Ongoing product value and paid upgrades

General Discussion
1169

I’m not an Adobe fan by any means. But, for $120/year, they offer the most powerful combination of editing tools and services on the planet. One could easily get by with only that plan and miss nothing. Try that with the Topaz plugins. Four niche, not always ready-for-prime-time plugins at 80% of the annual cost of the most complete editing software out there? Really?

Adobe never promised Creative Cloud for free and then reneged. And, they haven’t raised the price of ownership in years (decade?). No, I’m not an Adobe fan. But TL’s pricing makes Adobe look like saints.

I have DxO as well. DeepPrime is very good and I use it. But there are workflow limitations with DxO that prevent me from using it as a primary raw editor. I have 7 years of images from an older camera that DxO decided was not worth providing raw support. You have to use its de-mosaic engine to use DeepPrime. And it is internally limited to AdobeRGB output. My upgrade price for it is $69 per year (major version) and again is a significantly better value than the TL plugins. It is a full editor.

Those examples, and many others, show how out of line Topaz is. Not to mention, misleading their long-time customers. It’s not a good look.

2 Likes
1170

Question to lhodaniel2:
Can you still use Photoshop and Lightroom if you stop paying the $120?
Can you still use the Topaz products if you don’t pay for the upgrade?
And did Adobe give a discount to the buyers who always bought the upgrades well in advance?

These are purely rhetorical questions and everyone knows the answers.
At Adobe, you only pay to use the software, which is a software rental.
This is honestly a payment model that deserves the same fuss.
And many users didn’t go along with that back then either, and are sitting on their software today because new cameras are no longer supported.
With this I don’t want to question the performance of the software, which is certainly excellent, but for me the two products would never cover everything, especially not Photoshop.

And basically, I would like to say to all critics once again that apples are compared to oranges here.

According to the milkmaid calculation with the two Adobe products, any - but really any - shareware and any update would definitely be too expensive for programs with fewer functions.

One must always look at the ratio of the number of buyers/users to the effort required to create the software. Programming the software is not cheaper just because fewer people use it. Of course Photoshop is much more complex, but that’s why more people buy it.
Comparably complex programs with fewer users often cost 4-digit amounts.

And I would assume that this ratio is even much higher for Adobe than for the Topaz products. Adobe has millions of users and makes pretty good profits every year, the software should be much cheaper!
Also DxO Photolab certainly has significantly more buyers and subscribers than the Topaz products, but the above mentioned ratio is probably similar. The Nik Collection is probably bought less and is therefore more expensive in proportion (new and existing features, convenience).

And a niche product like the Topaz software may of course always cost a bit more if its features are outstanding and unrivaled in the market.
This was certainly the case with Topaz for a while now, but these unique selling points can of course disappear at some point. DeepPrime is probably only the beginning. Topaz has to come up with something, even if DeepPrime does not support all camera models.
And that is of course a good thing, because the users usually profit from the competition.

And now I repeat myself:
For long-term users, Topaz should have come up with a different model. I understand the annoyance.

1171

Yes, Topaz graciously lets us continue to use older buggy versions rendering files with gross artifacts and other problems, all of which should have been fixed before release. You got me there (sarcasm). If you want to have fixes to those bugs and not have files with artifacts you have to sign up for Topaz’s subscription. Yes, it is a subscription but with different terms than Adobe’s. Also, Topaz is NOT separating all free bug fix updates from paid “feature” upgrades as they said they would. A needed bug-fix comingled with maybe not needed “features” still requires the subscription.

5 Likes
1172

First not impressed with the way this was sneaked out, seems underhanded - not TOPAZ way. second Gigapixel told me i needed an upgrade i went through usual hoops and loops for a long download only to be told i then needed to pay. Why not inform us before demanding cash. Finally we all saw what this model - call it what you will - but its subscription by another name. That drove thousand of users away from Photoshop into Topaz’s arms even professional users like Glyn Dewis… which ever way you slice the pie this still works out between 4 and 8 dollars a month. a number very close to Adobe. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of the many people i have urged to move to Topaz because of the hated of subscription. Falling on your sword whilst shouting “mea culpa” doesn’t excuse the way you have handled this. Be upfront we are adults if you think your reasons are sound then be honest and open about them. That gives people the choice before downloading

