I was looking in to upgrading my suite of DxO software. I was surprised to find my ‘upgrade’ prices weren’t upgrade prices at all, they were the same price as buying a new license.
Then I see an ‘eligibility’ text that states you need to own one of the previous two versions to 'qualify’ for an upgrade price.
Since when ?
And were we existing license owners warned of this change ? It’s possible we were, but DxO send so much spam I must have missed it if they did.
I am very annoyed by this. The idea that my existing DxO licenses are worth nothing in terms of upgrade discount, vs someone who has never spent a penny with DxO, doesn’t exactly inspire further custom.
Disregarding the policy though - were we warned about this ? Or is it possible that this was always the case and I simply never noticed it ?
mwsilvers
(Mark - New Jersey, USA, Win10, RTX 4060, PL9, FP8, VP5, Nikon Zf )
2
I believe that policy has been in place for around 3-4 years . What versions of their software are you currently using?
as far as awareness goes, specifically - how are people aware of this ? did DxO email existing licensees to notify them that they were in danger of losing upgrade discounts due to a major policy change ? directly communicating this to existing licensees is - imo - the only vaguely acceptable way of making people aware of this.
my licenses (for the whole suite) pre-date the policy change. I’ll decline from stating the specific versions, because I don’t want to invite predictable “ya, well, you got X years worth of usage” apologist replies for what is, imo, a bad policy.
edit: I can’t make any further replies due to restrictions on new accounts,
but in response to Wolfgang below -
I’m curious how you think that is helpful, or in some way addresses what I am getting at here ?
A bunch of Help Centre queries all simply re-stating the upgrade policy ? What is your point exactly ? I am already aware of the updated policy, before creating this thread.
You realise my query is WHEN was this policy change made (I’ve gotten that answer now, from other genuine replies) - and HOW was this policy change communicated to existing licensees when the policy change was made.
Your link does not answer either of those queries central to my OP, and only re-instates what I clearly already know (but am obviously not happy about).
As I recall there was no email to all DxO users about this policy change that yes, feels like it happened four years ago. There was a change noted in the pricing of the apps on the DxO website and Terms of Service, and it was recognized here in this forum and discussed at that time. There have also been a number of other threads about this, because users who missed out are ticked about it. Some other “perpetual” license photo software companies do not have a policy like this and offer an upgrade price for anyone who has a license for an earlier version. DxO made a business decision and have stuck to it. Their explanation when questioned about it has been that they want to reward the loyalty of users who upgrade every version or two with a discount.
my licenses (for the whole suite) pre-date the policy change. I’ll decline from stating the specific versions, because I don’t want to invite predictable “ya, well, you got X years worth of usage” apologist replies for what is, imo, a bad policy.
Fair enough, so now I have a question for you. How has DxO’s policy disadvantaged you? By not upgrading every version or two and waiting until now, you’ve saved more money on upgrade versions than a new full license costs.
If we’re talking about the PhotoLab suite, PhotoLab has improved a great deal in recent years. Try the new version out and see if you agree, though you may want to wait until PhotoLab 10 drops, probably in September, or for a Black Friday discount on the whole package. Definitely do a free trial before buying, because a sharp escalation in hardware demands, particularly for running multiple masks in PhotoLab and Exporting can make the app bog down to the point that you may not want it, if you don’t have a sufficiently powerful video processor. You may not need to upgrade ViewPoint. Basic perspective correction is provided in PhotoLab. People doing a lot of architectural or real estate photography may want the more advanced correction the newest version of ViewPoint can do, but many do fine without it. The main reason to upgrade FilmPack is that it’s the only way to get luminosity masking in PhotoLab. Don’t get me started on that policy. I’ve never used Nik Collection, so I can’t comment on that.
1 Like
mwsilvers
(Mark - New Jersey, USA, Win10, RTX 4060, PL9, FP8, VP5, Nikon Zf )
8
I think that those of us who are regularly active on this site are probably more aware of this policy change than the general user population, but that is just a guess.
To my knowledge, the upgrade “policy” was never forward-looking. Upgrade pricing was always announced fresh in DxO’s press release for every new major release of the software. One can still read past press releases back to the Optics Pro years and see that this is the case. So the answer to the question, when was the change announced: it was included in the press release for PhotoLab 5 (~October 20, 2021).
