4 ms·

The alternative is more likely - it becomes commoditized and many programs are offering it, so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline fea

The alternative is more likely - it becomes commoditized and many programs are offering it, so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature

abwizz 3y ago
image editing software is a commodity for decades now, is it free?
- argiopetech 3y ago
  Gimp has been free for decades, same with Inkscape (edit: Inkscape is actually only 19). Probably not what most pros are using, but perfectly acceptable tools.
  - lofaszvanitt 3y ago
    Gimp is a gimp. Just plain horrible UI-UX. Not intuitive at all, at best a terrible monstroisity.
  - abwizz 3y ago
    true. but as you said, most aren't which is the counterpoint to op's claim that stuff get's free because of commodification.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Adobe's UX is far better than Gimp and Inkscape. It is the "it just works" equivalent of design tools.
  - abwizz 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - Retric 3y ago
    Adobe’s UI is also terrible, but it’s terrible in a way most digital artists are familiar with. Starting from scratch Gimp, Inkscape, and Adobe have reasonably similar learning curves. The main advantage Adobe UI has is many people assume they’re stuck learning it at some point. But it’s definitely a waste of time and money if you’re happy as a hobbyist.
    - rchaud 3y ago
      Adobe doesn't count hobbyists as a core user segment; why would they? Hobbyists don't need Adobe CC any more than somebody looking to multiply 2 numbers would need Excel 365. The hobbyist market is already served by Photopea, Canva, Snapseed and many others.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Some Hobbyists still want to push the envelope. Think the artist equivalent of the guy building a AI controlled sentry gun for shooting squirrels with water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPgqfnKG_T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPgqfnKG_T4
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- i_am_jl 3y ago
  A commodity is fungible. Unless you're arguing that GIMP and Photoshop are treated as identical software by the market, image editing software can not be a commodity.
  - abwizz 3y ago
    i was refering to the attribute of "readily available in many stores" with my usage of commodity. but you might be right too
bhouston 3y ago
Adobe has figured out how to charge a lot of Photoshop and likely will do the same for major additions to it. You can argue whether this is fair or right or that there are free atlerantives, but it is possible for Adobe and so they will do it.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
>so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature Alternatives to every baseline feature they currently charge a premium for exist, but because its industry standard everyone has to pay them. Nothing Photoshop does today is special, in fact some of the ways it does things are worse than everyone else, e.g many filters being single core constrained and CPU bound.
- brookst 3y ago
  > because it is the industry standard > Nothing Photoshop does today is special You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people: that a product's only value is its technical implementation. Photoshop is sold to businesses. It's value prop is "you will be able to hire anyone and they will be productive day one, which will save a lot of money in training." People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly and getting the next paying gig. A CPU bound filter is statistical noise compared to having to figure out how some different tool works.
  - whywhywhywhy 3y ago
    > You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people I work as a creative director, my anger about this is decades of suffering what I consider substandard tools. > People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly We definitely do care about our computing power being used to the fullest of it's potential. This is why some of us even do 2D static work in After Effects now because its faster and uses more of the machines power than PS.
    - brookst 3y ago
      Well I apologize for my presumption. Showing a little of my own frustration as a former engineer, now product person, I suppose. I'm really curious why you care about using machines to their potential. Is it cost savings from not having to buy a more expensive machine, philosophical dislike or waste, or does it really come down to hours of non-billable time?

The alternative is more likely - it becomes commoditized and many programs are offering it, so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature

abwizz 3y ago

image editing software is a commodity for decades now, is it free?

argiopetech 3y ago
Gimp has been free for decades, same with Inkscape (edit: Inkscape is actually only 19). Probably not what most pros are using, but perfectly acceptable tools.
- lofaszvanitt 3y ago
  Gimp is a gimp. Just plain horrible UI-UX. Not intuitive at all, at best a terrible monstroisity.
- abwizz 3y ago
  true. but as you said, most aren't which is the counterpoint to op's claim that stuff get's free because of commodification.
rchaud 3y ago
Adobe's UX is far better than Gimp and Inkscape. It is the "it just works" equivalent of design tools.
- abwizz 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Retric 3y ago
  Adobe’s UI is also terrible, but it’s terrible in a way most digital artists are familiar with. Starting from scratch Gimp, Inkscape, and Adobe have reasonably similar learning curves. The main advantage Adobe UI has is many people assume they’re stuck learning it at some point. But it’s definitely a waste of time and money if you’re happy as a hobbyist.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    Adobe doesn't count hobbyists as a core user segment; why would they? Hobbyists don't need Adobe CC any more than somebody looking to multiply 2 numbers would need Excel 365. The hobbyist market is already served by Photopea, Canva, Snapseed and many others.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Some Hobbyists still want to push the envelope. Think the artist equivalent of the guy building a AI controlled sentry gun for shooting squirrels with water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPgqfnKG_T4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPgqfnKG_T4
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
i_am_jl 3y ago
A commodity is fungible. Unless you're arguing that GIMP and Photoshop are treated as identical software by the market, image editing software can not be a commodity.
- abwizz 3y ago
  i was refering to the attribute of "readily available in many stores" with my usage of commodity. but you might be right too

bhouston 3y ago

Adobe has figured out how to charge a lot of Photoshop and likely will do the same for major additions to it. You can argue whether this is fair or right or that there are free atlerantives, but it is possible for Adobe and so they will do it.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago

>so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature Alternatives to every baseline feature they currently charge a premium for exist, but because its industry standard everyone has to pay them. Nothing Photoshop does today is special, in fact some of the ways it does things are worse than everyone else, e.g many filters being single core constrained and CPU bound.

brookst 3y ago
> because it is the industry standard > Nothing Photoshop does today is special You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people: that a product's only value is its technical implementation. Photoshop is sold to businesses. It's value prop is "you will be able to hire anyone and they will be productive day one, which will save a lot of money in training." People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly and getting the next paying gig. A CPU bound filter is statistical noise compared to having to figure out how some different tool works.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  > You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people I work as a creative director, my anger about this is decades of suffering what I consider substandard tools. > People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly We definitely do care about our computing power being used to the fullest of it's potential. This is why some of us even do 2D static work in After Effects now because its faster and uses more of the machines power than PS.
  - brookst 3y ago
    Well I apologize for my presumption. Showing a little of my own frustration as a former engineer, now product person, I suppose. I'm really curious why you care about using machines to their potential. Is it cost savings from not having to buy a more expensive machine, philosophical dislike or waste, or does it really come down to hours of non-billable time?