5 Likes
1173

very far from apples and oranges. At least Adobe were up front and honest. Look at the demographics here digital photography per-se is a dying art nowadays everyone uses their phones for principal camera. I should imagine a lot of users like myself are part of the older dying breed pensioners who don’t have the money for subscriptions (by any name) that’s why they are still using PS6 and Lightroom 4 because they stopped dead in their at the thought f subscription. They moved to Topaz because it offered free upgrade path. so they spent money on PS then spent more on Topaz and now Topaz want them to adopt the very same model that caused them to leave Adobe. If this isn’t illegal it should be

5 Likes
1174

If you read my posts, you will know that I am in no way a fan of the new policy. But I have to say that I do not consider the Topaz model a subscription - it is a perpetual license. For the same reason you mentioned that people are still running LR 4, you can continue running Gigapixel 5.1 as long as you want without paying anything else. And if you do buy the upgrade license you will be able to continue to run whatever the last version is when your year runs out. So there is no requirement that you pay anything to continue using the software. That’s different from Adobe - if I buy the newest version of LR, it will stop working once the subscription runs out.

With that all said, some of the main differences I have seen is that Adobe made bugfixes to LR4 long after they changed to a subscription model. At this point, there is no indication that we will get bug fixes to a previous version of the Topaz software once a “major” release has come out. They do not appear to be releasing separate bug fixes to previous versions at this point, and because of the model they created it would be a nightmare to do so. So if there is a bug that you want fixed you will need to pay for an upgrade license, assuming it is fixed in one of the newer versions.

3 Likes
1175

They need to stop this stupid update reminder! Every time I open the programs I’m hounded to update, 2 week deferral is ridiculous. Give us a way to turn it off!

9 Likes
1176

Disappointed at best.

I don’t think this is a business decision that will hold up well with your existing user base. You have entered in a contract with those users that payed for a product with free lifetime upgrades. For the life of it I really can not imagine there is any legal base that allows for retroactively changing that contract without the explicit consent of your contract partners, aka the users.

I understand software development costs money, and should be payed for. Having to pay for any kind of minor update after just one year is not exactly what I consider “owning a software”. Paying half of the already payed price for a piece of software per year for the ability to keep it running smoothly really doesn’t seem justified.

As of today, I will be looking out for an alternative to your products.

7 Likes
1177

Topaz is now history for me. I paid for Denoise and now can not use it.
Good luck with new customers.

2 Likes
1178

And why can’t you use it?

1179

I haven’t read this entire thread, but I periodically pop over so I’ve read quite a few. I don’t use a lot of Topaz products, though I started using Viveza in 2010. I currently have Denoise AI and am trying Sharpen AI, though from what I’ve seen so far, the results from Sharpen aren’t good enough to be useful for what I shoot. Definitely not $80 worth of useful. Even Denoise, which works pretty well as long as I don’t push it hard - it’s OK to to buy me about 2 stops, so I can shoot the D500 or D850 at 6400 and get pretty good results. Going past that into the third stop (even as low as 10,000 vs 12,800) yields poor enough results that images frequently aren’t usable as-is.

I question whether this change is going to be sufficiently successful at increasing revenue to offset the ill will it generated. If I understand correctly, Topaz is going to charge for the upgrade from Denoise 2.3.x, to version 2.4.0. If that’s correct, it will have the opposite of the desired effect for me. I’ll stay with the functional version I have until something MONUMENTAL gets added. Which isn’t likely to be a maintenance release like 2.X. And it is very unlikely that any 2.X release will be worth anywhere NEAR $50.

And when 3.0 comes out, instead of grabbing it for a very reasonable upgrade price (no more than half of what I actually PAID for the product - which was $45 - I’ll look at alternatives. If there is NO comparable alternative that’s more cost effective than the upgrade fee, AND no equivalent cost alternative that does MORE than the one thing Denoise does, I’ll decide if I ABSOLUTELY HAVE to have the upgrade. In all likelihood I won’t and I’ll stay with whatever working version I have. Indefinitely.

