The alternative is more likely - it becomes commoditized and many programs are offering it, so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature
>so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature
Alternatives to every baseline feature they currently charge a premium for exist, but because its industry standard everyone has to pay them.
Nothing Photoshop does today is special, in fact some of the ways it does things are worse than everyone else, e.g many filters being single core constrained and CPU bound.
You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people: that a product's only value is its technical implementation.
Photoshop is sold to businesses. It's value prop is "you will be able to hire anyone and they will be productive day one, which will save a lot of money in training."
People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly and getting the next paying gig. A CPU bound filter is statistical noise compared to having to figure out how some different tool works.
> You seem to be falling into a fallacy common among technical people
I work as a creative director, my anger about this is decades of suffering what I consider substandard tools.
> People buying photos op don't care about filters being CPU bound. They care about turning work around quickly
We definitely do care about our computing power being used to the fullest of it's potential. This is why some of us even do 2D static work in After Effects now because its faster and uses more of the machines power than PS.
Photoshop developer asking: what examples can you give of 2D/static work that performs better in AE over Ps? I'm very curious about your workflow now...
Well I apologize for my presumption. Showing a little of my own frustration as a former engineer, now product person, I suppose.
I'm really curious why you care about using machines to their potential. Is it cost savings from not having to buy a more expensive machine, philosophical dislike or waste, or does it really come down to hours of non-billable time?
Adobe’s UI is also terrible, but it’s terrible in a way most digital artists are familiar with. Starting from scratch Gimp, Inkscape, and Adobe have reasonably similar learning curves.
The main advantage Adobe UI has is many people assume they’re stuck learning it at some point. But it’s definitely a waste of time and money if you’re happy as a hobbyist.
Adobe doesn't count hobbyists as a core user segment; why would they? Hobbyists don't need Adobe CC any more than somebody looking to multiply 2 numbers would need Excel 365.
The hobbyist market is already served by Photopea, Canva, Snapseed and many others.
Adobe has figured out how to charge a lot of Photoshop and likely will do the same for major additions to it. You can argue whether this is fair or right or that there are free atlerantives, but it is possible for Adobe and so they will do it.
Alternatives to every baseline feature they currently charge a premium for exist, but because its industry standard everyone has to pay them.
Nothing Photoshop does today is special, in fact some of the ways it does things are worse than everyone else, e.g many filters being single core constrained and CPU bound.