Because of Adobe's hatred and abuse of their users, Adobe lost millions of dollars.
post
Adobe hasn't lost anything, they have tied up "design" for any business use. Its a total monopoly.
Yeah, this is kinda BS.
Adobe don't care. Nearly every design firm is going to ask you about your Adobe experience, so you can use their Adobe software.
Maybe some of their designers will use GIMP. But that's like saying your office also uses libre office and Linux. Which is extremely rare.
Design lead here. I know photoshop like the back of my hand, but I also know Pixelmator (Mac only), Sketch and Affinity. All are very nice interfaces, one-time, or major version licenses, and smaller, responsive dev teams.
There are compromises in all software, but my team uses Pixelmator and Affinity because we’re a small company and it won’t hurt their design skills to know more tools besides the Adobe suite.
Gimp for a long time had shitty shortcuts and was quite unfriendly to Mac users (the REAL vendor lock-in in the design world btw). Him is just too slow to load, and ugly to look at, similar but less so with Inkscape.
Big firms might be harder to change, but it’s possibly and there are really good alternatives that Adobe probably worries a little about. Unfortunately they aren’t FOSS for the most part.
GIMP had some shitty shortcuts, sure. But so did PS.
As an example of better shortcuts - you could get a rectangular selection by pressing "r", which is an example of a very simple and straightforward UI language. You could then adjust that selection with handles without needing any chords or modifiers, zoom in with the number keys or scroll wheel, etc.
You could open a tool, like the colour picker, and switch to a different window without the app going beep and telling you "no", which is what PS traditionally did.
You could open the app and load an image in 1/10th the time it took for PS to start which made it way nicer to use. When I was using PS I generally left it open all the time because of its sluggish start, which meant it was sitting hogging resources all day.
What I'm saying is that your personal workflow and the general UX of whatever software you're used to using is always the thing you're going to use as a point of comparison, and if your expected shortcut is different it doesn't mean it's worse.
true that it wasn't good for mac. I gave up apple/mac and their increasingly shitty overpriced products 10 years ago. Since then Linux has come a long way and so has GIMP. Good enough to kill Photoshop? Not any time soon, but good enough for professional use certainly and good enough for new artists to start on. Install G'MIC and it's so much better.
Right? I hate the phrasing in this headline. Adobe isn't somehow "owed" those millions so it's totally backwards to call that a loss. Fuck that noise.
They're a business, they should earn their revenue by fostering a healthy competitive environment and then winning through innovation and customer loyalty. Not the monopoly licensing and subscription lock-in BS they've been doing for decades.
My kids keep screwing Nintendo. The other day I saw my kid grab a Lego, he slid it on the table and then made it jump over an orange.
I'm waiting for the letter from their lawyers.
All monopolies (including Adobe) should be seized by the workers, and then split into different companies and collectivized by the workers. Seriously!
In the construction world, Bluebeam is a good contender to Adobe.
Still corporate though
Isn't that for pdf editing?
Yes. Bluebeam Revu can do everything Adobe Acrobat can do (better imo).
Acrobat is still a product of Adobe, which is why I brought Bluebeam up.
I know this thread is about GIMP vs Adobe Photoshop, but OP of this comment thread said that Adobe has a monopoly over every business use. Not the case in the construction world
For PDF editing, there's so many good open source products.
Absolutely no reason to be using Adobe just for PDFs. Waste of money.
This is like movie companies saying that me pirating a movie cost them money.
Absence of a free thing isn't going to magic some money into my wallet with which to buy your thing, I'm still broke AF.
My gramma totally screwed Intel. She never used a computer in her entire life.
But it does take money away in other ways. I use GIMP for work which could easily pay for Adobe if I asked them. We just don't need to since we aren't doing any high-demand tasks.
Why are they entitled to it?
They're not? They don't have to be entitled to something to lose money on it.
I should mail this guy $5. Or, like, an edited image of a $5 bill with his face on it.
Why not both?
I followed your advice and got Jehan Page's face tattooed on my face. My wife left with the kids because of it and man, does this rule. Thanks for the sage words dude.
All within a span of two hours? Damn.
My entire family is dead now and I have Jehan Page's name in LOTR Elven script tattoed around my butthole.
Switched to GIMP from Photoshop probably 15 years ago. Adobe didn't lose any money, however, I've always pirated from those greedy fucks.
The GIMP user would never have paid Adobe for Photoshop anyway.
If anything, it actually helped people get into photo editing and ended up using Photoshop at their work.
