Arri is the new Adobe

[FHDcrew]

RIP us actually getting to use what we own lol.  Yes Arri is amazing, yes the Alexa 35 is wonderful, yes these prices are totally fine for large film groups or people renting.  But now Arri is putting some features as "upgrades" such as Anamorphic desqueezing and ArriRAW support...and yes, they offer these in weekly/monthly subscription models...hoping this does not trickle down into future cameras that are much more affordable.  Sick of subscriptions.

[FHDcrew]

Obviously paid firmware upgrades have been a thing since the Gh4 days...but a subscription model is so annoying.

[MrSMW]

I’m not sure how much of this ARRI log C3 is over-hyped…

Having looked at some of the footage shot side by side with standard log, very little difference and with some samples, I prefer the standard log.

And anyway, the Phantom LUTS by Joel F are designed to ‘mimic’ various versions of ARRI. I’m more than happy with those and think they look better than the standard log…which itself to me looks better in most cases than this new cost option download.

None of these things will turn your $3000 mirrorless into an actual ARRI camera, but then how many can afford, never mind need an ARRI 35?

Not a fan of subs either.

Pretty sure it’s not for me.

[eatstoomuchjam]

I only made it about 5 minutes through the video before I got bored with it so maybe he addresses some of this after that.

But I'm not sure why it's news that Arri give people an option to buy the full camera or a base model that disables some features until they're enabled.  That's been a thing for a long time.  When one buys the base model, there are options to pay to  enable those features on a temporary or permanent basis.  It's one of the reasons that when you see used Arris for sale, they'll frequently say things like "includes high-speed license" or "includes raw license."

Speaking for myself, I kind of hate subscriptions in general for this kind of thing, but that is very much mitigated by having the option for a permanent license.  I still don't like it a lot since (in most cases), it's not really reducing the camera price.  In the case of things like the GH4/5, it's not like Panasonic would have needed to charge more for the camera if they just threw in vlog-l.

In Arri's case, I suspect that the decision was pushed by big rental houses - if I'm a rental house, a reduced cost base model lets me buy more cameras.  Add a license to enable certain features and I can just tack that onto the price of the rental.  Renting for a week?  X dollars.  You want raw on that rental?  Add Y dollars.  Camera reaches end of service life, the buyer can turn on any feature they want on a permanent basis.

I don't love it, but it's not terrible.

[Ilkka Nissila]

On 7/6/2025 at 4:47 AM, FHDcrew said:

Obviously paid firmware upgrades have been a thing since the Gh4 days...but a subscription model is so annoying.

In Arri's case they offer (1) Alexa 35 with all features included in the purchase price, (2) Alexa 35 base model with the most commonly used features enabled, and (2a) subscription to optional features that you may need for a specific project, (2b) permanent licensing of those features that you want to keep, so the subscription is just one option and permanent licenses to those features are available if you want them. 

 

I don't understand what the issue is. Having more options in how the payment is made is good and means more people/companies will be able to afford the stuff. No one is complaining that leasing or renting cars (or getting a taxi ride) are available in addition to the option of purchasing and owning a car. Public transport tickets are available on a single trip, load value, or pay for use for a period of time basis. Again no one is complaining about the existence of these options. Why then is subscription software or firmware as an option a problem?

 

I think people are complaing about these things because they don't understand that software development costs money and if you want to continue developing a particular piece software in the future you probably need to keep those same people who developed it continuously employed so that you can do it efficiently in the future. If you have to let the people who developed something go, to add features, the cost is multiplied because no one new initially understands the existing code. The subscription model works best for software because it enables continued employment so the knowledge of how the software works internally is not lost.

 

Today since operating systems are continuously changed, the applications software also needs frequent maintenance. So for Adobe the subscription model works best. They are able to maintain broad hardware support and have a huge library of cameras and lenses that are supported in terms of raw processing and lens corrections. The subscription cost is really low for the (still) photography software kit (LR + PS) and while the other stuff is kind of expensive, it was always expensive even in the then-thought-permanent license era. And as there are free or inexpensive options available for the tasks which Adobe prices expensively (Davinci Resolve instead of Premiere Pro), there is something for everyone available in the market. 

 

What would be much worse is that people rely on a particular product and have a lot of material made with it and suddenly those files could not be opened or edited as a result of the company making the software ending their operations or support of the product.

