[behnamoh]

This is the price we pay for not supporting open-source alternatives. I love open-source but making a project open-source is a huge endeavor (removing "oh shit" commits, making the project well-structured, etc.) with little gain. Often times, users just nag and complain in the Issues without offering to contribute or opening a PR. And the culture tends to get toxic as soon as the maintainer shows some resistance against some ideas.

And if the maintainer says "aight, I need to pay the bills somehow", everyone gets offended because "that's not open-source" and "how dare you ask us for money". The end result is that companies that pay well attract the best talent, and open-source devs end up being discouraged, with little motivation to improve the software.

Adobe is just one example. I hate them with all my guts, but as long as people are more willing to pay Adobe big chunks of money while hesitating to press the "Buy me a coffee" button of an open-source alternative, I don't see Adobe/etc. change their strategy.

[sebazzz]

No it is the price we pay for doing business with a publicly listed entity, which in some way must find a way to make more profit than last year. Not break even, not just make profit, it must make more profit. At some point that is directly affecting users.

If you'd like, you can also view that you're being milked for money and IP because there is no alternative you'd like to try.