The end of proprietary, subscription based software?

 

Change of the markets

Not too long ago the open-source ArtCraft Suite created by developer Brandon Thomas is gaining massive viral attention and tens of thousands of GitHub stars y customer submission, though the software is still in a buggy, early-alpha state rather than being a finished commercial replacement. [1, 2, 3, 4]. What this process shows, is that established market leaders can never be certain of their plundering, dominant position and their subscription model strategy is under increasing attack, particularly when open source alternatives are free to be obtained while their transient shortcoming of functionality promises to be ameliorated, bearing in mind that the offering of these alternatives has been developed in a remarkably brief period of time.

PhotoCraft logo

What the Clones Are

The Project: Brandon Thomas used Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.5 AI system and the fast and functional Rust coding language to build a clean-room open-source alternative to seven major Adobe programs in merely a few days. [1, 2, 3]

The Lineup:

• PhotoCraft (Photoshop)
• LightCraft (Lightroom)
• FilmCraft (Premiere Pro)
• EffectCraft (After Effects)
• VectorCraft (Illustrator)
• PDFCraft (Acrobat Pro)
• InDesign clone [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Traction: PhotoCraft alone pulled nearly 20,000 GitHub stars within roughly a week, with the combined repositories crossing Github's 41,000 stars rewards. [1]

Current Status and Limitations

Early Alpha: The developer admits the apps are raw, incomplete, and is not yet ready for daily professional work.[1, 2]
Missing features: Major gaps include proprietary tools, missing typography workflows, plugin support, and AI-driven tools like Adobe's Generative Fill. [1]
Bugs and stability: Users on Hacker News and testing platforms report lagging controls, broken text editing, and occasional crashes, though the core layout and keyframing in apps like FilmCraft have impressed early testers. [1, 2]
Broader expansion: The same developer has already started applying the approach to Microsoft Office clones like WordCraft, GridCraft, and DeckCraft! [1]

Possible consequences

This development incites the suspicion that Brandon Thomas' enterprise sounds the beginning of a much larger effort by other developers to morph the excessively expensive, subscription based makers of proprietary software to be weary of becoming the victim of similar processes, particularly since the global community of clients has become thoroughly fed up with being ruthlessly plundered by greed ridden corporations, that not only inflict ridiculous prices to subscribe to the programs, but also make termination of those subscriptions incredibly difficult (like Adobe did). The departure of more than one head honchos of Adobe's board is a sign that indicates that such a worry is very much upsetting the high corporate circles of professional extortionists.

This development has the capacity to change the relation between proprietary software corporations and their client base entirely. It is certain to have tremendous consequences, particularly since theoretically no proprietary code developing business is immune to similar follow ups of this recent turn of events. It has the capacity to render investments of billions of dollars a huge waste of money. While this sudden alteration of market strategy radiates in a not so distant background, a growing number of coders is considering a similar method to shine as Brandon Thomas did, clients are anticipating what goodies may save them thousands of dollars of subscription fees per year in a near future, while greed ridden corporate leaders are shitting their panties. This development exactly is the type of legal 'anarchy' that has the potential to rid the consumer world of unlawful, yet legalised corporate extortion.

Background fot Thomas' decision

This process of creating alternatives for the Adobe suit, is based on the fact that Thomas discovered it was difficult to leave the Adobe dimension. The apps he included in his alternative suit are the free and open-source answer to Photoshop, but it's just one of what he calls Crafting Apps, and the lineup has grown to 13 at the time of writing. It's going after Lightroom, Premiere, Illustrator, and even Figma, Word, and Excel. Based on what Thomas has posted on Reddit, much of this started with how painful it was to cancel his own Adobe subscription. He says: 'I've been charged cancellation fees more than once myself, which was the primary reason I cut ties with Adobe and have been so keen on hunting down alternatives.' He responded from an incentive that was based on frustration of being unfairly lured into the Adobe environment and faced much difficulty to end his subscription. There is no stronger reason for making such a drastic decision, which causes me to assume he and his team will persist in continuing to develop their Craft alternative suit.

Opening new doors for Linux 

Because Thomas' team also developed a Linux version of their suit, it changes the landscape of available programs in the Linux sphere completely. Until not too long ago, Linux users were forced to us GIMP of Krita, both of which never reached the level of functionality of Adobe's programs. This is a powerful incentive for many users to persuade a switch to Linux from Windows. Even more so since the team also has a focus on the Microsoft Office suit. Personally, I am more than content to use Libre Office, but professional users that need the more deeply tucked away functions of the Microsoft Office programs, may not be as content as I am with Libre Office.

And Thomas's team does not stop here; they also have a focus on a 3D program, named Solid Craft, which is certain to make more users curious to the rapid expansion of specific programs in Linux. Since this development took off at such an astonishing pace, it may persuade other developers to focus on other programs that currently are absent in Linux' program management. It could well be the start of a significant increase of Linux users. Like a modest number of developers before him, Thomas incentive has the potential to change the OS market in a drastic way, particularly since he showed that using Claude AI and the Rust coding language are perfectly capable to do the job, even already now that they still are in the Alpha version.

