| JEMC said: That's the sh*ty part: it doesn't matter. Adobe makes buckets of money from their software and they can and maybe will use some of that amount to sue that guy not because what he's doing is illefal, but with the intention of stopping him from continuing his work by making him too worried about that can happen and because he'll have to spend lots of money in legal fees from his own lawyers that he'll have to give up and move on. That's the secret power of these big corporations, that they can win by making others go bankrupt while trying to defend themselves from baseless lawsuits. |
I'll have to push back on that a bit. There are dozens of paid or free source image editors out there, many of them deeply integrating features from Adobe's portfolio, such as being compatible and/or using their filters and file formats.
It's just like there are multiple free alternatives for all of Microsoft's products, some of which are very blatant Excel or Word clones, despite 365 being a 10x larger revenue market than all of Adobe put together.
What is actually changing is that the human capital required to program complex features is dropping exponentially, so a clone or alternative that would always lag in features is going to reach, or at least approach, parity much sooner.
