232
Adobe turns subscription screw again, telling users to pay up or downgrade
(www.theregister.com)
Only in North America... for now. 🌎
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
232 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
2677 readers
224 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Forgetting the options of "leave" and "pirate"
Don't pirate their software, it still helps them keep up the monopoly.
With GIMP 3 and DaVinci Resolve 20 out there, this seems like a very bad idea.
Something something slips through your fingers.
I feel like a broken record saying this but GiMP is not an adequate replacement for PS. Hobbyists yes but professionals absolutely not.
Name a few features in Photoshop that cant be done in GIMP?
Well for starters they just implemented non-destructive editing literally weeks (a month?) ago.
CYMK color support, AI tools (yes I hate firefly too but there are other tools, people use them, and GiMP has mone of them), plugin support, the list goes on.
If you have to ask, and I realize this sounds like an asshole response, then you don’t understand. It’s ok, it means you’re not a professional. GiMP is a wonderful tool and I sincerely respect the developers. I have it on my own machine, I have had it for probably 15 years. But if you are a professional, it takes you about 15 seconds using each program to understand the difference and to see the massive gulf between them.
Pretty much every other Adobe offering has a major (sometimes even FOSS) competitor. But Photoshop stands alone as the professional photo editing tool. I fucking hate to admit it but it’s just reality
I didn't have to ask, necessarily. I knew a lot of the differences. I'm a Photoshop expert. I've been using it regularly since version 2.0.3. Countless thousands of hours using Photoshop. I have a degree in computer art. I've been doing digital photographer since the 90's.
I was asking you what you thought GIMP was missing.
I think GIMP is adding CMYK support soon. Not something I care about, personally. Digital printing is all RGB these days anyway.
Plug-in support? GIMP has amazing plugin support! They had Mathmap before Adobe even dreamed of adding... oh, whatever it is they called their version of it. Pixel Bender. That was it.
Hell, you can write your own plug-ins in Python. They don't need to be compiled or anything. I've written a few basic workflow ones myself. Mostly to fix the fact that GIMP doesn't have Actions. You have access to the entirety of GIMP through Python, Scheme, C, and at least one other language. (I realize Photoshop has scripting, too. I'm just saying that GIMP is not lacking in plug-in support.)
Also, professional what? Photographer? Photo retoucher? Digital painter? Prepress tech? Graphic designer? Meme producer?
There are a lot of professionals that could do just as well in GIMP. I actually prefer it for photo retouching these days. The Resynthesize plugin is often better than Adobe's content-aware fill (Ignoring AI, which you can do with a Stable Diffusion plugin, if you'd like). The healing brush is better than using the Spot Healing tool. Curves is identical. The clone tool is identical.
I could list a bunch of things that are simply better in GIMP. Like using the middle mouse button for dragging the canvas. People have been demanding that from Adobe for years and have been ignored. I prefer the always-on, one-click "transform selection" for GIMP's selection tool verses having to use the "Transform Selection" command in Photoshop. I also really like the option where the brush stays the same size (on the screen) while zooming in. Basically, the brush scales down when you zoom in. Easy to toggle on and off. The Free Select tool in GIMP is better than the Lasso in Photoshop. There are more things I could point out.
The only thing that Photoshop is definitely better than GIMP at doing is CMYK and prepress work. And I do miss Actions despite having full control with Python. There is a solid batch processing plug-in for GIMP, though.
So what do you really do in Photoshop that GIMP can't do? Would you even know? Hell, you thought GIMP doesn't have plug-in support.
Saying shit like, "it takes you about 15 seconds using each program to understand the difference and to see the massive gulf between them" is unhelpful and simply not true. It takes weeks in each program to learn how to do things the way that program wants you to do them. One person not familiar with one of the two programs cannot make that judgment in 15 seconds. That's nonsense.
I don’t really appreciate the deception here to be honest. If you use both and disagree, then express it. Don’t try to bait someone first then reveal your knowledge after the fact in a semi-gotcha fashion. This isn’t a debate or a competition, it’s a discussion, and tricking people is generally frowned upon
I get you didn’t “lie” to me but you know this would have been a different (and frankly more granular) conversation if you had been more forthcoming. Or just said your piece out the gate.
Deception? I asked what you thought GIMP was missing and then you went and made huge assumptions about me. That's on you. I only replied the way I did because of what you said. Next time maybe just answer a question instead of insulting someone for even asking. Or don't answer it. That's fine, too.
Eh it's reasonable to think you had some specific opinions, but you only have one point that Photoshop has something gimp doesn't.
You seem dismissive and not unbiased when you are so general about things.
What does bias have to do with any of this? You think, what? I simp for PS? I abandoned premiere and the larger Adobe ecosystem 2 years ago, they're a terrible company.
