Capture One 12 released!

[SFA]

Amazing, what about giving Mojave support on 11 when you had the chance as Mojave was release months before CO12, and don't push our arms to buy an upgrade each year?

G.

You could, perhaps, also suggest to Apple that they don't constantly make changes that stop older versions of your software suite working without an option to run just as they were.

I doubt they would listen.



Grant

[C-F]

Amazing, what about giving Mojave support on 11 when you had the chance as Mojave was release months before CO12, and don't push our arms to buy an upgrade each year?

G.

You could, perhaps, also suggest to Apple that they don't constantly make changes that stop older versions of your software suite working without an option to run just as they were.

I doubt they would listen.



Grant

Well, Apple doesn't charge for OS minor/major updates/upgrades on a yearly basis either...

[SFA]

Amazing, what about giving Mojave support on 11 when you had the chance as Mojave was release months before CO12, and don't push our arms to buy an upgrade each year?

G.

You could, perhaps, also suggest to Apple that they don't constantly make changes that stop older versions of your software suite working without an option to run just as they were.

I doubt they would listen.



Grant

Well, Apple doesn't charge for OS minor/major updates/upgrades on a yearly basis either...

They get you when you change the hardware. Payment in advance.

Meanwhile all the changes force the application vendors into doing work they they have to charge for, often for no beneficial reason as far as the working of their product is concerned.

Microsoft are not much different in many ways but the effect is not as dramatic, in my opinion.

I'm running V11 /V12 on a Windows 7 PC (So the OS is coming up to 10 years old) on a notebook that was new to me in early 2013 but probably built in 2012. No problems. No particular effort on my part to make that happen.

I may be wrong but I suspect I would not see that length of service from a Mac without having some concerns about application and hardware compatibility. And prices.

However, perhaps the less obvious overhead could be Technical Support and how that is handled. Right now I don't know what other software vendors in the Photo processing marketplace offer. So it's difficult to comment.



Grant

[Paul_Steunebrink]

(...)
I'm running V11 /V12 on a Windows 7 PC (So the OS is coming up to 10 years old) on a notebook that was new to me in early 2013 but probably built in 2012. No problems. No particular effort on my part to make that happen.

I may be wrong but I suspect I would not see that length of service from a Mac without having some concerns about application and hardware compatibility. And prices.

Grant,

Just for your information, I run macOS Mojave on a MacBook Pro 2012 model and it runs very smooth. The previous mac OS High Sierra runs on MacBooks going back to 2009 models. I must say that Apple's control of both hardware and OS gives the user a distinct edge over competing platforms. And yes, that is maybe calculated in the purchase price of new hardware.

Applications on the other hand often needs an upgrade per new OS, both on Windows and Mac.

I am not interested in a Mac versus Windows debate, I could not care less, but thought that it would be helpful to bring you up to speed with some info.

[SFA]

(...)
I'm running V11 /V12 on a Windows 7 PC (So the OS is coming up to 10 years old) on a notebook that was new to me in early 2013 but probably built in 2012. No problems. No particular effort on my part to make that happen.

I may be wrong but I suspect I would not see that length of service from a Mac without having some concerns about application and hardware compatibility. And prices.

Grant,

Just for your information, I run macOS Mojave on a MacBook Pro 2012 model and it runs very smooth. The previous mac OS High Sierra runs on MacBooks going back to 2009 models. I must say that Apple's control of both hardware and OS gives the user a distinct edge over competing platforms. And yes, that is maybe calculated in the purchase price of new hardware.

Applications on the other hand often needs an upgrade per new OS, both on Windows and Mac.

I am not interested in a Mac versus Windows debate, I could not care less, but thought that it would be helpful to bring you up to speed with some info.

Indeed so Paul,

However if we compare comments in the posts here between the 2 threads by OS the issues of compatibility that concern people seem to be greater for Mac than for Windows. The recent comments discussing the deprecation of OpenCL vs the promotion of Metal for example have expressed concerns about the future that I do not recall seeing echoed in any context in the Windows list.

Likewise control over hardware can turn out to be good or bad.

