Unfair pricing Policy

After purchasing several versions of PL suite, I now own latest version of all components except fimpack which is still v6.
I realized luminosity masks, which would logically be a part of the core editing functions of PL7 are only available if you also purchase filmpack.
I can’t see any link between film simulation offered by filmpack and luminosity masks, so the only reason I can conceive for this link is to add a 129€ purchase in order to access full functionality (please, no template reply such as ‘masking is technically already implemented in PL7 , you only have to buy FP to activate it’, which just further support my point)
This seems just a dodgy tactics from ‘get rich in 3 clicks’ marketing guys to milk faithful users.
Today, I received an offer to upgrade filmpack (v6 only !) for … 79€.
79€, to only get access to 24 new historical images and luminosity masks, which should be integrated in the core PL7 is just not right.
I purchased DXO several years ago because of the quality of its noise processing, but I’m fed up with ever increasing upgrade pricing, under more and more restrictive conditions, for ever diminishing real improvements.
I was glad to support DXO a few years ago while you were facing bankrupt, but this naughty move around luminosity masks is a strong signal for me to stop contributing.

20 Likes

I think that theory nails it.

2 Likes

Whatever we call DxO’s pricing policy, we can only state our opinion here or decide to (not) upgrade or to get out. As long as people stay and pay, DxO has no incentive to change their policy, no matter how loudly we grind our teeth.

8 Likes

I agree that luminosity masks should be in the core product and not filmpack.
But as a workaround you can apply a control line to the entire image and use the pipette pointer to select the luminosity required and adjust the luminosity and chominance sliders to suit. Not quite the same but pretty close in my experience.

Not the same at all. Absolutly not the same possibilities to mask.

In fact it would have be better to add curve in place of luminosity slider to other masks and curve too in place of hue sliders to other masks (with pipette to select those luminositiy or hue curve points in image).
Would have be lot of more flexible.

While I have FP7+PL7+VP4, I told everyone else I met online to look elsewhere as I have to be honest about if DxO’s package is worth it or not, when cheaper but better-featured software like Lr exists.

Taking away Luminosity mask is a huge barrier for me to remotely introduce PL7 to others.

4 Likes

I have to agree. I used to actively encourage others to look and seriously consider PL, but right now it feels like Lr offers better value for money, has clear info for which features are included for your money (ie no sneaky ‘you need to buy ‘x’ as well to add ‘y’ feature’) , image quality is exellent (PL is better imo, but my determining factors are subjective and who apart from photographers is actually going to notice?), I’ve noticed a number of AI editing tools are becoming available as plug-ins to Lr and this could be huge in the future (not to everyone’s taste I appreciate, but these tools could be huge productivity drivers for many, many people), constant frustrations with PL User requests going un-noticed, and it feels that the future of the Adobe product development is more co-ordinated - PL could publish a road map for future changes to the application, which I think would be amazing but I see zero chance of that ever happening.

All that makes me very hesitant to recommend PL, especially if the person I’m speaking to is already using Lr. Why switch?

10 Likes

"All that makes me very hesitant to recommend PL, especially if the person I’m speaking to is already using Lr. "

I’m about to make the reverse transition. I’ve had enough with DxO. At least with Lr it’s an honest subscription model, rather than DxO’s deceitful one, which pretends that you’ve bought a given version of the software, only to find that there are missing features that are used to push you to buy the next version to supply them.

3 Likes

I use PhotoLab, not just because it isn’t a subscription model, but because it has world beating noise reduction without having to create an intermediate file to work on. I really don’t care about a few Euros here or there every year.

And Adobe is far too invasive on a privacy level.

5 Likes

I fully support the arguments of the thread owner. I hope that DxO will not extend this behavoiur in future.

For a certain time I even refused to buy PL7, but I found out that having the colour wheel for local adjustments is quite useful.
On the other hand luminosity masks have really nothing to do with film simulations and therefore should be part of PL7. This would also increase the value of PL7 and probably would encourage more people to upgrade from an older version.

6 Likes

I’m in the privileged position that my business is successful enough for the price to not be an issue, however I do still object to the methods utilised by DxO to increase the average sale per customer.

From a business perspective I feel it does not engender trust and empathy with a brand (from a user’s point of view), causing some current users to look elsewhere and those on the outside (prospective customers) to be confused by the pricing structure.

But this thread topic is a recurring theme. It’s not my business and as long as DxO has enough people paying them money I’m sure they will continue in this vein. My concern is that should it back-fire on them, they won’t be able to pivot quickly enough and have enough loyal users left to continue (I’m saying this from the point of view that I love PL and I do wish for it to be around and in active development for a long time to come).

