You see this is the beauty of your sniping here. You’re not even invested in or really using the software. Yes, the theory of having the best DAM on the planet to go with the best RAW development software which has the very best local adjustment tools is lovely. There’s a lot of manpower and management focus required to get there. DxO is manoeuvring in a tight space right now and cannot take on huge long term financial commitments without further revenue. Decreasing the price would just erode market position further.
Who are these users willing to invest €300 in a piece of photo development software? What matters to those who are willing to make that investment? What workflow do they follow now? What strategic partnerships could DxO make with existing DAM solutions to cover that need and expand their market?
You fail to engage in the fundamental economics of software development and marketing position arguments at all. It’s like trying do discuss economics with a kindergarten pupil. Sorry to break it to you Colin, there is no Santa Claus.
I also shoot Nikon, not that it is anything to do with you. I am well versed in business and marketing I can assure you but given your locked in focus it is understandable just why you are so misguided. It is a surprise that you even realise that Santa does not exist.
@ColinG@uncoy
Gentlemen - please… your discussion has become acidulous and is not in the spirit of the Forum guidelines. Maybe PM’s would be a better place to carry on. Thank You.
I’ve examined in some detail Colin’s input - which distills to wailing that PhotoLab is not Lightroom in every thread he can find - my response to him remains the same: use Lightroom then and leave us in peace.
You’ll notice that after his attacks Colin will feign accommodation yet within in days he’ll be back posting his mini-ads for Lightroom, disparaging PhotoLab and/or demanding impossible changes to PhotoLab to meet some imaginary “minimum standard”.
Many of us are already using PhotoLab for professional and published work. PhotoLab is already a superb professional tool: the best RAW development tool in existence.
Veteran photographers pay €300 for the PhotoLab RAW development suite and it’s not because we think PhotoLab is inadequate or a “dino” or at a “silly price”. It’s because no other RAW developer processes our photos with the same clarity or colour or offers such subtle handling of sensor noise. Most of us find the workflow very fluid and fast. Improvements are not “required” but additional capabilities to be celebrated.
Keeping performance responsive with higher resolution cameras and higher resolution monitors is an important current challenge but that’s not new functionality. Adding new cameras and lenses in a timely way is not new capability but essential maintenance.
You just do not know when to shut up do you. You have absolutely no grasp of what I was saying and I certainly did not sell Lr - I took DxO in the first place in an endeavour to move away from Lr. DxO however has lost its way - one minute it is a raw editor and then it is building a DAM. I was quite happy using Bridge or indeed using PL with Lr but they confused it whilst retaining a very unfriendly (feature poor) browser. So we now have a confused PL and a Nik that its seemingly going nowhere. But then I would expect nothing more from a dino like you - someone from the past who wants nothing to change. That is how software companies fail. However returning to Lr - it is a far superior all-in-one. solution and probably always will be. It also appears to know where it is going. Now that is a Lr advert … oh yes and it supports Fuji. For my part I have just removed PL from my system but retain an interest in Nik. I hope DxO do something worthwhile there for since buying it, save for an early fix our two, it has remained stagnant and offers no more now than the free version did.
I suggest you stick with Optics Pro. That’s clearly where your life is. Now please be a good boy and run along and live it.