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

I think people are complaing about these things because they don't understand that software development costs money and if you want to continue developing a particular piece software in the future you probably need to keep those same people who developed it continuously employed so that you can do it efficiently in the future. If you have to let the people who developed something go, to add features, the cost is multiplied because no one new initially understands the existing code. The subscription model works best for software because it enables continued employment so the knowledge of how the software works internally is not lost.

I was with you on "it's OK to have a license as long as there's an option for perpetual," but this is the part where you're losing me.

Subscriptions, as currently implemented by companies like Adobe, are actually extremely consumer-hostile.  You're right that it's good to have an ongoing source of revenue, but you're completely ignoring that they now have no impetus whatsoever to build features that people actually want.

If I have Lightroom 5 and Adobe release Lightroom 6, I can look at the features that were added.  If none of them are something I want, I keep using Lightroom 5.  If Adobe completely misses the mark with customers, few or no people buy version 6 and they are forced to course correct or go out of business.  If they go out of business, the copy of Lightroom 5 that I have keeps working forever.  Maybe eventually it won't run on a new computer, but I have virtual machines or my old computer as options still.

In a subscription world, I pay Adobe every month to keep using the software that I already have.  They can waste as much time and money as they want on shitty new features that I don't want or care about.  I still have to pay for them.  They want to spend 1000 hours developing an integration between Lightroom and a stock photo site so they can pull extra revenue through a deal with the stock photo company?  I don't care and I'll never use it.  But I'm still paying for it.  The company spends a bunch of time integrating their own cloud service which would charge me even more money to store my files?  Don't want it, probably will never use it, still funding the development.
If a competitor has different features that I want, I can certainly move to their software, but unless the interface is identical to what I'm used to, now I lose time and effort re-training on how to use the other software.  They know that a lot of people aren't going to take that time and effort so the money keeps flowing in.  Plus maybe I've spent hundreds of hours in something like the Lightroom catalog rating and tagging things or doing some other activity that isn't necessarily stored in the XMP sidecar (not sure if ratings and tags are) and moving that to another software package would eat a ton of my life.
Stop using the software for a while?  Sometimes subscriptions are easy to pause or stop, but a lot of times, they are a pain in the ass to stop.  Once again, extra money keeps flowing in because people forget the subscription or give up on cancellation because they'll probably need it again sometime in the future.

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

What would be much worse is that people rely on a particular product and have a lot of material made with it and suddenly those files could not be opened or edited as a result of the company making the software ending their operations or support of the product.

You are arguing against yourself here.  If I own the software and it doesn't have to check a central license server every time it starts up, I can open my files in perpetuity.  Virtual machines are a thing and allow running older software basically forever.
On the other hand, if I had a file created in some version of Adobe's software in a format that isn't supported elsewhere (not sure if this exists) and I don't pay a ransom to Adobe, those files are now dead to me.  Also, if Adobe decides to stop supporting that software because not enough people are paying the subscription, those files can never be opened again.  Go offline for a month because you're traveling in the middle of nowhere and/or don't want to pay for a local sim?  Sucks to be you, you won't be editing anything after a few days because the software can't phone home.

This is increasingly a concern in the gaming industry as well - there's even a petition and a movement within Europe about it at https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
Companies intentionally build their games to require an online connection and if it's gone, the game stops working.  Meanwhile, eventually most people stop playing and it costs money to run/patch/maintain the servers so the company turns them off.  Wanna play that game that you loved a few years ago?  Too bad.  Even if you have it still installed on your computer, it now serves no purpose other than to waste disk space.

Anyway, Adobe announce record profits all the time.  I'm still using Lightroom about like I was 10 years ago.  I should probably try Capture One again.  I have kind of hated it every time I installed it, but at least their model is less offensive - option for a perpetual license or subscription, and if converting from subscription to perpetual, some of the subscription costs are prorated toward the purchase.

[ND64]

Its been a standard practice in telecom industry for decades. You want to provide service to 2x wireless users? You need to upgrade your license: X dollars. But that works pretty well for them because its an enterprise world and the hardware they're selling is not something you could buy an alternative from Amazon. Arri is selling a device that is surrounded by rapidly approaching sharks that already ate its lunch in commercials, music videos, and documentary segments of the market. And I don't buy this cliche of "but studios afford that". Did you see what they used for f1 movie? Studios have a lot of money to spend, but they're not stupid.