Problem Google Maps in module "Map"

[jangroneveld]

Out of the blue I have the error in the module “Map” in Lightroom CC 2015 shown as below I can’t fix. Can anybody help me please?

"Oops! Something went wrong. This page didn't load Google Maps correctly. See the JavaScript console for technical details".

[John Waller]

See Map is no longer supported in this version of Lightroom

You'll have to upgrade to Classic CC 8.0 to get Maps working again.

[ruffp]

This answer (even true) is not acceptable. I paid a one time license (quite expensive for me) for using a software and it looks like Adobe removed a feature to push people to buy (or better term: rent indefinitely) the new version.

I am not happy at all to see that behaviour from a software publisher.

At least they should keep a version of the maps like OpenStreetMap which is totally license free and not relying on Google license terms. (honestly I do not really need satellite view in lightroom, a single map like OpenStreetMap would be enough.)

If a corrective patch would not be published soon to restore that feature (without google maps), I would probably look for another solution to develop my RAWS and totally abandon the Adobe products forever...

A disappointed user.

[johnrellis]

If you want Adobe product developers to see your feedback, please post in the official Adobe feedback forum, where Adobe wants all product feedback: Lightroom Classic CC | Photoshop Family Customer Community . They read everything posted there but rarely participate in this forum, which is primarily user-to-user.

[jangroneveld]

Thanks. Done.

[joachimf11237003]

Same here - I bought Lightroom 6 less than three months ago to manage my 125K+ photos, one main reason for the purchase being the geo-tagging of photos based on my GPS tracks.  Suddenly during the weekend Lightroom's map interface refused to work and Adobe's webpage was very frank wrt their plans: force customers to move to monthly plans.

The Austrian customer protection association's answer is definite: Lightroom's map integration is an advertised feature and its explicit removal by Adobe is a case covered by the mandatory 6-month product warranty in accordance with European customer protection laws. It does NOT matter that the integration is implemented using an external (Google) API: Adobe produces and sells the software and is responsible for providing the advertised service - it could in theory replace the existing API by an equivalent (for instance OpenStreetMaps API or an own map service implementation).

The only solution left is to ask the dealer from whom I purchased the Lightroom license in written for (a) either re-enabling the maps functionality in Lightroom within the next 14 days or (b) full refund. Backed by the customer protection association, the dealer will/must finally agree to solution (b). Unless Adobe's product management team realizes that they're sawing away the branch upon which they sit and provide an alternative solution (I truly wish that they do wake up and that it's not too late for them).

[dj_paige]

Adobe also made it publicly known (back in October of 2017) that Lightroom 6.14 will never be updated. I assume that is considered part of the advertising.

[That Girl There]

Publicly? They didn't make a real effort, because I didn't receive notification.

You don't put an entire module in your software and then a couple years later say SOL to all the "suckers" who purchased it.

Adobe does so great with notifying their customers of things that Norton and to notify me that there was a major breach at Adobe and my information was stolen and placed on the dark web.

I'm still waiting for Adobe to respond to me regarding that.

[jangroneveld]

It's a scandel. I bought a Lightroom 6 licence 8 month ago. I understand that Adobe wants his customers to migrate to Lightroom Classic CC 8.0. But this is not the way to do this. Really outrageous!

This may be allowed according to the license, but that is not how you deal with paying customers.

I decide when I am about to go to a new version, and I will not force myself in this way. I also understand that you have to step over once, but this is like scam.

I am going to orient myself on DxO Photolab, Luminar, On1 and Affinity Photo. Sure I can find a good alternative in that.

I am going to say goodbye to all Abobe products that I have been paying for for years.

[Wafu-Tony]

Holy $&!£. Adobe really are taking the mickey and making it impossible to actually buy their software, and have become totally disgustingly greedy, enforcing customers to rent it instead.

I'm not yet 40, assuming i live for another 40 years (and there is no interest), I would have to pay £10 a month, 12 months a year, for 40 years which comes to an eye watering £4,800 to continue to use Lightroom, for which I already have a perfectly good licence which I paid for 5 years ago.

Totally disgusted that you think this is acceptable. Just utterly sickening.

