me to continue paying up.
My current Windows machine is a new machine four months ago and yesterday, after reading this thread I decided to try to reinstall all versions of OP and PL. I was able to reinstall and run with no problems. OP 9, OP 11, PL one through to PL 4. I already had PL 5 running. All seem to be working correctly.
The new machine is running Windows 11.
I must admit, I didn’t expect any of them to run apart from PL 5.
I assume you had unused activations then? The problem is when you don’t since DxO won’t free up an activation for an unlicensed version.
Although that you could activate an old version at all is interesting. I’ve never had a free activation available to try.
I’m not sure, but version 3 or 4 I had used up two activations on a previous new computer. Apart from that, all are running well. It does seem odd using the older versions and the results that they give. Most interesting.
@Prem I was surprised by the various comments being made because I am using DxO 11, DxPL3, 4, 5 and 6 on one machine but all were installed during the life of each release. However, I recently installed DxPL 2 to check out what happened with a particular issue on that release and used the Trial version until the trial period ended and then continued to use it beyond that period as was the way until the coming of DxPL5!
I just used my activation key and it activated successfully, so if you still have “credit” on your key it should work successfully. All DOPs in my experience are forward compatible and none should be considered backwards compatible! Similarly with databases but I haven’t actually tried a DxO 11 database being imported into PL6 - yet!
However, I was a SageLight user and the author went “walk-about”, the rental on the activation server lapsed and that was that, except someone published a workaround!
The problem is actually two-fold
-
Is DxPL checking the licence against a server every time the product is used!
-
If the activation server terminates with DxO then users investment is effectively “lost” and that needs to be considered!
The licence management should always be a two way process allowing licences to be used and “returned” to the activation server but there also needs to be some form of “protection” beyond the existence of the developer!
The problem is that for a major version you need to pay , and people don’t want to pay for an upgrade if it only fixes bugs that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
And people who don’t experience issues don’t upgrade to something that just fixes (for them) unrelated issues without introducing something new.