←back to thread

721 points ralusek | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
porphyra ◴[] No.41870564[source]
I find that Adobe is really pulling away from open source software with all this AI stuff. A few years ago it could be argued that GIMP, Inkscape, and Darktable could do almost everything that Photoshop, Illustrator, and Lightroom could, albeit with a jankier user interface.

But now none of the open source software can compete with AI generative fill, AI denoising, and now AI rotation.

replies(11): >>41870630 #>>41870686 #>>41870696 #>>41870867 #>>41870891 #>>41871059 #>>41871202 #>>41871746 #>>41871757 #>>41873609 #>>41875611 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.41870630[source]
They'll probably be better able to compete once Adobe ups prices to reflect the actual cost of all that processing.
replies(1): >>41870807 #
1. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.41870807[source]
Photoshop is £30 a month. NASDAQ.com reports their net profit to be 40% and elsewhere they're reported to gross $20B revenue.

I think they can afford the ML based content generation costs without increasing prices.

replies(2): >>41870900 #>>41876024 #
2. egypturnash ◴[] No.41870900[source]
They might do it anyway though. I have the "all apps" subscription but it's not actually everything they make any more, all their "Substance 3D" tools are another $50/mo. I can easily see this feature getting most of its functionality locked behind that extra subscription the way Illustrator's new 3d tools just give you a tiny handful of materials without that.
replies(1): >>41870963 #
3. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.41870963[source]
Oh for sure, their implementation is slicks and they're somewhat of a monopolist. The whole "free to educational institutions" really worked well for them and MS.

I don't doubt they will put prices up, just boring they don't need to.

4. ◴[] No.41876024[source]