I recently upgraded to an M1 Mac after my 2016 MacBook Pro died. It's an awesome machine; however, when I tried to install Lightroom 6, I wasn't able to because the installer isn't 64 bit. As a hobbyist who edits photos only a handful of times a year – usually after trips or photoshoots – moving to a subscription model is really costly. What's silly is that I was able to use Lightroom 6 on my 2016 MBP, even after upgrading to Big Sur. I don't blame Adobe for not supporting a product that came out 5 years ago but how nice would it be if they did.
Companies like Adobe don't have much of a reason to cater to these unprofitable use cases. They're going to go deep on maximizing customer lifetime value (CLV) for folks willing to pay more. That's how they keep (or more probably, their only option) for delivering double-digit growth year-over-year, which becomes challenging once reaching a certain size.
Absolutely agreed that it doesn't make much business sense to keep supporting LR6. And 5 years is a long timer in the software world. That said, I wonder if there are companies that do support older versions of software just for the sake of customer delight.
I had a similar issue with 32-bit software with a 16-bit installer. I've solved it by installing it within a VM running a 16-bit compatible OS, then copying the resulting program folder over to the main OS. Have you tried something like this?
Is it useful without the rest of their creative suite? I only ask because Premiere, After Effects, and Photoshop are most effective when used together and obviously designed for that kind of synergy.
Out of curiosity, if there are no fees, why not? That lets you theoretically diversifying your risk by investing $1,000 in 30 companies rather than say $5,000 in 6 companies.
An index fund would be yet more diversified, and that's one trade. Very few individual investors have any reason to believe they can pick stocks in a way that outperforms the market.
The zero fees might still be nice if you want e.g. to contribute every paycheck; but an old-fashioned Vanguard mutual fund would be just as good for that, or many brokerages have zero fees for specific classes of ETF. The only advantages that I'd see to Robinhood are (a) no minimums, and (b) pretty UX.
That's a fair point. I use Robinhood to diversify my porfolio so it's not just tracking against the market. So far, whether due to luck or skill, or both, it's been working out pretty well. So to put it another way, I don't see Robinhood as a replacement for the traditional brokerages (yet), but as a supplement.
As a Robinhood user, no fees is a big draw because while I don't buy/sell stocks that often, I might still be saving $50 a year. That extra $50 can be invested.
But beyond that, Robinhood has a really easy to use UI compared to platforms like TDAmeritrade. It's not only much easier to make trades but also see information like how much dividends I've earned, whether a company has hit their earnings, etc.
Robinhood also lets me invest any money I transfer from my bank immediately. There's no 3-5 business day wait. That said, I'm not sure if this is feature available to everyone or only those on Robinhood Gold.
Same here. I'm only putting in a couple hundred a month right now so 2 x 7 x 12 = $168 and that would eat up much of the returns. I buy and hold dividend paying ETFs. I am not on gold and they gave me instant deposit. I think they give it to you after a while once it becomes obvious you aren't a fraudulent player. I'd like to move to IB given the significantly lower margin % but the fees would kill me. Robinhoods margin is 6%.
I'd like to suggest donating money to causes/organizations you believe in, whether that's locally, in the US, or abroad. If you have excess, why not use a bit of that to help someone else? (Plus, it's often tax deductible.)
I'm not sure the comment was about the CEO's looks as much as the photo itself. It has a stock/cliche feel to it with the product in the foreground, slight smile, pose, clothing, etc.