Going back some time in general computer usage terms and not specifically for photographic processing, application developers tended to be closely allied with particular technologies and clients bought the software with a pre-specified hardware package. That started to open up a little when midi computers become popular but the possible configuration variations were still small and hardware/software combinations could, realistically, be tested in all likely combinations or sold only in known good combinations. Things opened up further when PC type workstations appeared and then UNIX/Linux, especially with variations of both of those.

Then of course the Windows stuff took off, the openness and price pressures kick started the open market we have now and people started to develop more complete "standards" for both hardware and software which led us to where we are now.

For all of the additional controls that Apple apply (and whatever cost that might incur) I have yet to see evidence that there is a real net benefit on a cost/performance basis compared with the more loosely controlled Windows marketplace.

But the more important point is that both of the OSs we are discussing for the purpose of running C1 have now adopted the strategy of shipping major updates twice a year and minimising, or so it seems, the level of continuity they ensure for developers between one version and the next. That leaves developers with a lot of work that HAS to be done for applications to to continue to work reasonably well. It would seem more reasonable if the developers could more readily rely on compatibility and be allowed time to cater for whatever real advantages the new brings in the fully released product rather than a beta that is still in flux and maybe not completely tested to satisfaction.

The sixth monthly update model seems to have become the new standard for Apple and Microsoft but I'm not convinced that the whole process has yet matured to a point where it is satisfactory from a consumer experience point of view, whether "free" or not.



Grant

[photoGrant]

For all of the additional controls that Apple apply (and whatever cost that might incur) I have yet to see evidence that there is a real net benefit on a cost/performance basis compared with the more loosely controlled Windows marketplace.

Grant

lol, I basically couldn't give this any more credence after this line; If you think ~50-100% performance overhead in A12x compared to literally anything else on the market isn't evidence to support a vertical model, then you sorely misunderstand the nature of these decisions.

edit: Further, OS X releases are typically yearly, not bi-yearly. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS_ver ... y#Releases

[GPicora]

Amazing, what about giving Mojave support on 11 when you had the chance as Mojave was release months before CO12, and don't push our arms to buy an upgrade each year?

G.

You could, perhaps, also suggest to Apple that they don't constantly make changes that stop older versions of your software suite working without an option to run just as they were.

I doubt they would listen.



Grant

Grant, Im a macOS and iOS software developer as well as photographer, and while is true apple make changes and enhancements on each release there is a huge beta period for us to test and fine tune the apps to have them compatible since day 1, well week 1 lets say. Plus there aren't drastic changes Apple makes that makes software unusable over the past of a one year, maybe this happens when a software ifs few years old and Apple drop support / depreciate some APIs or method calls, then your comment makes 100% sense. But My point is that I believe this strategy to submit C1 new software on November- December its aimed to force users to upgrade the last's year license in order to get latest OS support. As we well know Phase One drops supports of "current" version once the new version is released, hence making that "current" version not compatible with current OS.

[SFA]

Amazing, what about giving Mojave support on 11 when you had the chance as Mojave was release months before CO12, and don't push our arms to buy an upgrade each year?

G.

You could, perhaps, also suggest to Apple that they don't constantly make changes that stop older versions of your software suite working without an option to run just as they were.

I doubt they would listen.



Grant

Grant, Im a macOS and iOS software developer as well as photographer, and while is true apple make changes and enhancements on each release there is a huge beta period for us to test and fine tune the apps to have them compatible since day 1, well week 1 lets say. Plus there aren't drastic changes Apple makes that makes software unusable over the past of a one year, maybe this happens when a software ifs few years old and Apple drop support / depreciate some APIs or method calls, then your comment makes 100% sense. But My point is that I believe this strategy to submit C1 new software on November- December its aimed to force users to upgrade the last's year license in order to get latest OS support. As we well know Phase One drops supports of "current" version once the new version is released, hence making that "current" version not compatible with current OS.

There have been instances in the past where last minute changes to what is released in the OS compared to what was in late beta versions have adversely affected development work already undertaken.

I suspect some developers, as in the 'old' days, attempt to isolate their products from update changes as far as possible to avoid conflicts of that sort. But if one develops to take advantage of the very latest performance enhancements (to take one possible example of many) then isolating your application is probably not an option.