Annnd well they should lose millions!
NGL, I paid out the ass for PSCS3 waay back in 2007 - Universal binary.. PPC AND Intel installer - and FWIW, I'm still using it. In point of fact it's why all my Macs are dual boot with Mojave (32-bit support) so I can continue to install and use it. Homegirl is no how, no way gonna rent what I should be able to own.
(As Adobe no longer has the CS3 activation servers online, if you've still got an installed, activated, instance of the PSCS3 kicking around somewhere, copy the actual application itself out to a backup location.. so when you use the installer in a system capable of running it, you can swap the newly installed, inactivated copy out for the activated one you have in backup. Just do NOT try and launch the program before you do the swap.. This works for PC copies of CS3 as well as Mac..)
Personally, I can recommend a VM for that reason. Activate it once and then just copy the VM over to a new PC, Backup location, etc. Turn on internet access for it when activating, turn it off and leave it disabled for the rest of your life. Worked like a charm for me.
I'm still using cs3 as well. For what it's worth, I just checked and it's still out there to be had. I have the master suite, which I could not find, but pscs3 itself is still alive out there.
Which is good!
Years back, I tried the trial version of CS6 and just about lost my mind when it came to finding where tools had been hidden in the submenus.. but the biggest "oh hell no.." was whatever they had done to the print profiles. No matter what setting or profile I used, the images were oversaturated. Even tried importing from CS3 - nope. I gave it up pretty quickly at that point.
Yep, same here. Mojave on an old MacBook with a complete CS5 suite lets me continue to use what I paid for.
I didn't have a still-running copy like you did, so instead I disabled all network access and used my existing install media/licensing to activate offline, then before restoring network I went through and blocked every single executable at the firewall, esp anything having to do with updates or the licensing module. Now it doesn't matter whether there is internet access or not, everything is stable and it doesn't phone home.
The blocking was a pain in the ass, no lie, but I can restore the firewall settings from time machine if ever needed, and meanwhile I have a working, unshittified CS5 that is not constantly trying to move my data up to the cloud or give itself legal rights to my IP. It's lacking some newer features probably, but it does what I need.
I'm going to pass your instructions along to a friend still using CS5 on the same Mac he installed it on, though. It's a great strategy.
It's a great strategy.
IIRC, I discovered it when I retired my Mirror Door Drive G4 and bought a MacPro. At the time I wasn't online and couldn't get the fresh install to activate and on a lark, because it WAS a universal binary, I just copied over the application from the G4.
It worked, but was a bit janky, so once the internet got sorted, I did a clean reinstall of CS3 and activated it as normal.. I still have the G4 with the CS3 on it, and also copies of the install I did on the MacPro.
Also, with the CS3 and the OSes later than El Capitan, you need to get the JavaForOSX.dmg from Apple. It won't launch otherwise.
The great thing about CS3 is that even if I try to have it update, it doesn't. I used to run it with all the Adobe "phone home" addresses blocked in my system's hosts file. Now I no longer have to even do that. Nothing's there online. It will launch Bridge but when it gets to the Adobe Stock Photos and accepts the certificate, it connects to their servers and promptly quits.
LOL! Too funny!
Adobe has moved on and it's pure bliss for me.
A few of the replies here, those making those replies, could do with having someone introduce them to the concept of "put up or hack up", and getting into a Free Software philosophy mindset, and out of a consumer mindset.
GIMP's free software. Free to use, study, share and change... You the user are empowered. Even if you yourself lack aptitude (beyond just having never tried), you can still seek the services of others, be it those you pay to implement what you want, or, form a community of like minded individuals with similar needs to be met, and from there, start to make it as you want. These days, even LLMs can help curate the software into forms more suited to your needs. ... That is, where that's not already happened, or where there are reconfigurations you were simply not aware of, because it had not occurred to you to search for such, having been conditioned to stay in the box by the consumer mindset the corporation curated in your mind. It's refreshing to get out of having your mind curated by the corporation, and into using your mind to curate your software.
Either the user controls the software, or the user is controlled by the software and those who control the software.
It's a different philosophy. Not just a different platform for you as a "consumer". You're not a cash-cow for the corporation, with Free Software. You can contribute. Scratch those itches yourself. You may find others share the same itch. Giving back, is a much more rewarding experience than just hoping daddy corporation will give you what you want while you continue to atrophy your abilities.
Put up or hack up. ;)
And giving back comes in all forms. Writing docs, answering questions, helping out new users, fixing bugs, or just spreading the gospel of said FOSS software.