In addition the Proton program is increasing and improving, alongside Steam and Winboat its code that allows a rapidly expanding number of Windows programs to run on Linux. Many users that have been considering a switch to Linux, now suddenly have a lot more reason to actually do it, while there is not a lot that Adobe, Microsoft and AutoDesk can do legally to stop this magnificent turn of events. Thomas has fueled a true software revolution, that has been long overdue, but is now more than making up for that. Linux users and users that are considering moving to Linux, are almost holding their breath to what happens next. I think this remarkable shift also makes Linus Torvald very happy. Hang in there users, keep breathing and see what will take place in the near future, now that it appears you actually have one.

Software update craze & subscription model rip off

I watched several Facebook threads of disgruntled users in the QuarkXpress user group and it really is sad to notice the disdain of software companies like Apple, Google Adobe and Quark (not to mention Microsoft) towards their users, many of whom have been loyal for decades. Users who find that the software for which they paid, no longer works, commonly tend to become displeased, but companies that provide software seem to be less bothered by the fact that their products fail to deliver. Such an implausible attitude of course contributes to the user discontent.

I used Quark up to the 2016 version until it crashed beyond repair. In the past the program has shown great potential, that was so good in fact that I never needed the assistance of their support department. Plus, I like to dive into matters and figure out how to get things to work. But the industry's upgrade frenzy finally got me, which is to be blamed on the fact that an increasing chunk of the upgrading and support requires an on line connection to the companies' servers. When support for a version has been terminated or the software on the server does not work, it simply means there will be no support. Period. 

Force to subscibe and therefore auto-update

The companies' urge to increasingly rapidly upgrade, goes hand in hand with a decreasing inclination to provide proper service and support, because those things add little to their intention to make immediate profits, since they have to continually please their shareholders, whose sole interest is the dividend corporations listed in the stock exchange will pay (or not). To put it differently: They don't give a toss about client satisfaction. It may sound rather crude, but that actually is what it comes down to.

Dealing with this situation is increasingly difficult for the software companies' customers, whose profit / survival money goes out the window when the coercive corporate upgrade craze causes them to be unable to continue their business. Mainly because companies ceased to support usually older versions or properly maintain the upgrade and support software on their servers. 

Adobe's subscription model's main purpose - besides gaining disproportionately huge profits - is to force their entire user base into accepting and paying for their upgrade policy without the need to spend time and money on promoting and selling upgrades for a fee and offering support to customers that run into trouble after upgrading. Do not give clients the option to choose whether or not they want to upgrade, just force them to use whatever upgrade the company feels is necessary and make them pay for it. If they decline this 'offer' simply refuse to let them use the software, which makes them unable to access files they have created earlier with  the software.

Being the market leader in the main stream of the graphic art, publishing and printing industry, allowed Adobe to get away with this user unfriendly strategy. Clients that disagreed with their new approach and turned their back on the behemoth often found themselves in a place void of solutions to their professional problems and an abundance of workarounds necessary to get the job at hand done if they are available at all.

Not long after Adobe forced their users into a mortgage like payment system, its competition began to pick up on the advantages of the more or less concealed aspects of that rip off model, that makes their business a lot easier, while ensuring a more steady and predictable profit, which prevented them from ending up in a nasty dispute with their all powerful shareholders. The fact that it also caused them to land in disagreement with their users does not bother them to the extent that made them willing to change their policy. 

An other detrimental effect of the upscaling of the upgrade pace is the fact that developers have their panties twisted. Doing more work in less time with fewer people is an unfailing recipe for causing stress and discomfort, which commonly results in an increased number of errors or bugs in the software. This in turn makes it hard for clients who use the buggy software to produce decent files within the deadline limits. But as long as shareholders see their bank accounts grow fat, there is little to worry about for the management of software corporations. At least, that is what they think they can afford to assume in the short term.

Assumption is the mother of all evil

In the long run however, the world is an entirely different place. While developers end up gulping Prozac or relocate to an asylum and clients of the software companies go bankrupt, managers simply continue their career in a next project, where they repeat their mistakes for a generous fee. Reproducing blunders is what is generally meant by experience in resumes - the more often a person repeats his or her mistakes, the more experienced (s)he is considered to be. This is how modern market reason works. It is meritocracy interpreted in the most harmful way possible. But since everybody does it, only few notice it is a disastrous perception. 

Because in the end earning money and making profits only is possible when there is production of things that markets need. In order to be able to continue this type of symbiosis the produce has to work properly. If this isn't the case, that market segment will at some point collapse. This implosion will affect those involved in the perpetuation of that particular portion of the trade. Some may be able to venture into different directions, but many will just suffer the consequence of mankind's aversion to admit that caring for all is possible only in a logical setting. Limitless greed does not comply with this universal principle.

Regardless of how affluent one is, how influential, how well educated, well dressed and respected because of ones pretended sincerity and empathy, a carefully concealed greed ridden mindset will ultimately destroy any collaboration that was established, in which the producing portion of the factions involved was kept in the dark about the unbalanced reward method of that system. The sad part of such events is that the system's break down harms those who were held unaware of the deceitful nature of the setup.