Comment by woah

Let’s assume the open source software suite was exactly as capable and performant as Adobe’s.

Unless everything is exactly the same (even the default file format) you’re still going to be better off with “what everyone uses” because you have to share content, and one mistake of sending a GIMP file instead of a PSD isn’t really worth the savings.

Where the open source stuff shines is where you have 10,000 employees who need minor image editing once a month or less; then you can save millions by using GIMP et al.

It’s possible to have a complete open source image setup - https://www.peppercarrot.com/en/about/index.html has done it, for example (and the issues he experiences are worth reading).

Its not "slightly" worse. Its 10x or 100x drop in the artists performance/pipeline. No serious graphic designer I know uses FOSS vs Adobe products.

Plus they are industry standards so people expect those files at the end of the project.

Yeah precisely. The Adobe suite is affordable if you’re actively making money off using it. It’s also why there’s not as much investment in competing open source projects.

$80 CAD/mo for the whole suite minus the substance stuff (prices are regional). For the average freelancer in Canada, that’s not a consequential barrier to entry. That’s <$1k for a year for everything.

If I charge a rate of something like $40/hr, that’s two hours in a month? <2% of revenue. Am I going to risk spending that much extra time fussing with something else for 2% more $$?

Meanwhile Blender gets a lot of investment because the competition is much more expensive. CA$305/mo for Maya and I need to augment it with an adobe subscription for any non-3D work.

Why wouldn't they if they do not want to use them for professional deontology reasons ? What impact size are we talking about ?