I think the timing of releases is simply something that makes sense in the context of when significant influences on your product come in to play and how you handle that timing if you have a relatively small development team supporting 2 operating systems and a number of external influencers (the camera and lens manufacturers for example but mainly the camera companies) who are working to their own marketing schedules.

On that basis one sees Apple and Microsoft significant updates in the autumn and often (notably Photokina years) camera manufacturer updates too (or at least announcements with availability follow later and spreading across worldwide markets over some month in some cases).

Plus Phase needs to provide support for its own product release schedule.

The potential, therefore, could be a release every month (or even more frequently) as product becomes available to test in production units rather than pre-production. I doubt users would really appreciate that. If you take the need to keep documentation up to date (to avoid complaints) and similar matters of administrative importance rather then image processing code importance, the overhead could be absurdly unsupportable.

I suspect that is what influences the timing.

As for supporting older releases but including new features of OS feature support - a tricky question.

I work with some non-image processing data analysis products of a commercial only nature and they will rarely attempt to retrospectively update older versions. If they had a multi-million dollar client on a subscription basis or a purchased licence with maintenance payments they might consider it I think, but only as a significant one-off special project. Such products are usually multi-user server based and therefore change options can be limited for the client as they balance the needs or limitations of multiple applications on their systems. Doing a deal on a "special" support arrangement may suit both parties if the price is right.

But these are not new issues.

One of the reasons that companies like the subscription approach is that once the client has bought into it they tend not to think about it much for a while. So the vendor either simplifies their support load (at least in theory if all goes well) by making sure user's systems are up to date (not so obvious as a option in the corporate world) and enhances their cash flow, removing peaks and troughs of earnings.

It's also quite useful as an easy way to convince people they are getting a 'good deal' by making the offer appear to be highly attractive and including a lot of facilities that users are unlikely to use but presents as a very generous offer. Mobile phone contracts can be strong examples. The value in the highest cost contracts would be incredible if only the phones could easily provide facilities to call and text and use data sources in parallel 365/24 and humans could use them for the same periods.

You very likely know all of this and understand the ramifications but other visitor here may not think in these terms.

On some of the matters that might be most contentious, camera support for example, there is the question of the mechanism by which camera specific profiles can be delivered. And potentially a sub-issue about control of intellectual property.

I have in the past used software that allowed people to define what they thought to be acceptable colour profiles and share the profiles individually without having to wait for a release. However RAW files still had to be recognised be an externally developed and supported RAW converter 'engine' and typically one had to wait for that to be updated and then integrated into a release before a successful file interpretation could be expected consistently. How long that would take was often a moving target. Sometimes it was quite quick. At other times really rather slow. Especially in one case where the developer closed down but released the code to Open Source about a year later.

My conclusion is that in reality for commercial reasons but perhaps also quite often for technical reasons, the 'new release only' policy is probably the only way to go in most cases. There may be some rare exceptions. Maybe 10,000 customers on perpetual licences paying 30% of full list price per annum for maintenance would be such an example. Pick any other number that one thinks might work.


Grant

[GPicora]

There have been instances in the past where last minute changes to what is released in the OS compared to what was in late beta versions have adversely affected development work already undertaken.

I suspect some developers, as in the 'old' days, attempt to isolate their products from update changes as far as possible to avoid conflicts of that sort. But if one develops to take advantage of the very latest performance enhancements (to take one possible example of many) then isolating your application is probably not an option.

I think the timing of releases is simply something that makes sense in the context of when significant influences on your product come in to play and how you handle that timing if you have a relatively small development team supporting 2 operating systems and a number of external influencers (the camera and lens manufacturers for example but mainly the camera companies) who are working to their own marketing schedules.

.....

Grant

Grant, I agree with many things you said above. My point is that while people awaits for support of new OS for their current product versions, there are bugs that we must live with until an awaited patch comes. Problem is that the "patch" is actually a new version which, if you don't have subscription then you have to buy the license upgrade. Ok great, not a problem if I had a 2+ years old license. But if each year after new OS release the "suggested" option is to obtain the newest client version then for me it comes as a matter of principle. Maybe not for you or other people. And the worst is that at the end I, personally end up upgrading my license.
Second, Im not asking that Phase one, or any other SW company would include new features in current version, as they may be a kickass feature in new version. But to fix the bugs that appeared when the new OS released. Now you mention that Final OS version since Beta are not the same, In terms of OS, yes they aren't in terms of API's they are very very very similar. And waiting for official OS release to start coding and fix the bugs of a current product to support the new OS its, IMHO kinda lousy development, which I don't think Phase one devs are.