8 Likes

Or make those who are waiting to know if they abandon ship or not, to come back.
As @Joanna said, in the end this is not really a matter of few euros (*), but I would say a matter of respect. Are we seen as fools ?
DxO should at least not have communicate for months ! on this as a function of photolab (which is not).
And OF COURSE not have put this greyed not usable button in front of the nose of those who do not want filmpack.
But, hey, photolab users asked for this function; not filmpack users, isn’t it ?
Never seen a company dare to do things like that. I’m fed up with all these twisted attitudes (it’s not the first time they’ve played this kind of game).

(*) ok it depends. Other tools are needed to get a real “end to end” - as DxO says in its ads - solution, so in the end it coasts lot more than photolab price to use photolab.

2 Likes

how many users needs to buy DxO product every year to support one FTE ( in France ) ?

I say no less than ~1000 users per FTE ( assuming salary, benefits, taxes, various business expenses per head, etc ) per head in France ( more if it is somebody in a senior role that DxO can’t afford to leave - there I say ~2000-3000 users to keep ) … what is the size of DxO ? clearly >> 10 and I think less than 100 ? so how many users DxO needs to live ? they are clearly not Adobe, so they don’t have a million+ of them and they clearly can’t survive on <= 10K users … so I think they have high tens of thousand users … that need to buy a new product every year

I feel I have to cite the following again:

Make your choice
Pay your price
…and stop complaining.

3 Likes

[quote=“platypus, post:14, topic:37176, full:true”]
I feel I have to cite the following again:

Make your choice
Pay your price
…and stop complaining.
[/q]

These two quotes pretty well sum up my feelings about this subject. DxO has a perfect right to choose which features go into which product and the pricing of each product that will best meet THEIR needs. It is the potential customers’ responsibility to decide which(if any) of these products to buy, not to bitterly complain about these policies

I get the distinct impression that some of you(not all) just love to bash DxO(for whatever reason) or you simply want more for less. I personally would like to see DxO succeed and take over the #1 spot for the photo-finishing product market. Yes, the entire Photolab suite is quite expensive, but look what it is capable of doing for your pictures(and if you didn’t think your photos didn’t benefit, then you wouldn’t be here). I myself bought all 5 DxO products(PL 7+VP 4+NC 6 +FP 7+PR 3) . I had no need for PR 3 but bought it just because it is a very cool program. The other 4 I use extensively almost every day. so the bottom line is: If you think that a product is worth it’s price then buy it, otherwise don’t but there is no need to complain.

3 Likes

Hi Patrice,

It’s not for nothing I started this:

And I totally agree!

My business is also successful enough and money is not the issue, but I don’t like to be treated like an idiot by my image application suppliers.

I mean I purchased the “Elite version”, but found that Film Pack and ViewPoint are needed for full functionality. Elite in this case means nothing!

David

2 Likes

That’ s correct, but for DxO it is maybe a difference what is the reason, a customer doesn’t pay again:

  • is he dead?
  • use he another software?
  • or ha a problem with the pricing for only one minor feature (if he doesn’t use the stand-alone version).

One of my issues is: why have I pay the stand-alone version?

This has been an interesting thread to read and reflects many of my thoughts. PL and Nik have been my tools of choice for RAW photo processing for the last 6+ years predating Photo Lab in fact. I stopped my subscription to Adobe 3 years ago, however, unless DxO comes up with something special in PL8 and Nik7 I’ll stick with what I’ve got and spend my money elsewhere and gradually migrate I guess, just like I did with Adobe to DxO.

I do sense desperation with the number of “buy XXX” and get this free training worth $YYY and I question why the company cannot just offer the product with the price of the product minus the cost of the training; I think I know why.

I shall reserve judgement until PL8/Nik7 come out when my upgrade from PL6/Nik5 remains at below full price. I would argue that the company needs to reduce their costs (management, marketing and software team size I guess) and maintain what they’ve got better resulting in a maintenance fee of perhaps 10-20% of current purchase price. Also consolidate the product range into maybe 3 products.

1 Like

coming up w/ something special does not work … there are very limited amount something special stuff to come up with every version … DxO needs to move to subscription model, wrap everything that matters into DxP PL plus have a separate plug-in suite for PS which combines Nik, VP, FP and have PureRaw for those who want to drone on autopilot - and be done ( 3 products : full everything included in one app PL + plugin suite that includes all from (Nik, VP, FP) for PS and alike users + PR, → subscription payments, → no more BS )…

I also would like to see DxO succeed, and this is why I have been supporting them for years.
It’s not a matter of complaining, but I’m afraid that their shady marketing tactics, as demonstrated with the artificial integration of Luminosity Masks in FilmPack instead of the core PL as it should logically be (Of course, feel free to correct me if there is a reason for this) to force buying a 129€ add on to get the full functionalities, will prevent customers from supporting them anymore.
I sincerely hope they will hear this alert and stop those unfair practices.

3 Likes