What I’m hearing feels more like a justification for internal business decisions rather than an acknowledgment of customer concerns.
A few key points stand out:
- No one is questioning that local rendering provides a better experience. The frustration isn’t about whether it’s possible now—it’s about the lack of focus on what customers actually want.
- The fact that many users are sticking with 5.3.6 contradicts the narrative of progress. That alone should be a significant signal about customer sentiment.
- While there is mention of optimizing for local use, there’s no clear commitment on when that will actually happen.
- The overall message still comes across as “this is the direction we’re taking, whether users prefer it or not.”
Cloud-based rendering isn’t just a temporary solution while optimizations are in progress—it’s also a revenue stream.
Framing it as “we’re losing money on Starlight until we can optimize it” gives the impression of shared struggle, but in reality, your cutting edge model pushes customers toward paid cloud processing, aside from a few free token renders.
Your own Video AI landing page says: “Local. Secure. Processing built for pros. Directly process video using your existing hardware. Work on confidential and protected images and video without ever uploading to a server. Local processing in all Topaz products guarantees your work remains secure, while making for lightning-fast processing, too.”
Meanwhile, I continue to receive marketing emails promoting cloud rendering —something I neither need nor want. I quote from one email your marketing team sent within the last 10 days: " *Take advantage of faster processing. Use Cloud Credits to speed up your renders on Photo AI 3, Gigapixel 8, Video AI 6, and Gigapixel iOS. They also allow you to batch process images and videos to make your workflow more efficient even on low-power machines."
Do you honestly expect power users to spend $2,400 a year for the convenience and lightning speed of cloud rendering video, regardless of whether they use Starlight? Really???
And before you mention other less expensive tiers of credit purchases - let’s be clear, that’s just splitting hairs.
If this shift wasn’t about encouraging users toward a more profitable model, then why does every update seem to make cloud services more integral, more important, rather than less?
And if this really is about channeling users toward a cloud-based solution, BE HONEST and UPFRONT about your ultimate goal. That, I can respect.
But everything I’ve seen from you and your team fails to address the true dissatisfaction that long-standing customers have clearly stated in these forums.
I understand that optimization takes time, but let’s not ignore the financial aspect. If cloud rendering weren’t profitable, would it really be the first and only option available?
Your response doesn’t alleviate my concerns—it reinforces them.