So if OP has PL4 and upgraded to PL6 and PL8, with the VP and FP add-ons, OP would not have saved big bucks by waiting until now for a new PL9 full license, or until PL10 for a new full license, but OP also hasn’t lost big bucks doing that. It’s closer to a wash than I’d have thought.
But I think that if it’s PL3 or earlier, OP has saved money by waiting until the upgrade was really needed.
I would not want to go back to PL4 or earlier /shudder. OP: if you have a strong hardware, try PL9 or PL10 out. You will see the clear improvement.
That’s subjective, of course. If the OP had upgraded incrementally between then and now, many new features would have been obtained and enjoyed for the money spent. But if new features weren’t useful to the OP, then no need to upgrade no matter the price. The old software and license are still functional until the computer is upgraded beyond what DxO is willing to support (which is another, uglier conundrum).
As others already wrote, the change took place a few years ago, sometime between versions 4 and 7 of PhotoLab. The change was done silently in the shop, but I can’ say for sure as I was not subscribed to DxO news at that time.
Moreover, license keys moved and had to be verified online every 37 days. That was around PL 7.5
Anyways, things are as they are and DxO is probably not obliged to inform users, due to some statement in the EULA.
No, no, no. We know exactly when the change took place. It was communicated by DxO in the usual way, through widespread press releases and pricing statements. (Each new version released has had its own upgrade pricing and policy.) It was also discussed in the forum here to some extent. PhotoLab 7.5 came out about 2 1/2 years later, representing another change (a surprise, communicated in the product release notes and support FAQ but otherwise discussed here in the forum by users). I understand this is all controversial, but let’s not unfairly overlook the ways DxO did communicate.
Many online photography publications and communities transmit DxO’s press releases as soon as they drop. Just do an internet search for PhotoLab 5 press release. A single example is below. Look for the paragraph labeled Pricing and Availability:
sorry, but communicating it in a press release FOR A PRODUCT is not an acceptable way of communicating a major policy change like this.
existing licensees should have been sent direct, unambiguous communication with a clear subject, with the sole purpose of communicating this policy change.
DxO are constantly spamming my inbox with emails trying to sell me something or another, they can well afford to use one of those emails to communicate something as important as this.
Not doing so simply allowed existing licensees to slip outside of the upgrade eligibility net.
all these YouTube photography shills spamming DxO products, specifically PhotoLab, in the context of ‘lightroom subscription bad, PhotoLab perpetual license good’ … and posting their ‘15% discount affiliate link’ in the description …
They need a reality check, and they need to communicate the full picture. This is not a perpetual license as people might expect. This is very much a perpetual license that punishes you for not upgrading at least every second year. Assuming you consider it punishment to be excluded from any upgrade path if you don’t upgrade frequently …. so frequently, it may as well be a subscription. This is perpetual licensing with big caveats - and none of the YouTube shills mention it.
Not that YouTube shills are relevant to my situation anyway, I supported DxO with my business long before DxO went on their YouTuber shill campaign. But it’s just extra galling to see DxO not only spam my inbox, but spam my YouTube algorithm as well.
If this is how DxO treat the people who have given them business early on, they won’t be seeing another cent from me.
Moreover, license keys moved and had to be verified online every 37 days. That was around PL 7.5
and if they behaved in a more honourable way, that might not concern me. But seeing how they silently pulled the rug on upgrades for existing licensees without notifying them, I absolutely would not trust them not to pull the plug on their authorisation servers in the future - when it suits them.
What a typical month of DxO spam looks like …. so much time and energy generating and sending spam, and they can’t directly and unambiguously communicate a major policy change regarding upgrade eligibility ?
I see. Idealism can be a good thing, but I’ve learned the hard way in life that we also have to be realistic, or we can’t be happy. Your expectations seem to be based on an imagined ideal, not on DxO’s behavior. There is no upgrade policy that has been changed without notice. If one reads the press releases carefully and objectively, I think it’s clear that DxO only ever stated upgrade pricing and policies for each new release individually. To project that out to future releases was your inference and your decision alone, as far as I can tell. And I think you didn’t ask questions here in the forum so as to understand this - you asked them to validate your anger and go on a rant.
Can you name just one company that does what you propose DxO should have in this case? I can’t. But if you can find happiness with another vendor, then I’ll be very happy for you.
Now that’s a rant. You’re blaming everyone else, when it’s your own expectations that need a reality check. I’m not saying you don’t have some legitimate concerns. But you’ve blown everything way out of proportion IMO.
