I think the problem is a lot of people need very occasional image manipulation. Back when I was a photographer, I could have easily paid 5x more for my Photoshop subscription and it would have been worth it.

Now that I’m not, the $10 a month is a harder pill to swallow, even though I use it quite a bit. A subscription pricing model isn’t great for those that need something once a week or month or whatever.

So great, that they can't make their tools for Linux to this day.

I hear complaints from its users who describe using Adobe software like they're in an abusive relationship[1][2]. Personally, the software license is the problem for me. I don't want to make a piece of proprietary software a major part of my life or workflow. I've got GIMP, Krita, and InkScape for when I need to whip up a diagram or something. Luckily I do not need to use software like this too often.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJBEAZFP0aA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm51xZHZI6g

If Adobe can't compete with GIMP-and-avocado, perhaps the product isn't that great.

Compete with GIMP? One can scatter controls by tripping over a box of these and still get better ui than gimp.

gimp should get an ai chat interface, then it doesn't matter how good or bad the UI is

Some of the UI is what things are called and that also effects a chat UI.

GIMP has a plugin system and embeds python, this would be pretty easy to make.

Correct. And yet people are still choosing it over Photoshop, and then using the money they saved for avocado toast.

Adobe is infuriatingly intrusive. So much so that at some point I wanted to uninstall it and never deal with anything adobe ever again, only to find out they demand that I log in to uninstall their crap.

Nothing Adobe will ever again be installed on my PCs.

> Don't eat avocado toast for 2 days, idk.

I didn't eat avocado toast for 2 days and am buying adobe outright later today.

People hate adobe for their anti-consumer practices, purposefully obsfucating the PSD format, and shoving AI down everyones throat.

I suspect many who make software would never do what adobe does (deliberately make it difficult for customers to leave). Entirely subjective, of course, but I consider Adobe's retention strategies very sleazy (although not uncommon).

That said, can also see the utility in making deals with the devil: if it means getting your own software done faster and better, then it might be worth it, even if it feels gross.

When I tried to cancel my subscription they offered me a free year of everything. I took it and then cancelled when it was done. 0 issues.

Nice work. I've never subscribed to Adobe products, so I haven't experienced it first hand. My thinking is if your software is great, you shouldn't need lock-in contracts or adobe-like tactics. (I've dodged similar subscription models like economist magazine and masterclass purely due to the utility of the subscription being outweighed by the knowledge I'd one day have to endure a frustrating process to unsubscribe).

It's super easy, don't listed to hypersensitive people who can't stand two seconds of sales pitch. The same goes for the Economist, when I unubscribed the rep asked me if I'd like a 50% discount on a yearly subscription, I politely declined and that was it. One advantage of this is that you can easily pretend you're canceling in order to get a big discount. Some people just love to complain about every little thing.

Given the negative sentiment around Adobe's cancellation flow, you'd think they'd advertise the fact that you get a 'free year of everything' and 'zero issues'. Seems weird!