The point is you already had a fully formed opinion and you acted like you were just curious as to my thoughts when you were primed to make your case that no, gimp is not that far behind. So next time avoid the omission and maybe be upfront about your point. It's a shitty way to operate, it's not complicated.
Have a good one dude.
I just got here, I don't think the other dude was being sneaky
I don’t think he sat there and plotted like some cartoonish vision but he was clearly laying foundation to argue in an opaque fashion instead of just saying “I disagree and here’s why.” It’s cagey and dishonest, even if not calculated. It feels tricky and like a “gotcha” moment.
Is it? You were asked your opinion, and your answer was extremely general and flat wrong.
You were corrected about plugins, they have an annoyed tone in the post because you have a strong opinion based on seemingly nothing.
I guess I'm saying, you should stand by your words better or something?
I really don’t have any desire to debate this with you. He can speak for himself. Have a good one
load more comments
(2 replies)
Affinity is an excellent replacement for Photoshop, Illustrator, and Publisher. Gimp is a dumpster fire, both as software and a FOSS project.
Yeah, I tried Gimp. Hated it. One of the biggest issues with Gimp, besides features, is the workflow. If you are trying to get Photoshop users to move over, then it needs to at least have a similar workflow. It's completely different though. You are learning an entirely new tool with new shortcuts. No one has time for this.
Look at vscode or neovim. Most devs use one of 5 editors these days. Vscode and neovim being the most popular. If you want to compete with these tools, they need to have a similar workflow and feel to what people are used to. Otherwise, no one will use it.
I'll use photopea over gimp any day for this reason.
There is photoGIMP which redesigns the UI to be more like Photoshop. There's also Photoshop keyboard shortcut lists out there that you can change GIMP to.
It's not perfect, but it defiantly helps for a lot of people.
For whatever reason, GIMP really wants to try and not be Photoshop when that's literally the thing it's competing against.
Affinity is an excellent replacement for Photoshop, Illustrator, and Publisher.
I may have to finally make the switch. I've been using photoshop/illustrator for over 25 years now though...
It's gonna be damn hard to make the switch...
EDIT: Just now uninstalled all my Adobe software, canceled my Adobe subscriptions. Replaced with Affinity. :)
Yeh. No fault of course in of itself tho. Gimp developers have tried to make something, but it just hasn't materialised in the same way as Blender. Kudos for trying.
They are the industry standard so they can do anything
For PS yes but people are more than happy to explore alternatives to premiere. Resolve is great
Didn't stop me from switching to Linux for my entire workflow. Industry standard is just a phrase. It doesn't truly mean anything when viable and real alternatives exist.
I don't think that's true, at least for companies.
Industry standard or even company standard means you need a very critical reason to switch because doing so is very costly in ways that don't really affect an individual or a small team.
This is why large corps often still use decades old software that may be terrible by that point, but impossible to move away from.
load more comments
(4 replies)
This is why "industry standard" is such a stupid concept. Adobe knows they have a stranglehold on creative professionals.
It's the 'professionals' fault, they got locked into that shit years ago because it's what they learned in school and they don't want to learn anything else even though there are alternatives.
I'm just happy when they don't imsist on an overpriced Mac just to use Adobe.
I wouldn't say its their fault tho.
Professional will use software that suitable for their workflow. I've seen professionals changing their main software if there was better alternative.
For example, there are wave of professional that are moving from Adobe to Affinity. Illustrator and comic artist are moving from Photoshop to Clip Studio Paint or Procreate. Some video editor will instantly change their software to Davinci Resolve.
Most of the time, they can't change their software because their client requires file compability, such as Photoshop-native PSD. Sure, other software can open/edit PSD, but they might not fully support all PSD format specification.
That's why people on open source community focused on open format and open workflow instead. Inkscape use SVG. Krita use ORA. And so on.
Most probably didn't learn in school - they learned because they pirated the software. This used to be a boon for Adobe as by mostly ignoring piracy they were training the workforce in private. Somewhere along the lines Adobe got greedy and will eventually pay the price as they won't own the landscape forever. Software like Blender is already allowing people to not buy the poison that is After effects in some cases.
load more comments
(18 replies)
I'll pay for good software. Developers deserve a decent wage, too. I'll pay a lot for really good software. I'll buy new versions of the tools I use often.
What I will never ever do is subscribe to software, no matter how good it is. Software is not a service and should not ever be sold as such.
I think there are some reasonable SaaS models out there, but end user tools shouldn't be one.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Love this graphic! Thank you!
- Creative Club software subscription
- Create tiers to segment what people are receptive to being squeezed in order to maintain all features
- Add a premium currency in addition to the subscription for AI features
- Make tiers of premium currency that can be used for some features but not others...
Did an AI make this pricing strategy with the aim to double and triple dip on their customers as much as possible?
At this point we know the users are in fault
view more: next ›