.... Y'all should check out Krita.
… Y’all should check out Krita.
MyPaint too.
And others.
Imagemagick's not to be scoffed at either.
Imagemagick’s not to be scoffed at either.
The ffmpeg of imaging.
some open source projects have very unpleasant communities around them, GIMP is not one of them. very easy to get into and everyone is extremely helpful and friendly.
I used Photoshop professionally for nearly 30 years. I retired and don't need it anymore, so now I use GIMP on Linux for the few personal projects I want to make.
GIMP's interface leaves a lot to be desired. One example, in Photoshop the Channels tab shows all the channels and includes any masks you make, they look and work similarly to the layers, and it's intuitive--when you learn one, you know the other. GIMP doesn't work that way, in fact I've yet to make sense of the channels.
Also, typically one would expect filters to only be applied to a selected layer and even to a selection within that layer. Some GIMP filters apply to the whole image, flattening my layers, and creating new ones. Fortunately, these are made in a new document, so you don't lose anything, but the filter cannot be applied to a partial image, you'd need to pull the result back into your original image and mask out the part you wanted. Very strange.
I could go on about how selecting works and doesn't work, but I won't.
No, Adobe has not "lost millions" due to GIMP, they haven't lost a cent. People who use GIMP were either never going to pay Adobe a cent, or already have and are using GIMP now, for similar reasons to my own. Virtually no one uses GIMP professionally at any volume of interest to Adobe.
It's a good and useful tool, but it's severely lacking compared to Photoshop.
Affinity is free now, it's pretty good. I don't know how long that will last though.
Affinity is hard to use coming from PS because I'm not used to it yet. I should take a course online.
Really? It's almost the same for me. I wonder if it's because I quit Adobe a long time ago.
I find Affinity pretty easy coming from Adobe, with some caveats like RGB channels and some masking stuff
It's almost the identical interface...
Look... I like gimp a lot and Jehan is a G.
Adobe has lost basically nothing. Because Gimp is still ridiculously underpowered compared to Adobe Photoshop (let alone the rest of the suite). That is perfectly fine since the vast majority of users don't need those capabilities. But the people who do (e.g. professionals)? There is really no other choice.
Yeah, that title's last sentence is just a straight-up lie, lol
Do execs really hate him? Competition validates the marketplace and your product. Plus they can afford to develop more features than the open source community can produce in the same amount of time. So they can always argue you are paying for the additional features.
(Disclaimer: I use Gimp a lot and Adobe not at all)
Tbh, the people who use Gimp and the people who use Adobe are two separate crowds and neither Gimp nor Adobe are the only tools in town.
If I'm not going to pay for a photo editing tool and Gimp would cease to exist, I'd just download another free tool and call it a day.
If I'm a professional relying on Adobe Photoshop, the existence of Gimp does nothing to me. Photoshop plus Lightroom costs ~€25/month. For a private person that's a lot. For a professional that hardly matters. If I pay €1000+ rent for a studio+office, paying €25 isn't that big of a deal.
Or to put it the other way round: If our hypothetical professional saves just one hour of work per month due to using Adobe tools over Gimp or another software, it's cheaper for them to use Adobe. Because time literally is money when you are self-employed.
GIMP's UI and UX are just terrible. I forced myself to use it for months but it never felt like anything ever got easier to do, it's just so unintuitive. Nevertheless, I thank the devs for all their work, it's great great tool
I used PS from v3 (I think?) to CS2 (ish?) before switching to GIMP. I thought the interface was weird until a designer at my job showed me where I was getting confused. So I've been a semi-regular G user for the last million years and every once in a while I offer to help my partner with something in PS and honestly I take so long to get anything done because I can't find it in the PS UI.
Have you tried PhotoGIMP?
Did you reconfigure it much?
There are preconfiguration packs that make it more like photoshop if you want. Gimpshop I think one is called.
"Professionals" is one of those words, you know, like "consumer" or whatever, that does a lot to hide what's really going on. I'm a professional who used to use GIMP all the time for my work. I'm not less of a professional because I didn't like Photoshop, in fact, I used to use PS at previous jobs but gave it up because I prefer the GIMP interface (yes, I'm that person) and didn't need the other bits. "Professional" just means you do it as a job; it doesn't indicate what that job is, and different people have different use cases.
Before I retired last year, I was web developer for a community college. We had a graphic artist, but frequently I needed to just do a quick resize or change format for a web image. GIMP got the job done without the resource gluttony of PS.