3 Likes
1180

When I first purchased this program for a hefty price tag I did so because the trial worked a treat and I was happy to give my money to something that felt truly unique. It soon took a spiral down with updates not working, making the results worse, some updates despite saying were installed successfully insisting on telling me every single time I launched the software and more and more updates adding stuff nobody wanted and taking away from that first unique experience. Now I find out (EVERY SINGLE TIME I LAUNCH THE SOFTWARE IT BEGS ME TO PAY FOR THE UPGRADE) that I need to pay an additional $50 - $99 per year?. For what? Terrible updates that break the software?

I feel like this was the plan all along, reel people in then hit them with “Guess what, that free thing we offered? it’s now been taken away suckers”. I’ll be uninstalling GigaPixel tonight as frankly I feel totally ripped off and scammed.

4 Likes
1181

Absolutely. This is another reason why I think this entire company are just scumbags who had this planned all along.

2 Likes
1182

The constant nagging for buying the update looks like malware / scam-ware. If I truly own the software I purchased and I have the ability to decide when/if I want to pay for an update, then they shouldn’t have to nag me to update.

4 Likes
1183

As info, if you want to stop it from bugging you on Windows you can create a firewall rule to prevent the individual programs from getting to the internet. It doesn’t address the reason why they think it is acceptable to nag their customers or why they feel that it’s acceptable to only allow you to disable it for 2 weeks, but it does make the problem go away. I can’t really help you if you’re on a Mac, but I know there are ways to do the same sort of thing.

To me, it is just another example of what I feel are bad and unethical business practices, making me even less likely to ever buy any of their products again.

2 Likes
1184

On a Mac you can use an app like Radio Silence to block an internet connection.

1185

You are correct. Your solution is available and I have considered it. I can set a trap in the firewall to prevent these programs from reaching the internet (please note that your response does not fit the stereo-type I’ve discussed later in this response. People genuinely offering help are always welcome).

I think though, you need to ask yourself why you need to resort to writing a specific firewall rule for these programs. That should not be the course for the average user. Many average users don’t feel compelled to get in the weeds of their operating system. Many are simply software users. It most definitely should not be the course for this software if Topaz claims we can continue to use the older software without update.

If, however, they have amended that policy to include nagging their client to purchase the upgrade on a regular basis with no ability for the user to shut it off, it is NAGWARE. Nagware falls under the heading of MALWARE.

Therefore, a logical conclusion is that TOPAZ SOFTWARE = MALWARE!

I am certain that the Topaz fan-boy contingent (regular components of this discussion board) will come running fast to tell me how great Topaz is and extol the virtues of the company and the software creators. You know who you are and it isn’t necessary to point people out by name. I am equally dissuaded by that fan-dome. If all you can do is simply state rah rah rah for the company and the software, you are a fan-boy. If this is a big-boy (girl) company, they should be able to withstand criticism on their own without your fan-boy response.

Ask yourself, before you respond to someone, if it ever occurred to you that there isn’t a quick quip you can offer to appease those that seriously feel disenfranchised by this company? Sometimes, these questions are rhetorical. They are offered up for the masses to consider the problem. Sometimes, these questions are just an expression of exasperation against a company bent on not listening to its user base.

It is easy to make the conclusion Topaz doesn’t listen and doesn’t care. Look back at the length of this thread. Identify how many times an official response was made. Identify where anyone in the company has raised a finger to answer the questions raised here (other than within the first few weeks of the thread). Identify a longer thread on this discussion board where this much vitriol has been expressed and not addressed. I am aware the company is not required to answer. However, as I have stated many months ago in this really long thread…their silence is deafening. Their inability to discuss this thread speaks volumes about their regard for their customers.

And now, the nagging for payment or nagware cements their regard for their customers.

3 Likes
1186

Hi. My friend has offered to sell me his car. Its very expensive but he promises to pay for all the maintenance and fuel for as long as I keep the car.

It seems like a good deal. Do you think I should go for it?

1 Like
1187

If my “friend” breaks his promise he will no longer be my friend, and I will not have any business dealings with him in the future. And if those were the terms of the sale, he might find himself in court on top of it.

2 Likes
1188

Yes. That would be a great deal! Do it.

2 Likes