I know that the HN "founders" crowd is going to hate me for saying that, but I think that we should really stop glamorizing revenue. Revenue != usefulness in general (I'm not saying that's the case here)
>I know that the HN "founders" crowd is going to hate me for saying that, but I think that we should really stop glamorizing revenue.
Understand your perspective but what's happening is that many programmers -- including non-founders -- on HN are drawn to factoids of devs making money without "working for the man".
So instead of characterizing it as "glamorizing revenue" ... think of it more like... "if that programmer found a way to make money outside of a corporate job, maybe I can too."
So Ivan Kutskir being able to get significant revenue while just being a 1-man operation will naturally be an interesting case study for programmers who dream of a little financial freedom.
Most of us have a ~/Code folder full of useful things that bring in $0, so I don't think there's much revenue==utility conflation happening here.
It's just that building something that brings in good money by yourself is something just about everyone wants to be able to do. It's an interesting story when people pull it off, especially another HNer.
The fact that a single person is generating that amount of revenue from this clone is a fact I find both relevant and interesting. I’m not sure there’s any particular evidence this is being “glamourised”.
Revenue == Usefulness (to the recipient of the revenue)
Analogy to non-software biz:
1. CandyCo buys ChocolateCo
2. CandyCo changes ChocolateCo recipe to use less expensive ingredients, generating new revenue for CandyCo, but less tasty chocolates for ChocolateCo's long time customers.
3. The new revenue has disparate usefulness for the two interested parties.
Depends on how you define success. Is a business which brings in $1,000,000 in revenue but costs $1,100,000 to operate, successful?
Profit is a more meaningful number. And even then, profit can be slim or negative depending on the stage of the lifecycle that business is in, yet the business can be in negative profit for good reasons and can lead to future profitability. So even then, profit alone is also not a complete indicator of business health.
It really does take a holistic look at the books and the market to determine how successful a business/idea really is.
Revenue though is "the big number" so it leads to the more sensational claims.
What's unfortunate about that? The (single!) author of this software deserves every dollar they make for the thing they made, software doesn't need to be open source to be good software.
If you want to stand up your own private copy, contact them and arrange a fair contract where you pay them a large and entirely reasonable amount of money in exchange for a non-transferable, non-competing license to run a private, offline instance.
The phenomenon of projects existing and being openly available on GitHub has somehow led to me having an inappropriate expectation about them being FOSS. I accept it's a "me" problem.
The author doesn't owe the general public a FOSS product. The source is already freely available, which is better than nothing.
For a relevant example, consider Adobe- they are actively hostile to sharing source code. Complete capitalist jackasses, yet Adobe doesn't generally get a hard time about it on HN or elsewhere.
Just because someone says it, doesn't make it either true, or even sensible as "this is how it should be". Unless you can back up that statement with strong arguments (which RMS can't, ideology doesn't pay real world bills, and unlike RMS, the rest of us don't get paid lavish speaker fees) appealing to authority does nothing to strengthen a position.
- the author could change their mind about distributing any part (or whole) of it at any time
- the author may include undesirable features
- the author could sell the software to someone who does the above
- the software is limited in its reach to those who can afford and have a possibility to pay for it
Of course, the author deserves every dollar for the time they spend making the software. It's unfortunate if they have to restrict the software to do that.
The real question is: "why do you feel you need to do that with everything you use"? If there's something missing, or broken, just report it. Or in the ultimate freedom: think you can do better? Whip out that VS Code and start making your own open source Photoshop.
As for "the software is limited in its reach to those who can afford and have a possibility to pay for it", do you even use this app? Because it sounds like you don't, you're just commenting on it as a drive by HN reader. Everyone with internet access who wants to use this web-based "I can't believe it's not Photoshop" can do so for free.
> If there's something missing, or broken, just report it.
...and hope that it's what the author wants and has time for, while you could take care of it yourself here and now rather than break an open door by starting from scratch.
> think you can do better?
What if I can't do better? It's unfortunate I can't learn.
> do you even use this app?
I've lived long enough that I had many a chance to get excluded by proprietary software because of access troubles, including mandatory internet connection.
> and hope that it's what the author wants and has time
Yes, that's how "this isn't mine and I would like to have it changed" works. You're free to want things, you're not guaranteed to get them.
> What if I can't do better? It's unfortunate I can't learn.
Then no one still owes you anything, and the fact that you get to use this software for free is still a miracle.
As for the "needing internet access": what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. If you need a great offline image editor, just download one. There are plenty, Gimp, Krita, etc. all work perfectly fine if that's what you need, but it sounds more like you're upset about the fact that THIS particular one isn't also free for you to do with as you please, and that's just ridiculous. If you need a good offline image editor, you already have options unrelated to this amazing web offering that the author has zero obligation to make free, let alone open source.
"This isn't mine" is precisely what I don't want my tools to be, for obvious reasons.