Ive used gimp since 2010. Its so good. I used to be a lot better at it back in university than I am now. But it still use it all the time.
I know quite a few professionals that use GIMP and Inkscape just so they arent locked into the adobe ecosystem and monthly/yearly fees.
Adobe didn't lose money. You can't lose money you never had.
Have you ever heard of the term "Lost Profits"?
What many people don't think about is that open source / free software is anti-billionaire software.
Since all software is bits, and it's free and easy to copy bits, to make money from software, a company needs to build a "moat". A moat is something that protects your company from people choosing alternatives. Open source software is built without a moat, so that anybody and everybody can access it. And, if you build with the GPL anybody who builds something based on your software is forbidden from building a moat of their own.
This means that it's really hard to get rich building free / open source software. But, it also means that in any area where there is free / open source software it's much harder for fully commercial, closed source, for profit companies to make big profits. Enshittify too much and people will just switch to the alternative, even if the alternative is significantly less stable, not as easy to use, is lacking features, etc. Piss people off too much and they might actually invest engineering money on improving the open source alternative.
Adobe is a big company with their fingers in many different pies. Photoshop is only one of their products. Gimp alone can't do much to hold Adobe back, but it does limit what they can do with Photoshop and still expect to make money from it.
Software licensing will eventually be relegated to the “dustbin of history”, hopefully it won’t be after humanity emerges from a post-apocalyptic hellscape.
apocalyptic hellscape
Which is, sadly, where we are right now
Yeah. Software licensing is artificial scarcity, trying to make the new world of bits seem like the old world of objects so that people who knew how to make money with objects can still make money with bits.
I agree that it's artificial scarcity, but I don't think the conversation is going to fully be able to move to removing that scarcity until we find a way to handle the people who rearrange the bits actually living in a world of objects and totally authentic scarcity.
It's the same dilemma we have with authors and musicians. Even if it can be infinitely copied the people who make it still need to eat, and not just be able to find a way to eat, but to reliably and predictably eat which makes donations and crowd funding iffy at best.
As a user and contributer to open source, I'm loath to put up any defense of something that irritates me more often than not. As a person who makes a living working on the closed side I can honestly say I would probably not be in the field if there wasn't as much ability to make a living in it.
Software patents can fuck off though.
It will probably take something like universal basic income. Also, before copyright etc. a lot of art was created when a patron paid the artist for their work. In modern times, a single individual patron has been replaced by a bunch of them using Patreon. In addition, some people (not enough) are employed to work on open source software. It's similar to a patron kind of arrangement because someone is paying for the "artist" to work, even though the thing the artist produces can't be owned by the employer.
I think if you combine all those various things the need for "intellectual property" goes away. But, the people who currently make money from IP are going to fight tooth and nail to keep it.
Are not the copyleft licenses the opposite of artificial scarcity, not just affirming that opposite, but also affirming to not impose that artificial scarcity later on, as a condition?
Even permissive licenses start from an absence of artificial scarcity. Even if though later on, forks can add their artificial scarcity.
to make money from software, a company needs to build a “moat”.
No. There are other ways.
I've paid more for Free Software licensed software voluntarily than I ever did for proprietary software with its moats. Largely because they have no moat.
And has that made the people selling that software rich? No.
My point is that to get rich making software you need a moat. You can still make a bit of money without it, but it will be a fraction of what you can make if you can use intellectual property laws to make sure you don't have to worry about competitors.
This means that it’s really hard to get rich building free / open source software.
Red Hat, Canonical and others disagree.
Red Hat doesn't even exist anymore. They're nothing more than an IBM subsidiary. Canonical is hardly rich. It may be influential in the free software world, but in terms of market cap, they're half the size of "A2Z Cust2Mate Solutions Corp". Have you ever heard of A2Z Cust2Mate Solutions Corp? I hadn't until I started looking for software companies comparable to Canonical.
There's also Krita if you're more of an artist
Maybe you mean a more "brush and canvas" interface without complexity and distraction. I'm an artist that uses gimp. They are both great, Krita is just made with ease of use and emulation of irl tools in mind. GIMP can do emulation stuff too, but it can also do tons of other things, even video fx and animation.
GIMP can do [...] video fx and animation.
Sounds like feature creep to me tbh.
Jehan Pages, you have bestowed my life with an abundance of badly edited memes and given me a trade that can I be proud of (making badly edited memes in Gimp), thank you.
top 100 comments