6 ms·
Doesn't sound misleading to me. I read "$5,000 of professional software" as paid-for software that would have cost $5,000.
by jonnat 1y ago
Doesn't sound misleading to me. I read "$5,000 of professional software" as paid-for software that would have cost $5,000.
- yoavm 1y agoSo clearly it is misleading, because what they mean is definitely along the lines of "we include GIMP while Photoshop costs $999".
- bigyabai 1y agoHow is it misleading when the sentence includes the word "alternative" from the boot? Are you misreading it and blaming the author?
- afavour 1y agoI don't think that's misleading. There are a lot of people out there who aren't aware that free software exists that provides a lot of the functionality of software that costs $999. They clearly say "alternatives to".
- yoavm 1y agoI was trying to make a point about how funny the parent post was, saying it isn't misleading while misunderstanding it and thinking that it means "paid-for software that would have cost $5,000". But perhapes I didn't understand the comment itself. I personally think the messaging is fine, but the above comment was a clear example that some people could get it wrong.
- IshKebab 1y agoBut gimp doesn't provide the functionality of software that costs $999. That's why it's misleading. It's probably more like Affinity Photo which is £68.
- Propelloni 1y agoWhich, incidentally, is the software they compare their offering to. The only Adobe software they mention in the comparison is Adobe Premier Pro.
- timeon 1y agoWhole Affinity pack is 10% of Photoshop while providing more functionality (just Affinity Designer handles vectors like Illustrator while edits pixels as well). Gimp finally has non-destructive editing, so is almost in same category as those two. And Krita is good for pixels as well.
- ChrisRR 1y agoWhat's misleading about that? Did you miss the words "alternatives to" in the statement?