Photoshop has unmatched tools to get work done 15 to 30 times faster than Gimp. This does not apply to everything of course and in some niche stuff Gimp’s even faster. However what I use Photoshop for, such as removing unwanted distractions like trash cans, trash, overhead electric cables and such Gimp is like 30 years behind. It’s not realistic that someone would spend many minutes just selecting hair outline in Gimp.
Ultimately developing these tools has cost evil Adobe many millions of dollars. 1-3 extremely talented and enthusiastic programmers cannot compete with this. Then again in the near future we will either not need Photoshop anymore, or open source projects like Gimp or a more open minded fork could use Ai generated code to develop similar automated tools.
thingsiplay@beehaw.org 3 months ago
Brand loyalty and also dependency of the tools due to existing projects and files. People invested into a system with huge money and efforts won’t switch easily to something new and unknown, starting from scratch.
M500@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Linus tech tips did a video about this where he had his team use other tools. Essentially he was like, it would end up costing him more or the same as it would take his team longer to do the same stuff and relearn.
It might have been a shortsighted video, but you can look it up if you want to.
pbjamm@beehaw.org 3 months ago
Indeed. Retraining and the extra time using a new tool is a short term loss for what should be a long term gain. The transition will always suck.
Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
Short sighted LTT video?
Checks out
Seriously though transitioning your team to a new software suite will suck at first but it’s worth it in the long run. Long term gains vs short term gains and all that.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Obviously, LTT doesn’t see the long-term benefit of retraining his team to not be attached to monthly subscription bullshit.
Short-term quarterly-profit energy.
Fizz@lemmy.nz 3 months ago
Ah that means Adobe truly has us by the balls.
hedge@beehaw.org 3 months ago
As far as InDesign alternatives go, do people know about VivaDesigner or even LaTeX for that matter?
adespoton@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Once upon a time print shops would only accept files in Quark Xpress format. Eventually, they came to accept InDesign documents too. They have licenses for the software and workflows and toolchains set up to integrate those files into their existing prepress and press systems.
LaTeX is purely for academic markup for postscript printing. VivaDesigner and its kind? Only niche and hobby layout and print.
That said, I only share in PDF now, so I use other software for the layout phases and don’t care that it isn’t portable to other shops.
baggins@beehaw.org 3 months ago
In a word, no. They are focused on the Adobe name. A bit like Apple, lots of good alternatives but who wants to be seen with a ‘insert non fashionable name here’ phone. There was a time when Adobe was king, not anymore though.
thingsiplay@beehaw.org 3 months ago
I don’t know about VivaDesigner (never looked for an alternative anyway), but I hope people know about Scribus. LaTeX is a bit too manual for someone coming from InDesign, so it’s not a real alternative in that sense. My point was, that people have projects and files created and maintained with the Adobe software. Unless the programs are 100% compatible with the alternative, it’s hard for many to make the switch. Plus they would need to learn a new “complex” tool, and know exactly which one is the right one and is worth switching for years to come.
Just giving people an alternative is not enough to convince them.
IrritableOcelot@beehaw.org 3 months ago
I’ve tried to use scribus, but the interface is pretty clunky and it doesnt react well to high-dpi screens in my experience.
Zworf@beehaw.org 3 months ago
Or maybe Affinity Designer? I bought that a few years ago for Mac and it was really good.