It’s all how you want to look at it: by already having paid for those slightly obsolete products, you get a discount for upgrading rather than having to pay full price for LR5/CS6/CC.
That is the trade off to keep the engineers and other Adobe staff paid while working to add support for new cameras.
You can pay $120/year@$10/month to license PS-CC and LR5.2+ as soon as LR 5.2 becomes available in a few days, which is the first version to fully support the 70D, anyway. That price is cheaper than paying to upgrade to PS-CS6 and you also get LR5.
How are you being penalised? Adobe gives you DNG Converter for free.
Should a person be panelized for owning three Adobe relatively current products?
In my opinion: yes.
Let me explain how the software business works:
It takes an *incredible* amount of expensive human labor (and other resources) to create products like Photoshop and Lightroom.
The money comes first from initial purchases, then additional from upgrades.
If you want to keep using old products without contributing monetarily, who should pay the cost of maintaining legacy functionality (for use with new cameras I mean)? Adobe?, other users who paid to upgrade? - I say: neither; I say: you should!
Don't get me wrong - it's possible Adobe could arrange to have new camera support more readily retrofitted into older software. The fact that they haven't is good, in my opinion, since it only benefits people who are unwilling to contribute additional monies. Feel strong-armed? - sorry: but money makes the world go 'round, so you shouldn't feel too bad if your corner stopped spinning when you stopped paying...
People who aren't willing to upgrade are at least made useful to Adobe: they are forced to support Adobe's cause in the format war by converting to DNG .
Don't get me wrong #2: I have lots of complaints about Adobe, but the fact that they need more money to continue supporting the products we use is not one of them.
All this from somebody who also develops software for a living and understands that Adobe is NOT producing Lightroom etc. with a big fat profit margin - just enough to stay in business, and live well... - the business they are in is highly competitive, so a big fat profit margin would suck in additional competitors............
It just blows my mind how people will go out and spend thousands of dollars on new hardware (cameras, tripods, flashes, ...), with no big complaint, then moan about having to spend a few hundred on software - un-freakun'-believable. Just because you can't touch software, doesn't mean it isn't expensive to produce...
My advice? - factor software costs into your hardware purchases - buy a cheaper model if need be... - it's like buying a car - you also need to reserve some money for gasoline and tires... sorry for going on - 'nuff said...
Message was UPDATED by: Rob Cole
Thanks for the insight I totally see your point and understand, I have the counter point and I know it doesn’t have much credence but it’s all I got.
I’m not afraid to spend the money, I just want to stop the hemorrhaging.
Fair enough Alan, and I apologize for the "lecture" tone, but you struck a nerve . I too understand both points of view, being both a supplier and a consumer of software. Adobe is trying to eek as much money out of us as they can, since they need that money for R&D, and nice cars..., and that can feel excessive and even greedy sometimes - as opposed to keeping our best interest at heart, and having our backs... That said, and in case the point hasn't landed, you can continue to use PS-CS5 and Lightroom 4 simply by converting your 70D files to DNG. I know that's not what you want (I know you want native support without having to convert to DNG), but it seems like a relatively small "penalty" to me.