It is their problem, just not immediate and not actionable. Things like this let Adobe continue their extortion while their software stagnates. For example PSD/PSB is a internal proprietary format for Photoshop, it was never intended to be the industry standard exchange format for raster images, but is abundantly used as such. Technically, users are not wrong in requiring impeccable PSD compatibility from other software and can call actual reasons {excuses}, but realistically it's not possible. Then how do they expect anything to change?
> users are not wrong in requiring impeccable PSD compatibility from other software and can call actual reasons {excuses}, but realistically it's not possible. Then how do they expect anything to change?
First, "realistically it's not possible" isn't obviously true on its face. People have accomplished incredible feats of reverse engineering (arguably much harder ones) even in the open-source world - with hardly any compensation. It takes a ton of talent, investment, and dedication, sure. It's hard. But it's not like this is out of humanity's reach or something.
Second, "realistically it's not possible" applies just as well for the flip side. Expecting customers to ignore their very real and actual problems and pay for a non-solution just because HNers prefer them to (calling them "sunk costs" or whatever, as you can see in sibling threads), is realistically not possible either. It's just ignoring reality.
Finally, customers (at least retail ones) aren't investors or policymakers - they're just customers. You can't burden them with problems in the hope of guilt-tripping them into "but society would be so much better in the coming decades if you ignored your problems". That hasn't even worked for something with consequences as severe as climate change, let alone Adobe's vendor lock-in on Photoshop.
I am both a "customer" and a developer (and a manager making pipeline decisions in a creative company, in the past). The problem with reverse engineering is that it's a minefield for the business entity, from all viewpoints - competition, legal, tech. And it's never complete. Large reverse engineering attempts usually end up in a disaster for a business, and suggesting everybody following another company by reverse engineering is just not going to work. There's an objective reason for the poor compatibility with Adobe products, that's not an excuse.
As I said, you're not wrong - you'll just get stuck with exploitation by Adobe as a result, and the reason is not laziness or excuses by the developers of other software. RAW edits in the sidecars in particular simply can't be made compatible between different software, because everybody has their own magic and these files only keep the configuration data for it. The best you can count on is compatibility between the different versions of the same software, if the vendor provides it, and you will lose your edits when Adobe goes out of business or decides to cut some backward compatibility.
> The problem with reverse engineering is that it's a minefield for the business entity, from all viewpoints
I don't buy this; RE is a gross exaggeration of what's actually going on. They don't even need to go through the trouble of reverse-engineering for the most common XMP file functionalities people actually want. The XMP file is just a list of operations. It's right there in XML, already human-readable in English. The cases most people care about are astonishingly simple. Like "+25 contrast", "+2 exposure", "-50 highlights". Surely the app can at least alter brightness and contrast... just read the darn file and apply the straightforward stuff as if the user applied them manually! And if users re-adjust the settings, just update these back in the file like Photoshop would. If they see a random transformation they can't replicate adequately, they can just warn the user. It's not even hard to handle the easy pieces, let alone requiring reverse engineering! You won't get a bit-for-bit pixel-perfect repro, but who cares? It's not like they have to change the heart of that one random user who used XMP files to transform their penguin into a gorilla that they hashed on the blockchain to get the 90%+ of the other holdouts to jump ship!
Yes, it is a list of operations but making your photos look like they came out of Adobe Camera RAW or Lightroom with the same edits is nearly impossible.
>The cases most people care about are astonishingly simple. Like "+25 contrast", "+2 exposure", "-50 highlights".
There's an entire iceberg under these words alone. What definition of exposure are they using? Which kind of math and curves to separate the highlights from other tonal zones? What's the color science behind their stuff? How do they approach things like perceptual uniformity? (ACR's colorspace axis are notoriously different from their typical definitions in color science). I'm not even starting on things that are always applied without you noticing, like the input curve or highlight recovery (which is surprisingly complex). It's also the thought process that needs to be reverse engineered, not the code itself. Without all that, you won't get nearly the same look, let alone identical.
Try diving into the source code of something like RawTherapee or darktable (coincidentally, the thought process behind the latter is thoroughly documented) to understand how complex this magic actually is. And then there's the question of patents, competition (you are always behind), and adversarial actions by Adobe. It's simply a non-starter for a business.
Believe me, I do understand reproducing the curves and all is complicated, but the point I'm trying to get across is that that's not the goal for most people. Most people literally couldn't look at a photo and tell you if the picture came out of Lightroom or something else. When they do +2 exposure and -50 highlights, they're not thinking "will my cousin be able to tell that this didn't come out of Lightroom". They're thinking "will my cousin be even able to see me in the shadow and see the clouds in the blue sky". Heck, if the difference ends up being so awful and noticeable that you can't stand it, you can at least tweak the settings from there. But at least the software tried to do some of the work for you to get you around the right ballpark! If nothing else, at least you can see which settings needed to be adjusted so you don't have to spend time rediscovering that part for every photo! You don't have to force every single user to start from scratch for every single picture.
It will take these customers some time to understand that their deeper problem is not the lack of support for XMP but decades-long vendor lock-in they voluntarily entered into. Only with this understanding they can realize it's worth the effort.
There was no real competition to the Adobe suite for decades. Pros didn't have a real choice.
The same pros didn't have a choice between Mac OS and Windows NT. The lack of accurate color calibration kept them on Mac OS, even with it's significantly inferior kernel process, and memory management.
Let's reformulate the problem: what is a more responsible approach regarding old graphics files that have value for you: to keep them in a proprietary format that can be used only with a tool you will have to pay for until the end of your life and can lose access to at any moment[0] because it's controlled by a third party, or rather store them in a format that is open or can be opened by software you actually own and which cannot be shut down by someone else?
Yes, I know we had little choice back then. But we are in a better position now.
The risk detailed in the link you posted is regarding online storage. Notice it's talking about downloading files stored with Adobe. That's a very real risk, and I never advocated storing stuff online.
However, if Adobe really canceled everyone's subscriptions tomorrow, people would immediately mess with Photoshop enough to at least export their files to some other formats, if not outright keep using it. There isn't a genuine risk of "can lose access to at any moment" here.
However, I'll also note that the risk profiles are obviously different for different situations. An individual photographer that takes pictures of their family or nature is not going to be in the same boat as the employees of some company. Heck, if I was working for some big corporation that dealt with RAW files, I would probably immediately migrate to an open format for files moving forward. That doesn't imply the same thing makes sense for every individual. Same goes for corporate vs. individual backup schemes/security defenses/etc.