[rkc62]

The main reason I avoided CC products was that I wasn't sure I could trust Adobe to not hold me to ransom as my collection grew. They have now proven beyond a doubt that they cannot be trusted, so committing to a monthly plan where they can sabotage me at any time is now NEVER going to happen.

[dj_paige]

rkc62  wrote

The main reason I avoided CC products was that I wasn't sure I could trust Adobe to not hold me to ransom as my collection grew.

This is utter nonsense. If you terminate your Lightroom subscription, all of your photos and all of your edits and all of your user-provided metadata and all of your work is still available to you, they take none of this away from you upon termination of the subscription.

[bobd61403092]

There is something about your response ...

The OP's original complaint is valid.  And, there is merit in rkc62's comment.  The asking price for the software included an agreement with the buyer that ALL modules will function and are fit for intended use.  Adobe may be skirting the issue legally, but not ethically.  Adobe's remedy is to ask the consumer to spend more money, that is, if the consumer wishes their legally licensed application to return to full functionality.  This is akin to "protection rackets" e.g. the baker must continually pay the goons if he wishes to continue selling pizza.

Let's take this further.  Suppose SQL decided to change an API to their databasing package.  And, let's say that decision resulted in some manner, broken database links in the catalog.  Will Adobe just blame it on SQL, as they've done with Google Maps?

I understand Adobe's direction.  They are simply not bringing in enough revenue (when selling full, permanent licenses) to continue development, maintenance, and support.  The answer, at least to me, is pretty simple.  Adobe needs to increase the cost of a permanent license.

I just paid Helicon Focus for a permanent license for their photo-stacking software.  Helicon Focus just knits your partially focused images together, not much more.  I paid Helicon $125 for a permanent license.  I believe I paid Adobe $150 for LR6.  Adobe is underselling themselves and damaging relations with their customers, which is a lose-lose approach.  I would gladly pay twice or more for all that LR can do for me.  But, my enthusiasm quickly wanes at the prospect of "protection racket" ideology.  If Helicon can offer both leasing and outright purchase, with both options offering further development and support, why then can't Adobe?

Adobe's singleminded approach is warped.

[That Girl There]

It isn't BS. When you have a perpetual license you have access to that software indefinitely. With a subscription, you stop paying you stop having access to that software. Hence held hostage.

[F. McLion]

My 0.02 ...

- Adobe did not change a thing, Google did.

- Photo software is a very important part of a digital photo workflow. I bet, the monthly cost for the Photography subscription is about the cheapest part of a workflow, compared to yearly spent money for other parts of the equipment.

[Wafu-Tony]

F. McLion Totally the opposite for me. I'm not a professional, and bought my equipment (hardware and software) a few years ago. I've no massive need to update it, and so the only "ongoing" cost would be the protection racket subscription fees for LR. If I do decide to update it, I can do so at my leisure, time, and expense - I do not need to be strong armed into paying for something i don't need, a-la LR subscription.

[F. McLion]

Hey, I'm not a professional photographer either

However, I stand to what I wrote. Every (even hobby) photographer I know buys some gear like a new filter or what not that is worth more than the the annual subscription of about 140 bucks.

Moreover, IMHO, it is a vital part of any photographic workflow.

[bobd61403092]

Then it would seem the subscription option is favorable for you.  And, that's quite OK.

While your point re "goody" purchase(s) is objective in nature, and can be factually proven, the argument of the discussion is subjective at its root.  That is to say, you may choose to rent an apartment or buy a home, you can choose to rent home furnishings, or outright buy them.  You can lease a motor vehicle, or exercise your option of purchase.

There is something very satisfying in ownership.  The point is people far prefer options, in contrast to Adobe's approach which is the proverbial "my way or no way".  The point of "vital part of any photographic workflow" is purely academic when the discussion is returned to its origins.

Additionally, I have to believe that while it may be true the cancelling of a LR subscription leaves the lessee with all their photos, edits, etc., it must be also true that the user would lose any future functionality in the application.  Otherwise, what is the point of the subscription ideology?  Personally, that inevitability leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  It smells & tastes like "ransom".  Or, put another way, as Cheech & Chong so aptly pointed out, if it smells like dogsh*t, and it tastes like dogsh*t, chances are pretty good it is dogsh*t.

[That Girl There]

No it's not, you must work for Adobe or their law firm