[OddS]

...Im not asking that Phase one, or any other SW company would include new features in current version, as they may be a kickass feature in new version. But to fix the bugs that appeared when the new OS released.

A software company I know keeps two live versions, the current and the previous one, and they fix bugs in both. Adding features to a released version, feature creep, is one of of the well known evils, and should really be a big nono.

...Now you mention that Final OS version since Beta are not the same, In terms of OS, yes they aren't in terms of API's they are very very very similar.

True when looking at the application programmer's side. Nevertheless, new or modified code is called via the API. That code may be broken and remain unfixed for ages, in turn forcing application programmers to hack their way through to a less than optimal solution, or to hold their own release until the OS is better stabilized. Between a rock and a hard place that is.

[SiNiSon]

Hi
I have already upgraded from CO10 to CO11 in June this year, am I entitled to a free upgrade to CO12 now that it supports Mac OS Mojave?
Thanks
David

The grace period ran from 1 Nov. 2018, so it is a no for you, I am afraid.

So purchased 11 on Oct 22nd when I received my Z7 to get set up.. thinking support would be close. So now.. there will be no Z7 support in 11 and its $200 upgrade because I missed some arbitrary deadline of Nov 1 by a week..

lol.. not going to lie one of the worst customer relationship move ever.. so I guess I am going back to LR and now I am actively making sure I tell everyone we work with, studios, DOP's, post houses everyone I know with a camera to avoid this company and it's products...

Nice move.

S

[Emile]

So purchased 11 on Oct 22nd when I received my Z7 to get set up.. thinking support would be close. So now.. there will be no Z7 support in 11 and its $200 upgrade because I missed some arbitrary deadline of Nov 1 by a week..

lol.. not going to lie one of the worst customer relationship move ever.. so I guess I am going back to LR and now I am actively making sure I tell everyone we work with, studios, DOP's, post houses everyone I know with a camera to avoid this company and it's products...

Nice move.

S

Did you contact support about this? That would be my first try.

[SFA]

Hi
I have already upgraded from CO10 to CO11 in June this year, am I entitled to a free upgrade to CO12 now that it supports Mac OS Mojave?
Thanks
David

The grace period ran from 1 Nov. 2018, so it is a no for you, I am afraid.

So purchased 11 on Oct 22nd when I received my Z7 to get set up.. thinking support would be close. So now.. there will be no Z7 support in 11 and its $200 upgrade because I missed some arbitrary deadline of Nov 1 by a week..

lol.. not going to lie one of the worst customer relationship move ever.. so I guess I am going back to LR and now I am actively making sure I tell everyone we work with, studios, DOP's, post houses everyone I know with a camera to avoid this company and it's products...

Nice move.

S

Do you run your entire life and business based on threats?

[Christian Gruner]

Hi
I have already upgraded from CO10 to CO11 in June this year, am I entitled to a free upgrade to CO12 now that it supports Mac OS Mojave?
Thanks
David

The grace period ran from 1 Nov. 2018, so it is a no for you, I am afraid.

So purchased 11 on Oct 22nd when I received my Z7 to get set up.. thinking support would be close. So now.. there will be no Z7 support in 11 and its $200 upgrade because I missed some arbitrary deadline of Nov 1 by a week..

lol.. not going to lie one of the worst customer relationship move ever.. so I guess I am going back to LR and now I am actively making sure I tell everyone we work with, studios, DOP's, post houses everyone I know with a camera to avoid this company and it's products...

Nice move.

S

Please contact our support-team.
Further more, there is a version of CO 11 out that supports the Z 7. Find it in Software Archive in our website.

[Peter Svancar]

I am wondering here why folks are recommending to contact support when you missed the 30 day free upgrade period. you missed by 1 week. i missed last year by 1 day and i had to pay again for upgrade..support sent only bla blah you have to pay...so i would be very pessimistic about this...