> sounds more like you're upset about the fact that THIS particular one isn't also free
I'd call it "disappointed" rather than "upset", and the original wording was "it's unfortunate". I don't see how it could be fortuate to encounter limits which aren't an inherent property of the medium. This is not specific to this software, but general to any software that provides real value.
I'm not sure why you mention an obligation. You're the only one who uses that word here. Although I could agree that it's a moral obligation not to make the fruits of your work artificially worse than they actually are.
> This is not specific to this software, but general to any software that provides real value.
Value for whom?
Because as noble as the idea of open source is, if something like this is released as open source, the author will make a grand total of jack shit off of it because people will just grab the source and walk away without any kind of compensation to the author. In the real world, open source doesn't pay the bills, and if you make some of value, you should be able to make money off of that, and open source has proven time and again that it is not how people can get paid for their personal projects. (Sponsored software: completely different story. This is not that).
If a artists makes art, we pay them for it. If a carpenter makes furniture, we pay them for it. If an author writes books, we pay them for those. But if a software engineer makes software that has clear value... we lament that it's not free? This a very weird attitude to have towards someone spending their own time and money necessary to make something of value that no one else is going to be making in their stead.
> if something like this is released as open source, the author will make a grand total of jack shit off of it because people will just grab the source and walk away without any kind of compensation to the author
I don't see how this is anything but unfortunate (okay, it's also untrue [krita, RedHat], but bear with me for the sake of the argument).
> we pay them for it. [...] But if a software engineer makes software that has clear value... we lament that it's not free?
Now we're getting somewhere: we lament that it's not free even when we pay them for it. I would rejoice if we paid them to make the software free.
I can highly recommend using an app like “Web Catalog” (MacOS) to containerise it into its own separate application. I have photopea set up like this and it’s very handy.
Every once in a while I need to edit an image on macOS.
I used to open GIMP, wait on the loading screen for 3 minutes so that it rebuilt the font cache ("Looking for data files: Fonts (this may take a while)"), open the image, use Cage Transform (wait 30 seconds for it to process the image), save to my home dir, because on recent versions of macOS it does not properly handle permissions to write in Documents folder ("Could not read the contents of Documents").
Now I open GIMP, remember that Photopea exists, quit GIMP, open Photopea, drop the image, transform it (every time I'm surprised at how fast it is for a JavaScript app) and just export the image to my Downloads folder.
Photopea is amazing, but for more complex edits on Mac OS I started using Pixelmator Pro and it's miles better than Photoshop's increasingly bloated and slow experience. I genuinely don't understand how Photoshop has gotten worse since the CS3 era, it's baffling.
> every time I'm surprised at how fast it is for a JavaScript app
That shouldn't be surprising. Ivan Kutskir (the Photopea guy) is not an NPM programmer. The slowness that you're accustomed to today from the modern Web and the average Electron app is not a JS problem. It's a modern-Web-and-the-average-Electron-app problem, i.e., a doing-it-the-NPM-way problem.
JS runtimes are fast, and well-written programs written in JS are fast, too. (In fact, mediocre programs were generally fast enough even when the runtimes weren't especially performance-focused.) The problem is that mainstream JS development took a left turn around 10 years ago. We have enough evidence by now to say that this really is the ailment. What happened is that what the community considers best practices today are actually bad practices. If you look at the serious applications of JS that otherwise break from the NodeJS/NPM crowd's conventional wisdom (incl. Firefox, Gnome, and projects like this one, for example, that don't buy in as heavily on GitHub trends and other résumé-driven development), they're snappy. Indeed, they're snappy enough that many people are generally not even aware that it's JS (or, in the case of Photopea, wouldn't know it if it weren't for the obvious/unavoidable indicators of what's behind the curtain).
This has dropped all my needs for Photoshop down to zero (I use it about once a month for things that range from tweaking a picture for someone to cleaning up an illustration for a book).
It is great, I recommend it a few times a year, and my only hope is that the author has plans to open source it if he ever gets hit by a bus.
There's another online photo editor which has got a very similar GUI once you get past the rather garish and awful looking title screen: https://pixlr.com/e/
Photopea has been mentioned several times on HN. When this question was raised before, I think the answer was that the layout of Photoshop is not protected by copyright, thus the Photopea author is within his rights to use it as inspiration for his product.
And not only that, but as far as I know the solo dev behind Photopea has been contacted by the Photoshop team to work together on some format. Unfortunately, i can't find the quote right now.
Gimp is an image editor, but not a "photoshop clone" - a lot of interfaces and features are different.
Photopha is a very near clone; all of my "muscle memory" from photoshop works fine in Photopea, including must keyboard shortcuts. Everything is where I expect it to be. I don't think those arrangements of features are copyrightable, though.
I've been using this on/off for sometime. I've realised must of my editing is very basic and this has been overkill for little tasks as adding text overlay and cropping.
He’s also commented on HN about it.[1]
[0] https://www.failory.com/interview/photopea
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26769141