5 ms·

If Blender could radically update their UI and UX after 25 years of the initial conception, I feel like any (FOSS) project could do it too, no matter how many o

If Blender could radically update their UI and UX after 25 years of the initial conception, I feel like any (FOSS) project could do it too, no matter how many options and technical details the software has.

bestouff 3y ago
Blender has something else. Loads of money compared to Gimp.
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  Blender EARNED every cent of its loads of money be being RESPONSIVE TO ITS USERS.
- chongli 3y ago
  Did the money come first? Or the redesign? I remember using Blender back in the day and it was really confusing. It seems amazing that anyone would have poured so much money into it back then.
  - n3storm 3y ago
    Good question. Blender lead and community created a huge innertia with projects and conquest to raise funding. So having a vision comes first, then the funding, and after that a redesign.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - CuriousCosmic 3y ago
    Yeah a few studios started picking it up prior to the redesign because it was free and a lot of new animators/designers knew it because it was a free tool they could learn. That was all pre-redesign. Their support got the ball rolling and then eventually Amazon and a bunch of big studios threw their weight in but I'm not sure how many of them were involved in the redesign.
- vasili111 3y ago
  Where the money comes from?
  - HankB99 3y ago
    https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/blender/9PP3C07GTVRH?hl=en-US&gl=US https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/blender/9PP3C07GTVRH?hl=en... (hopefully that link works for others.)
  - avhon1 3y ago
    They have a basic diagram on this page: https://www.blender.org/about/ https://www.blender.org/about/ 4 sources of income: one-off donations and recurring donations (from individuals and businesses), subsidies and co-development funds from businesses, and subscriptions to their cloud service.
- pavlov 3y ago
  The fundamental difference between Blender and Gimp is that Blender started life as a commercial product, designed by 3D professionals for other pros. Yes, the interface was different and the learning curve hardcore, but it had an internal logic that enabled fast workflows when you’d mastered it. Gimp was designed by open source hackers with no input from professional designers, or seemingly even any interest in their input. It never gathered any kind of momentum as a credible Photoshop replacement for professionals. And that’s why Blender is getting donations: it’s become a serious part of workflows for all kinds of companies who have a 3D content pipeline. Meanwhile Gimp is still the awkward collection of hackers’ image processing pet projects piled into a clunky GUI that does nothing to enable the things that designers actually use Photoshop for.
  - Hemospectrum 3y ago
    I'm not convinced. The UI in early Blender was as arcane as any I have ever seen, worse than GIMP's by a mile. Contemporary commercial 3D software did not have the same quantity or quality of weirdness. (Remember SoftImage?) The commercial version of Blender failed in the marketplace, and after it was open sourced, it was not taken seriously again for quite a few years. Blender's dogfooding efforts were a powerful force in both proving that the software was good enough (to make movies) and demonstrating how it could be better (for the animators who made the movies). I'm not aware of any such efforts for GIMP. What I have seen is roadmaps of what improvements they know they need, and timelines of years to improve core infrastructure to the point that their actual goals are within reach. Meanwhile, other software projects (both FLOSS and commercial) race past them and move on to more exotic and exciting features.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      > The UI in early Blender was as arcane as any I have ever seen, worse than GIMP's by a mile. That's just not true at all. GIMP's UI has no redeeming workflow. Even if you master it, you must still constantly navigate it's clunky menu of features. Blender 2.x had an intentional UX flow. When you mastered it - which really wasn't nearly as difficult as whatever work you were doing with it - you could be very productive. Blender 3.x didn't really change that flow. It only added some optional visual interface for the people who don't already know the keybinds.
cardanome 3y ago
Blender is also really careful to NOT needlessly break existing workflows and also doog-foods their own software through having their own studio. This is in stark contrast to the vast majority of UI-redesigns which tend to break existing workflows, remove features and are just ego-driven projects. You need to be a user of your own software.
- IAmNotACellist 3y ago
  GNOME devs shaking right now. In fact, they may remove a few features they don't care about out of spite.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bestouff 3y ago

Blender has something else. Loads of money compared to Gimp.

DonHopkins 3y ago
Blender EARNED every cent of its loads of money be being RESPONSIVE TO ITS USERS.
chongli 3y ago
Did the money come first? Or the redesign? I remember using Blender back in the day and it was really confusing. It seems amazing that anyone would have poured so much money into it back then.
- n3storm 3y ago
  Good question. Blender lead and community created a huge innertia with projects and conquest to raise funding. So having a vision comes first, then the funding, and after that a redesign.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  Yeah a few studios started picking it up prior to the redesign because it was free and a lot of new animators/designers knew it because it was a free tool they could learn. That was all pre-redesign. Their support got the ball rolling and then eventually Amazon and a bunch of big studios threw their weight in but I'm not sure how many of them were involved in the redesign.
vasili111 3y ago
Where the money comes from?
- HankB99 3y ago
  https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/blender/9PP3C07GTVRH?hl=en-US&gl=US https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/blender/9PP3C07GTVRH?hl=en... (hopefully that link works for others.)
- avhon1 3y ago
  They have a basic diagram on this page: https://www.blender.org/about/ https://www.blender.org/about/ 4 sources of income: one-off donations and recurring donations (from individuals and businesses), subsidies and co-development funds from businesses, and subscriptions to their cloud service.
pavlov 3y ago
The fundamental difference between Blender and Gimp is that Blender started life as a commercial product, designed by 3D professionals for other pros. Yes, the interface was different and the learning curve hardcore, but it had an internal logic that enabled fast workflows when you’d mastered it. Gimp was designed by open source hackers with no input from professional designers, or seemingly even any interest in their input. It never gathered any kind of momentum as a credible Photoshop replacement for professionals. And that’s why Blender is getting donations: it’s become a serious part of workflows for all kinds of companies who have a 3D content pipeline. Meanwhile Gimp is still the awkward collection of hackers’ image processing pet projects piled into a clunky GUI that does nothing to enable the things that designers actually use Photoshop for.
- Hemospectrum 3y ago
  I'm not convinced. The UI in early Blender was as arcane as any I have ever seen, worse than GIMP's by a mile. Contemporary commercial 3D software did not have the same quantity or quality of weirdness. (Remember SoftImage?) The commercial version of Blender failed in the marketplace, and after it was open sourced, it was not taken seriously again for quite a few years. Blender's dogfooding efforts were a powerful force in both proving that the software was good enough (to make movies) and demonstrating how it could be better (for the animators who made the movies). I'm not aware of any such efforts for GIMP. What I have seen is roadmaps of what improvements they know they need, and timelines of years to improve core infrastructure to the point that their actual goals are within reach. Meanwhile, other software projects (both FLOSS and commercial) race past them and move on to more exotic and exciting features.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    > The UI in early Blender was as arcane as any I have ever seen, worse than GIMP's by a mile. That's just not true at all. GIMP's UI has no redeeming workflow. Even if you master it, you must still constantly navigate it's clunky menu of features. Blender 2.x had an intentional UX flow. When you mastered it - which really wasn't nearly as difficult as whatever work you were doing with it - you could be very productive. Blender 3.x didn't really change that flow. It only added some optional visual interface for the people who don't already know the keybinds.

cardanome 3y ago

Blender is also really careful to NOT needlessly break existing workflows and also doog-foods their own software through having their own studio. This is in stark contrast to the vast majority of UI-redesigns which tend to break existing workflows, remove features and are just ego-driven projects. You need to be a user of your own software.

IAmNotACellist 3y ago
GNOME devs shaking right now. In fact, they may remove a few features they don't care about out of spite.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]