Comment

This is just even more justification to use alternatives. If a mass migration to alternatives occurs, those apps will flourish and more dev time can be arranged via new devs interested in volunteering or outright being employed to meet demand.

Adobe is only so big because of their userbase. Migrate that userbase to a less cancerous set of applications and the userbase stands to benefit greatly.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Kichae@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
How often does “a bunch of non-devs flock to a half-baked community FOSS project and suddenly gain a bunch of devs” actually play out?

The one reasonable possibility is that they might pick up a designer or two, but how many community FOSS projects seriously consider non-code or non-art contributions? Because based on the FOSS software I’ve used, it’s a vanishingly small number.

Coders over-value code, and under-value everything else.

source
frog@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
That would probably work for hobbyists, but I have my doubts that professionals, who rely on Adobe products for their livelihood, could use unsuitable software for years in the hopes that volunteer devs will eventually add the features they need. In the other post about this topic, someone commented that GIMP’s devs are refusing to fix problems that are repelling new users, which is not going to encourage Adobe users to make the switch. GIMP still doesn’t have fully functioning, reliable non-destructive editing, which is 100% essential for anyone beholden to a boss or client who is going to change their minds a couple of times between now and next month.

Adobe is big because of their userbase, but their userbase is big because they make genuinely powerful software that fits the needs of professionals. The free options (and the cheap proprietary options) are not there yet, and probably never will be. Professionals aren’t going to switch until the features they need are there (because seriously, why would anyone use a tool for their job that doesn’t actually allow them to do their job properly?), but the features aren’t going to be added until the professionals switch over. Catch22.

source
- Powderhorn@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  use unsuitable software for years in the hopes that volunteer devs will eventually add the features they need.
  
  There’s an opportunity here to unbundle Photoshop from itself.
  
  Since my background is print, I can say for at least a few more weeks, there’s an audience interested in reading RAW, cropping, toning for both CMYK and RGB, scratch removal on negatives and cutouts. And literally nothing else.
  
  And so now imagine anyone else. They don’t need CMYK. What the fuck is that, anyway?
  
  That Photoshop has gained bloat is not something to emulate. FOSS shouldn’t try to replicate it so long as there’s a universal file format one can jump between apps to manipulate.
  
  source
  - frog@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I don’t particularly want to jump between a dozen different apps to have access to every single tool and filter I use, especially when even when using a single file format (PSD), not every app treats layers in the same way. In a detailed digital paint, you can very easily have hundreds of layers, so it’s absolutely a deal-breaker if your layer groupings or group masks are destroyed when switching between apps.
    
    source
eveninghere@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Adobe has probably employed dozens of top-level PhDs to implement and train AI models, optimized their code.

Hobby projects will never reach that level regardless of the number of users.

Even proprietary developers would have to close the gap made for 10+ years, with far less resources. Just look at the state of Affinity…

I don’t think it’s realistic.

source
- AstralPath@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  We’ll agree to disagree I suppose. The alternatives don’t necessarily have to be FOSS either. A perfect example of a viable alternative to a predatory “industry standard” exists in the audio production world; REAPER.
  
  When I was in College, Pro Tools was the required software. Pro Tools at the time was a walled garden ecosystem, trapping anyone who sunk their hard earned cash into an environment rife with anti-consumer practices, hardware brand restrictions and invasive DRM.
  
  It cost me over $600 CAD at the time for a bundle containing a feature-limited copy of Pro Tools and a Digidesign MBox.
  
  Meanwhile, REAPER’s noncommercial license was $60. That $60 got you a full featured copy of the DAW with support for the next two full version upgrades (which turned out to be nearly a decade of updates). You could also use any hardware interfaces you desired without restriction.
  
  REAPER also has a free trial that is full-featured. No restrictions at all, even the trial length is unlimited. Why? Because they respect the consumer and trust that if you find value in the software you’ll support their work by paying for a copy. That purchase is one of the best I’ve ever made.
  
  In my experience, REAPER was equally as capable as Pro Tools or any other DAW on the market at the time. As of now I’d wager it’s the superior product.
  
  A world where consumers are respected currently exists, its just not in the hands of the corporate world. The best way to make a better future for everyone in the software world is to not put up with anti-consumer practices and engage with companies and developers that respect our time and hard earned cash instead of treating us like cattle.
  
  source
  - eveninghere@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I think the advancement in graphics or computer vision is too huge to be comparable to what happened in audio.
    
    source